Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318

Editor whose signature is confusing and is aware of that

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user:

WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The signature:

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

---

I was trying to read some comments in Wikipedia and there was an editor who's signature is confusing. I said I will go to his talk page and ask him if he is aware that his signature is confusing and that a " distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users" but I found this at the top of his talk page I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it.

• What is the best thing to do in this situation?. There is a long discussion that involves this editor but I got confused because of his signature many times.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't suppose you're going to tell us who you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  Bbb23, its WilliamJE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Apparently 2 days ago an editor also talked about this editor signature, I swear, I had no idea. This proves that I am not the only one who find his signature confusing. Ping LakesideMiners.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hogwash and bullshit you didn't know. The section is right above your edit. And this complaint is nonsense. So where's the WP:BOOMERANG? And this edit summary[1] is highly suspicious too from an editor who supposedly never interacted with me before....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @WilliamJE: Two things must ye know. A) your signature is BS. B) that edit summary is not suspicious at all considering it was in response to a request for that very information.
      C) having said that, SharabSalam may not be a net negative, but they have already proven themselves an ethno-political POV pusher. ——SN54129 11:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

      I think we have finally peaked in talking about Wikipedia governance. Also, really lol-ed after the first two sentences, so thanks for that, SN. Have a good night all, hopefully we can resolve Signaturegate by next week or so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, I didn't look at the discussions in your talk page when I made the report. I sent the notification after I mentioned your username and that time I discovered that another user had also the same problem with your signature. The other thing is that I have had interaction with you in User talk:TonyBallioni. You have been saying that you don't want Xray to ping you so I thought you would not want me to ping you either because I also was part of that discussion.

Serial Number 54129, I am not sure what "net negative" means but how is that request for deletion an ethno-political POV-pushing?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me perfectly plausible that someone would leave a comment on another editor's talk page and not notice what the previous comment was. In some cases, editors should pay attention to avoid this, but it doesn't seem necessary here. Nil Einne (talk)

I still say bullshit and hogwash. They quote the top of my page but miss the 500-lb gorilla in the room right above their post. I have messaged someone about my thoughts here and I'm not going to say anything else till I get a reply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE can you cut the crap and tell us what this so called 226.796 kilogram monkey is? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, I see you have emailed me, I have read though it. first, then who do you think is socking/ what/who are you saying is quacking? second, you should say the names two users you contacted here, let me remind you that WP:ADMINSHOP is frowned upon. Third, I am part of the the username thing, not of the other things.

My email link is meant to be used for private/urgent matters, what you sent me is not what I would consider a private/urgent matter. I want to keep this stuff onwiki please. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(EC) The one who is full of bullshit and hogwash is you. Plenty of editors, including me, edit talk pages all the time without noticing what was posted just above them. It's simple. You click on new section, write whatever it is you want to write, and submit. You don't pay attention whatever else someone wrote since it doesn't concern you. Especially in this case, since the concern is long standing (your signature has been crap for a long time). And where you notice the editor explicitly mentions it at the top of their talk page. And reading notices someone leaves on the top of their talk page is often the polite thing to do since if there's some instruction which you can follow without much effort, you should normally do so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Here what happened. I went to read the ANI report, it was hard for me to know where your comments end and I clicked multiple times on your signature thinking that it was part of your comments. I then searched in Google for "Wikipedia signature", found a policy where it says that "distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users", went to your talk page found the message at the top of your talk page. I then came to this place asking what to do in this situation. Bbb23 asked me who I am talking about, I mentioned your username, then went and notified you about this discussion. I didn't want to use the regular notification template because I thought it would be rude. I just wanted to tell you about the discussion in a polite way. I clicked new section at the top of the your talk page. After all this is just a signature problem, I didn't want it to become a big issue.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, you gotton the reply yet? because this is getting fucking stupid, if I am reading everything right, current consensus is that your sig is disruptive and needs to be changed, a few editors have offered suggestions and you are not taking them. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, Net Negative means that your bad edits outweigh the good ones. (which SN is saying is NOT the case). and im just as confused as you are on the POV thing but I don't want to get into that as that would be a bit off topic of the subject of this thread imo. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• • WilliamJE, what do you mean by section right above the edit? Can you give a link to the so called bullshit? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, Yep, i find it confusing as well. He can change it so it only shows on his side, but it took me like 5 mins to relase that he filled the Xray thing. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yea, I had the same problem in the same Xray thing. I clicked three times on that link "the roof?" thinking that it is part of the comments, I then gave up reading that ANI report.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, He seems to be accusing either you or me(or would it be both) Special:Diff/940906710 of being sockpuppet(s). LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep. What should I do?. This is why I didn't mention him at first when I asked this question, I almost knew he is going to react aggressively.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I wonder if he is contacting the CU team. based on this I have messaged someone about my thoughts here and I'm not going to say anything else till I get a reply. Guess we will see. I dont really know what to do. Not much we can do right now but wait. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I just cooked some popcorn. Let's wait and see where this goes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, Just pray he does not file an ANI case accusing you both for harassing him on his signature. (considering his overreaction on my talk page, and then on Tony's page [2],[3] I would bet that the odds for it are quite high) .

About the topic of this thread, yes his signature with ellipsis and all, is very confusing. I had to read his comment on my talk page 3 times to make some sense out of it. DBigXrayᗙ 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Getting back to the original point of this thread, I don't think the signature is actually problematic. There are very few instances in which the words ....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? would so naturally flow with the preceding sentences as to seem to be part of the paragraph. And even if the OP was confused, he could easily click (or merely hover over) the blue links and thus clear up the confusion. This is an unnecessary thread that was made worse by the above kerfuffle. Lepricavark (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the signature is annoying the way it's displayed in posts. More concerning is the editor-in-question refuses to normalise it & may have deliberately made it annoying. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• More ignorance. Thoroughly research my talk and user page before you ignorantly mouth off on me or incorrectly claim what my purpose was....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your apparent rudeness is the base of the problem here. If you don't want to correct your attitude, then perhaps the community will correct it for you. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of socking, incivility + BATTLEGROUND = a definite call on the Community's time. GoodDay speaks for me on this. ——SN54129 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, yah, I think the main thing here is that he knows it’s confusing, and is being rude when asked nicely to change it. I did not want it to come here. I told him that I don’t want to bring it to the drama board, and he replied and told me to “go to the complaints department” LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Shar'ab not seeing the previous message on WJE's talk page is neither hogwash and bullshit, nor bullshit and hogwash. Come to my talk page to write me a message, and you're going to (probably) click on the "+" that's at the top of the page, and be taken to a new screen to write your message. Having written and posted your message, only then will you be looking at the bottom of my talk page and be able to see what the previous thread was, after your new message has already been posted. Thus, it is 1,000% plausible that people leave each other talk page messages without reading previous threads on the page – and it's because the "+" button is at the top and not the bottom of the page. Regarding the signature, we've been here before, I can think of three "signature" threads in about the last year. The procedure was the same each time: make a proposal that the signature be changed and see if there's consensus. (If such a proposal is made, please, this time let's not block anyone before the proposal is closed.) I also agree with GD and SN and ask WJE to tone down the incivility in this thread ("ignorantly mouth off", etc.). Cheers, Levivich 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, yah, I don’t him to get blocked. I just want the signature to be changed or to at least have the three dots be changed to dashes. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• William, whether or not you deliberately made your signature confusing more than one editor has found it so, so you should simply grow up and behave like a civilised human being by changing it. It's only a signature on a web site, ffs, so why don't you simply take a few seconds to fix the issue and let everyone get on with more important things, such as building an encyclopaedia. I allowed myself a little chuckle when I first saw your signature, but I'm afraid the joke's got very thin now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• The signature is distracting and confusing, but no less distracting and confusing than a whole lot of other ones. We enforce/interpret signature guidelines really inconsistently and I'd much prefer see them made more explicit than only subject those who are unpopular on ANI on a given day. Why people feel like serious discussions are a place where a single user's many instances of ❤️ personal expression ❤️ must be preserved at the expense of readability/focus/flow is beyond me, but here we are. — ❤️ Rhododendrites (talk) ❤️ \\ 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry about this -- last one I promise. :) See also: WP:BILLBOARD. — ❤️ Rhododendrites (talk) ❤️ \\ 19:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  This wasn't an issue of obnoxious highlighting and there was no need to bring it up here. DBigXrayᗙ 20:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  DBigXray, BILLBOARD does apply to this because it draws focus away from the discussion and onto the signature(or the appearance of lack of?) LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's a signature issue. My point is that we have guidelines that we interpret/enforce unevenly, and that if we're going to start enforcing them, WilliamJE's signature is quite far from the most egregious. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, so what you are saying is that we should start enforcing it more consistently? I’m all for that. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  Also FYI I really don’t know what the whole Xray thing is about, just happened to see what I though was a post without a signature on ANI. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  LakesideMiners, I believe by "Xray thing", they are referring to the ANI case WilliamJE started about me. DBigXrayᗙ 22:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) More or less, yes. My opinion is that our signature guidelines should be more stringent, but proposals all tend to end with no consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• No administrative action is required. There is no policy to force WilliamJE to change his signature, and he certainly isn't going to do it voluntarily. I suggest you folk find something else to do that is more likely to benefit the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I see you closed this discussion with this comment, but it doesn't follow the rest of the thread, in which there are several people that have lodged complaints about WilliamJE's signature. There is now precedent that signature issues can lead to administrative action with InedibleHulk—in which he was blocked until his signature was changed. I would support such an action in this case because I also find WilliamJE's signature confusing to the point of disruption, and would appreciate it if this thread is not closed until enough time to form a consensus on this issue is elapsed. I'll also add that there seems to be some civility/behavioral complaints with WilliamJE that have been brought up in this thread and I think it may be wise to address them here. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Tavix, I would also like to add that Bbb23 was emailed by WJE. Can we please get some inkling about what the email was about? I feel that this should be all done on wiki. not though email. As I don't see why email is useful in this case. if it is spilling over to other admins talkpages, I dont think that needs email. Regadless, I would consider that would make Bbb23 WP:INVOLVED. I asked someone off-wiki who is uninvolved in this (IRC) if they think me considering it WP:INVOLVED would be right, they said I am likely right. but thats not really that importen now IMO as the thread is reopened. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC), I still say that email was highly inappreciably give the circumstances and is why I reviled the contents of the one he sent to me. also striking this cuz I was misinformed, user was User:Oshwah btw. If he sees this, he can show his logs from my PMs with him if needed. Im heading to bed now. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Receiving an e-mail from a user does not make me involved. I have no idea - nor do I care - whom you spoke to at IRC, but they are apparently clueless. Nor am I going to reveal the contents of a user's e-mail, and such a suggestion is highly inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Receiving an email does not make an administrator involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear I'm not involved with all those Nigerian princes. O3000 (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The editor has accused me of sockpuppeting and didn't assume good faith. Also reacted aggressively to fair complaints about his signature. I don't have anything against WilliamJE. I just found his signature very confusing. LakesideMiners suggested to WilliamJE to at least change the dots to lines but he removed his comment. I am not sure what is the big deal about the signature. It's just a Wikipedia signature not a bank signature. All of this wouldn't have happened if WilliamJE changed his signature to something less confusing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, there are guidelines and policies about customizing signature here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You can tell that there is definitely a WP:CIVIL issue with this editor by just reading this thread. A quick look with trivial effort at his talk page history, you will find some trouble comments like "Get lost pathetic loser and don't come back" or "You're pathetic. I'm a vandal but you're the one who put garbage in an article then came here to complain about its removal. As I said, you're pathetic."-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Put me down for team "this editor's signature is confusing, it would be good if they should make it less confusing." --JBL (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• While I appreciate that, per Bbb23, there is no policy requiring William to change his signature, we have a number of guidelines which state or imply that confusing signatures should be amended. WP:SIGPROB: "If your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it"; WP:SIG: "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users.". It's pretty clear this signature has been confusing for a long time and a large number of editors have now politely requested it be changed for clarity. William himself states on his talk page that he is "aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care". These endless discussions are a clear net negative to building the encyclopedia.
  • User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 1#Signature
  • User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 11#Signature
  • User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 12#Confusing signature
  • User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 13#Signature
• The signature is regularly confusing to editors, especially new ones. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  Samwalton9, I have been editing for years and I was confused. Even if you are aware of the signature, while browsing a thread, it is easy to continue reading his lines and then his signature by mistakenly assuming it to be a part of the comment. There is a learning curve in dealing with his signature, where you have to train your mind to stop reading once you reach the word William. Deepfriedokra was this one of the factors that caused your headache while browsing the ANI? IMHO it impacts "everyone" whoever comes across his signature, not especially noobs. DBigXrayᗙ 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Regardless of the signature, there is definitely a civility issue with WilliamJE. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• @DBigXray: No.For a long time I thought that was his username. It's one of the things I look forward to. William, could you please try to be more polite moving forward? FWIW, I did not realise how impaired I was by my cough medicine till this morning at work. Apologies to all. Gah, it might not be warn off yet.-- Deepfriedokra 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, good luck! That must be some strong cough stuff. Hope you get well soon. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why so much discussion? This is a clear case of an inappropriate signature: it confuses editors and is contrary to the guidelines. Surely the user can be required to simplify it. YoPienso (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ditto. It's a signature masquerading as a sentence. It is not merely confusing (to everyone) but deliberately so.

WP:Username_policy#Confusing_usernames (WP:IU) says that the criteria applicable to usernames "also apply to signatures", while WP:Username_policy#Confusing_usernames (WP:UNCONF) says: "Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems" – which certainly seems to be the case here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• I noticed some people state that no policy requires a change of signature. I note that there is actually a precedent for requiring a sig change: In 2005, a user had four tildes as their signature, which many people found confusing. There was an arbitration case over it, and the Committee found that "[u]sers with improper usernames or signatures may be required to change them.", and required that user to "adopt an un-confusing signature". --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• This is still going on... jesus christ WilliamJE just change your goddamn signature. The all-around feedback is it's absolutely terrible even if you think otherwise. Just for the sake of getting this over with, just change it. Not one time have I personally found it funny, 1 point for the uniqueness and -5 for being absolutely pointless. And no, not everyone is socking and not everyone is out to get you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose forcing WilliamJE to change his signature. It is somewhat confusing, but disruptive enough for the community to mandate a change. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "forcing" is the right word here but many editors find his signature confusing, even he says it's confusing, so it would be nice if he changed his signature. It's disruptive to deliberately confuse other editors. My username was in Arabic and I was asked to change my signature to English and I immediately did.^[4] I don't know why would someone want to have a confusing signature.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have always found the signature confusing, and even just now I had to look at it again to make sure. One shouldn't use a long line of text to close off a line of text, and in discussions without proper indentation, or where the next comment is at the same level (especially if no bullet points are used), this makes it very hard to read. I also find the rudeness and the socking allegations to be rather inexplicable. This business of usernames shouldn't be difficult. (Below, there is a section starring User:Miraclepine, who should also consider just writing out their damn username in the usual way.) Drmies (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: FWIW there's also @Levivich, AssociateAffiliate, Dreamy Jazz, Money emoji, TenPoundHammer, Winged Blades of Godric, DeltaQuad, and Ponyo: and all that whatnot. Also Andrew Davidson ミラP 16:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see your point. Ponyo's name is in her signature. Same with Ten Pound Hammer. Your signature says "ミラ", whose connection with your username is more than tenuous for those who haven't studied Japanese. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think that, it has been established that WE's sig counts as A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature, which has indeed adversely affect[ed] other users.
  @Miraclepine: Your sig is also a pain on the brain. For an example refer to User:Παράδειγμα, who signs his posts as Παράδειγμα/Paradigma. WP:SIG#CustomSig says that a customised signature should make it easy to identify your username and that it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. It is difficult to see how yours does so. No offence! ——SN54129 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any of those pinged editors having confusing signature. You can tell where the signature is and you can tell which username made the comment.

I usually add "--" to the end of my comments like this "--~~~~", I think this way editors don't confuse my comment with my signature.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Having been pinged here, I have done some minor shortening which doesn't affect its appearance. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• I have no clue why we are all mass pinged here. At worst I'm not following a single guideline, and even that is dubious - my "aka DQ" at the end at least hints at my username. If the community wants to enforce signature compliance on me, they can, but I don't see a policy at this time i'm breaking. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Miraclepine, I dont find the signature of any of those people you pinged confusing. Please desist from inappropriate whataboutery. DBigXrayᗙ 21:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Do people really having nothing better to do than moan about 'confusing' usernames? Wow, get out more. StickyWicket (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  AssociateAffiliate, what is this "out" you speak of? For real tho, this is what AN is for, this is a issue, and you dont need to be rude like that. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Is this anymore confusing that "Guy's" signature? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's more confusing because it tricks editors and make them read the signature as if it was part of the comment. I agree that JzG signature is confusing but once you learn that "JzG" is "Guy" you don't have the confusion again. Also, there have been a lot of complaints about William's signature. So even if he didnt change his signature another editor will come here and complain about his signature again.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this anymore confusing that "Guy's" signature? Yes. There are dozens of editors whose signature includes something that isn't the actual username. This occasionally causes people to mess up pings, but that's a minor issue and an inconvenience to us more than to anyone else; it's obvious how to relate to it (call the person by the displayed name; click the displayed name to go to the userpage or talkpage). WilliamJE's signature is genuinely confusing -- it's not clear that it is a signature, and therefore not clear how to interact with it. --JBL (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

but that's a minor issue and an inconvenience to us more than to anyone else Ditto for William's signature. At least it's clear who the user is behind the signature. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: no, it's not at all clear that his signature is a signature; that's the problem. If his signature were "--William (is the complaint department really on the roof?)" or something it would be vastly better and would cause much less confusion. --JBL (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The opening line of WP:SIG states "...is required and facilitates discussion by identifying the author of a particular comment..." (my bolding). That's what his does. Unlike the examples others have given. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Because tone is tricky in text-based communication, I'd like to clarify in advance that the following question is really a question, for purposes of engaging constructively with you: do you not understand the point that I'm making, or do you disagree with it? I ask because nothing you've written in response to me addresses it. (Tone in text-based communication is hard, so: this comment is not intended to be argumentative/snarky. I really can't tell if you've understood the point I'm making ("it's not at all clear that his signature is a signature") and reject it, or if you haven't understood why I believe it's relevant.) --JBL (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you've wrote and I disagree with it. Some people find it confusing, some don't. Unless an admin is going to impose some sort of sanctions, there's not a lot that will happen here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, no, it doesn't identify the author of the comment. It looks like if signature is a response to someone called William and is part of the comment. See the comma next to "William" ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?. The comma there make it look as if he is responding to an editor called William not his username just like the comma I made next to your username at the top of this comment Lugnuts, no, it doesn't identify the author of the comment. The three dots also make the confusion worse. Many editors who have had seen this editor comments have had confusion over his signature. See the WP:ANI thread started by William where I first noticed that signature.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, this, would be a great solution. WilliamJE would that work for you? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I too think this signature is confusing and a times even misleading. It'd be good if they take on board the comments here and change it to something better. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Y'all can read through and interpret scripts that you've possibly never encountered before, but you struggle to interpret a basic English sentence like "William, is the complaint department really on the roof?". If you can read Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Devangari, Kanji, Hanzi, Khmer, Manchu and Emoji as a matter of course and have no trouble interpreting those signatures, then you have no goddamn excuse to struggle with this. 𓌸𓂋𓈖𓀭𓂧𓂧𓅱𓂧𓏴𓂥 (𓏙𓋹𓊽) 13:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The point is not the language but the fact that it reads like a complete goddamn sentence. In this context, hieroglyphs are equally otiose :p ——SN54129 14:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this exactly: it is not clear that it is a signature, and that's the problem. --JBL (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, and for the record I don't know Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Devanagari, Kanji, Hanoi, Khmer, Manchu. It would be a problem regardless of what language it was in. But you summed up what I wanted to say, I would have said it, but it felt like it would come across as rude so I did not post it. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, show some respect. That’s Pharaoh Three Mittens you’re talking to! Levivich (inane chatter) 15:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

heheLakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the signature is problematic. It would be nice if the user would simply change it. The fact that they refuse to accommodate the many fellow editors who feel the way I do, seems even more problematic. Paul August ☎ 15:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Suggestion; would it improve WilliamJE's signature if he made it something like this: --WilliamJE the complaint department is on the roof. That preserves the gist of what they are going for while still looking and feeling more like a signature. (As a complete aside, I remember the anti-signature-shop crusade people went on back in 2006/2007 when a few people were running signature shops in their user space to help people code custom signatures that were policy compliant. It would be nice if we still had those to send people to to get problematic signatures fixed.) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Or perhaps:

  ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

  — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, thats the same thing as it is right now? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, it has the rest of it as the talk page link, that doesn't really address the problem of it being confining. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  was trying for a subtle resolution here - perhaps a little too subtle there! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Just noting that I do not consider Xaosflux's suggestion as an acceptable proposal, as it is not addressing the primary concern discussed here. DBigXrayᗙ 18:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Time for a proposal?

I think it would be worth starting a proposal here to get consensus in a more offical way, dont know how to go about it tho. If somone else thinks they can start one, please do. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a formal proposal is needed. Surely we should just expect people who do things that confuse some other people, but are very little effort to change, to change so as not to cause such confusion? This is simple human courtesy, something that a significant number of Wikipedia editors seem to lack. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Well, he seems to be refusing to, and admin action is really the only way at this point. He's also not responding to any of the things on this page at all. He has that right to not respond. But this needs to be handled. There are also WP:CIVIL issues that need to be handled as well.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It's just a pity that something that would be so easy for William to fix should have to become the subject of a formal proposal. Why are some people so stubborn over such trivialities as changing a signature? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, because people don't like to change, and according to his talk page, "He likes it" LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. I meant my question more as a rhetorical cri de coeur than something that needed an answer. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, o LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Any chance at compromise? Perhaps William is concerned that he needs to get rid of the roof part. I haven't carefully read everyone's input, so I apologize if I've missed the obvious (again...), but it seems the main complaint is that it is hard to tell the signature apart from the discussion. What if we merely requested that he change either the font (to something readable, please) or the color. Bold and forest green would be nice. Then the substance of the signature would be kept, but it would stand out. Signed, Pollyanna. otherwise known as... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A proposal

Per this recent precedent, I request that WilliamJE be blocked until such time as they agree to change their signature to something that is identifiable as a signature (rather than a sentence or sentence fragment). --JBL (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, this a proposal then? If so, can you move it to a section/subsection/whatever under an appropriate name? Just to keep things neat. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support: This sig is disrutptive, and the user refusing to change it desptie knowing AND admiting that it is a bad sig is just not okay at all. He has cleraly made some great contributions and it's sad that they would get blocked over this, but the sig can't stay how it is. Ivanvector Sums it up well as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I've also been baffled by WilliamJE's non-signature signature in the past, but have never been concerned enough to raise an issue. It meets the basic requirements, and personally I don't much care if editors have eclectic signatures, so long as they don't break things. However, it has been identified as disruptive by others on multiple occasions, and their "I know there's a problem and I don't care" attitude is incompatible with Wikipedia; it's pointy at least to make disruptive edits on purpose, if not meeting WP:NOTHERE. Many users have quotations in their signature but they are still rendered as obvious signatures, and there are some reasonable compromise suggestions above. I've pinged WilliamJE again because they have not edited this page since a tirade of personal attacks three days ago, and may not be aware they may be facing sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, I left a note on their talk page as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per their message at the top of their talk page "I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it." Blocking is the only way to get them to change it.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think William should change his signature and that William is often uncivil. Nonetheless, I don't think William should be forced to change his signature, given our confusing guidelines, policy, quasi-policy, nor do I think he should be blocked for incivility, given our complete lack of consistency in enforcing civility, or even defining incivility.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry Bbb23 but "don't enforce WP:CIVIL because CIVIL is not consistently enforced" made me giggle. Levivich (inane chatter) 21:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support regretfully, noting that WilliamJE last engaged on this thread on 15 and has since been ignoring this thread despite several proposals/requests. I do hope WilliamJE fixes his signature and this unnecessary block does not get imposed. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I don't agree with Bbb23 above. It shouldn't need to be spelt out exactly in policy what is and isn't allowed in signatures, but editors should simply act when several people say in good faith that they find a signature confusing. I really don't get why people think of something as trivial as a signature on a web site such a part of their identity that they are willing to abandon simple courtesy by refusing to change it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support While Bbb23’s point about confused guidelines, capricious enforcement, and unclear definition are all obviously true, this is a straightforward case of someone doing something that makes the system work worse. Qwirkle (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment To block somebody because of their signature is such a total case of stupidity. You really can't read a sentence without thinking? Are any of you really here to build an encyclopedia or just dole out moronic sentences on people who have created 140 or so articles here and established the best golf recordkeeping there is anywhere? I guess it is the later if you really support this shit because that isn't helping WP but instead to satisfy some sick cravings some of you have. Someone explain how a block helps WP and not hurts? How does my signature disrupt anything? How does a block go against the policy that says they aren't to be punitive? Is my signature a violation of standing WP policy? We know what the answers to all of these are. This is a lynch mob (And lynch mobs need to be attacked to prevent their injustice, not passively resisted) and all of you should be ashamed of yourselves....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Somehow I don't think your inflammatory rhetoric is going to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You can't resist a lynch mob with nice words. What you have to do is make them squirm and become disgusted with what they are about ready to do. I will be surprised if anyone answers those questions I posed. Just like it is sure as anything that why even this started is act of retaliation for me starting this[5]? Xray continues to harass editors[6] and I get blocked for signing pages. What is wrong with that picture?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Starship.paint&type=revision&diff=941341480&oldid=941253630&diffmode=source ...... LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, calling everyone here a lynch mob is not helping at all. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Any block would be preventative, not punitive, in that it would be lifted as soon as you change your signature to something that doesn't confuse people. Why are you being so fucking stubborn about such a trivial issue? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are you so upset about one sentence? How is my sentence harmful? Please tell me. As I pointed out below, with the example of Deepfriedokra, some of you are practicing a double standard around here. I bit my tongue above not to use the f word right back at you. I have never used it at my talk page ever. Check my talk page archives....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, we are telling you... thats what this whole thread is about. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

William, (I haven't pinged you because you are probably getting too many pings from this discussion) this discussion is about your signature. If someone raises User:Deepfriedokra's signature as a problem then I will comment in that discussion. I am not an administrator, like many of the people who have commented here, and if I have any bias then it is certainly towards non-administrators, rather than the reverse. Just change your signature when people say that it's confusing. Nobody in this discussion has criticised your article creation or your edits to golfing articles. Why is it so difficult for you to do so? Your stubbornness is far more disruptive than my exasperated use of the word "fucking". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• WilliamJE, this entire thread is filled with people saying why it is disruptive... Your personal attack are also a problem as well. 4/4 (if I am counting right, another editor is free to tell me if I miss counted, my math is always bad) of your posts to this thread contain Personal attacks. I would advice you read what Ivanvector said. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

How would this help wikipedia, WilliamJE?

By making it straightforward for others to communicate with you, instead of hiding your talk page.

By making it clear what is text, and what is signature. Your signature often looks like the last line in an unsigned post.

Qwirkle (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My talk page isn't hidden. It is linked to. IF that's your basis for a block, why aren't you proposing it for Deepfriedokra whose talk page is hidden too. Because they are an administrator or are you practicing some form of double standard/hypocrisy?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A misrepresentation -links can be hidden by mislabeling; an attempt to point the finger elsewhere; and a false dichotomy, all rolled into a personal attack? There oughta be some kinda barnstar for that. Qwirkle (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy is showing unless you answer the question- IF that's your basis for a block, why aren't you proposing it for Deepfriedokra whose talk page is hidden too. Because they are an administrator or are you practicing some form of double standard/hypocrisy? You painted yourself into a corner....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. What is showing, in vivid technicolor, is that you appear to be unable to make sense of things except as dichotomies or insults. (Or both.) There are a nearly infinite number of reasons why someone might not propose blocking User:Deepfriedokra; you appear to be incapable of envisioning more than two, both meant to be insulting.

Of course, out of all this surfeit, this veritable pleonasm of possible explanations about why I, or anyone, for that matter, don’t block User:Deepfriedokra for having a sig that doesnt look like a sig the most likely and straightforward is that their sig does look like a sig. Look at it, gentle reader, on their talkpage. Looks like a sig, not a run-on from the body of text, don’t it? Qwirkle (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, just put a middle finger on a star, pointing at some random medical quack. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue as others have framed it, WilliamJE, is that your signature isn't clearly a signature, because of the ellipsis, the plain-name link to your userpage, and the following full sentence question rendered in the same typeface as the rest of the comment, followed by a floating timestamp without a username. When you sign, it appears as though you are appending a question directed to another user named William about the location of the complaints department. In the best case your signature forms a non-sequitur, and I do know of at least one editor who was indeffed because of injecting irrelevant lyrical works throughout serious discussions. But occasionally your signature coincidentally forms a coherent thought, as it has in your last comment here about Deepfriedokra's signature. A user not familiar with your signature could very easily read your last comment as an anonymous user expressing bewilderment at the supposed special treatment for Deepfriedokra as well as anger at the inconvenient location for filing complaints. I get that it might not look that way to you, but there are a whole bunch of users here who think it does, and they're (mostly kindly) asking you to correct it. That's all.

Oh, and that user I mentioned above who liked writing their poetry into deletion discussions was really indeffed because of their defensive personal attacks whenever someone expressed an issue with it. You're about to meet the same fate if you don't knock it the hell off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, someone actually did that? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to gravedance, but yeah, true story. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It's never been the case that WP:Ignore all rules translates as "I can do whatever the hell I like"; if multiple people are telling you that you're being disruptive and you can't come up with any better answer than "I'm doing it for the lulz" (paraphrasing, but not by much), the problem is you not everyone else. If you want an actual policy-based reason, I point out one of the original policies which dates all the way back to when we only had three policies: "Don't be a dick". ‑ Iridescent 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per my previous remarks^^^; If there's any general takeaway from this, it's that—as so, so often—it's not the original issue that encourages the community to act, but the subsequent behavior. ——SN54129 20:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per what I said above.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I was not notified that I was being discussed here. I had received complaints about my signature under my former user name, and I always immediately (if grudgingly, I am human) addressed the issues. If you mouse over the "fried," it shows the link to my talk, just as mouse overing "Deep" shows the link to my user page, and the same over "okra" shows the link to my user rights status. (I think adminness is important in one's signature.) Each section is color-coded. It this arrangement, never before raised to me as a problem that I recollect, is a problem, please let me know on my talk page. I will change it to something more drab and more functional. Good day. -- Deepfriedokra 21:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And, if I may be so bold, the signature of ——SN54129, two comments above mine, follows a similar pattern. Neither has a long string of superfluous text in the signature.-- Deepfriedokra 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

William, you have just pissed me off.-- Deepfriedokra 21:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Nowhere has there been any suggestion that you would not change your signature (which I personally don't see a problem with) if asked to do so in good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, what is pissing you off about the page? or is it just in general? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's the whole, "why don't you block DFO" nonsense. Plus the irresistible impulse to put a sentence after "wiliiam". The page? No, maybe the lack of a page/ping/semaphore. In general? I'm laughing at least one body part off that needs reduction anyway. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra 22:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, ah, lol. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• On further reflection just change the (censored) thing. My sig follows a format used in Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. Alas, (censored) William, yours does not.-- Deepfriedokra 22:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: as it stands, there are 10 support votes(assuming Deepfriedokra's vote is a support) and 1 oppose. William, this is not looking good for you, we all want this to be over, I doubt anyone wants you blocked over something that is so easy to fix. Many people have given you suggestions on what you can do, I would advise you consider them.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Can everyone just calm the **** down? I assure you, William is feeling very threatened right now. We need to find a way to give him an out of this situation with dignity. Due to his stubbornness, William could very well be facing the end of his Wikipedia editing career, over something as trivial as his signature. Let me tell you, from personal experience, that the indefinite block will hurt. We prevent harm and resentment with reasoning, not threats. To the blocking admin - please impose a one-week block first, and see if we can solve the situation in that time. starship.paint (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, that is what we are trying to do, hes not taking it. He has been given THREE ideas, he has not taken any of them, nor is he offering his own, I don't want him to be blocked, but he is being both uncivil when being asked nicely MANY times and is refusing to take any of the ideas on bord or offer his own. If you can get him to give his own suggestions, please, by all means do, just means this will be over quicker. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@LakesideMiners: - [7] - I just have. For God's sake, admins, don't block first. starship.paint (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

​The editor has accused me of sockpuppeting and responded aggressively to editors who have asked him to change his signature. As I noted above, there is a WP:CIVIL issue with this editor, what's the "dignity" problem with changing a signature? I would change my signature in real life if people find it confusing. It's for the benefit of him and us. No body wants to block him but it's seems the only way to change his signature. If it was me, I would have changed it as soon as someone tells me that my confusing signature is confusing him. This editor is deliberately confusing us with his signature and he says at the top of his talk page that he doesn't care.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: - I have put the WP:CIVIL issue aside at the moment because I'm trying to put out the biggest fire which is the signature first. I understand why you, and others, are aggrieved. I ask that you also understand what I'm trying to do. starship.paint (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note as I said above, the comma next to his username is what makes most of this problem because it gives the impression that he is responding to someone called William. Please make sure that the comma problem be fixed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  @SharabSalam: - in the five examples I gave William, [8] there is no comma in the first example, and all the rest of the examples do not feature a plaintext William. I trust that that should avert the confusion. starship.paint (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I wish William would handle this better, but I also wish people would take time to step back and acknowledge that it shouldn't be so difficult to figure out that a sentence that 1) contains wikilinks to a user page and a user talk page 2) does not logically flow with the preceding paragraph), and 3) is followed by a timestamp... is a signature. Lepricavark (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• (ec)Oppose The basis for this proposal is based on a sig that was functionally disrupting bots and whatnot. This sig is about annoyance. This really isn't about his signature anymore anyway, and this has spiraled wildly out of control. If someone want to make a proposal to block based on attitude, civility, battleground, gaming the system, etc., them make it. But I can't support a block over a dumb sig that isn't even in the top 50 of dumb sigs. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, I agree there is a problem, but this is not a way of handling it that is going to reflect well on the participants. Give peace a chance. Let Starship.paint see if they can work something out. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  Also, what Bison X said. Not only one person is being a jerk here.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood, who is the other one?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Those who are treating others unfairly, or in a way that they would justifiably resent if it was being done to themselves. It is not complicated. To identify whether you are being a jerk, read your comments as if they were addressed to yourself by the other person. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Pbsouthwood, yah, I think we all could do to tone it down a bit. Im hoping starship paints thing will resolve this all, WilliamJE, please read what others are telling you, we all want this to be over and resolved. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose WilliamJE's signature hardly rises to the level of disruption that would justify a block. (See also my !v under a different heading above) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Not gonna predict the outcome of this proposal. It's just too bad that WilliamJE has chosen the stance he has. Anyways, ya'll can deal with the situation as ya'll see fit. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Mountain/molehill. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia's conventional system of posting and signatures is generally confusing – that's why WP:FLOW has been developed. William's signature doesn't seem significantly worse than many other users. For example, the OP has a solid triangle (▼) in their signature. This is not part of their user name and it's not clear why it's there or whether it has some function. I wasn't sure what William meant by his signature but I now observe that, on his user page, he explains it as a saying of his grandfather. As the phrase has sentimental value, it is natural that William would wish to keep it. If some bots have trouble with it then that's ok because they have no feelings. Just improve the bots' parsers. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, we don't use flow on en.wiki? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  The imperative to improve talk pages still exists. The major anomaly is that, while the Visual Editor now works reasonably well for articles, it doesn't work at all on talk pages. This is a significant obstacle for new users and those who train them, such as myself. The WMF still wants to address this and the last major milestone seems to have been last year's report. As this is still a work-in-progress, we should not be imposing draconian penalties on adventurous editors who dare to differ on the details of our "Old Spanish customs". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Using a bazooka at a buzzing bee. William could have a better signature, but this is hardly an indef block offence.--Eostrix (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support This refusal to chose a signature that is easy to identify as such is just an example of William's battleground attitude. When I first came across his signature I couldn't find how to contact him at first and oddly sometimes the "on the roof" bit is not clickable as can be seen from his talk page but this may just be because I am already on his talk page. Just as a reminder he has been blocked 10 times since he has been on wikipedia for incivility, edit warring, hounding, disruption etc. I had a run-in with him about his behaviour at deletion sorting as did others who took it to AN and it took intervention by 2 admins to get him to agree to abide by the decision and new guidelines for sorting. I believe that due to the number of editors that have asked him to change his signature to make it easier to identify as per WP:SIGPROB and his refusal to discuss and find compromise shows a refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS and sadly a block seems to be the only path to go down. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I am not moved by the protestations that this particular signature is difficult to interpret, or otherwise not clearly a signature. It has links to userpage, user talk page and UTC formatted time. As is standard. There is a particular encroachment of entitlement here. I suspect that this isn't so much about the signature, as much as the refusal to submit. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Mr rnddude, but with a different conclusion. This editor has a long history of conflict due to aggressive and uncivil behaviour. They are unwilling to cooperate in even such a minor way as to modify their signature so it is clear that it is a signature. This is not a new development: they have behaved this way for a long time. The signature is confusing, and even with its length could easily be fixed, but they not only don't accomodate others, they deliberately brag about the problem they cause. The good of the encyclopedia needs to come in front of an editor's vanity, and that requires collaboration.Jacona (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose overly reactive. Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we really considering blocking and perhaps losing an editor who has been here for 13 years over a signature? It is not a standard signature but I'm baffled that the otherwise intelligent folks posting here are having such a hard time understanding it when it contains a) his name, b) a link to his user page and c) a link to his talk page. There are certainly more confusing signatures than his and I'm with Rhododendrites and Bbb23 who observed that the project has an uneven policy of addressing unusual signatures. Are we going to start seeing regular posts here about every signature that, say, contains emojis, nonstandard characters or anything different?

At this point, it seems like people are more irritated by William's refusal to change it when requested than they are by the signature itself which doesn't seem that confusing to me. This is a molehill that is being made into a mountain. Seriously, blocking a longtime editor, not for disruptive behavior, but because you don't care for their signature? It isn't offensive and garish. There are much more important problems to get yourself into a lather about and I can't believe this subject was brought to AN. This seems like a case when IAR would seem to apply to accommodate the simple preferences of a longtime editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's precisely because of the editor-in-question's pig-headedness, that the block is being proposed. It's unfortunate that he chooses to further dig in his heals, with each 'support' posted in favour of his block. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think sometimes we forget that other users are human beings and human beings (mostly) have feelings.Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose but Support - Conflicted, yeah. On one hand, I absolutely support insisting that people change disruptive signatures (up to and including a block if they refuse). The problem is we as a community have repeatedly failed to give WP:SIG any specifics about what constitutes a disruptive signatures. Even the line about distracting signatures says "some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages" - well, is that considered disruptive or not, if "some users" believe it? "Some users" think all sorts of things are disruptive. We seem to be operating according to a policy that does not itself have any teeth except in extreme scenarios (no timestamp, use of images, etc.), but rather turns into a jerk test administered by the ad hoc group confronting the user. We see in this very thread that many people have a bigger problem with his response to requests than with the signature itself. IMO it's not even in the top 30 most distracting signatures that I see on a semi-regular basis. Does that mean it's fine? Not necessarily, but it should be easier to determine if a signature is in line with our guidelines. How about redirecting this energy to better articulate what's not allowed in WP:SIG? Maybe "your signature should not include sentences or partial sentences that aren't part of your username" or something? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I would support doing that. I think depending on the outcome of this, might be worth to wait for this to clear up first as it is a hot issue right now. I do think that the WP:SIG guidelines are stupidly fucking vague. After this is all over, I think an RfC should be opened, regardless of the outcome of this, the guidelines do need to be updated.

I agree something should be done about our signature policy. After yesterday's post, I was asked to change mine (again) even though it looked (literally) exemplary. At this point, some better guidance would be great.Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I have reviewed the quality and quantity of my posts in this thread and decided it’s something I’m proud of. - Levivich (lulz) 21:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  I too have reviewed the quality, and especially the quantity, of my posts in this thread and decided they're something I'm proud of. EEng 21:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note User currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meetup- related MfD ban for WilliamJE --DBigXrayᗙ 08:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

I counted 20 unanswered requests. An advance thank you to whoever helps out with it. Clovermoss (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done - albeit, not by me. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks Widr, Ivanvector, GorillaWarfare, kingboyk, Muboshgu, Kosack and CambridgeBayWeather! Clovermoss (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to help (with my one page protection)! Thanks for ringing the alarm. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: A question from a newbie at this game: I don't want to add WP:AIV and WP:RFPP permanently to my watchlists as my webmail would get utterly snowed under with edit alerts. However, is there any way to arrange a notification when one of the helper bots posts a backlog alert message to either one of those noticeboards? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Not that I know of, though perhaps other readers of this thread will have more clever ideas than I. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This may be better suited for Village Pump than here, but...maybe when the bot tags or untags the page as backlogged, have it also put a message on a /backlog subpage? Then people can watch the subpage to see if the bot is tagging/untagging the page, not every post to the page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Watchlist Category:Administrative backlog? —Cryptic 23:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Watchlisting categories works like that? Levivich (Talk) 00:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have "Hide categorization of pages" checked it does. —Cryptic 01:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think I've ever needed to watch a Category before. I'll give it a try, though. @C.Fred: that sounds like a clever solution, if the easier suggestion doesn't work. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Watchlisting categories is somewhat unreliable, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cryptic, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and C.Fred: I've never seen HelperBot add RFPP to the admin backlog, though. That's why I've manually made threads here every so often when the backlog reaches 15+ unanswered requests. Clovermoss (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot could report the backlog there (and elsewhere?) to WP:AN for a given combination of unanswered requests+old requests. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles that look like CSD candidates but aren't listed as such

Six Wikipedia articles (Erika Verzutti, Garyette Williams, Gustavo Costa Medeiros, Mitchell Way, Patrick Ferrell, and Yaduvanshi Ahirs) look like CSD candidates even though they are not listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Perhaps, the users might have mistakenly substituted a CSD template instead of transcluding it. The CSD notice had stayed on those six articles for months without any administrator being aware of them because they are not listed in the aforementioned category. Perhaps, administrators should review those six articles now to see whether speedy deletion is appropriate, and if not, revert to the last version prior to adding the CSD notice (for Garyette Williams, Gustavo Costa Medeiros, and Mitchell Way), or remove the CSD notice from the page (for Erika Verzutti, Patrick Ferrell, and Yaduvanshi Ahirs).

The following shows which registered users and IP addresses have added the CSD notice to the above six articles and at what time:

• Erika Verzutti: by Mdezember at 16:06, 6 March 2019
• Garyette Williams: by Aanuarif at 20:08, 17 October 2019
• Gustavo Costa Medeiros: by Dani.guimaraes at 17:48, 6 February 2019
• Mitchell Way: by Carolleehilton at 18:55, 28 January 2019
• Patrick Ferrell: by Dode222 at 16:37, 13 December 2019
• Yaduvanshi Ahirs: by 27.61.149.70 (IPv4 address) at 08:08, 26 October 2019

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Erika Verzutti - tagged as a G7 by the nominator, who said "the artist has asked me to remove the article". They were the only substantive editor at the time, and probably still are. I have removed the broken CSD tag - what do others think? Delete as a G7?
• Garyette Williams - deleted G7 by TonyBallioni
• Gustavo Costa Medeiros - probably non-notable, sent to AfD
• Mitchell Way - already AfD by Jo-Jo Eumerus
• Patrick Ferrell - has a claim of notability in playing in the NFL, but I can't find any evidence that he actually did (the one source doesn't say so) - no doubt someone more versed in American football can check this and AfD if that is the case
• Yaduvanshi Ahirs - speedy tag removed by Jo-Jo Eumerus, I agree

Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

VE strikes again!

-EEng

• As a followup, I believe there's some kind of poison pill that can be incorporated into a template to prevent it from being subst-ed. Perhaps that should be applied to CSD templates and other similar templates. In fact, when you think about it very few banner or tag templates used in article space should be substed, and the same also goes for many or most used on talk pages. EEng 01:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, I believe you're looking for Module:Unsubst (for a usage example, see Template:ISP) creffett (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  Just so long as the unsubst isn't looking for me. EEng 01:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Normal substitution can be prevented with Module:unsubst. This, however, was not a normal substitution problem. It looks to me like VE tried to convert between expanded wikitext, HTML, and back again, but lost the information about the template in the process. I haven't been able to exactly reproduce the result though. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Block review of COLONEL77

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have just indefinitely blocked User:COLONEL77 after consistently rude interactions with other editors and admitted account sharing. As a new admin, I am bringing the block here for others to review. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that User talk:COLONEL77#Warning spurred the block. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Surprised they survived this long. Good block. Slywriter (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with Slywriter that it's a good block, especially on the account sharing alone. As far as I can tell, it goes as far back as March 2019. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll offer an opinion as a new admin myself - then at least one of us can take some flak for our different approaches! My initial assessment (ignoring OKSierra's further link to past issues which caused an edit conflict, and I've not looked into) is that an indefinite block is not really justified. There is certainly evidence that one person (at least) on one occasion did access the account and use it to comment, though not completely as a 'role account' for an organisation, per WP:ROLE, as they were clearly a beginner trying to help a bit. I could not see any evidence of any admin challenging this matter, nor seeking an undertaking to prevent a further breach of our policies on shared accounts (e.g. with a stern warning of a full block if it happened again.) Similarly, the aggressive stance taken by this editor is certainly unacceptable, per WP:CIVIL. Their taking the moral high ground that they're volunteering their time here is rather amusing, as it fails to recognise that every one of us here is also volunteering their time, and some are having to waste it on sorting out this uncivil and overbearing editor. Their block log shows that Cullen328 blocked them for a month last December for copyright infringement; he firstly having made it indefinite, then changed it to 30 days. In your shoes I would probably take the opportunity now to go to their talk page as the blocking admin and either reduce it to a more appropriate length for a first offence - e.g. between a few days to a week, which provides a shot across the bows, whilst at the same time seeking a categorical assurance that they will change their account password so as to prevent shared access when they resume editing, AND an assurance that they will read WP:CIVIL and agree not take such an aggressive attitude with other editors again. Failure to change their approach when interacting with others would then lead to your much longer block. But then, I'm a big softy and like to see content creators do their best, providing they stick to our rules, which this editor clearly hasn't. Hopefully they might do in future, if they fully appreciate the red lines not to cross. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)  

If this is representative of their content work, then I don't see any reason to unblock. Their work was shoddy at best and their attitude was quite childish for someone purporting to be in their 70s. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Colonel has responded to the block on their talk page. A highlight is "was not any kind of joint effort as your idiotic emoji fool claimed" Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 03:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The legal threat is another problem altogether. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It was a good block to begin with, but we should all thank the Colonel for conclusively removing any doubt. Levivich (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji, I endorse your block. Nick Moyes, you are a kind and generous person, which I think is a wonderful trait, but I do not see any hope of this person becoming a productive and collaborative editor. I made a click mistake when I indeffed him last December and changed that to a one month block one minute later. Since his unblock, he has been combative and insulting and presumptuous, and is insisting that his minor stylistic changes are 100% correct and that everyone else is wrong. He thinks that encyclopedia articles should be written like newspaper sports page write-ups. He disparages the encyclopedia. He admits sharing his password with his wife and allowing her to edit for him. And now, he is making legal threats. I have revoked talk page access and referred him to UTRS. Sorry to be the tough guy when I try to be the nice guy most of the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to concede that I was wrong about them, and that Money emoji's block was appropriate. Like Cullen328 - and thanks for your comments - I always try to WP:AGF to begin with. I have left the editor a farewell message. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse block if editor is going to bring poor grammar and WP:OR (e.g. this revert of their edit) and, worst of all, attitude.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Dickey is a redirect at AfD. I ask an experienced editor to look at it and close/move it to RfD if that's necessary (because I can imagine how it would be a good idea that editors specialising in redirects be the one to discuss a Redirect). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• ✗ Not done. Check the history (and read the AfD discussion); the reason this is at AfD rather than RfD is because it's an article that someone has overwritten with a redirect, and the discussion is regarding whether there's grounds to revert to the article. AfD is the correct place for this. ‑ Iridescent 08:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • To be fair, this is something that also happens at RfD (whether to "restore" article vs. whether to "redirect" at AfD). Either venue works due to the history, but to be technically correct, the article should be restored if it is to be at AfD (at least during the discussion). Since it's already at AfD, I see no reason to move it and I'd say the same if it were at RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Position by Round

I started a poll for an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#RfC Position by Round, The poll was about not having an over-use of statistics data, per WP:NOSTATS. I think I need an non-involved admin to review for a close. Much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I asked on the project to unarchive the discussion which the bot went and archived too Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 129, However non of the admins that monitor the project haven't unarchived the poll. I was really hoping an admin could help with an unarchive, then read and close the poll so people can see. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Cthomas3 appointed full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Cthomas3 (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as a full clerk, effective immediately.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Cthomas3 appointed full clerk

Page move problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi admins! I've come across an incorrect (technically incorrect) page move which is complicated and I don't have time today to investigate and correct it. There has been a long history of move requests over the title for our article about products which heat tobacco (and sometimes other herbs/chemical mixtures) to a temperature sufficient to vapourize or pyrolize (which word to use is also disputed) the products so that their medicinal/recreational (disputed) components can be inhaled/consumed (disputed) by a user, but which does not burn/ignite/combust (disputed) the herb/chemical (disputed). Apologies for the long, complicated description, but I was following all these discussions loosely and mean to illustrate the complexity and drama involved, and to illustrate that it was somewhat of a win for Wikipedia's consensus model that all of the discussions finally wrapped up last July, landing on the title Heat-not-burn product. It was thus moved to that title.

Today DrNicotiana has in good faith moved the article to a new title, Heated tobacco product, apparently with Doc James' support, but did not move the many talk page archives (which as of this edit start at Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive 1) and was unable to move the article over the redirect which already existed there. Now there's a redirect fronting the archives, and the article and talk page are dissociated. I intervened when they requested deletion of the redirect but that's as far as I can get into it today.

Will a willing administrator please move the article's talk page back to the original title where the archives live, or complete the complex move to "heated tobacco product" if you determine that's more appropriate? I think there are also a minefield of attribution notices which will need to be updated if so. Either way, please move protect the page; its history of moves and merges and splits and various discussions has made it so really only users who are experienced with complicated moves should be trying. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this is DrNicotiana. Apologies for botching the move. Can someone else do it properly for me? The reason for the move is that "heated tobacco product" is the name used by the US FDA, US CDC, and WHO (e.g. https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/prod_regulation/heated-tobacco-products/en/). "Heat not burn" is a potentially misleading marketing phrase because some of the products do burn some of the constituents. DrNicotiana (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the talk page back and move protected it. Regarding DrNicotiana's request, I think that in light of the history of move requests a new move request would be warranted, assuming that the argument wasn't already brought up in the past cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've correctly posted the move request and I will await the decision. thank you. DrNicotiana (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at AIV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some admin hands needed at wP:AIV. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 05:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unclear delimiters of Philip Cross topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am using this forum instead of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because I am frankly uncertain whether or not Philip Cross has breached his indefinite topic ban from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. Accordingly, I seek clarification from administrators.

On 10 February 2020, I inquired at his User Talk page as to his block status, noting that he has had 1½ years in which to appeal. I specifically directed his attention to minor edits that day, in which he merely italicized a couple of names, to the BLP of English journalist and writer James Bloodworth.

Two days later, Philip Cross replied, "There is negligible direct reference to post-1978 British politics in the article you cite."

In response, I listed the article's following references to post-1978 British politics.

• Bloodworth is a former member of Britain's Trotskyist group Alliance for Workers' Liberty, who edited the left-wing UK political news and comment site Left Foot Forward from 2013 until 2016.
• He blogged from 2013 to 2015 at The Spectator, which Wikipedia identifies as a UK political magazine.
• He is the author of The Myth of Meritocracy: Why Working-Class Kids Still Get Working-Class Jobs (2016), whose Amazon product description states: "Hitherto, Labour and Conservative politicians alike have sought to deal with the problem by promoting the idea of 'equality of opportunity'. In politics, social mobility is the only game in town, and old socialist arguments emphasising economic equality are about as fashionable today as mullets and shell suits."
• He is the author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain (2019), whose Amazon product description quotes Nick Timothy, former chief of staff to then UK prime minister Theresa May: "Whatever you think of the political assertions in this book—and I disagree with many of them—this is an important investigation into the reality of low-wage Britain. Whether you are on the Right, Left or Centre, anybody who believes in solidarity and social justice should read this book."
• He has praised Roger Scruton's Thinkers of the New Left (2015), a book that proved controversial (Wikipedia tells us) because of Scruton's attacks on the British Left.

In conclusion, I commented that for an article about a living British journalist that is still classified as a stub, this is an impressive amount of detail related to post-1978 British politics. Philip Cross rejected my argument.

If an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation, I'd be very grateful. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of work that bots would do if they could be taught how to identify the titles of creative works. Unless an editor's been disruptively making minor edits (e.g. stalking someone else) or is causing problems with minor edits (e.g. adding italics where they don't belong), there's no good reason to sanction someone for minor edits: the rule demonstrably would be preventing him from maintaining and improving Wikipedia, so it should be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend If I understand you, then, it's OK for someone to violate his indefinite ban from a topic, broadly construed, so long as he restricts himself to minor edits. That strikes me as a very strange policy. NedFausa (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Since you don't appear to be very grateful for the uninvolved administrator, let me be firmer: this is an unambiguous improvement, and nothing matters more than improving the project, so stop tattling on him. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend I said I'd be very grateful if an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation. You have not done so. Having read the topic ban that ARBCOM carefully hashed out, I see no room for the exception you have carved out. NedFausa (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend, what's this unnecessary comment about being grateful for? You have clearly explained nothing to NedFausa.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administrator, I repeatedly helped him understand the situation by explaining that it would be harmful to the encyclopedia (WP:IAR) to sanction someone for doing minor, obvious fixes, and yet he rejected my input despite saying that he'd be grateful for exactly what I gave. Just demonstrating that this is not a good-faith request, but a "gotcha" attempt to get this person sanctioned for obvious improvements. It was tempting to take advantage of my status as an uninvolved administrator by blocking him for trying to game the system, but I figured that would produce more harm than benefit. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. Seems like broad should include even little things, but I also like the word tattling. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More work than I would want to put in, but you probably should have let them do a few more edits and see if you could catch them doing something major. Probably would have worked if you hadn't tipped them off. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher Tipping him off was my whole point in posting this first to his User Talk page. I sincerely don't want to take it to ARBCOM, where the topic ban originated. I just want Philip Cross to keep within his lane. NedFausa (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's something galling about an ostensibly new editor telling a 15-year veteran to keep within their lane. Please choose your words more carefully in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the whole issue with how you interpret "broadly construed" really means. Common sense (which stems from ignore all rules, or IAR) suggests that something as inconsequential as italicizing the newspaper shouldn't necessitate hauling an editor to Arbitration Enforcement. This example is a textbook case where IAR applies. I highly doubt a banned editor using sockpuppet accounts will get banned for something as trivial as this. This thread should just be closed as a time sink and nothing positive is going to come out of it. I agree with Nyttend. Spend the time on actually improving an article, don't spend the time on a dramaboard to discuss why someone should be reprimanded for improving. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I should have known. Thank you for finally helping to make sense of this. NedFausa (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the arbs who wrote the TBan remedy for Cross, the point of the TBan was to restrict Cross from being tempted to edit on politics topics (especially BLPs) where he was personally involved off-wiki with the subjects, because that had become problematic. I definitely would not consider minor markup edits to the article of a journalist, even if he does sometimes write about politics, to be a violation of the spirit of the restriction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

PMC: thank you for explaining. I was misled by the "broadly construed" nomenclature included in your topic ban of Philip Cross, and by the policy statement that dictates what a topic ban covers—unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise—while establishing no exception for minor edits (markup or otherwise). To avoid future misunderstandings, I encourage you to add that carve-out to WP's policy. NedFausa (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for a carve-out, because as Nyttend and OhanaUnited have pointed out above, we are not bound to the precise letter of any "law"; we can use our judgement sensibly when deciding what to do. The ultimate point of any TBan is to mitigate disruptive behavior, not to punish editors by smacking them down for everything that could possibly be construed as a violation of the TBan just because. These edits were not disruptive, nor were they directly connected to British politics post-1978. If Cross had been fiddling about with content on the journalist's views of present-day politics, that might be a different story worth discussing at AE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We already have a carve-out, it's called the fifth pillar. Levivich 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, any decision by ArbCom that concerns the phrase "broadly construed" should be rephrased immediately to "reasonably construed" otherwise opponents of a person are going to stalk and jump on any edit that can even remotely be connected to someone; this isn't the first instance of this. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Buffs, nope. WP:BROADLY is designed to prevent gaming the system. Guy (help!) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that "nibbling on the edges" is poorly defined (at best). It's so nebulous that it could be anything. We're talking about British politics post-1978. How about a politician's actions in 1977, even though he served through 1998? How about someone who retired in 1977, but continued to speak out in political matters. How about a politician who resigned in 1977 but a law was named after him. How about an American politician who was friends with a British politician in 1977 and 1980? How about the laws passed in the US during that timeframe that were influenced by British common law dating back to the Magna Carta but still in effect today? I'm not saying that he was correct, but "reasonably construed" is FAR closer to the intended meaning than "broadly construed" which can be MASSIVELY gamed by opponents for benign edits. I'm saying it's bad verbiage that could be improved. I'll abide by whether the community believes this edit is over the line. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is a straightforward violation per WP:BROADLY. A topic ban is "broadly construed" by default, and straightforwardly prohibits making any edit, or editing any page, relating to the subject. The fact that the edits in question are purely uncontentious copyedits is not an exemption, though it is something that can be taken into account in terms of discretionarily sanctioning a violation. The user did violate their topic ban, yes, though given the nature of the edits, they probably warrant a warning as opposed to a block. If minor copyedits in violation of the topic ban continue, though, the topic ban should be enforced. BROADLY is policy, period, and the user should know better. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the admin comment above. Philips has clearly violated the topic ban per WP:BROADLY.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Simple solution from the simple-minded. Philip Cross should be told politely to stop nibbling and make minor improvements outside the area of the topic ban. We have > 5x10⁶ other articles to choose from. OP should be politely asked to stop being a tattle tale.Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  OMG yes. Buffs (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Phillip Cross is once again flouting his ban by editing the page of current UK political journalist Marina Hyde. Since he continues to ignore his ban I suggest his account should be suspended. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This should be the stick that broke the camel's back.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated the material being edit-warred over by the IP. It contains no reference to politics, at all. This IPs sole contribution to the article is edit-warring on false pretenses. Sharab, you do not appear to be a helpful contributor to this area of Wikipedia, and that is a recurring pattern I have noted since returning to editing. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the very briefest of references in the article, Marina Hyde is not identified as a political journalist, the article does not contain any direct references to post-1978 British politics. None of her articles on the subject are cited or mentioned. The edit history indicates that I have intermittently edited Marina Hyde's article since the topic ban was imposed over the eighteen months ago. It has intermittently been raised on Twitter by those who watch my edits (the most regular being a banned user) but not, if I recall correctly in any of the AN/I or AE queries. My most recent edits to the article are about her recent Sports Journalist Association Awards. One detail concerning Geoffrey Boycott's recent knighthood might be construed as coming under politics (given who decided on the award), but I have removed that reference. Philip Cross (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added that reference to the knighthood as well now, I am under no active editing-restrictions and take full ownership of the edit. The material is reasonably sourced, and significant enough to warrant mention. I have also warned the IP about 3RR (via revert). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Can someone please close this? Enough is enough. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deceased wikipedian

User:Tsirel died last month (see User_talk:Tsirel#Your_problem, Talk:Boris_Tsirelson#Death, announcement); could an administrator do whatever protection etc. of his userpage as is appropriate in this case?

Also, not an administrative matter, but: I have tried and failed to create an archived copy of the death announcement from TAU using the Wayback Machine; is there someone who understands how these things work who could do it properly?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, it looks like archive.org was doing something the site didn't like. I saved a copy at archive.today for you here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, May he rest in peace. I have protected his user page and added the deceased notice. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea and Money emoji: Thank you both very much with your assistance with this sad task. --JBL (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Boris Tsirelson was a famous mathematician who made mathematical news quite recently. An important math problem (Tsirelson's problem) that he proposed many years back was solved (pending review) a month or two ago. His death also made the news, at least in math circles. I had no idea that he had also been editing here on Wikipedia though (and it looks like he was quite active here). RIP. 2601:640:10D:A93F:7B21:62B7:1637:847E (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Some admin please remove his reviewer flag.--GZWDer (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: General Sanctions for Coronavirus related articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In light of the significant volume of disruption and edit wars occuring on Coronavirus and related articles, I am proposing that any articles related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak be subject to community-authorized discretionary sanctions and 1RR. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see the level of disruption applying to the whole category of articles rising to the level requiring general sanctions. Natureium (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review of User:SnøhettaAS block please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi @Yunshui: and colleagues, SnøhettaAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified as a (role account or?) sockpuppet of Leilaoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm not sure if I have the chronology of the blocks correct, but it looks like they were blocked for these edits which do not appear to breach the standard of behavior requiring a preventative block, although I am sure Snøhetta's interest must be declared. Would you please review and unblock either or both with at least a 120 day probationary period requested in the unblock log notes? Please see also this Board of Trustees statement. Thank you for your kind attention to this request. EllenCT (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

So, from what I can tell, SnøhettaAS was the initially blocked user, and was only blocked for having a promotional username and editing the company's article. 331dot declined the unblock, saying that while the user's choice of rename (Leilaoes) was acceptable, the user still needed to confirm that only one person would use the account, that they would comply with our COI and paid editor policies, and was asked about what topics they wished to edit in. Rather than drafting another unblock request to address this, the user then created another account shortly thereafter and edited the article anyway, which prompted Leilaoes to get blocked for sockpuppetry/block evasion.

Long story short, I firmly believe that it's a good block, and should remain until the user commits to using a single account only, addresses the block evasion in their unblock request, and pledges to comply with our terms of use, conflict-of-interest, and paid editing policies. I don't really consider Snøhetta's business relationship with the Foundation to be germane to the user's unblock request. As an aside, if they're working with the Foundation, they should know better to have respect for the editing community's policies and practices. OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I offered to help, based on my recent help with corporate COI editing. EllenCT (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any reason not to block this LA school range?

User:204.102.54.0/17 which is an LA school district, but every edit I've looked at is vandalism. I might have missed something though. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I generally block vandalism only school IP's ( ranges not so much). I allow account creation on the off chance that a constructive editor will emerge. Some people think that school ranges/IP's are ever flowing founts of constructive encyclopedia building. This is not always the case. One must judge on a case by case basis. What I have seen is a series of escalating blocks-- start small and increase the duration of blocks successively-- for the progressively recalcitrant.. Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious whether these people that think of (primary and secondary) school IPs as sources of constructive edits have actually met a bored middle-schooler in a computer class. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Welp. I know I have.Deepfriedokra (talk)

A /17 blocks 32,000 addresses. Having said that, I see little likelihood of collateral damage.Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

When we do have to block schools, it should be for a short period; I suggest we normally escalate too drastically. The idea is discourage trouble-makers; they can't be stopped, for if they want to, they'll be able to edit from elsewhere.. From what I remember of pranks, a week will usually end the joke. I don't really think people that age are nastier now,and certainly not more persistent, in view of the greater diversity of opportunities.. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: your experience of school blocks is very different from mine. Too often I find that when a block expires only vandalism continues. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

My view of school blocks is that we should almost never use them--and never use a library block. We can deal with the usual sort of vandalism much better than when the range blocks for such purposes were introduced. As I have discovered that this is not the consensus, I normally don't get involved. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack and review of wider issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to draw your attention to a Wikipedian insinuating that I am foolish. Does this conduct meet community norms? Please may you assist me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ear-phone#Request_for_comment Ear-phone (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Please may you also help with the issue at hand.

That is not a personal attack. Read WP:N. Praxidicae (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Saying "you did something foolish" is not the same thing as saying "you are foolish". Reyk _YO! 18:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It certainly does not create a conducive editing environment for less experienced editors like myself. It may be technicalities and semantics you use, but it's straight forward. If someone does something foolishly, the implication is that they are a fool. Ear-phone (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Neither does repeatedly recreating deleted content. Calling someone out for acting foolishly is not the same as calling them a fool.Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We all do foolish things from time to time. That does not mean that we are all fools. Yep, this is semantics, which is one of the more important parts of language, not just a technicality. "You foolishly [did this]" is not a personal attack. --bonadea contributions talk 18:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I re-created the article once and then expanded it to the best of my ability, including leaving a reason why it should not be deleted on it's talk page as per the tag. The foolish comment made by the Wikipedian is having a negative effect on me. Ear-phone (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) On the issue of the deleted article, on their Talk page I suggested that Ear-phone create the article in draft space, but their response was "You have deleted it. I'm now exhausted and stressed to start again." I am more than happy to restore the article to draft space if that helps the user's "stress".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ear-phone has now requested that it be restored to draft, and I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing the delete. The comments you made are hurtful. Ear-phone (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed

An arbitration case regarding Kudpung has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Kudpung's administrative user rights are removed. He may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
• Kudpung is admonished for failing to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator. In future, he is urged to ensure that he remains civil in his interactions with both new and regular editors, and responds to feedback on his conduct objectively and with an assumption of good faith.
• Arbitration is supposed to be the final step in the dispute resolution process. The community is reminded that attempting to have a community-wide discussion of problematic behavior early on can prevent unnecessary escalations.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed

Tseung kang 99 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, User:Tseung kang 99 is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 13:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Tseung kang 99 unblocked

Francesco Sidoti

• Francesco Sidoti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pedro Scuro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Scuro
• Peiris Fox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To the Administrator. Last week I edited a page on Francesco Sidoti and, exclusively by my own mistake I clicked on an old entry [Pedro Scuro] the subject of a bitter discussion with one or two editors, on account of the entry having "promotional content under criterion G11" (!?). The facts occurred years ago and their allegations were so outlandish that I simply gave up publishing the text altogether. There was absolutely no "promotional content" whatsoever, as the subject of the entry is a highly regarded intellectual with important contributions to his fields of knowledge, and a member of prestigious international organizations. He was also my former mentor, so I would have never wanted to put him or his work in any embarrassing circumstance. Nevertheless, as I concede that one might always be in the wrong, it would be much more profitable if my fault-finders disclose exactly where exactly my text was "promotional". On the other hand, over and above all that unpleasant hugger-mugger, I'm now trying to publish a new entry, on Francesco Sidoti, so I'm awaiting your kind reply. Yours, Peiris Fox (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Peiris Fox. You haven't made any recent edits on either of the articles named above (which don't currently exist) but you might be referring to this draft which you recently made about Francesco Sidoti on your own user talk (and then removed). See WP:AFC for the best way to create a new article. The problems that were found with the former Pedro Scuro article (from early 2018) are described in WP:Articles for deletion/Pedro Scuro. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

North East Delhi riots

Please have a look at the North East Delhi riots page and its talk page. The page needs some uninvolved eyes. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:FDA3:1EE2:2C99:CCE9 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at the section above. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Hornberger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't care much about the topic, but I noticed that the leader on 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries was deleted last year. Maybe this should be reopened or whatever it's called now. Or maybe nobody cares about Libertarians because they're just Trumpos with books. --NE2 02:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing like an unbiased AN report so people won't mistake you for neutral. I don't see how this is AN worthy; it was deleted a year ago as NN -- now maybe he's N (IDK). So re-create the article and move on: WP:SOFIXIT. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Urgent admin attention needed at WP:ANRFC

This is possibly one of the most backlogged page on this project. Any administrator (or experienced editor) is requested to help out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It always difficult for me to assess how backlogged it is because so many of the requests come from one editor who may or may not have even participated in the discussion for which they're asking for a close. Not every discussion needs a formal close and the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Worse, Cunard persistently edit-wars when I remove an item that doesn't need to be handled. Until Cunard voluntarily or involuntarily stops spamming this section, I'm not wasting my time on it. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nyttend: if Cunard is reverting something on ANRFC, they almost certainly have a good reason to do so. El_C 01:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

No, Cunard has had no good reason: I've tried removing requests that are filled or that don't need to be handled, and all that happens is that they get restored. This is called WP:ADMINSHOP, and if I weren't involved, I would block every time I saw it happen. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The intuitive thing to do would be to attempt to discuss the matter with them, perhaps on their user talk page. El_C 01:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That's been tried, and it's been tried here, too. I think the most recent discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#WP:ANRFC; they go back for years. —Cryptic 02:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm not that well informed, after all. El_C 02:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• The beginning of my comment is copied from here. I in the past listed all RfCs at WP:ANRFC. The community's feedback several years ago was that I was posting too many "consensus is clear" RfCs. I responded to their feedback by making changes to my approach. As BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) wrote in June 2016:

  I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far.

  Since June 2016, I have continued to "list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all". I started closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs myself and listing only the remaining RfCs where I think a close would be useful at WP:ANRFC. This significantly reduced the WP:ANRFC backlog.

  I have listed RfCs at ANRFC for over seven years since the creation of the board. Why have I consistently spent so much time collating the list and closing RfCs for seven years? I have in mind users like Triptothecottage who may not remember to list an RfC for closure or may not know about WP:ANRFC. I do not want the time and effort of the RfCs participants to have gone to waste when an RfC ends without anyone determining whether a consensus has been reached.

  As Scott put it so well here in January 2014:

  Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

  If an AfD with a rough but not obvious consensus to delete was never closed, the article would remain undeleted. Likewise, if an RfC with a rough but not obvious consensus to make a change to an article was never closed, the article would remain unchanged.

  TonyBallioni wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#WP:ANRFC, "I’m not asking that you stop, I’m asking that you don’t go through and list every single RfC possible." I have become even more discriminate in my close requests by omitting RfCs that look like discussions such as RfCs 3 and 6 in this list by leaving them unclosed or closing them myself.

  I can become even more discriminate in my close requests if some of the requests I am making should not have been made. Of the current close requests I made at WP:ANRFC, which ones should I have not listed?

  Cunard (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• From what I've seen a lot of the requests simply don't have consensus. Some RfCs are closed by Cunard himself so to completely say "listing them is the issue" is wrong, some of them don't need formal closure, yes, a few of them have clear-cut consensus, yes (some of which Cunard already closes!), but there are the ones which need determination, even if not formal closure. Even very active RfCs don't get that much attention once taken off FRS/CENT and might end up unclosed, it's really the only really big RfCs that are guaranteed to be closed due to the sheer number of people involved, and a lot of those participating wanting concrete consensus. Rather than rehash arguments due to unresolved RfCs, it definitely makes more sense to attempt to make closes. My point is, let's not shoot the messenger, feel free to deal with the backlog and tell Cunard which RfCs don't need to come here, but what's the point of saying so without dealing with the backlog that exists (either in the open or just unlisted). --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Data > opinion – The ANRFC requests are archived. If we go through them and mark those that don't need to be closed {{not done}} and close the rest, then we can go through the archives and see how many are {{not done}}. Then we'll know whether or not Cunard or anyone else is listing too many closes that don't need to be listed, or whether it's just that we have a lot of closes and not enough closers. – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I like this idea. Administrators (and other editors) should be able to decline requests at ANRFC as an administrative action, similar to denying CSD requests or PERM requests. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Could someone revert this edit

Dirk Beetstra broke working archive links for no reason. I was going to revert this as "unhelpful, the links works and are relevant to the talk page, that scholaryoa got hijacked and now disallows archiving is irrelevant.", but I'm getting blocked by the blacklist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because "scholarlyoa" is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. You'd need to ask for unblacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals or whitelisting a specific link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Admins can't bypass the blacklist? That's ... unexpected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It might be unexpected, but it's nonetheless true. (It makes sense when one thinks about it, as otherwise it would be too easy to accidentally revert to a version containing a spam link.) ‑ Iridescent 08:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well it could still throw a warning. Anyway, I'll be on the other forums I suppose. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete the problem revision? It might be described as 'non-contentious housekeeping'. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Headbomb, it appears that you didn't notify Beetstra of this thread.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Burma-shave-notice|aninotice|layout=horiozontal}}

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC) lol fail OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Burma-shave|When adding|big red walls of shame|adjust your rhyming|for {{pagename}}}} —Cryptic 13:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

beautiful. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the last time I try to do anything funny or witty before having coffee in the morning. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It's really annoying if admins can't bypass the filter. There are occasional reasons besides archiving to link to spam (or whatever) on purpose. Can stewards bypass the filter? Is one here? Also, BEANS. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You can get around the filter. But, better to have it whitelisted if there is a good reason. I don't see a good reason here. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No one can override the spam blacklist directly, you would need to remove the entry or make the edit without the offending text match. If you think being able to bypass that blacklist is a good idea, feel free to leave a note at phab:T36928. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The good reason to bypass the blacklist is to preserve the integrity of archived pages that got messed up, as happened here. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I broke these links because these links were disabling archiving. That is an exercise I do regularly as these blacklist hits eventually make the log even more unreadable than it already is.

The spam blacklist cannot be circumvented, You'd need to get the links whitelisted, which likely is not going to happen for the sake of talk page discussions (yes, it is an annoyance that you have to copy-paste-unbreak the link, but white listing requests like this would give a significant overload to an already back logged area, and white listing would also allow these links in main space where many discussed links should never appear). It are links in discussions, they are perfectly fine to have them text-only there.

Force WMF to solve this problem, it is 14 years they ignore this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I almost restored the links, but then reading Beetstra's comment here, I realised that he did this intentionally as a housekeeping measure. I'll respect that decision and not restore the links. Admins, if you encounter a link that was removed unintentionally or wrongly (e.g. a vandal blanks a page), there are two routes to restoring it without whitelisting. (1) If the link were removed in the last edit or series of edits, just use rollback, since it's unaffected by the blacklist. Be sure to restore all the other changes that were made in the edit, and use an edit summary explaining why you used rollback. It's not one of the standard reasons for rollback, but WP:IAR; if it really is an improvement to have that link there, it's fine to use any technical route to get there, as long as you don't cause other problems (which this won't) and you clarify that you're not treating the edit as inappropriate. (2) Delete the page, restore all revisions before the removal, make a dummy edit with an edit summary explaining what's happening, and then restore the removal. When a with-link revision is the latest undeleted edit, it's like editing the page before it got removed: the software doesn't see you adding anything, so it allows the edit. When you restore the post-removal edits, the history will look like you merely reverted those edits, so of course go back and put back whatever constructive changes were made. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Dirk, is there a bugzilla ticket or whatever they use now about this issue? It is disconcerting to me that there Wikipedia can have such a thing as an unrevertable edit. I can see restricting adding those links to accounts with some higher level of permission than autoconfirmed, e.g. rollback perms. But the filter is supposed to be a spam filter, not an impenetrable security measure. Even admin-only seems like a bit too much protection. The archive bots should have enough permissions to archive the pages since the idea of an archive is that it is an unchanged snapshot of the page. 173.228.123.39 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC) (was 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 further up).

Unblock appeal: DonSpencer1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here's the exact verbiage of the unblock request: I am submitting my second unblock request after more than a year off of Wikipedia after my first request was deferred. I have spent my time since editing Wikimedia Commons in order to, as another editor put it, "[show my] sincerity and [help] establish a track record of ongoing good edits." You can view my work here (1,000+ edits). I was blocked for using multiple accounts; for this I am truly sorry, and realize that it was highly immoral and unethical. In my previous unblock request I have disclosed all my accounts, they were reviewed by a group of editors, and I fielded a Q&A about my sock puppet activities. Indeed, to help out editors in a similar situation I have created the userbox "User former sock" to help remorseful sock-puppeteers get back on track on Wikimedia Commons. If I am allowed to edit Wikipedia again I plan on helping blocked editors on this platform as swell. My hope is, that with a little good faith from the community, I can become a productive and welcomed member of this great project. As I understand it, this request needs to move to WP:AN. As always, let me know if there is anything else I can do. DonSpencer1 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The CU statement from zzuuzz is: Similar to the previous request, there is little for a checkuser to go on, but nothing currently jumps out, and in the absence of other evidence I would have to give it a tentative pass from a CU perspective. Also looking at the previous discussion, it is not clear whether there is private evidence, beyond IP addresses. I don't believe checkusers, or the blocking admin, have a supervote over any unblock, but they are entitled to disclose whether other people have the relevant information to make the decision. With this is mind, I'd suggest that User:Bbb23's opinion on this matter is again sought before taking it further, specifically on the question of whether the community has the relevant information to make the decision. Bbb23 concurred with it. had nothing to add.

There is further discussion at User talk:DonSpencer1#unblock discussion and User talk:DonSpencer1#Community Unblock. Since the editor is community-banned per WP:3X, their unblock needs to be appealed at AN. I hope my colleagues will give them a fair assessment. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I did not "concur"; I said I had "nothing to add".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Alright, fixed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm still uncertain of my viewpoint, I need to go have a more detailed look at their Commons work. In any case, it would be contingent on a single-account limitation. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ping past participants
@Kuru, Zzuuzz, Deepfriedokra, and Berean Hunter: qedk (t 桜 c) 21:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't receive that ping for some reason, maybe it didn't work. Personally I have no objections to this type of unblock situation. Blocks can be cheap. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Since the participation seems to be on the low side here, I do not have any objection to an unblock as well, given that I participated in this, I will not be closing this anymore. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think it would be fine to unblock per WP:ROPE, with the "must maintain only 1 account" restriction. They seem to have done all of the right things. --Jayron32 16:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with one account restriction per Jayron. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Pinning this to prevent archival jic. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renaming of Chemical Articles

I would like to bring to light that User:Hoa112008 renamed several chemical articles without participating in any kind of discussion. These articles had been at their previous names for several years. This user was blocked on commons for renaming files in an inappropriate manner. Would it be possible for the chemical articles to be reverted back to their previous names? Noah^Talk 00:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoa112008 (talk · contribs) I left a message at WT:WikiProject Chemicals#Renaming of chemical articles requesting their input. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing an issue for administrators here. The user renamed some articles on 10 Feb, some moves were then reversed by several people including me. They have not been repeated. So there is no big issue any more. Some of the renames seem sensible, so they were not necessarily bad. Nothing really to worry about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact this occurred without any kind of discussion when these pages had been at their current titles for years is what alarmed me. He didn't let anyone know about what he was doing when some of these could be controversial. I'm glad that there isn't a large problem with all of these, but it is better to bring this here and be safe rather than sorry. Noah^Talk

Thank you for bringing this here. I'm the blocking admin on commons, and this editor has had multiple warnings about following process and also about licensing policies. Has some good edits, but possibly-substantial WP:CIR problems (too impulsive in the chemistry realm). DMacks (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh look:

• Hoa112008 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoang1032006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DMacks (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the editor's move log. It is a concern that Hoa112008 has never left a talk message, either here or on Commons. They should be warned or blocked if they make further undiscussed moves, or if they keep using both accounts. Their home wiki is probably the Vietnamese Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the standard for somone to move pages could be elevated. Some competence demonstrated for example. A real user page. Demonstration that they can hold a civil conversation.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Are you talking about making it a permission level for any kind of page moving? Noah^Talk 16:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Why stop with two accounts? Among others by eye at list of users, with similar behaviors on other wikis, are the stale:

• Hoa122008 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoang42006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DMacks (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks:Are you suggesting that this may rise to the level of global locks with all of the cross-wiki issues? If they are all causing issues on various wikis, it is a serious problem to say the least. Noah^Talk 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The usage of more than one account seems innocuous so far -- the last two accounts mentioned by DMacks have made no edits since 2018. The problem could be inexperience or inattention. I left a message at User talk:Hoang1032006 asking them to limit themself to a single account. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We'd need direct abuse on more than one wiki to go global. One of those stale accounts is indef'ed on commons, so there is a concern of evasion (though not on enwiki). The use of multiple accounts is disruptive even if not intentionally so because of the added effort in finding problematic edits that need to be undone, and tracking xwiki. DMacks (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the account Hoang42006 (talk · contribs) is the one that was indefinitely blocked on Commons as of April 26, 2019. (It was blocked for uploading nonfree files). The guy does not respond at all, and may eventually exhaust our patience. But the account that has continued to edit since this AN was filed is Hoa112008 (talk · contribs). Editors from the chemistry project might still want to keep an eye. At this point I am halfway to a block, especially if he won't communicate at all. His newbie status is wearing off fast. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoa112008 actually was blocked (non-indef, now expired) on commons for repeated violations of page-move processes (related to file-naming policies) and repeated violations of attribution/license policies. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing - FIITJEE

This article is subject of a paid editing program run by two different cram schools to attract/repel customers. Please ensure that it stays neutral.-- Noticed you (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Without logic

On quick removal sticker Dez-i Alanan.This respected user acts without feeling aware.User:Dorama285.Goodarz Irani (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This apparently concerns:

• Alanan Castle which was moved by Bonadea to draft.
• Draft:Alanan Castle which was created by Goodarz Irani (talk · contribs) and tagged for speedy deletion by Dorama285 (talk · contribs) (tag removed by Bonadea).

Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This must be known user a different name surely: I can find literally no reliable sources online at all (well, "Alanan+castle"&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=inmv&sxsrf=ALeKk019gO2ghpNx3fT8fg1ZKOgN_2lcog:1583229639934&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYyqSChv7nAhXYPsAKHe1fAWMQ_AUIDigG&biw=360&bih=520 one mention in one book). In any case, this is purely a content matter and not for this board. ——SN54129 10:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Longterm extremely productive administrators should not be desysopped without sufficient cause or a second chance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made a thread with this title at WT:ACN referring to the recent desysop of two renowned admins in rapid succession by the newly constituted ArbCom, but my thread title was removed by an arbitrator and the post placed under the Kudpung case thread, which it was not specifically about. Since the point in question is not Kudpung but the desysopping of at least two longterm extremely productive administrators without sufficient cause (serious infraction) or a second chance, I am reposting my header here, and will post a link to the moved post and its replies: here (if I did that right; if I didn't someone please fix). Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I saw the three recent desysoppings as fundamentally different. IMO a desysopping should primarily hinge on misuse of the administrator tools.

• RHaworth kept deleting things under inappropriate CSD rationales, even after having been told to stop repeatedly. There's not much question about this one.
• Kudpung kept making obscure and cryptic threats against people he dislikes. Although the only bit of direct tool misuse I'm aware of was nuking an IP editor for correctly placing a maintenance tag, his vague threats and promises of "investigation"s carried with them the implied threat of using the admin toolset to do it. Taking away the admin bit at least puts peoples minds at ease that he's not going to go poking around in peoples' deleted edits hunting for gotchas, or placing bogus blocks, or whatnot. I agree with this desysop too.
• BrownHairedGirl was desysopped for being a grouch and saying to people who weren't telling the truth that they were not telling the truth. There was no abuse of admin powers. ArbCom's risible finding of fact "BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals" was the hook they used to hang her desysop on, but these were correct MfD closings and completely irrelevant to BHG's trial. It was designed to look like an adverse finding without actually being one, and I have to say really skeevy behaviour from ArbCom.

• That's my $0.02. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• How is saying someone has "low intellgence" part of either being a grouch or saying "to people who weren't telling the truth that they were not telling the truth"? Nil Einne (talk)

• It seems pretty grouchy to me. Reyk _YO! 14:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Seeing ArbCom take heed of the community's concerns actually makes it a whole heck of a lot easier for me to cast "support" votes at RfA knowing if I made a mistake it is no longer for life. It's not like they're banned from being an admin; all can seek a new RfA, and one of them might actually succeed. The bar for removal should be low and also should be easier, and it also should be NOBIGDEAL. Apparently, mere temperament is enough for the community to react, not just tool use. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but in all three cases (and indeed, in dozens of threads concerning the three named former administrators above) they've largely evaded the level of sanctions that would be applied to a conventional editor were they to behave in the same way. Kudpung's intimidation and harassment of good-faith editors should have resulted in blocks, not just a desysop; any non administrator would have been hit with lengthy blocks for making those sorts of implied and sometimes explicit threats. Nick (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• If you have a proposal, go to WP:VPP and get consensus, or if you just want to talk about your ideas go to WP:VPI. Cluttering this board with nothing that can be done here is useless or disruptive. Your appealing to administrators on their notice broad to argue for more elaborate restrictions on the already elaborately protected against desyoping process is a bad idea, in and of itself. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• It is well established that admins can be desysopped for reasons other than abuse of admin tools. WP:ADMINCOND says that admins must uphold good standards of conduct, follow policies and not engage in disruptive editing. Desysopping people for persistently failing to follow the admin policy, as these three admins did, is hardly unreasonable. And if you think it is then I suggest you try explaining that view to someone who doesn't edit here, and see if it makes any sense to them at all. Hut 8.5 16:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Kudpung had a second chance. There was an arb case where he had the opportunity to respond to issues, acknowledge his mistakes, and make some kind of commitment to clean up his act. He chose not to do that. He didn't participate in the case at all, but instead commented on it and in some cases took pot shots at the arbitrators at various other places around the wiki while the case was going on. I'm satisfied by Mkdw's post in the ACN thread, that someone who ignores an arb case while keeping on editing shouldn't be let off with a warning. 173.228.123.39 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with this, and have commented so elsewhere. If we're going to fiddle with things post 'the Kudpung Arbitration Case', the first thing we should be fiddling with is making the participation in an arbitration case where you're a named party a requirement of administrator conduct and accountability, with failure to participate (or failure to participate in good faith) grounds for a desysop regardless of any other issues raised in the case. ArbCom, for all of their issues and problems, is elected by and accountable to the wider community, failure to engage with ArbCom is failure to fully engage with the wider community. Nick (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• There's really no reason to believe that Kudpung's participation in that case would have altered the results. BHG's statement during the PD phase of the Portals case addressed most of the identified issues and would have prevented any recurrence. It was widely ignored by the Arbs, who still approved punitive remedies. Kudpung may have acknowledged his "mistakes" and made a committment, but it likely would also have been ignored. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with pretty much everyone above. BHG's standard of behaviour fell well below the standards of behaviour expected of an administrator over an extended period of time, despite multiple people telling her multiple times that it was not acceptable. A non-admin engaging in that sort of behaviour would have been subject to NPA blocks long before it got anywhere near arbcom. RHaworth had countless warnings at ANI (and even more less formal ones) about his use of speedy deletion and his interaction with other (especially new) editors. An non-admin would be lucky to have got a second warning before being blocked. I didn't read all the evidence in the Kudpung case (unlike the other two), but unless the findings are spectacularly incorrect (which those who have been following the case are notably not complaining of) then it's yet another case of an administrator ignoring multiple warnings over an extended period of time about their conduct - conduct that would have seen a non-administrator quickly blocked. When multiple warnings about significant behaviour issues have already been ignored, I'm not sure why you think another warning will make a difference. Your proposal seems to be calling for problematic administrators to be given even more leeway relative to non-admins than they currently get, if that's the case then I have to oppose it - admins should be held to a higher standard than non-administrators not lower. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • +1 Echo Thryduulf. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • +1 Agree with Thryduulf. (I hope that non-admins like myself are permitted to comment here.) --Sm8900 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Sm8900: Yes, comments from non-admins are allowed and indeed welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I am going out on a limb here, as I think admins should not so much be held to a higher standard as everyone should be held to a higher (but equal) standard of behaviour than is currently the case. Admins are not special, they are just trusted with the dangerous tools. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Can the aforementioned former administrators re-apply for administratorship? If so, how soon? GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all three editors are able to re-apply for adminship at any time, they simply need to pass an RfA as with any other candidate. That will be somewhat difficult at present, but if we see ArbCom continuing to remove administrators who are editing or behaving in a sub-optimal manner, and if we see ArbCom encouraging the community to file cases to enable this to occur, where previously an unhelpful and often circular ANI or AN thread would have been the best that could be hoped for, then I see RfA returning to a more optimistic discussion with the community being more prepared to forgive past transgressions. Nick (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with some arbcom desysops, we all disagree with some arbcom desysops, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. An RFA is how an admin appeals an arbcom desysop. Until and unless there are admin who are being desysoped and then sailing through an immediate RFA, none of us can say that arbcom is not effecting the will of the community. I know of no such cases, ever. I also note that the arbs get more votes than most admin. As much as I might personally disagree with this desysop or that desysop, I have no basis to say that arbcom is out of step with the community when it comes to removing the bit. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I generally agree with Reyk's analysis above; the rationales for desysopping at least two of the recent controversial cases seem to stand up; we have clear evidence of actual misuse, and of the use of the threat of tools as a bullying tactic. That seems to be to be the sort of thing that should cause sanction to admins, including the loss of tools. I generally also agree with his assessment of the BHG case; that was was flimsily hinged on her use of incivil language in the portals case, and there was never any problem with her use of her tools; and IMHO, that case should not have been decided on such evidence. --Jayron32 19:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Also BHG offered an extremely thorough voluntary resolution, acknowledging and resolving every one of the problems. Arbcom ignored not only her extremely long and accomplished problem-free tenure here, but they ignored her attempt at a good faith voluntary resolution and desysopped anyway. It was not even discussed, supported, or called for during the entire case either. It came completely out of left field, probably the most egregious and cruel desysopping that I have ever seen. I repeatedly pestered Arbcom to explain the line of thinking that led to this and was met with complete silence, probably because there quite simply is no explaining away what was simply bad judgment. And as is mentioned above, one flimsy desysop sealed the fate of an admin in an unrelated case, although the offenses were incredibly minor and sporadic in the context of an overall stellar career, they could not possibly give not desysopping any consideration for fear of the optics. Even if you think Kudpung deserved to be desysopped it can't be said that he could have gotten a "fair trial" in the context of BHG being desysopped for no reason. Arbcom is here to stop actual abuse, not rubber-stamp desysops for isolated incidents. I wonder what role the fear of the WMF is playing in this. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • BHG was not desysopped for no reason, the incidents were not isolated, the only hint of an acknowledgement that her behaviour might not have been impeccable came only when the PD was nearly finalised, and even then was short lived (for details see the discussions on the PD talk and at WT:ACN after the case closed). Finally if, as all three admins did, you engage in sustained breaches of ADMINCOND despite multiple warnings then your "career" as an admin really isn't best described as "stellar", "exemplary" or any such similar terms. Good behaviour in one area does not excuse bad behaviour in another for non-administrators so there is no justification for it for admins. I'm sorry but I do not have any sympathy for the argument that these admins were hard done by because the evidence really does not fit that narrative. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• The issues were isolated though. BHG has over 1,650,000 edits going back more than 14 years, and no one has suggested that her "behavioral problem" was anything more than a person getting caught up in a contentious dispute and getting too heated. Regardless of the timing of her voluntary resolution, the natural response to it should have been a deep sigh of relief for her having offered it, nothing less. Going forward with the desysopping anyway was not only unjust, it was nothing short of cruel. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I am seeing a disconnect here between what some people consider acceptable behaviour and other people's interpretation of that concept. I also wonder whether the reason for BHG's eventual desysopping is that arbcom see her ressponses during the case as basically denial that her behaviour was in conflict with community expectation as interpreted by arbcom, and therefore unlikely to change, making desysopping the only option left that would have any long term effect, and therefore preventative rather than punitive. This leads to the question of whether arbcom is interpreting the expectations of the community for admin behaviour correctly. Comments in this thread suggest to me that their interpretation is shared by some but not by others. How representative this is of the wider editing community is debatable. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @Swarm: Sure, it's astounding and fantastic that BHG has so many edits to her name - remove the first two digits of that number and you still have the figures of a senior editor. She is of course warmly thanked for that. But disruption is not measured as a percentage of total edits. And unfortunately the civility issues with regard to portals could not be described as isolated - they occurred over an extended period, and in multiple venues, accompanied by a repeated refusal under advice, to tone it down or acknowledge that it was making other people unhappy. As for the voluntary offer, my understanding is that it came only right at the end of the case, when the decision and remedies were already being voted on. Had it even been made during the workshop phase, I think things could have ended differently. And make no mistake, the door to re-adminship is far from closed... re-sysops of Arbcom-removed admins has rarely been tested, but the key thing is time and evidence. If BHG sticks to her voluntary agreement at [9], and then comes back to RFA with six months to a year of no major issues then I would happily support and I imagine most others would too. The same goes for Kudpung, RHaworth, Fram, or any other admin who's been desysopped for civility reasons.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• "disruption is not measured as a percentage of total edits"

It's not a statistical science, but it certainly is measured relative to an editor's history. That is the only way a behavioral pattern can be established, and we are concerned about behavioral patterns, not isolated problems. A user with 500 edits in three months and a user with 1.7 million edits in 14 years engaging in the exact same level of incivility is not the same behavioral pattern if the latter user has an otherwise spotless record. Also, there's the simple fact that dedication to the project, needs to be taken into account. Not that it excuses everything, but it needs to be taken into account.

• "could not be described as isolated"

Here's the thing though, yes, they could, and they are. A user who becomes uncivil in a singular, heated content dispute can not be said to have a pattern of problematic behavior. The problem is the dispute, not the editor. Just because this dispute was particularly widespread and protracted does not change the fact that it was just a singular, highly contained, low-stakes dispute. It can not be said that BHG had a pattern of incivility when any incivility was contained to a singular dispute and was in the context of an otherwise-untarnished record.

• "it came only right at the end of the case"

As I said, the timing of the voluntary resolution is irrelevant. It was offered while the case was still open and the decisions open to consideration. The voluntary resolution was more than sufficient to resolve the problems in lieu of a desysop, particularly when administrative trust was not a factor being considered. The voluntary resolution was a much-needed "out" for Arbcom, and if the only reason she was desysopped was because it her voluntary resolution was "too late", and not because it was not a legitimate resolution, then the decision was corrupt and cruel. If Arbcom felt that it was a legitimate decision in spite of the voluntary resolution, then they have not indicated this, even in response to direct questioning.

• "the door to re-adminship is far from closed..."

This is an almost laughably false and cruel statement. An Arbcom desysop is a permanent death sentence for the reputation of an admin, and you know it. In spite of the bullshit boilerplate Arbcom spouts, a desysopped admin can not in fact "regain the tools at any time", and there is absolutely no precedent or reason to believe that they can pass an RfA, regardless of the justifiability of the desysop. RfA is a difficult gauntlet to pass for anyone, much less someone with a desysop on their record. Our culture doesn't allow it, that's the reality, an Arbcom desysop is final, right or wrong. There is no recovering your reputation after this. It is the guillotine.

• "comes back to RFA with six months to a year of no major issues"

That's the thing, there were no major issues, nor would there be if BHG was not desysopped. There was never any reason to believe that BHG needs to "change" and "prove herself" as a constructive member of the community. She already has, and she already did. There was literally no reason to subject her to a desysop, a condescending period where she "proves" she can be a normal human being, and the utter fucking hell that is an RfA that will most likely fail anyways. Arbcom botched this, there's no two ways about it. Also relevant is the fact that a lot of the "incivility" or "personal attacks" were arguably just honest, truthful observations when examined by an uninvolved third party. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I do agree with Swarm that the BHG deysop was flawed (per the PD talk page). Admins should not be held to a higher or lower standard than any editor. Importantly, many of the long-term highly-productive admins do exhibit violations of WP:ADMINACCT, particularly if they have been at the vanguard of tackling issues such as SPI, SPAM or UPE/PAID etc. on a daily bases (RH's talk page was like sock-central for impolite UPEs trying to get their PAID work undeleted). ArbCom is making a mistake invoking ADMINACCT as the core/only reason to deysop (which it was in BHG's case, KP's case, and half of RH's case). It needs other tools to handle ADMINACCT violations (e.g. probation/involuntary leave etc.), as deysoping for ADMINACCT violations doesn't address the core behavior issues. It is an unreasonable standard that veteran soldiers who have been on the frontline for over a decade, should present as being nicer and more polished than the fresh recruits? We can all think of many other excellent and highly productive admins for whom strong violations of ADMINACCT could be produced in a long ArbCom evidence case. The "elephant in the room" is that the newer RFAs don't seem to produce candidates that have anything like the productivity levels of BHG, RH or KP. We are 5-10 long-standing highly-productive admins away from experiencing material-failures in Wikipedia on critical processes (we all know this). We have plenty of great admins who pitch in here and there and disappear for periods as it suits, however, we have a much smaller core who keep the site running 24/7 and encounter difficult characters/situations daily. As a partial solution, given that a simple majority of ArbCom can effect a deysop, why don't we allow a resyop also by a simple majority of the community (e.g. 50.1%)? It would overcome the deysop "stigma" that I think has turned ArbCom deysops into a permanent deysop in most cases (e.g. there will always be a core % of !voters at RfA who will not resyop for ADMINACCT violations, under any conditions). Britishfinance (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Britishfinance said: Admins should not be held to a higher or lower standard than any editor. Importantly, many of the long-term highly-productive admins do exhibit violations of WP:ADMINACCT, particularly if they have been at the vanguard of tackling issues such as SPI, SPAM or UPE/PAID etc.
  You've hit the nail on the head. Admins should be held, at least, to the same standard as regular editors, who daily face vandals, spam, POV pushers, trolls, SPAs, paid editing, CIR, etc. And the crux of the problem is that, as you say, "many ... admins ... exhibit violations". So what is the solution? I suggest that, in the absence of admins holding other admins to account for lax behavior, it has fallen to ArbCom, and they did the job we expect them to do. If other admins can't or won't call out misbehaving admins, how about a once-a-year forced one-month break from the tools for all admins? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. BHG, RH, KP had issues to address, however, the binary decision of a deysop (which, in effect is usually a permanent status), is too crude a tool. We need new tools for ArbCom (or ANI), to handle the unique stresses that long-term high productivity admins experience (e.g. "involuntary leave", "probation", 50.1% resyop RfAs etc.). Otherwise, we are going to see more losses in this area (particularly given ArbCom's use of ADMINACCT to deysop), and more posts at WP:AN of backlogs in key areas. We need to show more compassion, care, and respect for these uniquely valuable resources to Wikipedia, and look at the "bigger picture" here of how we handle ADMINACCT violations – otherwise, we face a bleak future, as we are not really replacing them. Britishfinance (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• What I don't understand is why violating ADMINACCT shouldn't lead to desysops? Behaviour is at least as important for admin to get right as technical use of the tools. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Behaviour is important, but long-term high-productivity admins (who are very valuable to WP), are subject to unique mental stresses. We need to understand this and plan better for it. I just made a longer post on Kudpung's PD page, but we don't expect soldiers who have spent 10-years on the front line to be more polite then the fresh recruits. As long as they are still competent with their weapons (e.g. no tool misuse), we send them on "involuntary leave" or other. We want them to recover and get back to work. BHG and KP were – for long periods – respected and highly valued admins in Wikipedia. We need to find better tools to handle violations of ADMINACCT that do not involve telling the admin "you can reapply at RfA" (which we know, for various reasons, is not realistic). We are not replacing our high productivity admins in WP, and I think we are all quietly concerned about this, and fear its implications? Britishfinance (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Britishfinance said, we don't expect soldiers who have spent 10-years on the front line to be more polite then the fresh recruits. Perhaps I should rephrase what I said above. We expect admins to be as polite, if not more, as we expect the "soldiers" who have been writing content for decades to be because they are "trusted" members of the community. If they can't do so, and are "battle weary" (to use your soldier battlefield terminology), then they should either take a month off every year to regain perspective or not be admins. Regular users, who face same day in and day out would be blocked for the admin behavior you are supporting. What makes them exempt? Absolutely, admins should lose the tools if they can't uphold the standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The comparison to armed forces members doesn't work for me. No one is compelled to devote more time than they wish to. Long term Admins are not a special case. Far from it. They are subject to the policies that apply to everyone plus those relevant to Admins. In some cases the behaviours complained about have lasted many years - long before any burn-out factor due to longevity. It's high time that Arbcom got to grips and if the community wishes to provide specified alternatives the place to do that is in an RfC - not here. And that PD mentioned is closed so postings there may be clerked away. There is a post-decision discussion page - as well as here - currently open. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I agree with Leaky caldron and SandyGeorgia - we do, and should, expect long term admins to be at least as polite as newcomers. Participation is voluntary, so if anyone is feeling run down or weary then they need, for their own health and the health of the community, to step away from whatever is causing that stress. If they don't do that voluntarily then they need to expect to be removed involuntarily. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, In an ideal world, sure. But high productivity admins are necessarily dedicated workaholics. They don't always make the intelligent choice to step away until they get a little too stressed out and snap at someone. The solution to this isn't the guillotine, it's to tell them that they have to take a break. If they repeat the same cycle of behaviour, then maybe you escalate, but I don't see that with BHG's case. Kudpung has always been a bit curmudgeonly, but I've always been able to forgive that given his insane contributions to the project (He is BY FAR a WP:NETPOSITIVE). Importantly, there were no tool abuses so what does taking the tools away solve? A solution IMO here is a temporary block, with no removal of tools; after all, if the conduct is the problem, not tool abuse, then a break is a solution, and tool removal does nothing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Thryduulf: I believe they should be as polite, what I think is less practical is the sense in ADMINACCT that admins should be even more perfect. Yes, there are incredible admins who "tick all the boxes" are being both wonderful examples/ambassadors for WP and very productive. However, there are also many admins who are less perfect on the politeness scale, but whose dedication and productivity is even greater.

WP is a very surreal environment – what company could record everything an employee ever said, and that could be resurrected at a review of conduct?

The functioning of Wikipedia relies on a core of very high-productivity admins (I think we all understand this). My point is that these types of admins sometime shows behavior that looks like battle-fatigue, which they cannot self-diagnose or get any perspective on (per battle-fatigue). We need some tools where ArbCom, can give these admin "involuntary leave" for a period (say 1 month from the site), for ADMINACCT violations. If they return and re-violate in a probationary period (say 12 months), then perhaps a deysop. Things like this can have powerful effects on changing behaviors, but in a way that causes less long-term damage to the person, and also to the project (given the usefulness of the person).

We are throwing away some of our most valuable admins for specific ADMINACCT violations that represented a small fraction of their career – and we show no sign of replacing them. It does not seem like a smart policy to me? Britishfinance (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• The title of this section is something that nobody could reasonably disagree with, but the fact is that recent actions by Arbcom have had sufficient cause and the admins in question have been given far more than a second chance. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Goodbyeeeee to those who don't use the tools properly or frequently enough. Simple. If they need them again, ask. If they feel that the removal is too much to suffer, they aren't fit to be admins. Ciao. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• I wouldn't put it quite as bluntly as The Rambling Man, above, but I do agree with Phil Bridger and also with Thryduulf for saying that "admins should be held to a higher standard than non-administrators not lower". Pretty soon Wikipedia will turn 21, so ought then to be mature enough to go and buy alcohol in the US. With that maturity comes responsibility, and I think it's somewhat refreshing to perceive a shift in attitudes and a growing intolerance of poor standards or poor behaviour from administrators and non-administrators, no matter how good or prolonged their work has been elsewhere. Society doesn't like to see lawmen getting good results at the expense of the community they serve by 'beating up the wrong guy'. Yet it seems it needed the WMF to step in and rattle our cages enough so as to knock some sense into us all for not acting on poor behaviour, and not tolerating incivility to others, or admins failing to understand our own basic policies. The Wikipedia Project is far bigger than any one of us, yet it is all our responsibilities as admins and non-admins to act reasonably and fairly, in whatever capacity we do it. And if our administrators are not seen to be acting as exemplars by the time we come of age, then Wikipedia is going to be thought of as being run by big kids for a very long time to come. And that would be appalling for one of the world's greatest internet projects. Longterm extremely productive administrators should most certainly not be desysopped without sufficient cause or given a second chance, but I, for one, think it's a good thing that current and future administrators now know precisely what may happen if they do not meet the higher standards the broader community rightly should expect of them. And it's also good that this message is coming from our own ArbCom, and not some distant staff member at the Wikimedia Foundation. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If any desysopped administrator wishes to regain their tools, then they should attempt to do so. What's done, is done. If ya wanna be an administrator 'again'? then go for it. This ain't the real world, so you can't suffer any injury. Be bold or be old, 'tis your choice. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have any particular objection to the resultant desysops of RHaworth and Kudpung, but I wonder if these resolutions were affected by the reaction of much of the community to the Portals case. Whether you agree or disagree with the desysop, the handling of evidence and creation of Findings of "Fact" was horribly botched, which is the main reason why there were so many objections to the result; my suspicion is that at leastsome Arbs may have thought "we've got to desysop these two now as well, or the optics are going to be horrible". Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've seen this accusation multiple times in multiple places, but I've yet to see a shred of evidence for it. I understand that some people are very upset that BHG was desyopped for engaging in conduct grossly unbecoming of an administrator (and while it was largely confined to one topic area, bullying and harassment sustained over a period of many months is neither "isolated" nor excusable based on conduct elsewhere), but I really don't understand why that translates to a belief that the subsequent two administrators who's actions were even clearer breaches of ADMINCOND and extended over much longer time periods were somehow treated harshly for political reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • And thereby lies the issue; there are clearly a significant number of people who don't actually agree that there was "bullying and harassment sustained over a period of many months" - it's one opinion amongst many. Whereas there can be little doubt that, for example, RHaworth was misusing the deletion tool. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Count me among those who don't agree that there was "bullying and harassment sustained over a period of many months". Shouting at someone isn't bullying or harassment, and describing mere shouting in those terms robs these two words of their meaning. I have to say, too, that I'm getting just slightly annoyed at the smug and triumphalist, almost grave-dancing, tone of comments like the one you replied to. Reyk _YO! 14:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

        The title of this thread says "... administrators should not be desysopped without sufficient cause... ", so it's a bit rich to accuse people of grave dancing, simply for giving their opinion that there actually was sufficient cause in all three of the recent cases cited. And responding to the points made by those who say there wasn't any poor behaviour exhibited. Believe it or not, most of us are not happy that BHG was desysopped and greatly regret the circumstances that led to it, as well as hoping she will be resysopped in the future. That doesn't mean that what happened shouldn't have happened though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

        • Statements like I understand that some people are very upset that BHG was desyopped for engaging in conduct grossly unbecoming of an administrator, which take for granted the very thing that's being disputed, do strike me as unnecessarily smug and gloaty. It's hard not to see the undercurrent of glee there. Reyk _YO! 14:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

          • As someone who was on the receiving end of a very small portion of what BHG was dishing out I am very much not "smug" or "gloaty" that BHG was desysopped - rather I'm relieved. The findings of fact, as adjudged by the trusted and uninvolved users who we elected to adjudicate in such matters are that BHG engaged in conduct unbecomming for an admin and that very much matches my first hand experience of the situation. I didn't want her desysopped - I wanted her to exhibit enough self awareness to acknolwedge that she was actively driving editors away from the topic area and the encyclopaedia, to recognise that this was unacceptable and demonstrate a change in behaviour. The first tiny spark of that came not after the first warning, nor after the 5th warning, nor after the first case request or the several subsequent AN(I) threads where many colleagues cautioned her. It took until the writing was very nearly on the wall at the end of a prolonged arbcom case, and even that didn't really get to the heart of the matter and it didn't last very long. I'm sorry but if you don't see that an admin being so blind towards the effects of their behaviour is incompatible with adminship then you are part of the problem not part of the solution. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
            • ArbCom deciding that things are "Findings of Facts" doesn't make them facts, and in this case - in my opinion - more than one of them simply isn't. Count me in as part of the problem (thanks for that little PA against a large number of editors, by the way). Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) @Thryduulf: if you look back to the RHaworth PD as it stood at the close-of-play on 28 January, there were 2 votes opposing desysop and none in favour.[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Proposed_decision#RHaworth_desysopped] Several users expressed surprise at the PD talk page, about the apparent leniency being shown to RHaworth at the time in comparison to BHG, and subsequent votes (including the switching of one Arb vote from oppose to support) then heavily favoured the desysop option. Whether the other Arbs would have also opposed RH's desysop without the talk page comments we don't know, but there is certainly a suggestion, if not hard evidence, that the fact that BHG was seemingly headed for a desysop may have changed the direction of RH's case.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Yet if you look at the comments from the arbs who voted in favour of a desysop you'll see that they all relate to the actions of RHaworth, not to political considerations. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• In my view, if there was any "cruelty" involved, it lies at the feet of those, including other administrators, who did not stop the conduct in issue before it got to arbitration. About different views on administrator conduct, we have an Arbitration Committee to deal with different views of an administrator's conduct. Rehashing the various views on these cases is prolonging the beating or worse. Again, if anyone has a policy proposal, take it to the correct location. If anyone wants someone to have administrator permissions, take that to the correct location. If anyone wants to be an arbitrator, take that to the correct location. None of those locations is here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  That's true. I think everyone's made their point, and this thread isn't going to change anything one way or the other - more formal discussions are needed for policy changes or resysops. Can we hat the thread and move on?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'll second the motion to close. All in favor signify by ignoring this thread and moving on to other things... --Jayron32 17:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christopher Langan

• Christopher Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should community sanctions be imposed for this topic? It is covered by this Arbcom case but I don't think there are any discretionary sanctions. Sanctions might be premature but I do not see why established editors should have to waste time handling the several SPAs.

The article is mentioned in this BLPN report. The reporter is DrL who wrote "I am the wife of the subject of this bio" and "My husband kicked him [a named editor] out of our Facebook group 2 years ago and he has been hounding Chris ever since. He has set up Facebook and Patreon groups, using our brand, to mock him and divert our potential members". The original post has been partially redacted to remove what might have been outing. DrL has not been permitted to edit the article since Arbcom 2006.

Prior to 23 February 2020, the last edit at Talk:Christopher Langan was in October 2019. In the last five days, several SPAs have dominated Talk:Christopher Langan and made numerous edits to the article. The SPAs include 90.219.111.127 + 213.129.69.67 + 221.124.51.249 and the following users.

User	Created	EditCount
DrL (talk · contribs)	2005-12-15	1057
EarlWhitehall (talk · contribs)	2020-02-23	146
Johnnyyiu (talk · contribs)	2014-10-14	44
Mich.Szczesny (talk · contribs)	2020-02-09	10
Nigerian chess player (talk · contribs)	2020-02-23	27
ZenMechanics (talk · contribs)	2020-02-23	10

Questions

1. Should the article, its talk page, and all discussions regarding the topic be subject to community sanctions?
2. Should the editors named in the above table be restricted so they are unable to edit the article but can only comment constructively on the talk page?

Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1 + 2 as proposer. It is unacceptable that Wikipedia be used to continue an off-wiki battle between the subject and his detractors regardless of the WP:FRINGE nature of some content. It is also unacceptable that neutral editors should be tied up with SPAs on a mission that has obviously been coordinated off-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: This article is already covered under BLP discretionary sanctions, and arguably pseudoscience as well. I would suggest the strategy here is to alert the above-mentioned editors, and issue a page ban or partial block for anyone adding poorly-sourced content or other BLP violations. This can be done by any uninvolved administrator. – bradv🍁 06:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  I've just gone ahead and issued them all DS alerts for the BLP topic area. – bradv🍁 06:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I can't speak for the other individuals on your list, but I am certainly not part of any coordinated effort to attack Langan. DrL, who claims to be the wife of Langan and has been blocked from editing Langan's page in the past, has accused me of having a personal vendetta against him, despite the fact that I have never met or conversed with him.

Anyhow, I have no further plans to edit the page. Most of my edits have been to correct grammatical errors, with the only original contribution being to mention Ben Goertzel's criticisms of the CTMU. I hope my edits have been constructive. Thanks. EarlWhitehall (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth doing an SPI? I considered opening one myself yesterday but decided to wait a bit longer and see if anyone had any further thoughts. (I raised the issue at BLPN.) While these are probably just meatpuppets, it seems to me socking is easily possible. @EarlWhitehall: frankly your response raises significantly more concerns than it resolves. It's simply not plausible that you, who have never edited any other article before, would just happen to show up at the same time as a bunch of other editors to edit this obscure article, and only this article. The fact you would say such a thing suggests to me you shouldn't be editing anything related point blank. Not even talk pages. It's one thing to come here in response to some off-wiki discussion. It's quite another to claim it didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone with more experience will need to double check, but 213.129.69.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should probably be blocked as a webhost or colocation service, or maybe proxy. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Where did I say that there was no off-Wiki discussion, or that I don't know any of the other editors? I didn't say either of those things, did I? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that there is no "coordinated effort to attack Langan". That is a true statement. EarlWhitehall (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@EarlWhitehall: I don't really give a damn about dumb semantics. You're just re-enforcing my view that you have no business being anywhere near the article. If you were honest from the beginning rather than playing around with dumb semantics, maybe I would have come to the view that you were here to create an encyclopaedia. When you play around with dumb semantics, you just prove my point you're not. Also, please learn to WP:Indent your posts. P.S. In case it escaped you attention, I purposely worded my initial response carefully since I recognised perhaps you were playing around with dumb semantics. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I am not playing any semantic games. I literally did not say the thing that you are accusing me of saying, so please calm down.

Oh, and I prefer to indent my posts so that they are level with the person I am responding to. But if that's an issue for you, then I can do it your way instead. I don't want to make you any angrier. EarlWhitehall (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I just recognise you're clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia by your decision to be intentionally misleading in how you arrived at the article. You therefore have no business being anywhere near this WP:BLP. And it's not my way. It's the communities way. Please read the page I linked for you. There is a reason why I linked it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Maybe you should just ask me why I came here. Doesn't that make more sense than inventing wild conspiracy theories? I mean, most of the people on that list above were opposing my suggested edits, so how in the world am I coordinating an attack against Langan with them? I came here with "Nigerian chess player" to correct some misleading information on Langan's page, and there was absolutely no malicious intent. EarlWhitehall (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

OMG. Community sanctions are mostly for topics like political controversies where lots of editors are battling, while I doubt many actually separate people are messing with the Langan article. So community sanctions don't seem warranted. But yes, please do very thorough sock checks. The history of this topic area is completely crazy. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2 but I'm going further in supporting a full topic ban for all except for Dr L who has at least honestly declared their connection for EarlWhitehall. EarlWhitehall's responses have convinced me the others have no business being here. I'm not opposed to 1 but for the reasons outlined by BradV, I'm not sure if it's worth adding community sanctions for this area. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Could you try not to let your emotions cloud your judgement? I understand that I have annoyed you somehow, but I don't think you should use that as an excuse to argue for my being blocked from editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlWhitehall (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the way they had behaved on the talk page, I expected that we were mostly dealing with socks or editors of the same ilk. But this wasn't a fair judgment so I apologise for tainting the others with EarlWhitehall. I also withdrawn my support for a topic ban except for EarlWhitehall, who's behaviour since then has proven even further that they have no business being on that BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Please have mercy on me. I want to make up for my past mistakes, and become a respected Wikipedia contributor. I believe in second chances – don't you? EarlWhitehall (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

• Christopher Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is placed under indefinite Pending Changes.
• The following are topic-blocked from the article but allowed to edit Talk:

DrL (talk · contribs)

EarlWhitehall (talk · contribs)

Johnnyyiu (talk · contribs)

Mich.Szczesny (talk · contribs)

Nigerian chess player (talk · contribs)

ZenMechanics (talk · contribs)

• Disruptive use of Talk will lead to topic bans or sitewide blocks.

I think that covers it.

• Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 12:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) EarlWhitehall (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support Personal attack right above validates that at least one and likely all at here from an off-wiki area to cause disruption.(should I have removed that immediately as rpa?, Or better for an admin on this board to do so?) Slywriter (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Slywriter: I already took care of it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked EarlWhitehall for 48 hours for some of their posts (now removed) in this thread. Bishonen | tålk 12:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC).

Earlwhitehall , that was inappropriate no matter how understandable your frustration is. Nigerian Chess player — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigerian chess player (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support both pending changes and the proposed bans from directly editing the page. I'd be curious where this offwiki coordination is happening. As an aside, I'm surprised those sudden PAs from EarlWhitehall, and subsequent disruption on their talk page, only earned them a 48 hour block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Adding a note that it might be worth considering interaction bans for some of the parties. There is some conversation happening over at User talk:DrL which looks like one of the SPAs and DrL antagonizing each other: [10] GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @GW I do apologize for outing the SPA but note that I used his first name after he used mine and only I was redacted and banned. Still, it won't happen again. ~ DrL (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Appreciate the reassurance it won't happen again. As for your first name, I'm not sure that can be considered outing, given you have self-identified as Langan's wife, and your name is included in the biography. But I'm not stepping in on administrative matters here, since I've been editing the article, so if you feel someone needs to be sanctioned for it I'd recommend asking an uninvolved admin, who can make that call instead of me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support both, and I BOLDly went ahead and submitted the RfPP - regardless of any restrictions placed on the editors in question, the BLP issues need to stop right now. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Without taking a position on this request, I have acted on the RFPP and applied semi-protection for one week. Even with pending changes protection, any BLP violations will remain in the edit history which is less than desirable. To the extent that there is imminent and ongoing disruption that needs stopped, semi-protection is a better course than PC protection. In the long run PC protection may be better, and so this discussion is still important to determine a long term solution. One thing to note while this discussion continues is that some of the accounts involved appear to be autoconfirmed or soon to be autoconfirmed, and should semi-protection not resolve the imminent BLP concerns, any administrator may (and perhaps should) raise the protection to extended confirmed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support this proposal. I think the additions/suggestions of the SPAs did lead to some useful content that GorillaWarfare was able to include so working with the SPAs on the talk page does not seem useless at this point. Looking at those personal attacks and behavior afterward by EarlWhitehall I also wonder why that was not a longer or indef block. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support and I'm happy to withdraw my original request for community sanctions if this can be implemented. It might be worth considering what should occur if any new accounts pop up. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support I respectfully request that this BLP be protected under Wikipedia Pending Changes. It's been established that numerous SPA with a prior history with Mr. Langan have been attacking his bio for the past week. In matters concerning BLPs, Wikipedia Policy is to err on the side of caution. It would make sense to further protect the article until things settle down (and before certain users bans expire). Thanks in advance for your consideration. ~ DrL (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Addendum - I respectfully request that the article be rolled back to last October the last edit before the trolls came in last week and discuss the editing from there. There is a lot of defamation in the article because of the lack of NPOV. Again this errs on the side of caution when dealing with a BLP.~ DrL (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I spent a decent amount of time a few days ago ensuring claims in the article were properly sourced, and removing unsourced material. I think we should discuss the article starting from how it exists now, rather than restore some uncited claims (which we would be doing if we rolled back to October) and removing other, cited information. If you have specific concerns I'd love to hear them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Support maintaining GorillaWarfare's version. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
        • My particular concern is the baffler material. I do not know what Justin Ward's credentials are (I can find nothing notable) or what his beef is with Chris but he has taken material out of context and offered a minority opinion regarding Mr. Langan's viewpoint. Kindly remove the paragraph which relies solely on Ward's opinions rather than Langan's words. I can show you were it goes wrong, replacing fact with simple opinion and selective editing. I respectfully request that this paragraph be removed and discussed pending community input. The paragraph is causing great harm to Mr. Langan's reputation and we are accruing unjustified damages and losses because of it. Per WP:BLP a conservative approach must be taken with regards to BLPs. This obvious hit piece, written by a nonnotable individual with a clear agenda is unduly weighted in this short bio. It would be consistent with stated policy to therefore remove the paragraph until it can be properly vetted and, at minimum, accompanied by properly balanced material. ~ DrL (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
          • I suggest you take this to the talk page, since this isn't the place for content disputes. I don't see why you would need a roll back to October to deal with a single sentence anyway. (AFAICT, there are only 2 sentences sources to the Baffler/Chris Ward in the current version. One is on the CTMU, so maybe his expertise matters. The other is simply a comment on the views being racist and antisemetic so requires no significant expertise.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I'll note that that section is based on two sources, not one: the Baffler article and an article in The Forward. Both seem to meet the requirements at WP:NEWSORG, and a search for both at WP:RSN turns up no concerns (the opposite for The Forward, which has been confirmed there as a reliable source; The Baffler does not appear to have been discussed at RSN before). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support although I still believe as articulated above that EarlWhitehall has no business anywhere near that article including the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per GW. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support: GW sums it up nicely, and I also echo the sentiments regarding EarlWhitehall's behavior, 48 hours was a shockingly short period of time for the level of personal attacks delivered. The fact that they continued after the block, and that they were attempting to pass them off as humour is very concerning to me. My advice is to keep them on a short leash and have absolute zero tolerance for any further such behavior. Waggie (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment there is one advantage with the earlier proposal which make it my first choice even if it seems dead in the water. While specific discretionary sanctions may seem an extreme measure and there are discretionary sanctions which cover the article, banning the specific set of editors above from the article doesn't help if others show up. And it seems User:MakeAWay, who while not an SPA at this time, is recently created and has started to edit the article. Then there's User:Hamster.flying who's edit was innocuous, but given the recent account creation also raises eyebrows. It's probably too late for an alternative proposal or to return to the original proposal so we'll have to handle any new comers via other means. Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. In line with earlier efforts, I gave a BLP DS alert to MakeAWay. However although I know it's just an alert and not a warning, I felt I couldn't justify giving one to Hamster.flying from that edit. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

I have indefinitely blocked EarlWhitehall (talk · contribs) for trolling even while this report is being considered (WP:NOTHERE). See diffs at User talk:EarlWhitehall#Blocked. Specifically, given there is an off-wiki battle that is being imported here, these comments are unacceptable trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DrL (talk · contribs) for outing other editors, for the second time in less than a week. I'm starting to get the feeling this isn't about writing an encyclopedia anymore. – bradv🍁 13:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Standard offer request by User:Krish!

Moved from WP:ANI § User:Krish! requesting Standard Offer consideration

--qedk (t 桜 c) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Krish! is requesting unblock consideration per the Standard Offer. Their unblock request can be found at User talk:Krish!#Standard offer appeal. A while back, Krish! was part of a nucleus of strong editors of Indian entertainment content. That population has dwindled a bit in recent years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ROPE. Their request seems sincere, and checks all of the standard unblock boxes. I have no problem letting them back into the fold. --Jayron32 16:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support as above. Seems they have matured since the block. Lets give them the chance to show they've changed. Many of their edits were very good and useful and if they have indeed matured then they'll be an asset to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 16:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Berean Hunter: any comments? And since this is a CU-block, {{Checkuser needed}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter and I are consulting and may not have a response until tomorrow as it's already getting late.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• No apparent socking seen and no objections on our end.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support, notwithstanding the need for a CU-check, all the usual boxes seem ticked - they seem calm and there's nothing problematic in their request. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per Nosebagbear, having read the appeal at the user page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as long as a CU check comes back to say there has been no more socking. WP:ROPE. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• As CUs have come back to say there has been no more socking, my support is unconditional. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Since Berean has no objections, and since Krish! has done a great, thoughtful job of acknowledging past problems and providing an assertion that the future will be better, I would like to welcome Krish! back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support-- Now that the sock check has come back negative, I have no problems supporting this very excellent unblock request. Reyk _YO! 05:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - okay this seems clear, who should do the actual lifting? Canterbury Tail talk 13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Note -- There is an ANI thread about Krish here (link to the most recent edit to the thread at time of writing for archival purposes.)LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

MFD to be aware of

Please come participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Recent. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Addition of plot summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was conditionally unblocked with the agreement, "No addition of any plot summaries anywhere in Wikipedia". Can this be amended to restricting me from adding plot summaries from existing sources, and not those that I write on my own? Galobtter, is this the right place to to appeal my unblock restrictions? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: block discussion. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A plot summary that you write on your own would effectively be original research. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Black Kite's reasoning is spot on (though I know it looks like no-one else seems to follow that rule). You are in the right place, but since it can't be amended as you request, anything else would seem contingent on you progressing the CCI. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd mentally interpreted this as writing it from their general knowledge of the plot, rather than drawing it directly (though paraphrased) from the book/film what have you. That doesn't make any sense, so I'll leave it to those with a better awareness of the field and are, clearly, more awake. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT might be of use to editors who don't work on film articles on WP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

For some background, Kailash29792 was blocked for inserting copyright violations into movie plots by MER-C, and a cci was opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kailash29792. Significant work hasn’t really started on it, since the three editors in the area (me, MER-C, and Wizardman) have been preoccupied with other stuff (Wizardman is fighting the 2010 ccis, Mer c is doing culling runs, and I’m trying to cut the drb cci down). I’ll need to read this over later, I’m currently not able to use my computer (I typed this all on my phone!) Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It most definitely is not OR to write a plot summary. Instead, it is using a primary source to relate factual information. The ability of editors to write plot summaries is reflected in our manual of style in at least three spots: WP:FILMPLOT, WP:NOVELPLOT, WP:TVPLOT. Plot summaries should not contain analysis - for that we would need a secondary source but instead be a summary of the content of the source (book/film/TV show/etc). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Barkeep49. Summarising the content of a source is what we do on Wikipedia. In this case the source is the film, book or whatever, which is certainly a reliable source for what happens in it. Do not interpret, just describe in a way that anyone watching or reading would find accurate. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If we write a plot summary of a film/book/whatever using the film/book/whatever as a source, we're writing a secondary source based on a primary source. What we should be doing is writing a tertiary source based on secondary sources – i.e., a summary of plot summaries. If no secondary sources (other plot summaries) are available, then we could write a secondary-source plot summary based directly off the primary-source plot, but that should be the exception rather than the rule. I also wonder, if there are no secondary source plot summaries available, then is the film/book/whatever really notable enough to merit inclusion, is it DUE to include a plot summary at all, if no other secondary sources are including a plot summary? This is one of the problems with having a stand-alone page for every episode or every season of every TV show. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The guidance in WP:FILMPLOT specifically states that it is OK to describe a film or novel plot using the film or novel as a primary source. As it happens, I agree with this, and that following the recommendations does not constitute OR. Whether the topic is notable is a separate issue, and I am assuming that we are discussing a topic for which notability has already been established.
I don't see how we would be writing a secondary source. From our point of view, we would be writing the product. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY does not say not to use primary sources. It says to use primary sources with care. It can be easy when using any primary source to slip intinterpretationon and that is true for plot summaries. The substance of a fictional work should come from secondary sources to tell us about things like themes or background information or the aforementioned analysis of the plot/characters. That should be the heart of an article on fictional works but need not be the heart, according to either guidelines or practice, of plot sections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose While this discussion of plot policy is interesting, the issue here is Kailashes de facto topic ban. It's been not even 3 months since the ban was implemented, and I see no good reason to loosen it at this time. I'd say, give it another 3-6 months and try again. On an additional note, I think the distinction of plot summaries paraphrased vs. Self written is unenforceable, thus this appeal has little actual utility. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the editing restriction at this time. Kailash29792 accepted this specific editing restriction on January 20, only six weeks ago, as a condition of being unblocked. The restriction was imposed after years of warnings about copyright violations. I need to understand why this editor felt that it was OK to ignore all of those warnings until January 2020. I think that this editor should wait until at least six months have gone by without any policy problems before asking for the restriction to be lifted, and should stay away from plot summaries until then. The more general discussion above about our established practices regarding plot summaries may well be interesting, but is off-topic in this specific discussion of one editor's restrictions. Perhaps the Village Pump is a better place for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Okay, please close this discussion as this has become a Bambi Meets Godzilla (not David and Goliath) situation, where I am Bambi. Is re-appealing this summer (the June-July range) acceptable? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'd wait till September to be safe. Surely there's other parts of Wikipedia you can edit while waiting, just don't run in to the same problem again in other areas. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accidentally blocked myself from using iabot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone unblock my access to iabot (profile)? It's essential for my CCI work- I accidentaly blocked myself and it seems like I am unable to unblock myself 😅 Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 21:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I got it; try now— Diannaa (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji, Everything looks OK to me now. Try again? SQL^{Query me!} 23:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

SQL Diannaa, all set now, thanks. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UAA backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello all, it looks like there is a backlog over at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Some requests have been there since yesterday morning. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

how to prevent an editor from repeatedly disrupting / deleting the content from the wikipedia article Kaniyar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

kindly guide me how to prevent an editor deepeshd ,who repeatedly deleting the content from the wikipedia article Kaniyar despite giving enough suggestions warning against his actions he deletes certain statements in the content of the article without any authentic source of reference to support his/her claim. Ritesmart 18:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Ritesmart 18:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritesmart (talk • contribs)

Ritesmart You asked about this at the Teahouse, please only seek assistance in one location. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone take a look at AfD, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all, there is a minor backlog at AfD, there are number of straight forward deletes that would need to be actioned that have been left open past the 7 day (advised) deadline. There are also a couple of trivial AfDs that may benefit imput from someone a little more experienced than me. Thanks. Nightfury 11:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I closed a couple and !voted on one I wasn't comfortable closing. There are still several in the queue. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I did some more earlier and now - it's down to 5, some of which I've voted on so can't consider further close-wise Nosebagbear (talk)

 Done All closed now. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Love Trip

Love Trip has been tagged for speedy deletion per G6 (housekeeping) for two days and has somehow gone unnoticed. Is there another severe CSD backlog or am I just having bad luck on this front? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I declined at this time, due to the presence of Love Trip / Shiawase o Wakenasai. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: That's a WP:PTM though. It doesn't have the exact name "Love Trip". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and the title there seems to have been LOVE TRIP, anyway. Ok, I'll move it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There is some kind of bug that exists that prevents pages tagged as uncontroversial deletions from appearing in that category. When I've posted about it on the technical Village Pump, I'm referred to previous complaints about this. It's a low priority fix. There are several other less urgent CSD tags, like G8s, that this happens with, too. I've come across old, maintenance categories that were tagged months previous by a bot for deletion but because they don't show up in the deletion category, they are only spotted should someone come across them. It's irritating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I counted 16 unanswered requests. An advance thank you to any admins who help out with the backlog. Clovermoss (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There was just a post about this yesterday. A new post every day regarding the backlog status is probably too often. SQL^{Query me!} 17:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@SQL: I post here when I notice it because RFPP doesn't get added to the administrative backlog by bot. For previous requests of mine alone there's [11], [12], [13], [14]. Clovermoss (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason I'm pointing this out is because from my own experience, the backlog either gets attention after posting here or it takes awhile. This could be a sign that maybe there isn't enough active administrators when there's RFPP backlogs, or not enough active administrators in general to prevent frequent backlogs. Clovermoss (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That used to be my regular admin haunt. I'm out of touch with the projectspace these days but I'll go and have a look! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done There's still a few requests, but the backlog for the most part has been dealt with. Thanks MelanieN, Ymblanter, HJ Mitchell and El C. Clovermoss (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Just based on my experience with RFPP: It's probably not worth sending out an alarm unless there are either 30+ unanswered requests, or multiple requests unanswered for 12 hours or longer. 16 requests is not unusual and doesn't usually last very long - or if it stays at 16, it's because the older ones being dealt with are balanced out by the new requests being added. There are enough of us who make the rounds there with some regularity that backlogs usually get dealt with in a reasonably timely manner. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Alright, thanks for the input. I'll follow the 30+ requests suggestion before posting here about a backlog in the future. Clovermoss (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Everything above is valid, but I'd just note that early this morning we had 50 and so it's been beaten down pretty hard Nosebagbear (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

And I see that you did a good deal of the beating. Thanks for that. It does pile up quickly. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-constructive IP editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please take a look at the contributions of brand new IP editor 2001:8004:14A0:159C:98F3:436A:87A6:F3DD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who turned up only an an hour ago, and seems to not be contributing to a better encyclopedia. The contributions have all been around the Talk page of the article 2019–20 Australian bushfire season and related user talk pages. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This should have been taken to WP:AIV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting it here is fine as well. MarnetteD|Talk 10:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It didn't start out as obvious vandalism, just rude and obnoxious comments on talk pages. At least a number of non-involved people know about it now. Can this troublemaker be stopped please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Troll summeries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was wondering if it's possible for an admin to strike the link to my user space on [15] and [16] as I find that rather annoying, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 14:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arabic culture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, in the section of Arabic culture Template many Islamic categories are written Arabic (like Islamic philosophy to Arabic philosophy), I wanted them to be cleansed because of the achievement of other Muslim people like Persians, Turks, and Berber, Ascribed to the Arabs. But a user won't let me do that and even threatened to block me from Wikipedia. So I am requesting to edit this Wikipedia Impartially, thanks. I don't want that user to be suspended, I just want justice to be done so sorry I won't name him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Arabic_cultureRedEye98 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

RedEye98 If you discuss another user here, you are required to notify them of the existence of this discussion. This board is not for resolving content disputes, please try talk page discussion and dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I have went to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests Thank you. RedEye98 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFPP backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello all, looks like there is a backlog over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Almost 50 requests with many from yesterday. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Still over forty, help needed--Ymblanter (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I just took down a bunch myself. Getting better but not cleared yet. --Jayron32 17:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Monthly edits and page views at RFPP have declined slightly over the last year, while the backlogs have increased. – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article Physical (Dua Lipa song) should be deleted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I don't find any results for the article Physical (Dua Lipa song) on English Wikipedia when trying to search for it on Google, I also tried to search for "physical dua lipa song" on Google. Still no results. I also tried the quotation mark method, the "allintitle" method and the "site:en.wikipedia.org" method. No results. Absolutely NO results! Which means that this article failed to gain popularity outside Wikipedia. I therefore wants this article to be deleted. Please discuss the deletion here. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inter-Allied Women's Conference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The TFA on the front page today seems to have attracted a lot of vandalism. It was up for more than an hour without a lede section. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected by Materialscientist--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

15 year old copyvio that's basically never been noticed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not quite sure what to do here. Zane Shawnee Caverns is completely uncited. A large body of the text is near identical to this, and I'm pretty sure it's all a copyvio, as it's first incarnation at inception here is pretty much a C&P from the other website. Do I tag it as a copvvio? Uncited? I mean, it's basically a 15 year old copyvio that hasn't changed substantially since it creation. And has never been cited. Heiro 22:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That website is dated 2010 (five years after the WP article); is there any evidence that we copied from them rather than them from us? ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't notice their website was circa 2010. When googling I couldn't really find anything about the place other than travel websites and other user generated content sites. Pretty much the only thing that popped up with any content was their website and us. So even if they copied us, we still have no citations to add to our article to fix it. As I said, I'm unsure how to proceed. Heiro 23:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If you compare the first revision with the closest revision to 2010,[17], against the other site, I think it's fairly obvious it was copied from us and not the other way around. We have a template for that, {{backwardscopy}}. It remains uncited of course, so continuing to look for citations would seem appropriate. There's some stuff on Google Books; I can't vouch for its quality. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added several sources to the article. So that side of things is better. Silverseren^C 20:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extensive censorship of articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please note this article even an illiterate person understands that it is important. But some really play the role of censorship.Bahman Castel. I really object, please consider. Goodarz Irani (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template replacement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{Attempting_wikibreak}} is being merged into {{Wikibreak}}, but is used on User talk:W. Frank, which is protected.

To simplify and expedite that process, please can someone replace, on that page:

{{Attempting_wikibreak|[[User:W. Frank|W. Frank]]| on the day justice and common sense prevails|I}}

with:

{{Wikibreak|[[User:W. Frank|W. Frank]]|type=attempting|back=on the day justice and common sense prevails}}

Alternatively, as the user is blocked and the content may be deemed disruptive, not to say false, simply delete the former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure review request

The RfC close is endorsed.

Cunard (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to file a formal request to review the closure of this RfC in relation to the Ronan Farrow article to determine whether said closure accurately sums up the discussion as having generated no consensus.

My reasoning for the request is that the RfC's proposer–Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs)–asked the closer–Sjones23 (talk · contribs)–to revise their closing statement. I, on the other hand, believe that the original closing statement remains a more appropriate summary of the discussion. I have since reached out to the closer, but no change has been made.

It would be wonderful if we could get an administrator's perspective on this. Thank you in advance! KyleJoan^talk 13:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan managed to Wikilawyer from beginning to end hopelessly bogging down constructive dialogue. Now that the closure didn’t bludgeon their viewpoint further they seek justice of some sort. Meanwhile the article is left inaccurate and guarded by their reticence to allow others to make substantial changes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan The close is correct as is. There's no consensus to include the bit about Ronan Farrow's sexuality, just on a vote count alone, however, most , if not all of the media is either op - ed or fails our check for reliable sources or is considered an unreliable source. Drop the stick ! Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, @Wekeepwhatwekill: do you believe there's a consensus not to include the bit about Farrow's sexuality? Aside from that, I also would like to highlight how an editor stated that the portion of the proposed content that's not already an article is an unambiguous BLP violation and cannot be included regardless of consensus here. Does that statement not warrant emphasis in the close? KyleJoan^talk 14:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

When a consensus fails to form to approve an addition, then it is assumed that there is a consensus for the old version without that info. The close is fine as is. Accept it, move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can some help me to deal with IP users in the article about 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea? I'm having hard times to handle these IP users unconstructive edits. It would be very grateful if somebody helps me to deal with this issue. Thanks. Jeff6045 (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to functionary team

After a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Someguy1221 (talk · contribs) are restored.

In addition, NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) has voluntarily relinquished the CheckUser permission. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks NativeForeigner for his long service as a CheckUser and functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to functionary team

Request for closure review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings, your most illustrious and industrious adminships! Per WP:CLOSE I'm requesting a review of the closure at Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting#Add names of victims who died, by User:Sjones23.

The original close was this. For all one could tell from that statement, the closer counted !votes. This was clearly an inadequate close per the instructions at WP:CLOSE – the discussion waited in the WP:ANRFC request queue for 68 days precisely because we wanted to avoid merely counting !votes. So I approached the closer on their UTP, here (permalink). The closer then modified the close statement to this.

The closure is still inadequate as a description of the consensus, if any exists. Moreover, WP:CENSOR has nothing to do with this type of issue, and the Oppose arguments were not that the names are "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍". This suggests that the closer lacks the necessary experience to properly close this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - As a side note, I've been here for over 13 years and a well-experienced user with over 87,000 edits to the project. I only came to the discussion because I was cleaning out the WP:ANRFC backlog. However, if the close was a mistake on my part, I'll probably have to revise my closing statement if it's absolutely necessary. Any ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Victims lists — the gift that keeps on giving! El_C 21:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sjones23 has revised the close again, here, again showing lack of policy knowledge. WP:N has nothing to do with this, and one need only read its nutshell to know that. "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." The issue is not whether anything should have its own article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• While I've been here for over 13 years and have a ton of experience as a member of the Wikipedia community (including WP:ANRFC), my closure on that discussion might have caused a bit of confusion amongst other users; as such, I've reopened the discussion for now. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Another thing - what on earth was going on with people adding massive victim's awards and images to the page - that's just nonsense [18]. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we know. It was an editor with zero experience who was ex-military and was here to honor the victims. We're long past that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• I have re-listed the discussion at ANRFC and am withdrawing this request for review. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jingiby

I would like to report User:Jingiby and his reverts of my sourced edits on pages. The most recent case and the one I would like to bring to your attention is the one taking place on the page Bulgarian Folk Songs. Namely, this user removed my entire contribution to this page just because it doesn't seem to be in accordance with his views (or his country's views). That can be seen on his arguments on the talk page: "Studies in North Macedonia are far from neutrality... Moreover especially this book is a subject of different attempts of falsifications, mystifications and political manipulations in North Macedonia". All of the sources I added are Macedonian books by prominent/university authors and professors who write reliable information and present a view that cannot be neglected and that will contribute to the neutrality of the article. As it is, the site currently only presents one side of the story. This user furthermore, adds information that does not even mention the book and belongs elsewhere - that can be seen in the super lengthy excerpts from the books he inserts in the reference list which usually talk about the perception of Macedonian history and nationality and NOT EVEN ONCE mention the book in question. He also adds many sources that do not belong to the article (example "The Brothers called Macedonia Western Bulgaria, because they disliked the first name as too Hellenic term" for which he uses 6 sources to support the claim; this type of information unnecessarily clutters the article and does not belong). I would really appreciate it if some user takes a look at this dispute, as this user and other random users constantly revert my edits of reliably added cited content (example: this user (which might also just be another account User:Jingiby uses. His only contributions are reverts of my edits on disputes with User:Jingiby). And I also want to point out that similar biased articles that purposefully omit the Macedonian view on the topic are also heavily edited and constantly supervised by this user. DD1997DD (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 stock market crash article mergers

Morning, I'd like an independent admin to have a look at the merge discussion at Talk:2020_stock_market_crash#Merging_Black_Monday_(2020)_and_Black_Thursday_(2020)_into_2020_stock_market_crash. It was snow closed as merge yesterday, by Benica11 but then the merge of Black Thursday was later unilaterally undone by Feoffer and the Black Monday article later unmerged by Locke Cole, who initially undid the action, but then redid it again after seeing the Black Thursday revert. All the above was done in good faith, there's nothing untoward in those actions, but as an involved participant I think the original close should have stood. The consensus is almost unanimous at the merge discussion, and there seems little point dragging it out when these are high visibility articles right now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The original close should have stood. There are procedures in place to challenge it. This was not the right way to go about it. El_C 08:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Two merge proposals mere days apart with SNOW closes (one keep, one merge) I think is what might have lead to this. At least that was the concern for me. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

+1. Please do revert this. We do seem to have a problem with new(ish) editors moving the busy coronavirus-related articles around in a disruptive way (e.g. Misinformation related to the 2019–2020 novel coronavirus outbreak). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My concern was that we'd just had another merge discussion a couple of days prior that was a SNOW keep, so I felt editors involved in that discussion should at least be given a chance to see the new proposal. Once I saw the other page had been restored, I reopened the discussion. I have no objection to it being closed again after a short time (24 hours from when it was reopened?). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: thanks for that link... it looks like that was a merge proposal between the Black Monday article and Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which I think was correct to reject, because the stock market crash is notable in itself. That discussion was held when "Black Monday" was the only thing that had happened though. The new proposal was between the three articles that all cover the stock crash itself, and is practically unanimous, so I do'nt think the snow close was wrong. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it was premature as it hadn't even been open for 24 hours IIRC. Other than that, I actually agree with the merge, but I've given my concerns in the discussion there. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

unblock appeal by Leaseworld

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Leaseworld has attempted to appeal the username block I placed on him, but he didn't get the formatting right, and it won't appear on the noticeboard. I have to go offline in about minus 1 minute, so if someone would have a go at it I'd be grateful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

On it. creffett (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Done! creffett (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User reverting edits

Hello, I'm writing with regards to edits on the page Ashokan (film director). Another user Bvatsal61 is persistently reverting edits made to the page without any explanation on the basis of promotional spam. He has done so multiple times despite attempts by me and other users to undo his reverts. I do not wish to engage in an edit war with him but this seems to be looming ahead. The information provided on the page may seem uncited but this level of citation is fairly normal within the domain that the subject mentioned in the page exists in ie film directors. References for this person's work exist in the rolling credits of a film. Because many of these films have release dates preceding the advent of the internet, it is hard to provide URL links. As a point of comparison, please find a similar director page Thaha that shares a similar amount of citation but is up and running well with no allegations of promotional spam whatsoever. I will appreciate if you could partially block the user Bvatsal61 from accessing this particular page and making any further changes on this page. Otherwise I would sincerely appreciate your advice on what the best form of resolution would be. Thanks very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmbuff91 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

No, we're not going to block Bvatsal61 for correctly enforcing Wikipedia's policies and reverting the three different accounts (including you) that have tried to add this so far. Biographies on Wikipedia are supposed to be neutral summaries of the person's life, not advertorial. ‑ Iridescent 02:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry but I beg to differ. I don't see how the content posted is in anyway advertorial. It is simply a list of films which this individual has worked for as an Associate Director. This is factually correct information and not advertorial, which is why I consider BVatsal's actions unnecessary. Or perhaps I might not be understanding how Wikipedia defines advertorial and I request some advice from you on the same. As I mentioned, a similar director's page has an exact same table of information. So I do believe allowing one wikipedia page to have such a table and disallowing another on the terms that it is advertorial might be a bit of a double standard. If anything, I've gone in and deleted the picture and the two quotes which are the only information I can conceive of as fitting the definition of advertorial. I would appreciate any input. Thanks very much. Filmbuff91 (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:PROMO, WP:FLOWERY and WP:BLP. "He mastered", "renowned", "garnered instant success and recognition" are things you should see. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I get the impression that some people are so accustomed to reading promotional writing that they can't see the difference between it and neutral content. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Filmbuff91, I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Phil Bridger about the promotional nature of these edits. I also want to point out that the two quotations that praise this director are unreferenced. This is a violation of policy. All direct quotations must be referenced per our core content policy Verifiability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Filmbuff91: Do you know whether Bvatsal61 has seen this discussion? Removing the notification you left them yourself is a bit strange, and could risk them not seeing the section unless you already know they did... (If your intention was to retract your comment in this section here, you could strike it and add a note to that effect at the end of this section.) If you know that Bvatsal61 already saw this section, though, feel free to disregard this comment, and sorry for the bother. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Goldenshimmer: Sorry I have never ever posted anything on the administrator noticeboard before so when I saw the response and realised that I was in the wrong I immediately removed the post here. Thanks so much for informing me. I must admit I was mainly put off by Bvatsal's persistence to a point where it almost felt targeted. He didn't seem to policing any other pages from the topic to a similar extent or frequency, in which case I might have thought that it was purely from an editorial point of view. Although I only recently made this account, I myself have contributed a fair bit on wikipedia mostly on film pages and I am totally ok with being corrected or edited. I began to become of the impression that he had something against me or against the director involved. In response to the discussion above, thank you all very much for all the information and clarification on what constitutes promotional content. As Phil Bridger mentioned, it is true that I'm extremely confused with what constitutes promotion and what doesn't. I copied and pasted the information from an old website that belonged to the director that me and some other film lovers archived. I now understand that it is the language that is extremely problematic and truly appreciate the clarification.

May I take this opportunity to clarify though, what exactly might be advertorial about putting up a table of films that this director has worked as an associate director in? As far as the Indian film industry is concerned, many directors earn their reputation and skillset through the films they are part of as associate directors as this involves working under another prominent film maker. It is an important aspect when writing about an individual's contributions to world cinema as a film maker. I was reading the information section for creative professionals and it says that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." So I had assumed that the table would be significant as it definitionally constitutes co-creating. Perhaps it is partly a regional/cultural difference but in the Indian industry, associate directors contribute a fair bit to the film too and functions in the same way that academics provide bibliography of projects they did not have first authorship for. I noticed that this is common amongst many of the film director Wikipages in the category of Malayalam film directors so with regards to this aspect alone, putting all of the other advertorial content aside because I understand where I went wrong with that, would this table also be wrong? Filmbuff91 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert in either films or how the contents of lists are chosen, but here's my understanding in a nutshell: If independent reliable sources (see WP:RS for what would qualify) have written multiple times in depth specifically about the article subject's work as associate director (not just, for instance, writing about the film combined with a mention of the person's role as associate director), that might be a sign that it's worth including a filmography as associate director (I'd suggest opening a discussion on the article talk page with links to those sources to see if others agree, to be on the safe side). Otherwise, it might be attributing it more significance than it has relative to the other information about the article subject. Here are some links that discuss this a bit: WP:TOOMUCH and to some extent WP:DUE (talks about what is due weight in the context of ideas, but the premise is essentially the same). P.S.: If you have further questions about policies and such, you might find the Wikipedia:Teahouse helpful. I hope that helps! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 07:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Major American universities

Multiple IPs and accounts have been making COVID-19-related, now online changes to major American universities. This seems to be a concerted effort, though I've not researched to find its source. Anyway, please keep an eye by adding major American universities to your watchlist. El_C 16:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's not the list that's being edited, apparently. Are there any particular pages experiencing problems, or can you show some example diffs? There could be something we can do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I reverted this last night at Bucknell University: [19]. The problem has continued: [20] and (more obnoxiously verbosely) [21]. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Iowa State University; poor ElKevbo has been battling off vindictive Cyclones all morning. This was the sixth introduction of "online": [22]. And in the two minutes since I Ctrl-Ced that diff and typed this up, there has been another one. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's a pretty broad range of IPs doing the vandalism. Maybe an edit filter can help? (@MusikAnimal: if you're ... online ... ) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should assume that this is a concerted effort. Tens of thousands of students just had their school arrangements disrupted. Most of them are spending more time online than usual. Of course a handful of them are going to make a (poor) "joke edit" to Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it's a concerted effort or sockpuppetry or anything like that. It's just the students on each campus reacting to their change in circumstances. I've protected ten such articles in the past hour or so. If I see the change to "online" has been done and reverted twice, that's enough for me: bang, semiprotection, 2 weeks. The secret for how I was able to find so many that needed protection: I found a few by other means, then I just followed User:ElKevbo around! What an outstanding job he has been doing putting out fires all day! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, there are so many of these (I've now protected more than 20, and I am not the only one doing it) - different people all doing the exact same thing, changing the description of the school to "online" - that maybe there is some suggestion out there, some prompt on social media, "hey, let's do this". Somewhere far beyond my ability to search it out. Anyone want to see if they can find out where this is coming from? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: This Reddit post caught my eye earlier just before I reverted Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and I'd imagine the same can be said for most of these other universities, but I don't know for sure. Just college students pretending to be clever. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, OhKayeSierra! Yes, I had suspected this is being spread by sites like Reddit as well as others I've never heard of. That's one reason why I am protecting for two weeks instead of a shorter period; with this kind of egging-each-other-on, I don't think it will die out in a day or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania is getting hammered and WP:RFPP hasn't gotten there yet, if anyone is able to do the honors. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for pulling together on this. I have not noticed any repetition of these disruptive edits today, so I can cautiously say that it looks like we're good, for now. El_C 15:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, I reverted on a BLP today.[23] Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yale University several times now. Meters (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I semi-protected Yale University for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Still a bit of a trickle today — I just semiprotected Princeton University‎ for 2 weeks, for example. But I think we got it under control, for the most part. El_C 06:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Not totally. I protected five more this morning. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And one more. BTW I have noticed that several of these edits adding "online" mention Zoom in some way. Example:[24] Does that ring any bells with anyone? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw something on Twitter about this as well. I believe it is just a trend that will die off soon. I've created Special:AbuseFilter/1046, log-only for now. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

El C, MelanieN and others: I get the hunch some of these are good-faith, such as Special:AbuseLog/26253240. Should we show a custom message, something like Educational institutions should not be changed as being "online" institutions solely because they are offering online courses due to the coronavirus pandemic? For now I've got the filter in warn-only. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, thanks for your help and input on this. They may be good faith on the part of the poster, but they are still incorrect and should not be allowed. These are not "online universities", they are major universities that are temporarily operating over only the internet. Some posters may be doing it innocently, but I think most of them are inspired by something they've seen on Zoom. Latest example: [25] And no, I would not put up a warning not to do it, per WP:BEANS. Just remove it without comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Spectrum NACs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § I submit my conduct to the community for review, advice, and correction

 – –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 has expressed concerns on my talk page that I have conducted bad closures. I believe these concerns are expressed in good-faith, and concede the possibility I may have goofed. I attempted to discuss with them to see how I could address the concerns, however apparently I came across the wrong way and they do not wish to discuss with me further hence I submit my actions to the community for review, and censure as needed. I didn't do this earlier because I thought maybe I was just tired, and too in the moment to understand the concerns, but reading now hours later I'm still uncertain if I'm understanding correctly, I think in part we were just talking past each other. It's also possible I'm just dense today.

The conduct specifically singled out for censure is this apparently poorly thought out diff. However now rereading it seems the concern was with all of my closures.

These are the informal discussions I have closed that are now archived (1 2 3 4 5 6). They still look sound to me, but apparently my judgement is in question at this point. If the community deems them improper I would ask for a 24 hour grace period to self-revert as a courtesy.

I also earlier closed a formal discussion here. I know that per WP:NACIP this is strictly speaking not allowed I guess my though process was that if a rule prevents me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, I should ignore it. Didn't seem at the time like there was any reason to leave the work for someone else, and it still looks like a good close to me.

Finally I also closed a separate informal discussion that is not yet archived above. Given the greater urgency for non-archived threads I have no objection if it is immediately reverted for being a bad close, @ToBeFree: given your involvement there, you more than anyone have a right to object to any problems with it.

Concern was also raised with problems with civility, wikilawyering and blockable offenses in these two discussions (1 2). I guess I should have been a bit less aggressive, in hind sight telling an experienced user where to find TFD is located can be seen as condescending, but that wasn't my intent. Likewise no one likes to be reverted I could have phrased my reverts in a less condescending way perhaps, but I believe my actions in reverting were fully within policy, and mild as those things go. I have no objection to other users presenting further evidence of any misconduct so long as it only addresses my actions and not those of anyone else, I am willing to be held accountable for all of my decisions. If my actions were improper or I otherwise failed to meet the high standards expected of any editor whether an IP or registered I will willingly accept any sanction the community deems appropriate. If any deeper examination of my conduct is desired all of the recent edits from this IP are mine 9 MAR+.

Finally, If any I have offended I am sorry, cut me some slack I'm human, I make the occasional mistake, please continue to engage with me even when I'm difficult, it's the only way anyone can really learn, thank you. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I’m typically very pro-IP editing, but I’m skeptical from a purely pragmatic standpoint on closures. You’re a spectrum IPv6, which means you’ll be the same /64 for the next decade or so as Spectrum from legacy Time Warner Cable is probably the most static ISP in the US. That makes it easy for people who get IPv6 to track and hold accountable, but more difficult for people who don’t understand that you can just type /64 into a contributions page to see all the contribs. This functionally amounts to unintentional evasion of scrutiny, which in anything admin-esque (which I’d lump closes with) easy and clear accountability is key. From a pragmatic standpoint, I advise against IPs closing things, even if minor. Even though there’s a fair amount of stickiness, even at this individual IPv6 address beyond the /64, the long nature of the v6 makes it difficult for people to associate with an individual, and also contributes to this. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, also, accounts are free, conceal your IP address and thus geolocation information, and provide a completely stable venue for interaction. So... well... just register one. Guy (help!) 14:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Haven't looked at the closures yet but I recommend you move this discussion to WP:AN. That seems like a more suitable forum to get constructive feedback than ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Agree with Liz. This is a matter better suited for WP:AN. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, I just decided to just do it myself. @Liz, Johnuniq, TonyBallioni, Bbb23, and ToBeFree: Sorry for the inconvenience. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Perfectly fine decision, thanks. Currently busy reading the walls of text :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm also happy to positvely interact with IPs and have spent considerable time working in cooperation with some IPs. However, my monitoring of some error tracking categories shows that lots of IPs are a menace in that they corrupt good information and it's only when they make a mistake with certain templates that I notice and revert. We all see lots of bad IP edits and there is no way for the OP's IP to be labeled as an exception. Actually, there is a way—register an account. It's only obstinancy that prevents that and IPs should not close discussions because it wastes time when other editors need to investigate what's going on and decide whether the IP close should be reverted or changed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• "I know that per WP:NACIP this is strictly speaking not allowed I guess my though process was that if a rule prevents me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, I should ignore it." That may appears to be how IAR is meant to be used on the surface but certainly not in its spirit. By its nature, IAR is meant for exceptional cases and meant to be invoked rarely. Someone may have edited for several years and never had cause to invoke IAR and that's fine. But if you feel you need to invoke IAR not once, not twice but repeatedly and against "a strong, near--unanimous consensus", a warning and an advice, then that's definitely not fine and something is wrong somewhere.
  Thryduulf? once put it brilliantly on what might be wrong in such situations. He said something like (not exactly, but quite close); "If you find yourself frequently or regularly in need of invoking IAR to break a rule; then either of two things must be involved: Either the rule you're breaking does not make sense and so should be changed (since the need to override it via IAR is repeatedly coming up), or you're well wrong and you should stop hiding behind IAR to do that thing" [in this case against the clear consensus linked above]. So it can be seen clearly what's wrong here. In your case, you'll need to invoke IAR 20 times so as to close 20 discussions; you'll need to disregard a clear consensus everytime so as to close any discussion; that's clearly not how IAR is meant to be. Had it been so then there'd be no need for any rule since we can just disregard them all the time continuously.
  As far as as I know, that consensus has never been challenged nor superseded, so it still stands. If you disagree with it (as it seems), you can start a new discussion to overturn it, or even more simply follow this advice or heed the earlier warning, but you can't just continue to disregard it and claim you're always invoking IAR. Reliance on invoking IAR to do things against consensus (especially in an indefinite fashion like you want to) is clearly against WP:CON policy and certainly not proper use of IAR but something else, not sure what to call it. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That quote of mine (now an essay at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is for uncommon situations) was written in the context of speedy deletions, but it certainly seems applicable here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'm very strongly against IP editors closing discussions, as a simple matter of accountability. Yes, IP editors are welcome editors and I have no problem with WP:ANYONECANEDIT, but the problem particularly with closing discussions is it is basically impossible to communicate with editors on dynamic IPv4s (e.g. 123.45.67.89), and technically impossible to communicate at all with editors on IPv6 /64 ranges (e.g. the OP here). Therefore, should one seek to clarify or challenge an IP's close, you cannot contact the closer. You can leave a message on a talk page for an IPv4 and hope that the closer is still assigned to that IP when they log in next (possible, but you can't know), and if the closer is an IPv6, IP ranges don't have talk pages at all. The ISP here seems to be an exception, but in most cases one editor will appear to jump around to multiple discrete addresses within the /64 range, sometimes from one edit to the next, because that's how IPv6 is commonly implemented. But again, you can't know. I didn't review the closes here in much detail, it's the accountability piece that bothers me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• It sounds like the easy solution would be for the IP user to register an account. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D, is there a reason you haven't done that yet? -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Excepting the two most obvious reasons in the world for anyone not doing anything, viz, not having to and not wanting to. ——SN54129 15:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. My buddy Spectrum here is a classic case of a well meaning and established IP user. If they want someone willing to co-sign their NACs to continue being able to do them, I'd be more than happy to offer myself for the task. I am fully aware of that would mean I "own" the close, but I am equally sure that Spectrum would allow me to amend it as necessary in any case. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that IPs should not be closing discussions. The first sentence of WP:NAC says, according to Wikipedia policy and convention any registered editor in good standing may close a discussion. As I understand the setup here, you have a long-term static IPv6/64, but the bottom 64 bits are dynamic. So, there's no reliable way to contact you, which means there's no way to discuss your close, as you're required to do per WP:ADMINACCT. I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but this is a case where the good of the project needs to outweigh your desire to perform NACs. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• On the broad question of IP editing, I am of TB's mind. However, on the specific matter of closing, no, they should not be doing so and we should not be proxying—even if we think we know the individual on the other end of the ethernet cable. ——SN54129 16:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Some of these closures are really just housekeeping, e.g. here a page was nominated for deletion and an admin speedily deleted it without closing the deletion discussion. I don't have a problem with IPs closing that kind of thing which will never be controversial but in general it isn't a good idea for IPs to be closing discussions. IAR is designed to allow rules to be short circuited in exceptional cases where there's a good reason, it certainly isn't intended to be used routinely. To be honest if you want to have a substantial editing career here then you ought to sign up for an account. Hut 8.5 19:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• First of all, thank you very much for the feedback request. I wasn't aware of WP:NACIP and the RFC leading to it, but I can understand the reasons for it, as also explained in more detail by TonyBallioni above. This feedback request – for all the closures so far, but not necessarily for the future – alleviates the main concern, a lack of scrutiny. A thread at WP:AN is pretty much a textbook example of "scrutiny", and there is no reason to believe that the result of this discussion would remain unread or ignored.

  Regarding IncidentArchive1031#AIV_backlogged_again, which I have been pinged about: I was very happily surprised to see that fine closure. No comment on other closures. With a heavy heart, I agree with Ammarpad and Thryduulf about the scope of WP:IAR.

  Best regards and thanks for asking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no intention of creating an account now or ever, I'm philosophically opposed to the idea. The internet should be free and open for anyone to use without registering for anything period. All edits should stand or fall on their own merits and not those of the people behind them. I appreciate the very kind offer above to co-sign my closes, however a key intent in making those closes was to reduce workload for others, if someone is required to cosign that defeats the purpose, I except only existing closes where adding a co-signature would be less work then having me revert it and someone else close. Finally, any long-term plans about what to do in the future are likely moot as this place probably won't be available for anyone to do any editing in a fairly short amount of time. I'm not sure if I will continue to edit on the English wikipedia from elsewhere, as I'm still undecided if I have really done any good in the long-view. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Also it is not just the /64 that is static, as with many hardwired configurations this IP itself is very static, it has held for months as far as I know it will only change if someone pulls out the ethernet cable for a few minutes, or the power goes out. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You used 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk · contribs · count) but haven't since December 2019. You must've pulled out the cable. You shouldn't do anything you're "philosophically opposed" to. any long-term plans about what to do in the future are likely moot as this place probably won't be available for anyone to do any editing in a fairly short amount of time What "place", and why?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to make things easy discussion continued here. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

All edits should stand or fall on their own merits

I'm afraid reality doesn't work that way, as individual behavior is part of the merits behind an edit. Hence WP:COI, WP:PAID, and other issues we've run into repeatedly over the years. It also becomes impossible to have a collegial atmosphere when one cannot identify if the person they're communicating with is the same person they were communicating with yesterday. User accounts aren't perfect, but they're the best compromise for an environment like this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to make things easy discussion continued here. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Technical comment - the thing that's causing the last 64 bits of your IP to change is either IPv6 privacy extensions or your OS's MAC randomizer (and is presumably set to only change the MAC/IP when making a "new" connection). creffett (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I will reply to the above on your talk pages because I don't want to seem to derail the thread with off-topic stuff, however no objection if content is moved back here. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D 20:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding, All edits should stand or fall on their own merits, it's not so much that we want to judge the quality of an action based on the reputation of the performer, it's that we need to be able to contact the performer, possibly a significant amount of time later. For example, earlier today I was queried about an action I had performed over a year ago. This is quite common, and an important part of how the project runs. Having stable account names makes that possible. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to make things easy discussion continued here. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, again so things don't go too off-topic, however no objection if content is moved back here. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You asked if IPs should be closing discussions. Numerous people have told you the same thing: No, they shouldn't. You've continued to push back on this. Please just accept the answer that you've been given, and it's getting close to the point where it's disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: That's not the intent of my replies on anyone's talk page. If that had been the intent I would have responded here as on topic instead. That might partially be due to confusion about threading the way I read this the comments above my initial reply are directly addressing the concern, while those below are touching upon more tangential issues. Of course, if you don't want to engage in any such off-topic discussion I do not object if you archive, blank, or otherwise indicate the discussion is over. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also so there's no confusion, I knew what the outcome of this discussion would be before it started [26], which is why I have not offered up much of a direct defense, however I am interested in higher level discussions about the extent to which a persons motives matter in assessing arguments, or if it is possible to build a wiki with limited means of communicating with people across time. And for the record my initial assessments are "very little" and "yes", but who knows my mind may be changed. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Since
  a) The original question has been answered (multiple times);
  b) The asker has acknowledged that, anyway, they knew what the answer would be before they asked it,
  c) This is not the place for a philosophical disquisition upon the meta-nature of crowdfunded knowledge bases,
  Perhaps this thread can be closed. I'd suggest that all interested parties migrate to the IP's talk page, where the discussion can be continued. (Well, that is until either someone pulls the router plug again, or the hostel gets turned into Caesars Palace.) ——SN54129 15:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

No objection, I do ask the closer consider the offer to co-sign the existing closes above, but I am still willing to revert en masse if that is asked of me. I won't be closing anything again unless the rules change, I will also add this to our notes, for all they are worth at this point anyway, thank you. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HELP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please someone protect Daniele Rugani - vandalism by the second - can't wait at RFPP. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access" set for one week. --Yamla (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continue rollback reverting from user Lugnuts :(

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As at the article Nicola Mayr. I think that the user have some problems to behave properly. --Kasper2006 (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Kasper2006, Lugnuts is correct in this situation. You are taking information A (Nicola Mayr lives in Tyrol) and Information B (Tyrol speaks German) and making C, Nicola Mayr speaks German. This is not explicitly stated in the source you provided therefore is WP:SYNTH. This is a BLP so we tread carefully here. spryde | talk 13:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Point—Lugnuts wasn't actually using the rolback tool to revert, so I've edited the title to avoid any confusion. ——SN54129 13:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. At 12:44 I commented on this CfD. An hour later, Kasper is logging this here. Ten minutes before my CfD reply, I dropped this friendly note on Kasper's talkpage. He later replied on my talkpage saying it doesn't need a source as it's a fact. The bigger (BLP) issue is regarding the articles that Kasper is adding to the sub-cats of Category:Germanophone Italian sportspeople without any sourcing. I don't mind you bringing my block-log up, providing it has some relevance and context. I believe my last block was two years ago, and since then I've been block and ANI free. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, it doesn't need a source as it's a fact. Let's push back hard against this mistaken assertion.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per the above, saying people speak German withiur2 a source saying so is a BLP violation, and Kasper should desist from doing that or they risk being blocked. The fact that someone was born somewhere, or lives there, does not prove that they speak the language of that locality.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• I apologize to Lugnuts for my mistake, I was misinterpreted I just wanted to say that in South Tyrol German is the first language and this is precisely in the special statute of the Italian Region. However for my inclusions in the various categories of Germanophone sportspeople I was misled by the fact that the Category:Germanophone Italian people has existed, and is populated, since 2011. At this point, this should also be deleted. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kasper2006, Lugnuts: this convinces me Nicola Mayr speaks German, though it doesn't say so explicitly. 2601:648:8202:96B0:54D9:2ABB:1EDB:CEE3 (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I moved Azade Shahmiri to User:Fatemeh Naghshvarian/Azade Shahmiri because it was a copy-pasted move from Azadeh Shahmiri and I thought I would be able to move Azadeh Shahmiri (note the extra "h") over the newly created redirect. Turns out I can't.

Azade Shahmiri is (by far) the most common spelling and also the spelling used on her LinkedIn. - Alexis Jazz 12:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blanking of opposing views on the COVID19 outbreak in South Korea. NPOV violation.

A group of editors is completely blanking the viewpoint that the South Korean president and his government mishandled the outbreak. Reliable sources were cited, but they blank it out nonetheless.[27][28] Koraskadi (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, which aren't settled on this page. You need to follow the dispute resolution process, particularly discussing the change on the article talk page with other people. These edits were reverted because they were felt to constitute original research, I have no idea whether that's correct but in principle it's a legitimate concern - Wikipedia shouldn't contain original research, even if sourced. Hut 8.5 07:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the concerns raised with the content, there is also the issue of Koraskadi reverting five times in under 24 hours despite a warning, for which the user is now blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: This is a content dispute between pro-Moon Jae-in editors who owned the article and an anti-Moon editor who challenged awkwardly. All the additions Koraskadi made are described in the Korean article. Koraskadi have initiated a discussion today. I think your second block is a bit harsh.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism users block request

They are the same users who did vandalism. I attached the evidences. Thank you so much.

• Бмхүн (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 47.244.55.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidences = [29], [30], [31] --175.223.37.88 (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, i moved it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--175.223.37.88 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

IP; you do realise this is English Wiki? we cant deal with any matters from other Wikis, including Korean Wikipedia. Nightfury 09:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Test and revdel

Can you please protect my userpage (semi) for about 30 minutes? Thanks. (For testing purposes)

Besides, I would like for the users 2600:1003:B117:3265:471F:98E1:7998:AE62, 2600:1003:B101:F1E1:54AA:7C56:FA6F:3408, 2600:1003:B112:6924:6FB6:4406:F7E1:C67A, 2600:1003:b116:1548:2827:564e:791e:268, 2600:1003:B12F:413B:639:8DD2:9DE4:60D6' edits to be revision-deleted. They were grossly insulting. Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 07:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, The Lord of Math, I've protected your userpage as requested. If the protection expires before you log in, feel free to re-request for a longer period of time. I cannot do anything to edits by those IP addresses, since they've never edited your userpage; aside from edits you've made, the only edits in your userpage's history have been when two people moved the page and when I semiprotected it. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated template on protected user page

User:Ckatz is not currently active. Their user page - which is protected - transcludes {{busy2}}, which is being deleted in favour of {{busy}}.

Please therefore edit that page, to replace:

{{busy2|I'll check in when I can, but please understand that circumstances may create a significant delay between when you post and when I am able to respond. Thank you for your patience and understanding.|align=center|color scheme= blue}}

with:

{{busy|message=This user is busy in [[real life]] and may not respond swiftly to queries. If you have an urgent matter, it may be best to [[Special:EmailUser/Ckatz|use email]]. I'll check in when I can, but please understand that circumstances may create a significant delay between when you post and when I am able to respond. Thank you for your patience and understanding.|image=Crystal Clear app xclock.svg}}

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the original just be substituted/preserved on their page? I am not sure I would suddenly want people encouraged to email me if I didn't include it in the original message I left on my page.Slywriter (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Slywriter, check the user page in question. The text "This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. If you have an urgent matter, it may be best to..." is part of the boilerplate in {{busy2}}, but not {{busy}}, so it must, in fact, be added manually to preserve the original message. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 17:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

See it now. Didn't realize already customized to include email language. Objection withdrawn.Slywriter (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this, I've just noticed the issue and I appreciate you having fixed it. Cheers. Ckatz^talk 01:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Backlog of requests

Hello. I would like to report a backlog of requests on AfC participants talk which has been existing for 5 days now. I hope someone will clear the backlog there. Thank you! -- JavaHurricane 05:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's normal, as I'm usually able to get to them about once a week. I will be clearing the list either today or tomorrow. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac, what JavaHurricane really means is please hurry up and get to me because I'm second on the list I somewhat disingenuously just asked about. Although if the criteria were changed to Must have 500 non-automated edits, they'd never get it (94%, anyone?!) Happy days. ——SN54129 13:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, not really. I was concerned about the backlog as I thought that the list was checked every day. @Primefac:, thanks for your help! JavaHurricane 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Some weeks it is checked that often, but I had a competition, two days of conferences, and three different tests to grade this week, so it's been put a little on the back burner. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Range block request

We seem to be dealing with an IP-hopping vandal, see [32] and Special:Contributions/2600:1008:B04B:4A75:D875:E4CD:A0D6:F9B7. I need to step away from my computer for a bit right now so I can't investigate much further, but it would be great if an admin comfortable with range blocks could look into this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Those IP addressed can not be contained by a single range block. However, it would be better to have just blocked the WP:/64 here, rather than having to make two separate blocks. ST47 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

ST47, noted, thanks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

note re new community items info posted

Hi. A few individuals have been helping to expand Wikipedia:Community portal, to expand its usefulness as a central place for listing current editing activities, including WikiProject efforts, editing drives, edit-a-thons, etc etc. we added a new section there for listing current editing group activities and events.

I am writing this note simply to let the community know. I also posted a note at Wikipedia: Village pump (idea lab). Any of you are welcome to visit the page, add any comment, and of course to add any items or information on any community activities, editing projects, or other events that you may be a part of. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Be careful, that you're not overdoing it. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

that's a valid point. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• How is this different than all of the other notice boards like VP? AN? etc...Praxidicae (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at RfA

There's some pretty blatant socking going on at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There were about 30 unblocked accounts confirmed to them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Seems odd for someone to go to all that effort and then blow their cover by socking so blatantly that they had zero chance of getting away with it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

IMO, RfA should always be semi-protected. Unconfirmed editors should not be allowed to vote there because most of the time they lack experience.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I think that User:Gotitbro might be the sock master since the confirmed sock Grittrue seems to have been created to back Gotitbro up in an edit war on the emerging power article. I suggest a check user is performed on that account, assuming proxy IPs are not being utilised. Also the usernames look ”similarish”.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That was just one sock puppet out of dozens. I wouldn't put so much emphasis on that one sock. Most throwaway sock puppet accounts are designed to be caught and be a waste of our time. To waste even more time, they also frequently try to set up innocent users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so Gotitbro is innocent then. I withdraw my concern then, thank you for explaining Ninja.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on RFA Socking

I can think of two possible reasons for sockpuppetry at an RFA. The first would be opposition to the candidate, probably for revenge, in which case the sockpuppeteer would want the sockpuppetry to go unnoticed, and so corrupt the vote. The second would be trolling or a general effort to cause dissension and conflict. In that case, the sockpuppetry probably is more effective if it is seen for what it is. Actually, a third would be to support the candidate surreptitiously, but I don't think that it is likely, because I wouldn't expect trolls or long-term abusers to support a trusted editor. It looks in this case like the second, a general effort to cause conflict. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Concur with the second possibility, obvious sock votes => votes struck => looks like supporters are engaging in sockpuppetry. Basically a joe job. Unless they want us to think that it's a joe job, and it really is sockpuppetry by supporters and is intentionally clumsy to lead us to the conclusion that it's a joe job...we can go down this rabbit hole all day. Reminds me of a quote from a Star Wars novel, something like "either he was innocent and being made to look guilty, or he was guilty and was making himself look innocent by appearing to be poorly framed". ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, that hurt my brain. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, he can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line! creffett (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I've commented at RFA a few times. There's no need to semiprotect anything unless there is ongoing vandalism. I dunno if those sock accounts were autoconfirmed, but requiring them to be wouldn't have been that much an obstacle to the socket. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:A096:24F4:F986:C62A (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

North East Delhi riots

This is a heads up and request for more eyes on this article North East Delhi riots and the talk page.

The talk page is currently protected. (I confess when I first glanced at the talk page I was slightly surprised to see the protection, but take a glance at Archive 2 and you will see why.) The protection is scheduled to end tomorrow.

I handled roughly 20 reports to OTRS complaining about this article — I don't know how many were handled by other agents, but almost all of them have been advised to open a discussion on the talk page so there may be a flurry of activity tomorrow when the talk page protection expires. My hope is that with enough eyes on the page, we can handle the contributions rather than having to extend protection.

This article undoubtedly contributes to the issue. (link to a blacklist site has been removed here Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC))

See also:

• User_talk:El_C#North_East_Delhi_riots
• ANI thread

--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• On a lighter note, though, may I introduce User:DBigXRay, or, as he is now known from that article, a senior Wikipedia editor that hoes by the username DBigXray. Does he indeed!  ;) ——SN54129 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• But yeah, that talk page is going to light up like July the 4th tomorrow. All hands to the pump. ——SN54129 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Also articles in Jihad Watch and OpIndia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129, That is a mirror (Redacted) site which (As Gråbergs Gråa Sång rightly puts), is an Indian version of InfoWars). Not sure if it was a typo or deliberate, either way it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

---

1RR has been added to the article. Three users blocked. As mentioned, talk page protected for one day — hopefully, my pointers are adhered to, because a repeat of today's insanity will not be sustainable — and if repeated, I lean toward protecting the talk page for a week or so next, as much as it pains me to do so. El_C 19:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

El_C, looking at the page history POV redaction using multiple reverts in violation of 1RR have already been done. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please submit a report at AE or AN3 for 1RR enforcement, with all the documentation attached. El_C 20:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Takijeg398 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin hide the threats from this user on my talk. Apparently I am going to be hunted down, very soon. If so, I want the community to know that it was a pleasure being here. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Also I believe he is a sock of User:Biman1989 (blocked by Bbb23) as the language is same as its socks and harassment emails I have been getting lately. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Requesting my userpage and user talk be semi protected to discourage further socking. I have already disabled Emails. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, much appreciated. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

---

• 2 hours back, a Twitter handle with 262K followers has asked people to storm this article. [33] --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  DBigXray, I'm not sure whether it's that or the other biased articles that have been written, but I just handled 29 inquiries at OTRS on this subject in the last hour. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Well, not to jingse it, but we have managed to stay the course today, with the article talk page remaining open — I'd (cautiously) call that a success. El_C 01:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In a brilliant analysis of the riots in The Atlantic an acclaimed author Mira Kamdar writes:

The message from the BJP is clear: Elect whomever you like. We are still in power. Call the police; they work for us. Appeal to the courts; we’ll neutralize any judges who don’t toe our line. Continue to dissent, and we will set the mob on you.

That, in effect, is what is being on this page. The "mob" has been set on us, the standard modus vivendi of the Indian right wing. Wugapodes has now semi-ed the talk page for three days. I suspect it will need to be long term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that 3 editors seem to have been outed over this issue, DBigXray having retired. There's been an attempt to out a third but so far unsuccessful. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to do something, such as an editnotice, to remind people editing such topics that Wikipedia is public and we can't control what people do outside of it. I think a lot of people don't realize it can be easier than they think for people to figure out their identity, and when there's a serious potential for some people to be subject to real-world harm, we should make sure editors are aware of that. (Note that "harm" is broader than just physical harm: job loss, damage to personal relationships, etc.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Administrators and civility

A couple of things I found recently. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with them, and found them equally positive and inspiring:

• Jimbo's comments about editors,
• Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet

I've been keeping them in my mind, and thinking that it really is something incredibly positive that we are doing here, and yes, there are a few rough patches we can work on.

We rely on admins to mop up the spills and it can be a pretty bloody thankless task, so let me say thank you for your efforts. God knows that I prefer being able to run away and do something else when things get too hot, but you folk have to put on your admin boots and wade in. Thanks.

Speaking of hot, I'm sure everybody has been aware of the bushfires in Australia. There's a regular article we put out, for example 2016–17 Australian bushfire season, because of course we have most of our bushfires in the Southern Hemisphere summer which spans two years. We've been doing this for years, and it's usually a pretty uncontroversial thing.

Not this year. There have been all sorts of political aspects, and supporters of various political positions have been having a go at our article, not wanting to talk about the fires so much as make sure that they get their particular views into Wikipedia and that makes it official.

Sigh.

It's turned into a bit of a hotbed, and it's just massive compared to previous years: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season

I've tried to stay out of all that, but I got pulled in when I saw some edit-warring over something really stupid. (Story of my life, I guess.) The end date of the bushfire season. In previous years, we've gone along with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and they have a graphic showing the season in various regions, and it starts in winter (June-August) in the northern parts where the summers are really wet, and ends in spring (March-May) in Tasmania. So the Australian bushfire season really goes all year round from June of one year to May of the next.

I didn't know this at first, and the question in this year's article was that if all the summer bushfires were out, then perhaps the season was over? One guy said March was the end of the season because all of the bushfires were out, and another said the end of the season was ongoing because there might be more. This sounded like he had a handy view into the future to me, and I got sucked in over the philosophical implications.

Anyways, it got pretty heated there, with edit-warring and some trolling and a personal attack or two.

I was proposing an RfC on the season end date, going by the advice of Cas Liber who had waded into the flames and told us to stop throwing rocks at each other. I didn't see that this particular comment was anything but personal, so I looked up WP:RPA, removed it and left the suggested template.

The other guy complained to Admin Cas, who presumably sighed, grabbed his fire extinguisher, and jumped in once more. No criticism of Cas Liber, but I'd put in a comment about my philosophy on Wikipedia:

God forbid that any article should be seen as the personal preserve of a clique who launch personal attacks and edit-war over trivia. Let us set aside ego and attachment, and calmly accept that wikiprocedure will guide us through any difficulty.

and Cas removed it, saying that if I could remove someone else's personal attack, then he could remove my comments, which were not actually directed at anybody in particular, and are sentiments I hold pretty close to my heart and consider could usefully be employed by more people, not just in Wikipedia, but in wider life.

I think that civility piece, that minimum standard, is incredibly important, what I want us to do is to raise the level in the entire community, to raise the spirit of what we're doing, and I think that thinking about love, is the right way to do that. - Jimbo

Again, not a breath of criticism toward Cas, but where does the community of admins stand on the matter of humble editors pushing the line of civility and tolerance so eloquently expressed by Jimbo?

Is it really the place of admins to remove comments which while not strictly dealing with the business of the article, are aimed at promoting cooperation and a positive working environment? --Pete (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Skyring, Cas seems to be doing a remarkable job of moderating that dispute. Civil POV pushing can be just as disruptive as uncivil POV pushing. My advice to you would be to focus on the content of the article, or the tone of the participants. Don't try to do both at once. – bradv🍁 00:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ya'll should have an Rfc at that article. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It's fun to argue whether the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season is "June 2019 – ongoing" or "Winter (June) 2019 – Autumn (May) 2020" (no doubt there is a political backstory unknown to naive onlookers such as myself). However, people here are pretty smart and they can recognize sanctimonious twaddle when it is presented on a plate. As noted by bradv above, Skyring should either focus on content only, or could try appointing themselves Talk Page Monitor and post prattle about the behavior of other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

as I mentioned on my talk page - Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_the_consensus-building_process - Skyring, you really need to focus on the article rather than continue on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas! This isn't about the article. Or me, or you, or anyone else. I have no complaints or criticism about you. This is me making a wider comment on civility. Yes, of course we should focus on wikiwork. But when the workplace turns toxic, it isn't a positive thing. Jimbo made some good thoughtful points in the talk linked to above and I wonder how much the admin corps backs him on this. Lip service only? Wholehearted support? So far the advice given here seems to be that editors should duck their heads down and ignore personal attacks. I guess if you have a mop and bucket, everything looks like a mess to be mopped up, but I can't help but feel that there's more to it than that. --Pete (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, there is much more to being a useful admin than striking out bad words or comments about other editors. For one thing, some editors will never rest until they get their way and they are able to push and push indefinitely or until stopped. People at this noticeboard are advising that it is time to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Pile-on agree with Johnuniq and Bradv. Speaking as someone with no connection to Australia and no particular interest in the topic at hand, whatever your (Skyring's) intent this looks very much like you declaring yourself a super-user and taking exception at being asked to treat other editors with the respect you'd want them to give to you. "Civility" isn't a synonym for "not swearing", and to be blunt it's clear to everyone except you who the uncivil editor on that discussion currently is. ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely right there, Iridescent. Not clear at all to me. I'm into my eighth decade, so the intellect isn't what it used to be. Could you explain yourself a little further, give a diff, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Will quotes suffice?

Lay off me, HiLo. This isn't about you. If you can't provide some editorial input here, why don't you butt out?[34] - This is your first reply to HiLo48 after reverting them at the article, with the summary [y]ou got a crystal ball, HiLo? They have stopped. Stick to the facts. Seriously?

But your position seems to be that the end of the season is flexible, depending on the original research of editors as to what constitutes enough of a fire to leave a scorch mark on Wikipedia[35] -You asserted that the fires were over. And you left that gem when confronted with the fact that they were not, in fact, over.

Does anybody have a good argument as to why we should now change this longstanding consensus to suit the whims of original research and personal opinion? - Bearing in mind that the day prior you were asserting that the season had already ended because, and I quote, they (the fires) have stopped. But then, you switch stance to: We don't wait for the bushfires to end, we don't guess, we go by the Bureau of Meteorology saying that's when the season ends.[36] Again, the very day prior you were asserting the exact reverse and that the season ended in March, 2020. Now suddenly you think reliable sources should be used instead of your own opinion that because the fires have stopped, therefore the season is over.

It looks to me like you are putting ego ahead of a very long consensus here, for no good reason that I can see[37] - Ego? Really? Go read the userpage of the editor you made that comment to. There is a line on it that should stick out. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"Paid contributions declaration"? I've taken the liberty of adding diffs to your cherries picked above, so that context is visible. See the first post in this thread for an explanation of my views changing as I looked deeper into the matter of Australian fire seasons, and our many years of reporting. The state-based emergency pages used as evidence that bushfires continue always have a bushfire or two listed. Over a whole continent, they never stop, a point made by the Bureau of Meteorology and the Bushfire CRC in their graphic showing that bushfires in Australia never reach zero, they just come to a minimum around May and June. Both of these links were raised in discussion on the page.

The fact that the out-of-the-ordinary killing fires were off the front pages, the news reports turned to other matters, the two months of choking smoke blowing through my house and half of Eastern Australia had stopped, the fires no longer glowed in the dark at night in the hills around Canberra, and the heavy water bomber at the airport has remained idle for a solid month of flooding rain and regrowth helped my opinion along. But I am grateful for your snarky analysis of a few phrases plucked out of context and misleadingly described. Kind of illustrates my point, really. You do see this, I trust.

But again, this isn't about me or anyone else. I'm no saint. I can be a cranky, annoying, pedantic, and yes, snarky curmudgeon. There can't be too many on Wikipedia with a longer history of arseholery than me. Jimbo himself kicked my irritating bum off Wikipedia somewhere back around 2005 and he was right to do so.

What I have come to realise is that Wikipedia itself is a treasure, and what makes it extra-good is that procedures have evolved to keep a large and diverse community creating gold without strangling each other. Jimbo, for all of his God-King status, very rarely intervenes. There's certainly no top-down direction in anything but the broadest terms, and everything has evolved through discussion and consensus.

My question remains. What is the position of admins on implementing the vision of Jimbo linked to above? He describes something extraordinary as being a guiding principle of the project, and that principle is love. My own field of philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", and we all cheer at the thought of schoolchildren in Africa having better access to Wikipedia, which is chock-full of knowledge and wisdom. How are admins and indeed base-grade editors dealing with the concept of love as a guiding force? From what I can see, it seems to be a challenge for many. I think, if the first instinct of a Wikipedian is to aim a kick at whoever is irritating them, they aren't acting out of love. --Pete (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, while I can't speak for Mr rnddude, I very much doubt it's the paid contribution disclosure to which he's trying to draw your attention, but the fact that you're claiming you know more than a New South Wales firefighter about fires in New South Wales. To reiterate what I said above, when you think every other person on the site is being unreasonable and every other person on the site thinks you're being unreasonable, you might want to stop and think that maybe the problem is you, not everyone else.

I can't speak for any other admin, but the vision of this particular admin on "implementing the vision of Jimbo" is that I couldn't care less what his vision is or isn't. While Jimmy does for historic reasons retain a seat on the WMF board, he's been detached from the actual operation of Wikipedia for years, and the mix of tendentious editing and whitewashing the biographies of people he met at parties that constitutes his edit history over the past decade would have long since got any other editor banned. I give whatever he happens to come out with on any given day considerably less credence than I give the opinions of a new week-old editor, given that the new editor is actually involved with Wikipedia whereas there's no evidence Jimmy has the slightest interest in anything that takes place on this site any more, provided the paid after-dinner speaker gigs keep flowing. Jimmy Wales is in no position whatsoever to lecture anyone on "civility" (disagree with him and he's as uncivil as they come), but even if one does accept the argument that civility is the key to Wikipedia, as an outside observer who to the best of my knowledge has never interacted with you in any way it's fairly clear that the only person being uncivil on that bushfire talkpage is you. ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

And there I was thinking that Jimmy Wales was "a good Wikipedian who deeply respects and defends NPOV and policy based reasons to do things in all cases". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

[38][39][40][41][42]. ‑ Iridescent 18:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite. It's a pity that our dear co-founder doesn't have the gift described by Robert Burns. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Pete, there's nobody here who can tell you 'what admins think' about anything - there isn't a controlling body, we don't speak with one voice, we're just a bunch of volunteers with disparate opinions and areas of expertise. Since it is not possible for anybody to answer your question, and this isn't really the place for philosophical musings anyway, are you happy for this to be closed now, or is there something specific you want to ask? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll just respond to Iridescent, if I may, who has done me the courtesy of following the link I provided, and actually putting some thought into his response.

Am I really claiming I know more than a New South Wales firefighter about fires in New South Wales? I am unaware that I made any such claim. Perhaps a diff would be in order? Now that you have raised that notion, I reject it utterly. In any case, neither Bidgee nor myself is of the slightest use to Wikipedia as a source. That idea got knocked on the head long ago.

Nor am I claiming that Jimbo the man and the sentiments he expressed in that speech referenced above are cut from the same fabric. The vision expressed seemed to draw a positive response from his listeners, as has the project he founded, very little of which he had a direct hand in laying out. How many policy documents has he edited? A quick look at the earliest years of the WP:5P policies shows no involvement at all.

And yet, here we are, spending our free time on a shared vision. Extraordinary.

Phil Bridger, well put! I think the point that Burns was making is that none of us has that particular view, but of course you had a twinkle in your eye as you said it. In any case, this particular wretch is not claiming any great gifts of charm or grace. I'm still waiting for Iridescent to establish the uniqueness he claims I enjoy, but I suspect that I might be waiting a while for that diff. I am not yet so bound up in self-abuse that I cannot detect stress and anger in the words of others, even if some suggest that this wretch is blind to it in himself.

Girth, you'll forgive me restoring the indent your comments rightly own. It seemed to me that you were unconsciously suggesting that the comments of others were not worth responding to. Yes, of course there is no Admin King, nor any one voice beyond what wikipolicy gives us. If you yourself have no answer to the question, and wish to hurry along to the next puddle with your mop and bucket, that's fine. I came here seeking wisdom, and it seems I have come to the wrong shop for that, brother. --Pete (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Skyring, to be honest, it looks to me like you're just trolling a this point. Please add my voice to the list of those telling you that you appear not to know how to interact civilly with others. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

How much lack of clue needs to be demonstrated to warrant remedial action? It would helpful if anyone had time to check the contributions of Skyring (talk · contribs) (Pete) and work out if a WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR block is required to allow other editors to work without distractions such as those shown above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Skyring has been a disruptive editor literally for 15 years (the "I demand that Wikipedia treat my personal opinions as fact, and I'll keep posting walls of text until you agree" attitude we're seeing here could have come straight from the 2005 arb case that originally got him banned). That said, he hasn't been blocked since 2016, and unless something is really egregious I wouldn't want to block out of the blue (he might have construed the lack of formal complaints recently as an indication that Wikipedia's culture had shifted and the way he was acting was now considered acceptable), and (his ramblings on this thread aside) I don't see any obvious problems since this thread started. IMO this thread is sufficient to constitute a warning (he can hardly claim he's not aware of it); if there's any subsequent disruption, that's the time to drop the banhammer. ‑ Iridescent 08:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That is amazing, thank you. I have encountered Skyring but have forgotten where. I had not seen his outstanding block log and did not know that an Arbcom case had been required. I guess you're right but we admins need to stop those who can argue ad infinitum from wasting the time of other editors and action might be needed in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Giving credit where it's due. Skyring/Pete has (AFAIK) shown restraint in the last 3 to 4 years (since an Rfc on the matter), concerning the Australian head of state topic. A topic he was quite passionate about. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The three thousand bytes Pete left at User talk:Girth Summit today had made my head spin as about 2/3 of it is philosophical/historical musings. Ultimately I think the last 1/3 is fair enough on the ADMINACCT front but also really suggests that this thread acting as a warning has not quite sunk in yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request from Nauriya

• Nauriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nauriya is asking the community to overturn a site ban:

Its been more than one and half years since I am blocked from Wikipedia. Community had a lengthy discussion on my conduct at this very platform and I accepted their decision for my mistakes and stayed away from any disruption, dispute, or sock-puppetry. I took this much time to understand this platform further, although, a member since 2013, I was only interested in one medium - arts and media. I used this account since then and made memorable time and edits with it, which gave me pure joy. Wikipedia, at a time was my only activity and it consumed me inside out. I was all over the place with my copyrights issues and other mistakes, but in the end I can only learn from them and move forward with understanding. I can not undo or erase my doings but can only ask those, in whose hands authorities are given, and I am asking for a last chance. I have taken this period to rehabilitate myself in terms of a better knowledge for the rules and regulations that runs this platform. I didn't had the courage to appeal this unblock earlier ever after the due "six month" period of limitation, as I wanted to give myself more time to think, what I was involved with and how my conduct was viewed as wrong and disruptive. All of what was happened is in the discussion already and I don't want to dwell onto that but I will take this opportunity to appeal the community and admins to consider my request with utmost sincerity and my honest acknowledgement of mistakes into your account. This is indeed my last chance, and I am making sure to try my best to prove to you that I no longer intend to repeat those mistakes, ever again. I am clear what I am asking for and I will make sure, what happened, will never happen again. I assure you, or I wish I could show you that I have come without any agenda, and this is not a planned scheme with any ill intention of being disruptive and dishonest again. This is all I have to say. I have kept my options open for all the possibilities and as much as I am desperate to come back, I will respect any decision made, without any question. Thank you very much for taking your time to hear out this request. Nauriya, Let's talk - 15:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see anything obvious in a sock check. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, but willing to reconsider - I'm not sure I see understanding of what got them blocked - I see all over the place with my copyrights issues and better knowledge for the rules and regulations that runs this platform, and a couple "I won't repeat my mistakes," but still missing the explicit "here's what I did that was wrong, here's what I will change in my behavior" that I expect from a good unblock request. I'm willing to reconsider if I see Nauriya follow up with something like that. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• As the CCI guy, I'll have to think about this. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Nauriya is still pretty large. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

They also had a now closed CCI under a different username: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Faizanali.007Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I am only seeing what happened, but nothing about what got them blocked and how they would avoid problems given they "don't want to dwell onto that" after all. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Are non-admins allowed/supposed to post an oppose/support opinion for unblocks on an administrator noticeboard? I always thought that if you did, you had to preface your comment with at least a "non-administrator" disclaimer. I could be completely wrong,and this is not intended against the two users who have posted, I am simply curious. Thanks all, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Puddleglum2.0, um...well...nobody's complained yet! My understanding is that non-admins are welcome to contribute to these unblock discussions since they represent community consensus, not just administrator consensus. I usually don't add the prefix unless I think it's important to be clear that I'm not an admin (usually if I'm addressing a non-admin posting to the board and don't want them to think I speak with administrator power backing it). I think the admins who frequent this board recognize my username by now and know to ignore me without me adding the "non-admin" disclaimer. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yes, you're welcome to comment here. Appeals of community sanctions are presented here for discussion by all interested editors, not just administrators. You can use the nacc template for this purpose but it's not required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC),

OK, thanks Ivanvector and Creffpublic! (Or Creffett, not sure what's connected to what...) That makes sense, thanks again. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, you can ping either one of me - I'll see it regardless. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I continue to suspect the motivations of the original proposers of the ban, particularly in light of certain off-wiki harassment which is currently ongoing involving some of the participants, but nonetheless there were valid concerns raised about Nauriya's editing. In the original discussion I suggested that any unban process should include an indefinite revocation of autopatrolled and an indefinite ban on all image uploads. Nauriya's patrolling and content review userrights were removed before the ban discussion concluded, so that part is moot. I sort of agree with creffpublic that we need to see more self-awareness here, but I am not outright opposing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Response from Nauriya:

  : @NinjaRobotPirate: Since I can not edit at ANI, if I may, I want to say that my request clearly says that I am sorry for my mistakes and I will not follow the same path, as I did before. Also, all other accounts are not mine, this has been discussed and confirmed in previous discussions. Prior to 2013, I did have accounts, as I was an IP exempt because I was in a place where all of sites were blocked, so I did made mistakes because I was very immature editor at that time and it was also cleared by admins. After 2013 I never created another account, I did change the name though. Thats it! Nauriya, Let's talk - 19:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  moved here by NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Did anyone bring up sockpuppetry? This comment is adding some unnecessary confusion to the situation. It was established prior to or during the 2018 ban discussion that Nauriya was using that account after they had been blocked in 2013 with a different account. I don't think it was conclusively established that Faizanali.007 was their former account or just a very similar account. The investigation was hampered by the filer being part of a group of editors very obviously filing multiple SPIs and other administrative reports against their enemies in a broad India-Pakistan editing conflict, wasting admin time to try to get some sanction to stick against their opponents. There was some checkuser stuff in the 2018 SPI but I wasn't around for it and I'm not going to try to comment on it. There was a discussion in the 2018 SPI in which several admins (courtesy ping Bbb23 and Abecedare) discussed Nauriya's history, and determined (my paraphrasing) that although Nauriya was technically evading a block, they went five years without getting into the trouble which led to the block, and had become a productive contributor over those five years, and so blocking them for long-stale block evasion was unproductively punitive. Nauriya was effectively granted amnesty for the past block evasion. On the other hand, several admins and other users in the 2018 ban discussion took the banned means banned approach, particularly in light of Fram's investigation revealing that Nauriya was in fact still breaking copyright rules right up to the start of that discussion, and so the reason for forgiving their block evasion was moot. The filer of the SPI and the ban proposal insisted without evidence that Nauriya was committing copyright violations throughout those five years; maybe CCI got to the bottom of that, I don't know.

  Are you confused by all this? Good. My only point here is that this appeal discussion should consider the circumstances of the 2018 ban, and not get into the weeds of the weird maybe-sockpuppetry history, because nobody really knows what happened there and there is no evidence that Nauriya has used more than one account since 2013. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

As a (or really the) person whose been working on the CCI, they definitely committed copyright violations during that time period; see Rozee.pk and Rafaqat Ali Khan.Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Ivanvector summarizes the socking and proxying situation well. Anyone interested can read my and Bbb23's July 2018 summary at SPI, which contains links to some relevant posts. Looking at the SPI and the Sep 2018 ban-discussion will also reveal what Ivanvector means by "suspect the motivations of the original proposers of the ban", although that of course does not excuse Nauriya's proven copyvios etc.

All that said, the socking, proxying, and mixed-motivations-of-some-accusers are a messy sideshow IMO, and I would recommend judging this ban appeal based upon Nauriya's copyvio history and the chance that the problems will recur in the ban is lifted. Abecedare (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you should know by now that Nauriya had admitted that he had socked as Faizanali.007, Salarsikandar.81 and Tabraiz.18 only after the SPI was filed.[43] Unfortunately he got away from this sockpuppetry but was warned that any more socking or copyright violations will result in a block.[44] ANI was opened only after it became obvious that Nauriya was continuing his copyright violations for weeks and pretending to be perfect as the very first post in the ANI thread reveals. Lorstaking (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• For your consideration: @Money emoji, Shashank5988, Creffpublic, Puddleglum2.0, Ivanvector, and Abecedare: et al. who might be interested, since Nauriya was originally blocked for copyright violations, I thought it imperative to ask them a few questions about copyright stuff:

*Query: Hi Nauriya, since you were originally blocked for copyright violations, I'm wondering if you could please answer a few questions. They might be a bit tough, so you should probably think about them and answer to the best of your ability:

1. What is a copyright?
2. What sort of content is considered copyrighted?
3. How do you know if material is copyrighted or free to use?
4. If you are unclear on some of the nuances of Wikipedia's rules about including copyrighted materials, where at Wikipedia can you find answers to those questions? (For example, specific Wikipedia policy/guideline pages or places in the community where you could ask for help. You don't have to list everything, I just want to see if you know where to find answers to questions that might come up.)

I may have follow-up questions depending on your responses. We can move my questions and your responses to the relevant AN discussion should you choose to answer. Thank you and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Answers:

1. As per my understanding, a copyright is a legal right of the individual/owner of their intellectual property that prohibits anyone other than the original owner of the unauthorised use and distribution of their works.
2. All creative content is considered copyrighted per Berne Convention. However, any material/work released to public domain, becomes license free, or in case where copyright is explicitly detailed and disclaimed.
3. Since Wikipedia, uses links/references to the content written/used in its articles - any material/text or work that is a simple copy-and-paste from websites, is considered copyrighted. All other works on Wikipedia are free to use, if in compliance with CC-BY-SA and if co-licensed then GFDL or where restrictions and sanctions are applied.
4. If one is having difficulty in understanding the Wikipedia copyright policies, we can approach WP:C for understanding the basic terminologies. If one want to know how to use copyrighted content on Wikipedia, they can refer to WP:COPYREQ and related WP:CV101. In addition, WP:CRA can serve as an assistance to user(s) looking for brief overview. The most important one in my view is knowing WP:COPYVIO and in my case where I was wrong, one must know how can they add this image to Wikipedia? / can they copy-paste this text into Wikipedia?. And for help WT:CP, WP:CQ are helpful or we can find a relevant noticeboard to approach for help.

Thank you @Cyphoidbomb for taking your time out and being so considerate. And yes sure, thats what I am here for, to answer any question I can in order to show that I am willing to abide by the policies of this platform. And ask for help first this time, if I will face any problem. Nauriya, Let's talk - 8:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to format the above so that it looks nicer, please do. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock The answers above give me confidence. Thanks you Cyphoidbomb. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 15:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

A little more elaboration: initially I was going to support based only on WP:AGF (which I think should be used much more with unblock requests like this) and WP:ROPE. The answers have strengthened my opinion and I think confirmed that this editor has edited in good faith, even if they were wrongngr. (and they have admitted they were wrong). I think there is no end to forgiveness, and that's why I've chosen to support. (Although I wouldn't be opposed to a topic ban on Pakistan-related topics that Lorstaking proposes.) Thanks, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 16:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to go with support here too. The answers are a bit weak but going in a promising self-aware direction. I'm sure there will be enough users scrutinizing Nauriya's edits as to head off any future copyright problems, for which a fresh block is sure to ensue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not all of the problems have been addressed. Given one of the concern included meatpuppetry as Abecedare pointed above, the unblock appeal made above and this recent response regarding copyright violations makes it obvious for anybody that these both messages are written by two different people. In the light of such dubiousness and incomplete addressal I would oppose unblock. There were also problems with article creations by Nauriya, one of which included repeated recreation of Wasi Shah. Maybe an alternative solution would be to unblock with an indefinite topic ban from anything related to Pakistan but then I am not sure if Nauriya will edit anything else. Lorstaking (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest and sock puppetry by American politician

I've got a downright doozy of a case for all of you. It involves an American politician, Ibraheem Samirah who's currently serving in the Virginia House of Delegates. He just let it slip that he's behind at least one, but probably two accounts that are actively engaged in a white-washing attempt on his page. He's made repeated anti-semitic comments such as the KKK is worse than Israel and insulated that Jews are dirty, he's even assaulted a Jewish reporter who was peacefully debating the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a protestor at the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Samirah has publicly stated in the Atlantic that he believes in politics of forced change, not through civility or dialogue. He is currently acting it out on his Wikipedia page. I first request that all of his edits be removed from the page (I don't want any of the editors currently involved in the dispute to face sanctions outside of Samirah for his aforementioned issues, and we've hit our revision limit so I'd like new eyes), then we need to move forward with an investigation over his current sock puppetry, and finally, I'd appreciate feedback about how we go about writing up his anti-semitic behavior and connections to Islamic extremism along with providing an account detailing his behavior on Wikipedia to the community and himself ultimately, so, he can hopefully learn from this instance and the public will be able to learn about what he's committed both on and off Wikipedia. This case is one of the most outrageous and ridiculous cases that I've stumped upon. I look forward to hearing from y'all. For the record, I've done a good job—at least in my mind—of summarizing all of his transgressions on his, and I'll probably keep expanding upon the evidence I've already found. Check out the article's talk page for a compiling of everything thus far. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have high-quality sources for these claims about a living person? Please show diffs which demonstrate the COI. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It's literally all written up on the article's talk page. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not; I don't see any links to high-quality sources which discuss the purported allegations you make here. "Assault" is a crime, and there are zero sources cited anywhere on the talk page which state that this person is guilty of a crime. Either provide sources or you should start redacting these claims. I've already rewritten the header to be a more neutral statement of the situation.

Your statement that you want go about writing up his anti-semitic behavior and connections to Islamic extremism along with providing an account detailing his behavior on Wikipedia is highly concerning in and of itself - you seem to have an ax to grind against this person. Wikipedia writes neutral, balanced biographies based on reliable sources and while editors can have points of view, they shouldn't be here expressly to portray a person positively or negatively. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you actually look up the edit revisions, linked on the article's talk page, which show the examples that I'm mentioning since they were reversed, and all the links are provided there. He admits to pouring water on a reporter, which is assault or simple assault (both misdemeanors) in the US. Also, I find it highly troubling that you decided to change the title of the section (which I didn't even name btw) to fit your slant. It's a clear case of conflict of interest and probably sock puppetry that even the admin that let the initial edits stand with regards to anti-semitism and how to summarize it correctly noted it's probably Samirah himself trying to undermine the process. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think is assault or simple assault - it matters what reliable sources say. And unless you have a reliable source that says he was even charged, much less convicted, of assault, that's right out. You need to immediately read the Biographies of Living Persons policy and take it to heart. We have a responsibility to biographical subjects to treat them fairly and write their articles in a neutral and non-sensational manner. Your attempt to staple together innuendo printed in a bunch of partisan scandal sheets to suggest that this subject is some sort of extremist terrorist sympathizer is highly inappropriate. What reliable sources say this person has "connections to Islamic extremism"? If you can't cite them, this accusation should be immediately struck. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

More: This does not mean that COI editing and sockpuppetry are appropriate - it is clearly possible that this is the case, looking at diffs and the unknown users in question. But it is also true that living people who perceive unfair treatment in their biographies are often unfamiliar with our policies and procedures and are driven to correct (and often overcorrect) what they perceive as unfair writing. Looking at past revisions by Buzzards-Watch Me Work, which are clearly written in a manner which tends to portray the article subject in as negative a light as possible, using highly-partisan and dubious sources for claims of fact... I can see how this situation would have arisen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is literally one of the most ridiculous things that I've read on here. Why don't you actually look up the definition of assault and simple assault? It's not like I'm pulling it up out of my ass. Furthermore, I find it highly offensive that someone who patrols this page would freely insulate that I'd make up an assault allegation. Also, it doesn't matter if he was charged or convicted since misdemeanor assault cases are normally at the discretion of the victim to press charges, and they're a number of reasons why you wouldn't press charges. But, he's literally admitted to it.

Your other point is also quite questionable since he's completely whitewashing his page. Even the admin who I'm working with notes he's attempting to do it. The idea that you're insinuating that it's not a big deal to do both of them is just completely absurd. If you literally create another account to continue whitewashing after receiving notifications from multiple edits of your actions it wreaks completely. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter if he was charged or convicted - I suggest that this statement renders you entirely unfit to edit Wikipedia biographies, because it's clear that you have absolutely no idea how the encyclopedia works and how our articles are written. This encyclopedia is based on reliable sources, and it absolutely matters that we do not state that someone committed a crime when no reliable source says they have committed a crime. This is basic and fundamental to writing an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and not on personal opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Buzzards-Watch Me Work Please read the following statement carefully: BLP policy applies on every page, including this one, not just in article space. If there are no reliable sources that explicitly say that he was convicted of assault, then you cannot say that he did so, anywhere on this site. For you to decide what is and is not assault is WP:OR, which is not permitted. Either back up your assertion with sources, or strike those statements. If you make another unsourced accusation of criminality, your account will be blocked from editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, it's apparent that he poured water on him which forces him to run away from his conversation with a protester along with his entire crew helping and surrounding him ie fleeing a physical menace as defined by Pennsylvania law (where it happened). How else would you decribe said occurrence? Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You still don't get it or understand, which means a BLP topic ban is in order, at minimum.

You do not have a reliable source which says this person committed assault, which means Wikipedia cannot and will not say that they did. What you are suggesting is textbook prohibited synthesis, and is prohibited precisely because you have no idea what you're talking about. (Hint: the phrase "fear of imminent serious bodily injury" is not likely to result from getting your hairdo wet.)

We are not going to falsely and misleadingly portray someone who dumped a bottle of water over someone's head as if they are guilty of a crime of violence. Your sustained effort to do so is prima facie evidence that you have an ax to grind against this article subject and are editing their article not to create a neutral encyclopedic biography, but to express your displeasure with them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

He is literally forced to leave the area by his bodyguard and crew which signals fear of bodily harm. Why are you demeaning it? It is certainly a violent act. I never accused him of punching him or anything of that manner, and in the original write up it specified what he did. Furthermore, I find it ridiculous that you then blame me for the problem. I wouldn't be here if he didn't break policy on conflict of interest or probable sock puppetry. I came here asking input over how to deal with him and also write up his past statements properly. His page still has unsourced material that needs to be removed. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG applies here. Sockpuppetry and COI editing are bad, and should cease. But making unsourced claims of criminality against a living person is also very bad, and poorly-written BLPs with false/libelous material often lead to COI problems because defamed subjects feel justifiably angry and attempt to remove the material themselves. Your behavior here is contributory to the problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Buzzards-Watch Me Work, you've been here for quite a while, I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand the importance of the advice given in WP:BLP and WP:OR. For any assertion, we should describe things in the same terms as the sources do; for a BLP, that's especially important, and for a claim of criminality (assault is a crime) it is of fundamental and vital importance. If a reliable source says that he poured water on someone, and he has confirmed that he does not deny doing so, then we can say in Wikipedia's voice that he poured water on someone. What you are doing by using another source to assert that pouring water on someone is assault is described at SYNTH, and you absolutely must not do it in a BLP, especially for a claim that he has committed a criminal act. I'm quite serious - now you have been advised of this, if you repeat it you can expect to be immediately blocked. I have no view on the article content, or on the accusations of whitewashing and/or sockpuppetry, but what you have been doing in making unsourced assertions of criminality about a specific living person is the most concerning thing I've seen in this thread. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Although it's true he made anti-Semitic remarks about 6 years ago while he's in college, I see no mention by Buzzards-Watch Me Work that he apologised a year ago for them - see this article in The Times of Israel[45]. The water throwing incident apparently happened but the sources I found were The Washington Free Beacon and Townhall using the WFB as a source, neither of which we would use in a BLP. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

However, I'm concerned about the two SPAs, Is0811a and Johnbellgotahaircut - could just be supporters, could be a COI. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Enough evidence for a CheckUser, I'd say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, The original version I saw, here, by Buzzards, did make it clear that he had apologised. So I don't think that comment is quite fair. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo then he should have made that clear here. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo I appreciate it, and Doug Weller, I did make it clear in my follow up. It's just hard to keep up when I'm getting things thrown at me. I do apologize for not spelling it out clearer though. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• So we need a check for socks, and Buzzards needs, at least, a page-ban, for issues with Synth, OR, and BLPCRIME. Broader prohibitions could also be considered, but probably should warrant a separate sub-section below to discuss. If there aren't socks, a look indicates some COI issues that need resolving (or indeed, there could be both) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

From this checkuser's perspective, there is insufficient technical evidence at this time to say that this is the same user. Formally, it's inconclusive. Following the BLP theme above I'll also point out for the purpose of these discussions that, whether it's the same user or not, there is insufficient evidence to say who this is. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

How come zzuuzz? Both of them are only editing that page, and right after one of them gets a message on their user talk regarding their editing behavior, it switches to the other account. Their edit summaries also regurgitate the same or similar points. The only difference I can see between them is one of them is almost entirely mobile while the other one appears to be desktop based. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you that's not the only difference. Please have a look at whichever page explains the limitations of checkuser, because that's exactly what this statement is all about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes zzuuzz, I've noticed several other differences between them too with regards to sock puppetry (like one mostly adds content, the other mostly blacks it among other technical issues etc.), but one of them basically admitted to being the individual he's writing on by stating "me" in the author's spot, and they've contributed to slanting the article pretty heavily in one direction. I know the limitations of checkuser, but I'm worried this issue will continue to manifest if something isn't done about it. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I actually wrote: "Samirah assaulted Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News reporter, by pouring water on him while he was debating the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a protester on camera at the 2016 Democratic National Convention." I was using the word assault to summarize the occurrence, and not to mislead. I clearly stated that he poured water on him in the article. I was using assault as an adjective legal descriptor, and on here to summarize his actions towards Rivera. I do understand your point on criminality and how that comes off, which is/was not my objective. I was just trying to summarize the occurrence on here instead of spelling it out the entire occurrence as I did in the article. I do completely realize your WP:SYNTH point. It was not my intention to write up WP:OR for the article, I was just trying to summarize it with a legal descriptor. I should have wrote something like, 'Samirah poured water on Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News reporter, forcing him to flee while he was debating the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a protester on camera at the 2016 Democratic National Convention' in the article. I do actually appreciate your level-headed response. I just got incredibly annoyed when I was blatantly accused of lying about the incident, and I was defending my assertion from my legal experience. I had/have no intention of writing it up like that (evident by my initial write up), and it was an oversight on my behalf to phrase it like that in the article (note my clarified statement). Again, I do appreciate your constructive feedback. It's part of the reason I came here. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller I actually wrote that he apologized for some of his anti-semitic comments in the original write up on his article, but he also insinuated that Jews are dirty when describing a postcard. That, along with an anti-semitic comment or at least anti-Israel link was posted after his initial apology. I specified all of that in the article. I checked Wikipedia's reliable sources list when I was rewriting the section, and I didn't find them located there. I'm curious why you don't think they're reliable enough? They're not listed as banned or under warning. The one about pouring water has video and social media from him on it, so why can't we include that? I'm actually here to get constructive feedback regarding them, not to complain. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear I do get your feelings on the matter, but I actually started this page to constructive support about the write up, and I've not reverted any of the recent edits on the page to initially avoid an edit war. I came here to get expert advice on the matter, and I attempted to source all the relevant information on his page, including the fact he was in a historically Jewish fraternity in the section regarding his anti-semitic comments along with his original apology on the matter. It's just there's, unfortunately, a lot of anti-semitic or at least anti-Israel comments he's made throughout his life. I'm trying to be as possible when I literally sent hours going through his edits and his father legal case on deportation to try and find if what he was writing had merit, which it largely didn't. It annoys me that someone with his level of public standing would try and bias public opinion on his actions. Including misattributing or downright lying about a judicial opinion found in the legal case. I've been trying to be as objective as possible about it. But, there's still currently unsourced information on his page, and I'm choosing to not touch it so I can build consensus about it. I wouldn't even break the reversion limit if I touched it, but like I said I'm trying to avoid an edit war on there. It keeps getting changed slowly over days, and I want to fairly summarize all relevant information. How are my actions causing harm to the article when I've chosen to get feedback from y'all? Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: the decade old entry for Townhall says "As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT." I'll get back to WP:UNDUE. The author of the piece is Matt Vespa who "previously worked for CNSNews.com and was the recipient of Americans for Prosperity Foundation's 2013 Andrew Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Activism and Investigative Reporting."[46] I presume you know about Breitbart, and CNSNEWS is part of Media Research Center. Still, we aren't talking about opinion here. The policy issue is WP:UNDUE - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In other words, if something is barely covered, why should we mention it? Particularly in a BLP. I couldn't find any mainstream coverage (and neither of those sources is mainstream, they are niche partisan sources). Doug Weller talk 11:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I was first talking about the inclusion of the WFB since it highlights the incident with Rivera in it. As for Townhall, I think we should mention it since I personally noticed the citation after reading about the story in The Virginia Mercury, and it delves into the actual account pretty well. The Virginia Mercury is a paper that focuses solely on reporting Virginia's news. I don't think you can find any substantial bias from them. As for the case for UN:DUE, I honestly, don't see it. He forces a reporter to flee his job (he's actually reporting the news) and what prompted his action steems from the issues surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, so I find it really hard not to mention it since he's a legislator after all. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: by "significance" we mean the amount of coverage in mainstream sources, not anyone's perceived importance of an event. I have no problem with using the Virginia Mercury as a general rule, but I'm still not sure that reaches significance. I can't comment on the specific article as I can't get my VPN to connect, and I need that to read it. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Yeah, GDPR is a pain sometimes. It is in the VM - Later that year, he was filmed standing with a group of protesters outside the Democratic National Convention and dumping a bottle of water on the head of Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera — an incident he hasn’t directly acknowledged but, in response to questions, did not deny. Also relevant to this section is His brash approach to politics drew scrutiny during his February campaign for office, with his Republican opponent accusing him of anti-Semitism for Facebook posts in 2014 that, among other things, compared funding Israel to supporting the Ku Klux Klan. Samirah apologized for his language but dismissed the criticism as a smear campaign.

But at this point it's feeling like we're more and more discussing content, rather than conduct. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller and Bellezzasolo when I lived in Europe dealing with GDPR was a complete pain. I do get your significance point, Doug. I was trying to establish why I personally thought it was relevant information first and then I was establishing media significance to it by bringing in more mainstream or neutral sources. Outside of The Virginia Mercury it's also been mentioned in the Washingtonian. Both of these publications are well established and relatively natural papers on local politics. I didn't think my character or intentions were going to be thrown under the bus as they've been here. I really wanted assistance trying to flush out the conflict of interest and sock puppetry first before moving onto contents, which is probably better to discuss on the article's talk page since it'd be in one place. I'd like to build consensus over the anti-semitic comments and other issues, but we've also got an individual who's whitewashing their own page (he literally said "me" when he was attributing a quote) that needs to be dealt with. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment:@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: You haven't notified either Is0811a or Johnbellgotahaircut on their talk page with {{subst:AN-notice}} despite clearly talking about them.

Topic Ban Proposal: "Buzzards-Watch Me Work" topic banned from Ibraheem Samirah

Since there seems to be both a disconnect in being able to neutrally apply core tennants of editing (BLP, UNDUE, DUE, etc) with respect to this subject and in light of the lack of self recognition the activity is troublesome, I therefore propose the following: Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(BWMW) is indefinitely topic banned from editing Ibraheem Samirah broadly construed. Appeal and review shall be no early than 6 months and 6 months after any unsuccessful appeal. BWMW is encouraged to work on other topics and demonstrate a much better familiarity and proficiency with applicable policies prior to appeal. Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Votes (BWMW Topic Ban)

• Support As proposer. BWMW's responses here are significantly concerning, in addition to other editors suggesting that a block/ban may be needed. Wanting to try for a lower level restriction. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Mild Oppose. Not quite weak, but certainly not particularly strong. User clearly has made some grave mistakes, but he certainly seems willing to learn from them when they're pointed out. I have faith Buzzards-Watch Me Work will improve over time but only if there isn't a cloud over his head. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  Let's make that a tepid oppose. @Buzzards-Watch Me Work: I can't find any evidence that either Johnbellgotahaircut or Is0811a have ever even said the word "me" in their on-wiki activity. Can point to the specific edit you are referring to? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

MJL, so, Is0811a (talk · contribs) while he was attributing the source for part of his most recent edit, specifically, one about himself in the Washingtonian, wrote "me" in the author's last name listing spot. He also properly sourced another citation from Virginia onAir, where he was being interviewed by Shuaib Ahmed, prior to writing "me" on the author's listing spot. He obviously knows how to compose references properly on Wikipedia. He just slipped up and wrote "me" without realizing the significance of it. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: (1) See Cullen's statement below. (2) What would |last2=home mean then? (3) Ignoring the evidence that this was clearly a broken way to put a quote in the page... wouldn't that imply that Is0811a was the Washingtonian reporter instead? The article's subject didn't exactly write a Washingtonian article about themselves. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. It is obvious that this new editor Is0811a does not understand how reference templates work, as this example of their work shows:

"last=me|2=first=“I can’t make a post about health care without someone telling|last2=home.'”|first2=‘you’re not American Go back"

The editor clearly does not understand that those fields are for the first and last names of two authors, and instead was trying to format a quote from the reference:

"I can’t make a post about health care without someone telling me you’re not American. Go back home."

Buzzards-Watch Me Work also clearly does not understand what is going on with this edit, and their notion that "last=me" is an acknowledgement that Is0811a is actually Ibraheem Samirah, is quite frankly ludicrous.

Throughout this thread, Buzzards-Watch Me Work has shown serious misunderstandings of BLP policy, and it is obvious that they have an axe to grind regarding Ibraheem Samirah. Accordingly, I support this topic ban, and advise the editor that continuing this type of conduct in other areas of the encyclopedia may result in stronger sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support: The responses (and the concerning comments regarding the use of "assault" / BLP editing) demonstrate some strong opinions from BWMW about the subject. In particular, the wording of the initial request and the comment we go about writing up his anti-semitic behavior and connections to Islamic extremism along with providing an account detailing his behavior on Wikipedia to the community and himself ultimately, so, he can hopefully learn from this instance and the public will be able to learn about what he's committed both on and off Wikipedia is concerning. Hopefully this is an isolated incident. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support with regret. I'd hoped to be able to address these issues by talking them through, and had a discussion with BWMW on their talk page. Since they've posted a retirement banner on there now, I no longer want to badger them there. I think that a TBan is probably needed in case they decide to return - if they want to do that, I'd want to see some evidence that they've read and understood the relevant policies before starting work again on that particular article. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'll add that BWMW has indicated that they may return a some future point with a different account. If this TBan is enacted, it will need to be explained to them that it applies to them as a person, not just to the account - socking to evade a ban or block isn't an acceptable plan for how to proceed, they would be better advised to edit uncontroversially and apply for the ban to be lifted after a while, once they've shown that they understand the relevant policies fully. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  • While not making implications, I observe the edit summary and retirement "reason" give rise to WP:CLOUD concerns. Hasteur (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (BWMW Topic Ban)

• Comment. Buzzards-Watch Me Work has retired. A page/topic ban might still be sufficient to prevent further disruption, but I just wanted to note that for the future record. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Retirements can be withdrawn at any time and therefore, this "retirement" declaration is irrelevant to this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hence the part where I said a topic ban might still be necessary.. My point was to pre-emptively explain why more severe sanctions are probably not for the best right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Pro Forma edit to keep this from being archived while the Topic ban still remains open. Hasteur (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft RfC posted

The Arbitration Committee is working on a Request for Comment to focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled. A draft RfC is posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft), and interested parties are invited to comment on the structure and wording on the talk page. Once the draft is finalized, the RfC will be posted for general discussion. – bradv🍁 18:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Draft RfC posted

Edit filter #51 has been split into two separate filters

Hi everyone! I'm creating this discussion in order to provide everyone with some information regarding edit filter #51. As a highly-watched filter that many users look to for LTA pattern hits and early detection and intervention, I felt it was important to make sure that the changes I just made are announced, communicated, and made available to the admin community so that users who rely on this filter can adjust their links, scripts, log search filters, etc accordingly.

As of about 30 minutes ago, edit filter #51 is now split into two filters - edit filter #51 (the same filter ID always used), and edit filter #53. Moving forward, edit filter 51 will now handle the LTA new username pattern hits, and edit filter #53 will handle the LTA content edit and edit summary pattern hits. This split was necessary due to the total size of its regex code. Since I published its first revision years ago, I've worked to add, improve, fix, tighten, and resolve holes with it in order to make it an accurate and reliable filter log for the community to use. Unfortunately, these efforts have resulted in the regex code becoming massive in character count and size. This morning, I exceeded the maximum character size allowed in a single edit filter's regex code when I attempted to save a new revision of the code. This results in the bottom-most characters being chopped off of the end of the regex code, resulting in a malformed mess being saved. Splitting this edit filter into two separate edit filters was the best way to resolve this issue moving forward.

In a nutshell, you'll just need to watch both edit filter 51 and edit filter 53 moving forward if you wish to be provided with the same logs that you're used to seeing. If anyone has any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Shouldn't norm/ccnorm be used here? I know not all character mappings are accounted for, but you should be able to use bracket tokens containing just the normalized character alongside the unsupported ones, and let norm/ccnorm handle the rest. This would make the filter code a fraction of the size it is now. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

MusikAnimal - It certainly could be done... I just don't know which letters are supported by norm/ccnorm and which aren't... Fully implementing it will take some time... If this split ends up becoming a temporary solution while this is in the workflow, great! I'd much rather not have to split the edit filter up... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

MusikAnimal - How practical would it be to open a phab ticket with a request to have the list of characters used in ccnorm expanded to include the many characters I've found and have listed in these edit filters? Having these characters implemented would be the best solution here, as it would benefit the many scripts and regex rules that use ccnorm in addition to resolving the issue here... Could I get your input and assistance on this? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I don't believe there is much involved in adding new character mappings, just a gerrit patch and someone to +2 :) However you should be aware there is only one-way mapping right now (the leftside of the mapping must be unique), and fixing that is not a trivial change. But I think most of what you've found can be added without worry. So yes, if you could come up with a list in the same format, preferably including the hexadecimal codepoint (this site or a simple script can help with that), and create a task requesting these additions, I or any developer can take care of the rest. Even better, consider creating a patch yourself! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

MusikAnimal - I don't mind doing that. ;-) Do you have an example patch that I can reference so that I have an understanding of what's expected? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: gerrit:479970 is a simple example. Add me as a reviewer to your patch! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Moving to delete destination

Please move Madala (disambiguation) to Madala--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: this doesn't look like a clear-cut primary topic to me. You should propose this move (see WP:RM for instructions). Let us know if you need help with the process. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC closure concerning coronavirus pandemic

I know that WP:ANRFC is the place to go for requests for closure. I have actually already placed a request there. However, since the RfC in question concerns a navbox that is on the most visited article on the site (and probably will be for a while), I feel like the RfC should be closed as quickly as possible. So I've come here because WP:ANRFC is not very quick.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bait30: Anything that concerns...the most visited article on the site sounds very much like an argument to keep the RfC open for as long as it takes to get a fully-rounded cross-section of opinion. To put it another way, you want a discussion which has attracted the attention of about fifteen editors to decide what happens on the aforementioned most-visited article? ——SN54129 14:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: that’s a good point. I just felt like it was a timely matter considering thee charts are being updated multiple times per day, so therefore I felt should be closed out as soon as possible. When would be a good time to close the discussion then? Because there hasn’t been any comments in the past three days. You’ve made me come to the realization that I’m trying to rush this, but I still feel like timeliness should be balanced with thoroughness here.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 15:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd seen this discussion listed at ANRFC but concluded that it would be premature to close the discussion at that time; my view still has not changed. I suggest you withdraw these closure requests, relist the RfC as of today's date and await more input. Hopefully with more editors considering everything and commenting accordingly, your RfC can result in a meaningful outcome. I do not see any benefit from the haste in closing now or inevitably redoing the RfC exercise soon thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll remove the listing from WP:ANRFC, but I'm not sure how to relist the discussion. Could you or someone else help out in that regard?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2020

Can an admin move lock the article and all associated articles, there are a fair few, driving my watchlist a bit nuts!! Govvy (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Move protected indefinitely. I don't know which other pages you mean should be protected. @Thomediter: please discuss your proposed move on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Ivanvector, well there was the group articles like UEFA Euro 2020 qualifying Group A, but in the end that wasn't so disruptive next to the main UEFA Euro 2020 article. But the effect of the coronavirus, causing the competition to be delayed a whole year has caused a wave of disruptive editing, I am sure it will be the same with other articles of this nature, Govvy (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 community general sanctions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As the COVID-19 pandemic intensifies, Wikipedia articles in the topic area are facing more traffic as well as more disruption. In response, administrators have resorted to special tools to deal with disruption in the topic area, ranging from IAR actions (such as [47]) to invocation of discretionary sanctions in other topic areas (primarily relying on authorization from the Acupuncture and Pseudoscience cases for DS in "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" and "pseudoscience and fringe science", respectively).

At ARCA, arbitrators have clarified that Acupuncture and Pseudoscience DS authorizations might apply to some disruption specific to alternative medicine and pseudoscience, but do not, as a general rule, cover everything related to COVID-19; arb Bradv wrote, discretionary sanctions cannot be applied to coronavirus articles simply because someone might add pseudoscientific information – there must be evidence of disruption of that nature. At ARCA Bradv and KrakatoaKatie seemed to favor community-authorized sanctions for the COVID-19 topic.

It's vital that we get medicine and public health-related articles right. That's why MEDRS exists, and given the significance of the COVID-19 topic, I think it's a no-brainer to authorize community general sanctions and allow administrators to issue sanctions in response to disruption without worrying about jurisdictional issues with Acupuncture and Pseudoscience DS. Therefore, I propose that the community authorize discretionary sanctions for all articles and edits relating to COVID-19, broadly construed, similar in form to other community-authorized general sanctions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support as a means to portray stable content for our readers on a major public health issue. I don’t necessarily even need to see active disruption to believe that the extenuating circumstances here call for extraordinary measures to protect the reader. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously. Admins should also simply indef any account inserting pseudo-scientific bullshit into any relevant article, they can argue about it later. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - this is a subject area where pseudoscientific or outright false claims inserted into Wikipedia are likely to have dire consequences in the real world. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This topic is very visible at the moment. The risk posed by misinformation is very high. The levels of disruption are also exceptionally high. The high visibility means that admin actions will also receive a lot of scrutiny. As such I see a significant benefit and no significant downside to authorizing community sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support per my comments at ANI. Praxidicae (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support SQL^{Query me!} 18:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, let's do this accurately. --Yamla (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely needed. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support we simply cannot have bogus information pushed out in this way on this topic. The matter is clearly a massive driving force in the world right now - this is very likely to cause hysteria and effect the real world. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Sensible measure. (Non-administrator comment) Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Essential. P-K3 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely! Foxnpichu (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support no-brainer. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Way to close this after two hours, guys. @Wugapodes: can the GS alert be added to Twinkle? Cheers, ——SN54129 11:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129: It probably could be added to Twinkle, but I wouldn't know where to begin. I believe @Amorymeltzer: is an active developer of Twinkle and may be able to help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the ping. Considering the situation outside, I think it's probably going to be the most used of all the DS/GS templates we curently have. Cheers Amorymeltzer  :) ——SN54129 18:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Which templates in particular? Twinkle by itself doesn't really have any DS/GS stuff. I'd like to change some of that in the future (especially for blocking), but Bellezzasolo has actually already built a fully-featured script at User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb which handles sending DS and GS notifications to users; I'd recommend folks use that since it's a narrowly-tailored area of expertise. There's a slight bug causing covid to be left off the options; {1,4} needs to be changed to {1,5} but that should do it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:SithJarJar666 banned for socking as User:King of Scorpions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SithJarJar666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now community banned under WP:THREESTRIKES for evading their block as King of Scorpions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed that WP:THREESTRIKES says, CheckUser findings must be documented on Wikipedia before a user is considered banned. Am I supposed to bother with an SPI on this? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. I think the wording was meant to stop people from unilaterally site-banning sock puppeteers without CU confirmation, not to force anyone to go through extra bureaucracy when the accounts were already confirmed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Why did you delete my comment? I would really prefer if you asked me before removing a non-vandalism edit of mine. Thank you! Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 00:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh gee I'm sorry. It didn't occur to me that a message pointing out a typo on my part had any reason to be there after the typo was corrected. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC),

It's fine Jpgordon. I'm sorry if I came off as aggresive, I was just curious as I'm sure you had a reason. =) Thanks for responding! Thanks, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. If you have three cases, it’s fine. Like NRP said, that language was supposed to prevent people from going around and doing this for fun on their own. We’ve even gone away from the notifications here. The big point is that anyone who has socked two times after a block and has to appeal to AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Reposting by request (and without endorsement), from User talk:SithJarJar666 --Yamla (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I deserve the ban. I've been a bad Wiki contributor, and an even worse friend. I claim all responsibility for Evil Sith Kitten. The IP vandalism? That was me, too. However, the other account (what was its name again, "King of Scorpions"?) is not mine. It's actually my (probably now former) best friend's. (We share an IP.) I got him into Wikipedia when he moved in. What I didn't tell him was that I had just been caught running ESK. Now I feel terrible. I got him into this. (I know this because he came over and screamed at me, "Why the FRICKETY-FRACK am I blocked?!!!?!?!") We share a disagreement over diep.io; I vandalized that article. I don't think either of us realized we were battling each other. So, I'm asking on the behalf of King of Scorpions. I don't care if I'm banned; if I was unbanned, the guilt would probably haunt me forever. I'm doing this because King of scorpions has no talk page access. Please, unblock him so I can sleep at night. Yours humbly, TheSithLordJarJar (My contribs) 22:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Checkuser comment - the two accounts are  Technically indistinguishable (here's your finding for 3X). The "friend" claim doesn't hold up at all, unless SithJarJar666 invited their friend over to use their computer immediately after going on an IP vandalism spree and being blocked, and then let them use it for a month and a half while SithJarJar666 didn't edit at all other than logged-out vandalism on their common IP. I don't buy it. King of Scorpions is evading the IP block in any case. The unblock request is a nonstarter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Copying comment from User talk:SithJarJar666 --Yamla (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason I didn't edit at all in last 2 months was coronavirus. Let me explain: I was in school until then. Then the schools closed, so I was stuck at home. "Ohh, nice diep.io article to vandalize" I thought. Worst. Idea. Ever. Especially since King of scorpions always edits from home... TheSithLordJarJar (My contribs) 15:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revisit BLP ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A little over 6 months ago, I was subject to a BLP ban arising out of some pretty cringeworthy behavior on my part (detailed here) at the conclusion of the discussion, I agreed to the imposition of an indefinite ban on BLP to be revisited in 6 months. I am unclear on how to make this request, apart from posting a new subject in the noticeboard where the ban was imposed. Help? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You're in the right place, but I don't think this is your appeal. WP:GAB has helpful approaches (although it says "blocks", the same concepts apply to limited bans), or in a nutshell: you need to convince the community that lifting your restriction will not lead to further disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how to do that, considering that I haven't been editing BLPs, and have been making a lot of effort to avoid those civility issues that arose before. If you disagree, then please point out what I haven't been doing that I should be doing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, my standard recommendation for requesting unban: show us that you know what you did wrong, tell us what you're going to do to make sure it doesn't happen again. What will you do or not do when editing BLPs? Have you gotten into any disputes with any other editors in the past six months? If so, show us how you resolved it without any civility issues. creffett (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Appeal

Thanks for illuminating the path, Creffett. My main problem with editing BLPs before is that I was using sources that were essentially unreliable. In retrospect, it didn't matter if they hadn't come up at RSN; I had needed to step back from the fray and devote more time to discussion when someone challenged the reliability of the sources. Furthermore, I forgot that BLPs here affect people's lives. We must be gate-keepers and ensure that only the most solid of sourcing makes it into a BLP. I had let myself forget that. After my wake-up call, I spent a lot of time looking at our FA and GA quality BLPs to look for common threads of approach. There weren't any, except for the overriding concern that significant claims require equally significant sourcing. As well, I was made aware how I was creating a toxic and combative discussion environment that only made collaborative editing that much harder. I think that was one of the easiest parts to address; maintaining an non-personal connection to any article is a pretty solid way to not get invested in the outcome. For example, I was involved in a pretty long-term article discussion in The Mandalorian talk page about adding info to an article that I didn't think was sourced that well. Additionally, i didn't think it was that important to mention, and I was pretty much adamant that we not add it (citing different policies, guidelines and protocols). There was more than a little incivility sent my way, and I am kinda proud that I didn't return the snark in kind. I widened the circle on the discussion, which brought a lot of new eyes to the problem and a temporary compromise was found, which was really helpful in creating a more durable compromise a few weeks after that. I think its vital to point out that I didn't solve the problem; it was a collaborative effort from people on both sides of the issue. That wouldn't have been possible with a my-way-or-the-highway mindset. I had to learn how to be flexible and allow collaborative editing to occur. Honestly, I think that was the largest take-away from last September's noticeboard discussion. It hadn't mattered that I meant well. The way I had treated people before and during the dispute at the time had spent any good faith that was needed to Get Shit Done in a collaborative way. By stepping back, using BRD in a more holistic way instead of a traffic sign, the collaborative back and forth stays civil and people are more willing to work towards a common resolution. Almost all of us have used sources that were weak before; it required being willing to listen to others to help learn why they were weak. I think I'm talking in circles. Anyway, I think that the de facto intervention served to rewire how I approach my editing behavior in Wikipedia. I recognize how I screed up with BLPs and my fellow editors before, and have since then, tried to be more helpful and collaborative. Or at least, I hope I have been. What do you folks think? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Well done. That hit pretty much everything I would want to see, and I definitely get the impression that you've learned from this experience. Support lifting of the TBAN. creffett (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was very thoughtful. Support, in consequence. ——SN54129 22:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Support - everybody makes mistakes. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - insufficient acknowledgement of the issues which led to the original block. While I appreciate the reflection on civility and the newfound approach to collaborative editing, there is no exploration here of the extremely serious ethical issues surrounding attempting to use Wikipedia to publish private personal information on living persons. The issue is not that the info is sourced to tabloids and gossip blogs, it's that the living persons involved have gone to great lengths to protect this information, for their own safety; publishing it is an unacceptable invasion of privacy, and that's why you have to turn to tabloids and gossip blogs to find it, because they make a business out of sensationalizing people's private affairs. Wikipedia must not participate in it. Based on the original discussion and the reflection here, I don't trust we can safely allow Jack Sebastian to edit BLPs at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I acknowledge that it was a mistake to utilize those sources; furthermore, while I pointed out that the sources in question had not been previously questioned at RSN, I should have reasoned the list of sources that are unacceptable for use within the wiki-en are more than could ever be listed or discussed at RSN. I should have listened to others who were calling them less than acceptable. I admitted that I was questioning their motives for challenging the sources instead of listening to the arguments as to why they were unsat.

Additionally, I acknowledge the complete right of BLP subjects to their privacy and to have material not germane to their life and career left out of their bios. The sole exceptions to these are legal proceedings and public admissions covered by multiple reliable sources. For example,stating that a celebrity had a baby out of wedlock or a meth addict is an evaluative assessment of an action of theirs (and therefore prohibited), whereas them stating the same information in an interview appearing in several RS outlets is more acceptable (though, of course, it still relies upon consensus and common sense for inclusion). My acknowledged failure was the consideration of the source of this information and the possible BLP subject. My additional failure was not listening to the entirely reasonable arguments offered by others as to why the sources were unacceptable. If anything, my biggest error was in not listening to others, because all of us make mistakes, but the wisest among us listen to others pointing out those mistakes so we don't repeat them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate this well-thought addendum. Changed to support. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Is somebody going to close this? I think we have enough supports now, and nobody has came about to oppose it (aside for somebody changing to support). Foxnpichu (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiMania 2020

According to an email just sent out by Katherine Maher, WikiMania 2020 in Bangkok has been postponed until August 2021 due to COVID-19. I don't see a notice at the WikiMania site yet though. I assume confirmation will be posted presently at Meta or at WikiMania. I wasn't sure where to post this announcement but thought AN was as good a place as any. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a notice from the Wikimania 2020 Facebook page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Further announcement that all in-person, off-line gatherings for Wikipedia editors are canceled until September 15th. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Oversight team

Upon request to the Arbitration Committee, Daniel Case (talk · contribs) has voluntarily relinquished the Oversight permission. The committee extends its sincere thanks to Daniel for his long service as a functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 22:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to Oversight team

"Calamagrostis epigejos" & "Deschampsia cespitosa"

Hello, "Calamagrostis epigejos" & "Deschampsia cespitosa" articles have been updated with useful information (not claiming anything, but providing facts about additional possible benefits of the plants). The updates have been blocked by Doremo user who claimed the quoted source to be "unreliable" without any proper explanation as to why even after such explanation had been explicitly requested and additional references (including to the web page of the professor feature in the video) provided.

Therefore, it would be beneficial to Wiki users to be able to view the additional information that has been now suspended. Please, assist.

Doremo (@Doremo:) user may benefit from enhanced communication/discussion skills to either be able to defend his/her position with proper facts (rather than his/her opinion alone) or to refrain from removing other people's additions.

Future Perfect at Sunrise (@Future Perfect at Sunrise:) admin who has blocked the pages above and his/her own Talk page (from a fair discussion) may also benefit from being open to constructive criticism or from refraining acting based on ungrounded opinions even if they belong to him-/her-self.

Best regards, Fellow contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d09:1c83:2f00:8d53:1f4e:9d49:d801 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

IP with only this edit attempting to argue in favor of claims by IPs that these plants cure coronavirus. Nothing to see here, folks, just someone trying to sling woo and complaining when the GSes stop him. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, their /64 does seem to be adding these things (and then their IP jumped between the additions and this ANI discussion), see Special:Contribs/2604:3d09:1c83:2f00:8d53:1f4e:9d49:d801/64. Between the fringe-pushing and the not particularly polite comments above, recommend closing with prejudice. creffett (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vallee01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today I found that an editor filled a sockpuppet investigation against me here. Why didnt the editor notify me about it? I had no idea!. What if I was blocked and I was not aware of the investigation and so I didnt defend myself?. This is so frustrating. This editor made a sockpuppet investigation against me just because of content dispute. And its not just me! There is also a sockpuppet investigation against another editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Beshogur Beshogur. This is clear harassment. And with this bad behavior I really doubt that the editor is going to stop since he was never warned about this outrageous behaviour .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam That request was closed by Bbb23 because all evidence pointed to retaliation. Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I know. I am upset because I didn't have the chance to defend myself against that accusation. When I saw that investigation today I was shocked. I didn't even know who that editor is and when or where did I interact with him/her.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not notifying the subject of an SPI is the norm. It tends not to have much of an impact on the outcome and leads to difficult to follow back and forths on the case page. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, what about opening sockpuppet investigations because of content disputes?. The editor opened two sockpuppet investigations because of content disputes. The editor should be warned about this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You were just answered. When an SPI is opened, the opening editor is not required to notify the subject of the investigation. Grandpallama (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I was not answered. I asked about opening unsubstantiated sockpuppet investigations because of content dispute.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You were answered--you just don't like the answer. Every SPI is supposed to be opened in good faith, so there are no special rules for "unsubstantiated sockpuppet investigations." People who open cases aren't required to inform subjects, period. You can keep asking the question, but the answer will be the same. Grandpallama (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

When was I answered? I have never been given an answer about this question. Your accusation that I just don't like the answer is totally inappropriate. WP:SPI says that "evidences are required" and that "You must provide this evidence in a clear way." Unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppeting is a personal attack. The editor didn't do it in good faith. The closer has said that it was because of content dispute. If you are not aware of these policies please don't make any further comments here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would seem to understand the policy better than you do. You should take your own advice and drop your stick, which seems only to be about calling for punitive measures against an editor for a three-month-old closed SPI. Grandpallama (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The irony about your claim that you know Wikipedia's guidelines and policies is that you don't even know how to put your comment in a proper place. Have you read WP:THREAD?. I will not move or correct your comment. I will leave it like this so my comment here makes sense. I don't know why you are attacking me. I probably have seen your username before but I don't remember where or when. It might be because you made your comments in improper places so I didn't notice them?. Please don't embarrass yourself anymore and just leave this discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You haven't been attacked, and your knowledge of my username is irrelevant. The only thing embarrassing here is the quest to rage about a closed issue, objecting to the fact that you didn't get a chance to defend yourself at SPI...on a case that was summarily dismissed in your favor. This is friendly advice, and your wanting to take every opportunity to find a battleground isn't great. Seriously, take a deep breath and let it go. Also, typing the wrong number of colons isn't a lack of policy knowledge as much as an error, but please, rant on. Grandpallama (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You think this is only about number of colons? Who responded first? You or TonyBallioni? And whose comment should be first?. Also, you accused me of bad faith saying "I just don't like the answer" while I was not answered about the unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If there’s no evidence, we close it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When a user creates an SPI, the editnotice says: "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed." So SPIs without proper evidence can be seen as PAs. (I haven't reviewed this specific SPI, just as a general comment as to whether SPIs can be PAs, which a user here seems to contest). --MrClog (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The editor didn't provide any evidence. The only reason for that report was content dispute. That page should be removed and the editor should be warned. He made the same thing with another editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Here are that editor SPI cases:

Against Beshogur:

These accounts magically put there support for something they should have no idea exists knew how to use Wikipedia well and knew Wikipedia's policies and after they put in there support they disappeared, someone how knowing about Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and knowing about the edit history of Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019). The accounts where created to put in more votes for changes to articles. Vallee01 (talk)

Literally no evidences at all

Against me:

The very first thing this account did was put support for a discussion in 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria the person clearly knows how to edit and knows Wikipedia policies it is an obvious Socket Puppet, the editing styles are similar to SharabSalam. The person is attempting to put support to spread their personal world view. Someone who is a real person wouldn't immediately go and put support for something they have should have no knowledge over and someone who is new wouldn't immediately know about Wikipedia rules look over the person account it is utterly obvious. Vallee01 (talk)

No evidence, no diffs, nothing!!! absolutely nothing.

• Why in God's name this editor is not warned about this. He created a public page called SharabSalam sockpuppet with no reason. This page should be removed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  Removing the page would remove the evidence of the user's bad behavior from future reference. That's not helpful for anyone. The fact it exists is more a black mark on them than anything else.

  As it stands, you are expending far more effort in raging about this than you would just moving on and getting work done. You will not get a pound of flesh by continuing this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  An admin warning about unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusation is all I need. I am going to expand this even I had to go to the Wikimedia foundation or to the founder of this website. Unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppet and that public page that appears in Google is enough reason for a warning by an admin.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, El C spoke to the editor about SPI without proof back when it happened, and the editor hasn't made that mistake again. Schazjmd (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  I had no idea. Thanks for bringing my attention to this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Macedonian language

Following a report at the 3RR noticeboard, I fully protected this article for ten days due to an edit war what involved removing/readding significant amounts of content, and advised editors to try and reach agreement on the talk page.

I am concerned by the subsequent discussion in which a group of editors on one side of the debate all seem to be agreeing with each other that 'progress was being made', closing their ears to the opposing editors who are suggesting this is not the case. Throw in a ridiculous and unwithdrawn accusation of sockpuppetry (someone editing since 2006 was accused of being a sock), and I think this problem is not going to be easily resolved. It would be worth keeping an eye on this (and a few related articles which are having similar disputes). Number 57 17:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Macedonia is under discretionary sanctions. You can unilaterally topic ban anyone who is disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe edit warring again at the Bettina Arndt article

Over at the Bettina Arndt article Catcafe keeps on edit warring with any editors who disagree with them. They have reverted another editor 4 times in 24 hours and don't have any attention stopping. They seem very aggressive and not here to help the project as they only seem to edit in a very small topic area since joining, that is Bettina Arndt. Bronybooboo (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bronybooboo Edit warring reports are made at WP:ANEW. Note that if you make a report there(and here, for that matter) your own conduct will be examined as well. I suggest that before you make any other reports that you first try to discuss the edit that you want to make on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As an example of your own editing being examined, I note that the post above was your very first Wikipedia edit. What ID did you previously use? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's probably Traceybrow, who has previously made similar complaints about CatCafe: [48], [49]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Coronavirus disease 2019

• Coronavirus disease 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And make it indefinite if possible. The page is getting 250000 views/day, so even quickly-reverted vandalism is seen by hundreds of people. Thanks all. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at the history, are we sure that all or even most IP edits are bad? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, but this stood for six minutes. I expect if we unprotected Donald Trump, there would be a mix of good and bad edits also. Care to try? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've done so even if it technically violates policy. This is exceptional circumstances; a page with such high visibility on a topic with so much misinformation (both malicious and good faith) swirling around is a unique case. With the kind of pageviews this is getting, if "taking zinc supplements prevents you getting it" or the like is live even for a few seconds, we're potentially putting someone's life at risk. Yes, Anyone Can Edit and all that, but we still have a duty of care to readers. ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Iridescent. A rule prevented you from improving Wikipedia, so you ignored it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  No problem at all; when the protection policy was written, we obviously didn't anticipate a situation with such a high potential for people to insert good-faith errors with potential real life consequences. AFAIK even the cesspits that are Facebook and Twitter have also started filtering coronavirus-related nonsense.

  General note to the usual self-appointed busybodies who wander around noticeboards unilaterally closing threads; don't close this one but instead let the bot archive it in the normal way once it's stale. There will potentially be objections to this action is it technically violates Wikipedia:Protection policy, and there's no point forcing anyone raising reasonable objections to start a fresh thread. ‑ Iridescent 18:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

At this point, Suffusion of Yellow there are over 100 coronavirus-related articles and templates so are there any others that you see subject to vandalism? I have many watchlisted but they change repeatedly over a day and I can't check every edit or verify every patient total that gets updated. A week ago, I asked if members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine could keep an eye on the subject but it has grown exponentially. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Here is a log of all non-confirmed edits to pages with "coronavirus" or "covid" in the title. There are going to be too many to review them all, but it may be useful to find pages that need protecting. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good call, thank you. I'd agree that our obligation not to spread disinformation is greater than our obligation to be editable by anyone at this moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse protection - I don't even think this is an IAR case. There wasn't much vandalism but there was some, and of the nature that suggested there would be more, and we use protection to stop disruption - that's basically all the policy says about "when to protect". Unfortunately some of it is from confirmed accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse - I don't think that "some vandalism" is a particularly good protection reason but preventing people from adding medical disinformationon to the main article of an ongoing major disease outbreak which has already drawn disinformation is a good one. Worth watching the entire COVID-19 article zoo, perhaps? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• The main Coronavirus page is actually getting more views. It's EC-protected, but that expires in a week. Someone should remember to enable semi-protection as soon as the EC protection is over, IMO. And maybe enable PC protection now, in case no one remembers. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think it was brought up at least once before, but how do people feel about community-authorized sanctions for Coronavirus? I recognize that this is more "preventing a potential problem" than "fixing an existing problem," but I only expect disruptive editing and conspiracy theory-pushing to get worse. Not a formal proposal, just a straw poll, since I've never participated in GS proposals before. creffett (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Personally I'd be against it. DS only works for intractable disputes; treat all the loons, homeopaths and Russian bots as we do any other vandals. ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Creffett, I agree with Iridescent S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sphilbrick, Iridescent, all right, thanks for the input - that's why I asked instead of jumping straight to the proposal! creffett (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Creffett, I appreciate that your suggestion was well-intentioned, but I think starting with protection, and possibly escalating to 1RR would be better interim steps. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse protection, thanks Iridescent. There is very little chance of good information being missed because a passing IP was unable to add it, and very good reason to help keep rumor and disinformation out even if it was only present for half an hour. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• This seems very sensible to me; well done all. I've marked the page as semiprotected so readers can see it. Agree that similar semiprotection for related pages might not be a bad idea, though the other two main pages already are - Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is semiprotected until the start of April and 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic until mid-April. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose IP editors are not causing any problems. The last IP edit I saw was this edit. It was fine and perfect. Wikipedia is free for everyone. Protection should be based on real vandalism history not speculations based on page views.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  If you have any valid criticism of my protection feel free, but don't just come here and make shit up in the hope we won't notice, and if you're going to tell lies tell lies that take more than ten seconds to fact-check. The last IP edits priot to the semiprotection were both, vandalism, and the "fine and perfect" edit you cite as an example was questionable at best (unless you're seriously trying to claim that "Wuhan pneumonia" isn't genuinely used as a synonym by reputable media; if you think it's "anti-Chinese" you may want to tell the South China Morning Post and the Taiwanese Central Epidemic Command Centre). ‑ Iridescent 23:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse: I just wanted to add that I support page protection to add to the consensus. With a page as busy and important as this one, we shouldn't risk dissemination of false, dangerous information simply because we didn't strictly follow the letter of the law.  Bait30  ^Talk? 04:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse because it's too urgent and there's too much misinformation floating around for our normal processes to work well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endose. We have a deluge of IP's spreading misinformation on multiple Coronavirus-related articles (e.g. even this at Wuhan Institute of Virology). It is an unfortunate step to take, as we have many great contributions by IPs (and even in this area), however, things are too serious now (even the Wuhan Institute of Virology article is clocking over 20,000 hits per day), and we can't allow WP to be abused like this. Britishfinance (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• As we speak, here is another IP on the said Wuhan Institute of Virology article re-pushing a conspiracy theory about it [50]. Britishfinance (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the alert. That page is now protected thanks to The Anome. Please continue to call attention to pages that need protection, everyone. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Without going into detail on which pages should or shouldn't be protected, I think that, despite the extra work it makes, pending changes protection should at least be considered for some small number of pages where many good IP edits are being made. I know that the link to making edit requests is provided in the edit notice at the top of the page, but many otherwise constructive contributors may be discouraged from even trying when the button says view source rather than edit. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Even the smaller articles are edited too actively for pending changes to be effective. El_C 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Understood, it was just a thought, well maybe keep it in the back pocket as a possibility if not for small articles then for the tiny/obscure and tangential articles around the edges where misinformation needs to be kept out. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse semi-protection of the entire topic area. We cannot let these articles be turned into sources of misinformation that could result in grave real life consequences. - MrX 🖋 12:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. This is too serious a matter to take anything but the most cautious approach for now. -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Protection extended: world, U.S., Italy

Note that I have now semiprotected 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, indefinitely. El_C 16:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Now also semi'd 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy, indefinitely. El_C 17:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Note for EI C, the article about the pandemic in US subjected to arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBAP2), same as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh specific article (which falls under WP:ARBIPA) and most of Eastern Europe articles (falls under WP:ARBEE). 36.68.165.222 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

While the coronavirus crisis has an impact on the political situation of the United States (especially the forthcoming primaries), I think it is a stretch to say the article is covered by discretionary sanctions. This is a medical crisis with political implications, it's not primarily about politics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. What Liz said also represents my view. I've also adjusted the duration for Coronavirus (was set to expire in a few days) to indefinite. Anyway, our role in and reputation of being a vehicle that provides factual information (the encyclopedia) will always take priority, especially in a time of crisis. El_C 01:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. This is too serious a matter to take anything but the most cautious approach for now, particulary since there seems to be a campaign to vandalise these articles; this should be extended to all the related subtopic articles. -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Can you change the protection duration of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom become indefinite, because I suspect when the protection expire on 15 March 2020, IP edits return their distruptive editing and they adding more rumours and disinformation about the event. 36.77.92.39 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to do. Now done, for real. And logged at AEL. El_C 22:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Move Protection as well

We should also consider move protection (per today at Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic), as it is also very disruptive (given the links), and can cause the articles to drop off google's search rankings for a period. Britishfinance (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and please semi-protect this article too. It's the most controversial of all the article in this topic area. - MrX 🖋 22:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done and done. El_C 02:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I am too worry that if the article about coronavirus pandemic with high-traffic views is unprotected, there are many edits by IP that reverted by a users, for example such as "Revert edits by xxx to last version by xxx" or "Undid revision xxx by xxxx". Because of this semi-protection needs in order to factual integrity and stability of the article 36.77.92.39 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Germany now also semi'd, indefinitely. El_C 04:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have all of the coronavirus articles on my Watchlist (but not the dozens of templates) and after two weeks of watching and spot-checking them, my opinion is that editing is happening so rapidly with the articles being updated continuously through the day, that we need all of our collective team of community of editors, accounts & IPs, to keep up with the massive rate of changes going on around the world.

I think articles should only be protected if there has been consistent vandalism or speculation. I see references being added regularly and I think considering the pace of change, overall, Wikipedia is doing a better-than-average job of presenting the crisis to our readers. My only concern are the templates which are trying to track the numbers, which can be tricky because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Croatia now is subjected to discretionary sanctions relating to topic about Eastern Europe and Balkans (WP:ARBEE) joined articles that subjected to discretionary sanctions such as pandemic in US, pandemic in India, pandemic in Poland, etc. I also plan to include Armenia and Azerbaijan specific article about the pandemic into the discretionary sanctions as well. 36.77.92.39 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Liz, that's a well-reasoned argument, to be sure, but my concern is if a disruptive edit on Wikipedia actually becomes public in the mainstream media, even if its lifetime is brief. I think a time of crisis, especially, makes Iridescent's approach particularly compelling. Our reputation is of utmost importance when it comes to the trust of the public, so an unusually cautious approach, protection-wise, is probably for the best in terms of minimizing risk for the project — again, as the top-rated vehicle for factual exposition and data on the pandemic. El_C 04:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, if I'm reading the ARCA correctly, I think the Committee seems to be heading toward the direction of viewing these articles as being covered under ARBPS as well as ARBCAM. El_C 04:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That would seem to be on pseudoscience and acupuncture topics. Is the intention to limit the scope to those areas? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, El C, safety first. I'm just seeing IP as well as some brand new editors making contributions. Especially in the country articles, where news sources are not in English, I think we could use all hands on deck as long as there isn't vandalism occurring. I was just recommending against a all-article shutdown but I see that this wasn't being proposed.

Regarding risk for the project, it looks like our good work on coronavirus articles is being recognized. Thank god for WikiProject Medicine! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. I think edit requests are enough considering the circumstances, but fair point. Thanks for the link to that Wired article — that's pretty cool! El_C 21:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Promotion of fringe claims

What should be done with examples like this at Miracle Mineral Supplement which currently spreads a claim that the miracle product cures COVID-19. I would be inclined to revert and warn the user that they will be blocked if the edit is repeated. However, there is no policy for common sense and the normal wikiway would be to argue on article talk for a month. Should WP:IAR be applied to stop edits like this (regarding this article, and any similar claims in other articles)? Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

John’s analysis of the wikiway is accurate, and makes me sad. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Per the ARCA, no need to really IAR anymore, even. Just protect under the ARBPS or ARBCAM DS, if you so wish and log it at AEL. El_C 06:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and up'd the protection. El_C 06:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to make clear the following, I do not believe that MMS cures Coronavirus or any other disease, and I was not intending to spread false claims about it when I edited the MMS page. When I saw the notifications later on I realized the confusion that had been caused. If the language I used made it sound like I was spreading misinformation, I apologize for that and I recommend more experienced users in this matter fix the language to an appropriate manner. As well the sources I have linked to are only covering/debunking this phenomenon. As well this information was already present on the Misinformation related to the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic page, which I linked to in the new section I created in the article. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Eons of Mollusk, for the sensible comment. El_C 06:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well (more on your talk). Thanks also to El_C for the links and protection but the IAR issue remains. If I revert the claims which are still currently in the article, that would make me WP:INVOLVED and unable to take admin action in any similar situation. Further, it's only a matter of time before an extended confirmed editor adds the claims to this or other articles. I suppose we can wait till then but I would like this noticeboard to decide whether to prevent the promotion of such claims, or whether to let a thousand flowers bloom as the issue is argued on multiple pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I am of the opinion that we discourage the addition of material that falls short of MEDRS aggressively. El_C 07:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Good but it's more subtle than that because the issue is not whether a mineral supplement can cure COVID-19. My concern is whether an article should proclaim that so-and-so has claimed it is a cure (see the first link in my OP above). When the pandemic is over, we can revisit the question and it might be useful to add refs that certain silly claims were made. However, what about now? I believe an IAR situation exists where people will turn to Wikipedia for information and while the panic is on we should not provide a platform to spread the claims because many people will skip the fine print such as refs which say the claim is bogus. Bear in mind that we only believe the claims are bogus as no one has tested whether Miracle Mineral Supplement can reduce the disease's impact. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I appreciate you weighing this claim in-depth, but I'm just not sure it, for the moment, is more nuanced than simply that lack of testing equating with that claim falling short of MEDRS standards. And in the context of the pandemic, especially, I am arguing that we should be even more aggressive than usual about untested cures. El_C 09:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I predict that the quacks are going to have a field day with their claims for the various varieties of woo. It's bad enough that we allow them to edit at all. John makes a very valid point. Thinkers here may want to think about how we re-inforce our protection of the project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Quack claims that are not noticed by outsiders can be removed. Quack claims that are noticed by competent outsiders and are debunked can be couched as being false or incorrect in Wikipedia's voice per WP:ASSERT. It is not true that it is only a "belief" that MMS does not minimize the spread of diseases. Instead, what we can say is that it is false that there is any evidence that MMS helps cure any disease. I think that's pretty straightforward. jps (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

MMS is not a "mineral supplement". It's a strong bleaching agent. The scum who started promoting it under that name came up with that name so people would think it's an innocuous "natural" thing. MMS is promoted as The Secret Cure They Don't Want You To Know About for literally everything. Treating every insertion of "MMS cures X" into articles as a good-faith claim that needs a bunch of discussion for consensus-gauging is suicide pact stuff. It should be treated no differently from someone adding claims that you can cure X by jumping into lava while wearing nothing. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Although to be clear, the editor who made the edit linked up top was just documenting the latest conspiracy nuts flogging MMS. But like I said, it gets promoted as a magical cure for every disease, so I'm not sure exactly how much detail is warranted in the article for every separate instance of someone promoting it for something. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81 actually brought this up over at Arbcom, the consensus there is that it would likely fall under discretionary sanctions related to either alternative medicine or pseudoscience. 2600:1011:B059:580C:549B:9499:A28B:4A1D (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Other COVID articles

There is no Discretionary sanction tag at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, and there is edit warring to install non-MEDRS-compliant text. Are all COVID articles covered by discretionary sanctions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The sanction says that it applies to "articles relating to coronavirus disease 2019". Even a very narrow interpretation would include that article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the talk page header. I do not know where to find the discretionary sanctions notice, and would not want to be the one to deliver it at any rate ... could someone please notify User:Da Vinci Nanjing ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Mix of good and bad edits from an IPV6 range

(2A01:4C8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32)[51] is probably a UK school. I look every hour or two and find vandalism and some good edits. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This network is one of the four major UK mobile phone operators. Frankly I doubt there are any schools using it. Think 'T-Mobile for the UK', except I think it is generally divisible into smaller sub-ranges. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: thanks, I guess nothing to be done. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Lists of Polish gminas

Hey English Wikipedia Administrators!!! I am from Finnish Wikipedia and don't know English very well. Nevertheless i observed that all lists of Polish gminas are in almost same content!!! Thus all lists of Polish gminas except this are useless in my opinion. Kind regards Jnovikov (what things?) 05:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the articles are transcluding each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

OK.Jnovikov (what things?) 05:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears the problem started with an edit on 31 May 2009 by an editor who has not been active for ten years. Before that edit, List of Polish gminas (A) was a redirect to List of Polish gminas. The edit changed it to essentially what it is now. The current A article is the same as List of Polish gminas (Z) except for the list in the References section, which consists of one line of what is possibly the reference, following by a list of A entries in the A article, and Z entries in the Z article. I guess the redirects should be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The split was mentioned on the talk page. It was then combined into one list in 2018,[52] but without redirecting the separate pages and without explanation. Peter James (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

In this 2017 diff (which I picked at random), the parent list functionally consisted of a header template, and placing it at the top of the letter lists made sense, since it allowed navigation and even had a rudimentary sidebar template. The only problem for the letter lists is that the transclusion never got removed. Of course, we really should re-redirect the letters to the main list, since the sortable main list provides much more functionality than the bullet points in the letters. By the way, note that the bullets aren't exactly in the reference — the reference appears at the bottom of the transcluded parent list, so the letter list items appear directly below it. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed all the subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/List of Polish gminas (after checking they followed the pattern described above) to be redirects to List of Polish gminas, so I think is resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Attempts to access account

I woke up this morning to a notification that someone had attempted to access my account from a new device. I received a second notification an hour ago. I think my password is pretty secure, but I won't be in a position to change it for a few hours. It's an unsettling feeling to receive that notification, so could an admin please look into this and advise me on what to do next? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think many of us get these notices fairly often, Mclarenfan17. Someone tried to log on as you and got the system to send a password reminder notice to your associated email account. They did not access your account. I think some times trolls do this just to unnerve editors and admins. This is not an emergency. If you want to change your password, just do so the next time you log in.

But I wouldn't worry that someone has guessed your password unless you have made your password known to friends or other people....which I hope you would never do. But the person trying to log in DIDN'T have your password because they had the system send out a password reminder. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: thank you for the response. I never give passwords out, but it rattled me to see that message. Last time it happened was in 2018 when a million or so editors got affected at once. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Page protection of Coronavirus disease 2019

I had originally fully protected Coronavirus disease 2019 for two days to prevent further edit warring on the semi-protected, highly visible page between users whose experience should be high enough not to engage in such behavior.

After reading User_talk:ToBeFree#March_2020 and Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Full_page_protection, I can agree with CFCF that "it was an extreme act to protect the page".

I'd like the protection to be reviewed. and possibly removed or further reduced in duration, without waiting for my confirmation, by any uninvolved administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the previous protection level of the page to prevent possible damage to Wikipedia's reputation, given the high amount of edits that are unrelated to the conflict (Doc James's happened while I was looking at the protection interface, if someone wonders) and the necessity to allow experienced editors to quickly fix issues in the highly visible article, given the constantly and rapidly changing information about the topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved amicably by self-undo of the disputed protection and exchange of kind words. Discussion(s) archived. Shit happens, lesson learned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Post-close amendment to comments in an AfD

Hi - a user has noted that I mischaracterised their position in a recent AfD closure that I made. I think their comments are fair, I should have been clearer in what I wrote, so I would personally be willing to modify the AfD closure by adding an addendum to my original closing statement - I wanted to check here to see whether doing so would break something from a technical perspective (I always try to be careful when there is text in bold, red writing telling me not to do something!) Thanks for any pointers. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, as long you only edit the closing comment and nothing else it will be fine. I've regularly done it when I find I've made a typo in the comment. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thanks - yes, it was just the closing comment I was going to add to, I'll go ahead. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass revert needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lepricavark (talk · contribs) has been spamming list articles with useless short descriptions ("Wikipedia list article"). This is a useless and pointless description. I started reverting this myself, but this has essentially been done in a WP:MEATBOT-like fashion without consensus. If someone could revert those, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have been adding these descriptions in good faith for several weeks. Up until this point, a few editors have raised questions at my talk page and have evidently been satisfied with my response. A few minutes ago, Headbomb came to my page and demanded that I stop without providing any basis other than their personal opinion. There has been zero effort to communicate with me in good faith and a non-admin such as Headbomb does not have the authority to issue blanket orders. My edits do not need mass reversion and I do not appreciate the immediate escalation to ANI after Headbomb essentially ignored my response to their talk page demands. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not just use the article titles as the short description? It's not at all clear to me where, per WP:SHORTDES lists fall in the boundary between articles should have short descriptions but not redirects. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Headbomb is unaware of Wikipedia:Short description. It states "Eventually, all articles should have a short description template, even if it is empty, so it is easier to keep track of new articles which still need to have one added." Later it also mentions that "Most mainspace articles should have a short description." Lepricavark is in no way shape or form spamming and, in fact, is to be commended for their work in adding these to articles. The call for a "mass revert" is IMO way out of line. If you don't like these Headbomb feel free to start a WP:RFC at the appropriate spot. This thread should probably be closed ASAP. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Not all article titles are a description of what is in it. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I imagine that Headbomb would find that arrangement even more (to use their gracious description of my hours of work) useless and pointless. The reason for including short descriptions on lists is that we are otherwise at the mercy of Wikidata's descriptions, which are far more susceptible to vandalism. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The addition of short descriptions is certainly within policy. A disagreement about what I see as ambiguity between varying points of WP:SHORTDES seems like a good discussion for its talk page. Which, fortunately, was already happening. Pending a consensus there to do something other than what Lepricavark is doing (at least one editor, RexxS is in support of these descriptions) I don't see a behavioral issue or one needing mass rollback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Since Headbomb has chosen to refactor their post I should add that there is a consensus for "short desciptions" which is why the page describing their use exists. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Headbomb never asked me if I had consensus to support my edits. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a consensus for short descriptions, there isn't a consensus for useless tautological short descriptions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware of the rationale? For example, List of women has short description "Wikipedia list article" which superficially looks silly (but is invisible for nearly all readers). If that description was removed, the article would still have a short description, namely "list of Wikimedia lists of women" from d:Q6626611 at Wikidata. Anyone (IPs or Jimbo himself) could change the Wikidata description to anything from trolling to BLP-violating attacks. The only way to prevent unmonitored vandalism at Wikidata from being visible on Wikipedia is to put a non-empty short description on the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait, our reasoning for local descriptions is really "because we don't trust WikiData"? If vandalism from WikiData shows up here, why aren't we just hopping over to WikiData to fix it? I know I've done that once or twice. creffett (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not need to assume responsibility for Wikidata's content. Even if we did, we won't always be able to promptly detect Wikidata vandalism that has leaked onto our site. By creating our own short descriptions, we avoid having to depend on a less-reliable website. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that short descriptions are not displayed to most editors and changes to them at Wikidata do not appear in the article's history or on an editor's watchlist (when I last checked, there was an option to include Wikidata in watchlists but it is severely impractical and rarely used). A key point is that readers searching on mobile will have the short description shoved in their face so they are a great target for trolls. Adding "pederast" to an article might not even be noticed by readers before it is reverted several hours later, but doing the same in the short description would be prominently displayed to readers. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Some suspicious Editor:

I just like to inform admins about a mysterious and annoying editor in the handle of 118.136.118.232, he did remove the philippine sections in the Kris section and conducted round of revert, s/he doing edit wars in other pages in Wikipedia and s/he had warning card. wikipedia is not a playground to remove or delete any unpreferred or mostly bias point of view, and I afraid this issue was hard to resolve for this Ip editor have too many handles and backed by some (not accusing all) corrupt moderators in Wikipedia, I am so concern about the NPOV which can affect the quality of information we produced, I don't know. who s/he was but this user frequently removing the Philippines in any Southeast Asian articles as if he "dedicated hater" (my personal opinions as i check his/her patterns). I'm just one of the members here who have guts to stand against this no-neutral approach. thank you (Enola gay0 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You did not notify the IP editor in question as is required when filing a report here. I have notified them now. --MrClog (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gale5050 UTRS

Gale5050 is sending me emails asking me to consider their current UTRS request. I am unavailable for at least a week. If an admin with UTRS can have a look, please, I would appreciate it. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, did he email you through the Simple English Wikipedia? Best, Vermont (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't handled UTRS requests and there is a backlog, if any admin has a few minutes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Admin bot trial completed

Hello all. We previously notified this board of a request for approval for an adminbot which will assist in blocking IP addresses of open proxies. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ST47ProxyBot. Primefac recently approved the bot for a trial of 10 actions, which has been completed. You can find the results at Special:Log/ST47ProxyBot, and they are summarized in a table in the BRFA. If you have any feedback on the trial, or any input on whether the bot should be approved, please comment at the BRFA. Thanks! ST47 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Just as a note, those interested should comment on the BRFA itself instead of here, just so there's a record. If you (generic passing-by admin) have no concerns, don't feel like you need to comment; mainly looking for any major issues. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

ST47, your use of "we" suggests that you're sharing your account. Please keep in mind that you may not share your account, even if the bot says there will be cake for sharing it. creffett (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish flu talk page - More eyes and GS review

I've added {{COVID19 sanctions}} to the article. Amakuru questioned the applicability of the GS, so I thought I should also ask for outside admin review. My reasoning for its applicability is that interest in the topic has primarily resulted from its comparison with COVID 19 and politicians' comments about that virus (specifically, Trump's use of "Chinese virus"). See the page views template below. The Talk:Spanish_flu#Requested_move_15_March_2020 section makes this link further clear in users' comments. However, if other admins feel this is too broadly construed, please feel free to remove the GS. The RM and poor behavior in it by some users was the impetus for my application of the GS.

Also, could some more admins add Spanish flu to their watchlists? There's a RM ongoing and it's attracted the attention of some subreddits. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I commented as a (sadly former because of time constraints) RM regular, so I’m staying out of the adminy bits of it, but I’d agree with Amakuru that I don’t think it falls under the COVID-19 GS despite the media drawing comparisons. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the input. I'm still convinced the GS apply as "broadly construed" given that, outside of the notice box and the section I created, there are currently 15 mentioned of "COVID", 28 mentions of "corona", and 14 mentions of "Wuhan". Would, perhaps, WP:ARBAP2 be more applicable? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If someone specifically mentions COVID19, that mention would have to be covered. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but, my feelings: IAR. Just look at that graph. While obviously the 1918 flu is not a current event, my unscientific anecdotal experience concurs that it's being compared all over with COVID-19, being the last real worldwide pandemic. First, do no harm: if readers might get wrong ideas about COVID-19 from reading about 1918 flu, we should err on the side of caution. I assume the community is "allowed" to declare this falls under the COVID-19 GS? Might want to consider doing it for other modern pandemics as well. If people can't stick to the straight-and-narrow while editing these there are millions of other articles to work on. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I guess this isn't a massive deal really, but as I said on the talk page it seems unnecessary to be extending the sanctions to this page. I am not aware of any disruption on the article itself (which does not appear to mention COVID-19 at all), and the only incident was a bit of anti-Chinese-government soapboxing by a single user at the RM discussion. That sort of thing happens everywhere on the Wiki, but is not in itself a reason to come down with the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut solution of general sanctions. Disruptive editing of that sort should just be dealt with through the normal channels such as WP:AN/I, warnings, and (if necessary) blocks. There's no denying that there's been a large uptick in views on the article, but the same applies to all sorts of topics that have suddenly come into the news as a result of this, including such diverse articles as toilet paper, hand washing, panic buying, Chris Whitty, and Nadine Dorries.[53] Should all of those articles be placed under discretionary sanctions too? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Normally I would agree with Amakuru, but these are a long way from normal times now. Having edited on several non-core Covid-19 articles, there is a lot of disruption going on and POV/misinformation editing. Spanish flu has clearly become an important article for readers in trying to understand Covid-19 (eg page views exploded), and it is important readers get the best/non-POV information, and that admins can act swiftly for editors interfering with this. I therefore support Spanish being included in sanctions. Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• I would think the whole page is not covered. Things specific to Covid sure, but not the whole article. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, Kinda sorta. The problem is that the two are prominently linked in news and political commentary right now. I would say that any sanctions based on the DS would have to take account of the specific edits, but that the article itself is in scope - i.e. we should apply WP:CLUE. Guy (help!) 22:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  I agree right now the two are linked in the news, I just do not think that will be the case long term. Also just a note these are not DS sanctions but GS that was a very week consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• I hate to disagree with PackMecEng or anyone else here. I endorse EvergreenFir's action. This is an exceptional situation and in my sincere opinion, we need to interpret "broadly construed" in a very liberal way. Whenever it is obvious that disruption of any article is driven by the pandemic, then I believe that discretionary sanctions should be used to squelch the disruption swiftly. Keep the talk pages open for edit requests. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have been under self quarantine for six days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose my main issue is with how broad it is already trying to be applied. The consensus for the GS in the first place was rather weak. Only open a few hours and not that many participants. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• I disagree, Amakuru has the general reasoning set out, but I also don't want to see "increased activity, likely due to C19" be justification expand GS to additional pages. I also don't think the Spanish Flu page is so out of control that general steps for enforcing page discipline wouldn't work. Overturn GS addition to this page. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Edit after edit after edit, most from low-edit count users (but not all), provide reasons for their !vote that include bad faith assumptions that other editors' !votes are based on political motivations, and other non-WP policy or guideline reasoning. It's beginning to sound like commentary to a YouTube video instead of reasonable discussion. I don't know the solution, and frankly haven't !voted and am ambivalent on the subject. But, this is not how an RfC should work. Glad I'm not closing it. O3000 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm confused, but from what I can tell EvergreenFir didn't apply any page restrictions, they just added a template notifying editors about active sanctions that could apply to edits on that page. If they were to have added a page restriction, I think that would be a stretch, but {{COVID19 sanctions}} on the talk page seems fine. Obviously editors and readers are interested in the 1918 epidemic because of COVID, and coronavirus is mentioned by editors on that page over 30 times meaning that, yes, some of those edits may be subject to general sanctions. I don't see a problem letting editors talking about coronavirus know that we have general sanctions in place for edits about coronavirus. EvergreenFir's template addition seems fine. If editors have concerns about the scope or mandate for general sanctions, that should be its own discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• As already mentioned on her talk page, I support EvergreenFir's decision to cover the article under the COVID-19 General Sanctions. It just makes sense to have that template displayed on the article talk page. As for invoking it in specific instances for that article, that's a different question, but one where common sense should, again, prevail. El_C 07:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• This seems a reasonable interpretation of the GS, there are multiple sources linking the two and the 1918 pandemic is the leading comparator offered in news coverage. Guy (help!) 22:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• I support the application of {{COVID19 sanctions}} to the Spanish flu article, as it should be broadly construed to cover any article where we're likely to get COVID19-related nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support GS to apply, as it simply makes sense. Agathoclea (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone doing page protection requests?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There are a core group of folks, and others pass through on occasion like myself. Why do you ask? Primefac (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

E.g. Charlie Austin was listed there about five hours ago, I've had to revert about half a dozen times and I'm not the only one. Not such an odd question if reports are being ignored. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"Ignored" is hardly fair. The timeline was: the first listing for Charlie Adam (not Austin) was at 4 am my time; your relisting was at 6:20 am; my protection was at 7:14 am. There were never more than ten listings. It hardly seems outrageous that there was a period of 3 hours when no admin was patrolling that area. We are all volunteers and we do the work when we can. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, chill. I know more than most that we're volunteers. What's frustrating is when our valuable time is spent reverting endless vandalism and not being able to do anything about it. I just added a note here to remind people to go look. I sure as hell don't need the backlash, so let's all drop it and move on to improving the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Guido_Nonveiller.jpg

Hi. I'm deleting copyright violations on Commons, and this file appears to have been moved from Wikipedia before being deleted. The Commons deletion rationale mentions the Wikipedia version has correct licensing information, however it has been deleted. Could an admin please tell me whether the file had good licensing iformation (if so, what it was so that it can be corrected and kept on Commons) or whether it was a Fair Use image, in which case please restore it here (since it must be deleted on Commons). Thanks, Storkk (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts, looking at the logs, they meant File:Guido_Nonveiller_(Entomologist).jpg which appears to be used under Fair Use. Unless I've missed something, feel free to mark this section resolved. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

65.246.72.0/24, please unblock

Can someone please unblock this Wi-Fi IP 65.246.72.0/24? It’s just the Wi-Fi of Target. Unless there has been abuse coming from it, I don’t understand why it’s blocked. Everytime I’m near any Target and the Wi-Fi links up and I find something to edit it says it’s blocked because it’s a web host provider. No other store Wi-Fi does that. Just putting this out there. ⌚️ (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The range was hard-blocked on November 17, 2019, as a webhost by ST47. On June 5, 2019, the range was globally blocked for one year as an LTA by Ruslik0. You should have not brought this here. If you believe the local block and the global block are wrong, you should take it up with the editors who imposed the blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, They tried for what it's worth. SQL^{Query me!} 23:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried and a week went by. The issue kept popping up (as I live close to a university town center). ⌚️ (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Noting for the record that most Target stores have a Starbucks store inside which has a seating area; more often than not, I see people working there. I'd suggest blocking anon edits but allowing logged in users. -FASTILY 01:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Range was blocked due to an LTA which was detected on that range by Checkuser. It was already globally-blocked anonymous only at that time, it looks like the user in question created their account on Meta, where global blocks do not apply. These types of open wi-fi connections are commonly used by LTAs. Given the history of this range, applying IP Block Exempt is probably a better solution than making the rangeblock anon-only. ST47 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence about the hard block. On one hand I prefer these types of block to be soft, on the other hand I can see the checkuser log and know what potentially lurks there. But one thing bugs me a bit, and no doubt causes a lot of confusion @ST47: now it's clear this a Target range, can we please adjust this block to not say it's a webhostblock? Do we need a new template for public wifi? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think {{rangeblock}} works fine, but if people want to create a new template I don’t see an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I created this based on {{School block}}. --MrClog (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The template can now be used as {{Public Wi-Fi block}}, both as block reason as well as talk page message. --MrClog (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If the only problem is new account creation, I can block it on meta as well and then the local hard block can be lifted. Ruslik_Zero 07:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems sensible! -- Luk ^talk 11:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@ST47 and Ruslik0: I made it anon. only for now given that we know it's a Target range used by LTAs at some point. It's still account-creation blocked, but in any case, this should resolve Trillfendi's concern for now, I don't see a point of requiring public Wi-Fi users (which is a lot of people in developed countries) to get IPBEs. --qedk (t 心 c) 08:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I extended the global block to Meta, so the local block is not necessary now. Ruslik_Zero 11:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The wrong version...again!

Hi, I recently asked for the move protection of 1993 Aurora, Colorado, shooting. However, I overlooked consensus to keep it as 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting without the last comma. Can you please move it back to the place where community has consensus? Thanks. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 04:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. The Lord of Math, Lectonar is there any reason this page needs to still be move protected? — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, the utter lack of consensus, I'd say...? I think it's best to keep it move-protected as a move would bring controversy and it's better to do a move request. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 10:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Yung producer 2.jpg

Survived mass deletion of Category:Wikipedia files missing permission as of 7 February 2020. Deletion bug? Please check. -- CptViraj (📧) 03:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That file is not in the category even though it supposed to be there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I did this edit and the image was added to the category somehow.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is mediawiki bug. -- CptViraj (📧) 06:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why the image was not in the category and then when I added a space it was added to the category. You can ask in WP:VTP. There are editors who are experts in these things.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I didn't add a space. I removed "7 February 2020" and wrote it again. I was thinking that there might be an unusual character there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the file. Good catch - thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy inre Victor Tessier page

I am hereby giving Sulfurboy notice that I already contacted the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. I have a ticket # and was told to post in the Administrator's notice board. Per that board's instructions I am posting on Sulfurboy's page giving him notice. I will post the same on the Administrator's board.

Sulfurboy is now cyberstalking me across the internet. Sulfurboy stated I have a COI with Victor Tessier because I made a FindAGrave.com page for him. I have made over 1,800 FAG pages for people I don't know. I don't know Victor Tessier. Sulfurboy spent yesterday cyberstalking me to other websites outside of Wiki. I doubt that's part of an Admin's duties. He then decided to lie about me and smear me on Victor Tessier's page. Sulfurboy should not be an Admin. He should be recused, banned from overseeing my pages or my account. He clearly has a personal problem with me. I did exactly what he asked then he lied and said I didn't. Look at the page history. I removed all mention of Ancestry which was merely an extra source. I removed anything that could appear to be copy/paste. Still, he refused to accept the page then decided to personally attack me. That page is better sourced than most pages here. It's definitely better sourced than Victor Tessier's son Edward Tessier's page with few poor sources which has been approved for over a decade. Sulfurboy only put it up for deletion when I mentioned that. Sulfurboy has personal issues and power issues. Mary Cummins (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You haven't presented a single diff to support your accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This person is under the impression that I "cyberstalked" them when I pointed out that they made a findagrave entry for a subject they were writing a draft about here. This was in relation to a possible WP:COI. I was able to know this person created that findagrave entry because they stated so here on their own talk page. Also, from their talk page, it seems as if I'm not the first Wikipedian they've accused without merit of stalking, just search their user page for the word "stalk". Other people they have accused of stalking in the past include Jimfbleak Bbb23 and CaroleHenson. I also see they've had a series of blocks in their past for threatening legal action and destructive editing. It seems that on this latest go around they still don't have an interest in contributing in a constructive manner to what we're trying to build. Also of note, is their wild accusations of sexism or whatever on my talk page found here. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean her Talk page. My gosh, she goes back years. I blocked her as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about. I will try and do some research to see if I can figure out why my name is brought into this discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's easy. Just do what Sulfurboy said. Search the user's Talk page for the word "stalk". Back in 2016 she accused you of stalking her.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Found it: There was something more than three years ago on the user's talk page that appeared to be a COI issue. It never went anywhere, they were kind of ranting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"kind of" is kind.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, I've removed their ramblings from my talk page since this matter seems to be closed, but it of course can be seen in my edit history if needed. Thanks for the quick resolution. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

2600:1000:b025:cf37:adc4:e7c:bc2c:b610/41

I just blocked 2600:1000:b070:e7e8::/64 for a bunch of disgusting stuff at Jason Davis (actor), and then saw that 2600:1000:B025:CF37:ADC4:E7C:BC2C:B610 had done the same kind of thing. First of all, that article and its history are kind of a mess and need a. a good editor (one who's not about to go to bed) and b. an admin to go through and look for all the BLP violations I may have missed.

But bigger than that is the range one gets when the ...B610 is added, here--a ton of contributions, many of which in the US entertainment industry (the Davis article falls under that as well), and I cannot rightly figure out if we're dealing with (mostly) one editor who gets a kick out of showbiz and happens to hate that Davis actor, or if it's a bunch of different editors and that those three IPs delivered that range is just a coincidence. I am inclined to think the former, but this odd edit/revert from the same range makes me think the latter.

If any of you got that feeling where you want to dig into something, awesome. It might well be that there's a bunch of vandalism in there, and you might get to use your rev/delete buttons (but I don't think the WMF pays bonuses for that). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Dealt with. Drmies, email me if you want to know how to track down their edits in CU. I’ve blocked for two weeks anon-only. They don’t appear to be creating accounts so hopefully we don’t need an account creation block on it yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Romanov's Theorem

Hi, would you please restore the history of Draft:Romanov's Theorem (note the capital T) and merge it with Romanov's theorem? Thanks, from TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 02:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 10:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Request review of my page protection

I'm requesting uninvolved administrators review my protection of Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Current consensus. TomStar81 originally full protected the page. Sdkb and others requested it be lowered to ECP protection at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Current_consensus_discussion. It made it's way to WP:RFPP where I acted on it; first lowering it to ECP, then lowering it to semi-protection per the ECP protection policy. Sdkb has requested that I raise the protection back to ECP which I declined. Given my editorial engagement on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, I'm requesting review because I'm growing concerned that these decisions are not obvious or straightforward, and per WP:INVOLVED I should probably not continue acting unilaterally. Consensus about the appropriate action would put a lot of minds at ease. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, User:Wugapodes. I agree with ending the full protection, but I would probably have kept it at ECP. Wikipedia policy permits administrators to use ECP at our discretion; it doesn't have to be in an area that ArbCom has designated. Looking at the recent history of that page, I see just one case[54] of a disruptive edit that would have been prevented by ECP. Normally one case would not persuade me to impose ECP, but this page seems special, almost like a policy page - spelling out some consensus-based wording and content for an important and highly-read page - and for that reason I think the additional layer of protection can be justified. ECP still permits editing by pretty much all of the people who are taking part in the discussions to determine consensus. With that said, I think semi-protection will accomplish the same goal almost as well, so I would be OK with leaving it there. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Close review please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earlier today, I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that he feels my close was mistaken. Your comments are invited: should I self-revert?—S Marshall T/C 00:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The close looks okay to me. I admire the tenacity of the editor who is continuing to push for a title change they clearly feel passionately is important, but they need to accept that consensus did not move in that direction and drop the matter; at some point continued advocacy on a decided issue becomes disruptive. The one thing I would've liked to see in the close is a more solid definition of what exactly the moratorium means. I.e. if something big suddenly changes and an informal discussion pops up expressing widespread interest in a name change, how should WP:CCC be interpreted in the face of a moratorium? There was some support in the discussion section (disclosure: including from myself) for allowing move discussions, just without the formal RM tag/process, and I would've liked to see that addressed in the close. But overall, no, no need to revert. Sdkb (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The close clearly reflected the consensus of the discussion and was correct. I realize the editor in question is unhappy with that decision and still disagrees with it, but we don't win 'em all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The close seems fine. FWIW I think a reasonable path forward for the next inevitable move discussion needs to be laid. Perhaps a subpage just for those wanting to propose and discuss, coupled with a set timeline for a wider discussion. It would also be helpful for the medical project to make a recommendation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The close was sound. It was certainly not possible to close it wrt anything other than what was requested. ——SN54129 09:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• The topic is under general sanctions, see WP:GS/COVID19. S Marshall's close was an accurate reflection of the discussion and, given the astonishing participation at that page, the move moratorium is highly desirable. Please do not pursue the matter until the 30 days has elapsed because trying again and again can be disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think it is an accurate evaluation of consensus, and the 30-day choice is within an acceptable discretionary range. Therefore there is a moratorium on move requests. However much one might believe one is right (and I offer no opinion either way), repeatedly banging one's head against the same wall is rarely effective - and can be disruptive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• I read through it and I agree that the close was reasonable - the way I often do this is think "if it had been closed the other way, would that have been more or less appropriate?" In this case if you'd closed the discussion with an outcome of "no moratorium", it definitely would have been a poorer reading of consensus and a less "correct" outcome. So yes, close endorsed. Fish+Karate 10:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies that my earlier attempt to post my reasoning lead to an inadvertent reposting of a huge amount of previously deleted text. It looks like the close is being supported, but to present my case, possibly too late:

• An extraordinary removal of editorial rights (the right to propose a move for an article) requires extraordinarily strong consensus (14:11 !votes here, when following section, previously a sus-section, is included);
• Where consensus is unclear, the least restrictive course of action should follow;
• Consensus should be based on the arguments presented, not a headcount;
• A block on renaming discussion requires absolute confidence in the current name;
• Articles of almost unprecedented current relevance should not have names that are demonstrably wrong: that cannot be something that "complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." Kevin McE (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: In response to comments earlier in this thread, I want to say that nothing Kevin McE has done is disruptive. It's legitimate to seek a close review and Kevin McE did so in an entirely appropriate manner.—S Marshall T/C 13:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The close is good and a clear reading of the discussion expressing editors' exhaustion with the matter. It's become clear on that page that repeated discussion about the article title has gone beyond saturation point with many editors now just !voting oppose/speedy close and further change just isn't going to happen any time soon. Sometimes a hard pause is needed and this is one of those times. However the wording of the close may need specifying - normally a moratorium on move discussions is taken to cover both formal requested moves and less formal discussions but here the editor opposing the close is also reverting all attempts to close the informal discussions on the page as well. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adminbot (TheSandBot)

User:TheSandBot is poised to take over for RonBot's maintenance of the WP:RESTRICT subpages. As the code is the same I have approved TheSandBot for trial and granted a temporary admin flag. Those with issues or concerns should comment at the BRFA. The trial will run for one week. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have just reverted an entire section from TV detector van which is clearly copied verbatim from an IEEE journal showing an unambiguous copyright message ((c) 2013). The user even had the courtesy to provide a direct link to the source from which he copied it making it dead easy to spot. I have left the contributor a message on their talk page, so I assume that no further action is appropriate on that front at present.

I am relatively new around here, but it occurs to me that the copyright material is still present in the article history. Is there any process or procedure for dealing with that?

For reference, the edit including the copyright material is [55] and my edit removing it is [56]

Since this notice is not directly addressing the user's action and I haven't referenced them directly, I have not left the required notice on their talk page. As I said, I am new around here so if I have erred on that point, please accept my apologies. -RFenergy (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@RFenergy: Historical revisions that include copyright violations are indeed deleted. To request such a "RevDel" (revision deletion), you can use Template:Copyvio-revdel. To make it even easier, there is a special script that speeds up the process. --MrClog (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Might be a bigger problem that I previously envisaged. The copyright material was first edited into he article with this edit. The 'insertion', that I referenced above was only a reversion of someone else's removal. A lot of editing has taken place since, so I have no idea what happens now? -RFenergy (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

RFenergy, I second Mr clog’s advice on revdels. That said, I do not think a revdel is warranted in this case; while the removed text was obviously a severe overquote that should have been removed, too much history would be hidden in a revdel. If a lot of history/major edits will be hidden, a revdel will be usually declined. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. One lives and one learns. -RFenergy (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@RFenergy: I would additionally suggest apologising to Andy for giving him a copyvio warning when he wasn't the person that added the text originally. --MrClog (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you. -RFenergy (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji, I've revdel'd hundreds of edits on a single article before. If it's copyvio, it gets removed. As you say, though, this is just an overquote (properly in quotes and referenced) so it does not require revdel. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The revdel policy advises against large scale use in most cases. There are situations in which large-scale use is appropriate but the threshold for use should be a lot higher. There isn't any requirement that all copyvios have to be revdeled. Hut 8.5 10:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Influx of new editors and IPs

Not surprisingly we are and will continue to see an increase in new editors and editors using IP addresses to the fact that hundreds of millions of people are at home instead of school, work or partying. Inevitably it means more vandalism and pov editing. But it also hopefully means more good faith editing by editors who haven't a clue what Wikipedia is about and are going about it all wrong. I've tried to help a couple but that's too time consuming, and I've yet to see a welcome template, or at least one in Twinkle, that sets out clearly how we work. What I have in mind would start with a short version of what we are and what we aren't, and then go on to discuss the difference between writing an article here and writing an essay, explaining about the need for verification, reliable sources and original research in simple prose. Also some links to where to get help and of course to NPOV etc, but I probably wouldn't say much about NPOV except perhaps a sentence making it clear that it isn't exactly the same as being neutral. I've brought this here for discussion because I think there are more experienced editors here than most of the other boards, but if anyone thinks this really really belongs elsewhere, eg a VP, feel free to move it but with a link from here please. Of course if anyone has anything to add about vandalism and pov editing, feel free. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There isn't really a substitute to spending a few hours reading through the policies, but Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset is a decent start. It could use a companion page that is a concise statement of our purpose (ie, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to publish essays). Wikipedia:Purpose is a horrible page full of pointless quotations in ugly {{cquote}} templates, is overlinked, and has some random image included for no reason. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is very comprehensive but also hella long. I think one of the most helpful things for me when I started was the tutorials, which are available at the menu Help:Introduction.— Diannaa (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Next button tutorials don't retain readers at all....90 percent loss of readers by the third page.....what is needed is a landing page like Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page but setup like the pillars page.....as in consumable information on one page....list of links to a page with list of links is not helpful.--Moxy 🍁 22:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Vids of course is the sort of media people expect to see nowadays—as they didn't 15 years ago—so can we get some of those tuts into the welcoming template and hence to Twinkle? ——SN54129 18:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I forgot, I was also thinking that this should be sent by bot to every new user. Yeah, I know that we might want to give some new users more tailored welcomes, but right now a lot of new users get nothing, and that's bad (as I know from experience, eg seeing people raise questions in articles, etc.). Doug Weller talk 19:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Some new users I've run into recently wondered why they didn't get automatically welcomed by a bot, as I believe happens on some other Wikis. Perhaps its time for a welcome bot, or at least some sort of way to make it easier for us to welcome newbies. Like a list of new users who haven't yet received a welcome template? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I find it annoying when I visit, say, the Kazakh Wikipedia and instantly receive a welcome notification (often in a language that I do not even speak). If automated welcomes were implemented on enwiki, I would hope that the bots at least wait until one edit is made before sending them. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 23:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Even one edit may be too soon. If we were to go the bot route, I would prefer it wait until more than one edit is made. We shouldn't waste resources having a bot welcome a vandalism only account that gets immediately blocked. I would think ~5 edits would be good since it's not yet autoconfirmed, but demonstrates that the user is productive and likely to stick around if welcomed. And it gives humans an opportunity to welcome newbies whose first edit is very helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd definitely support some kind of feed of autoconfirmed users who have not yet been welcomed, as there are certainly cases where people fall through the cracks. But the benefit of having a person welcome you rather than a robot is huge (or at least I hope it's huge, given the collective effort we put into it), so I think we should wait to make sure we have a chance to welcome as many new editors as possible ourselves before handing it over to the bot. Maybe have a bot do it if they fall off the aforementioned proposed feed. Sdkb (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I notified the welcoming committee whose editors likely have ideas and experience about this. As for my thoughts, Wikipedia:Core content policies has a lot of info that's useless for newbies (they likely have no clue who Larry Sanger is or what Nupedia was) but it also covers our three most important content policies very well and in a relatively concise way. Based on my experience with edit-a-thons and encouraging new editors, WP:Be bold tends to be helpful for newbies. A lot of new editors are apprehensive about making edits and worry about permission; as a policy, it shows them that the community actually encourages and welcomes their contributions which helps put new editors at ease. As a mature policy page, it also does a really good job of introducing them to the wiki culture of BRD, non-article namespaces, and our behavioral policies. If you haven't read BOLD in a while, the lede is refreshing and usually enough to get newbies through their first few edits without a ton of alphabet soup. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed about WP:BOLD. The experience so many newcomers seem to have is "yikes, all these rules are overwhelming and there's no way I can learn them all so I'm just going to give up and leave it to the experts". There are two ways to address that: make the rules clearer (which we can work on but which can only go so far) and emphasize WP:BOLD, which speaks directly to that feeling and helps newcomers overcome it. (WP:IAR achieves the same thing, but there are obvious downsides to linking new users there.) Sdkb (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• (coming here from the WP:Welcoming committee invite) Hi Doug Weller! For the past few months I've been pushing a bunch of modifications to Wikipedia's resources for new editors. A lot of those are nearing implementation, which I'm very glad to see given the influx. The focal point is the standard welcome template — a proposed streamlined version has been discussed at the pump and that discussion may be nearing closure and I hope adoption. The new version points editors to Help:Introduction, the more helpful set of tutorials Diannaa mentioned above. The outdated WP:Introduction and WP:Tutorial, meanwhile, are slated to be redirected there unless the prevailing consensus changes. We're also trying to revamp the WP:Task Center, an excellent and underutilized resource. That project is less far along and could particularly use some help. Thanks for bringing up this topic — I'm glad to see the attention being paid to it! Sdkb (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I wrote about this thread at WT:TH [57] because I thought that active editors at the Teahouse might be interested. Clovermoss (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I sympathize with Moaz786's comment about getting welcomed at Kazakh Wikipedia. I also have accumulated a few such welcomes I don't have a prayer of understanding. Otoh, as someone who has written a lot of welcomes to new users and thinks about language issues a lot, I would just say that if we move towards a bot-issued welcome, they should probably be issued in more than one language (Kazakh-Russian-English, for example, in that case), or at the very least, have links in multiple languages, on the order of, "Read this notice in English · Lire cet avis en français · Ознакомьтесь с этим уведомлением по-русски" and so on. A project page somewhere with one row per Wikipedia language could list, for each language, the alternate welcome languages to use, and another could have the translated welcome templates. A cleverer bot could use geolocation, where the IP was available, and/or the language of the user's principal contributions. Mathglot (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Wikimedia Commons has a welcome message with more than one language [58]. As for welcomes, new users here on en-wiki receive an automatic notification thanking them for their first edit and encourages them to keep going. Maybe we could have additional information added to that notification somehow? Clovermoss (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, I forgot about the automated notifications. I forget exactly what's in them, but I think the overall architecture of the current setup is pretty good. People expect that bots will sometimes send them notifications, whereas a message on their talk page will have a much bigger impact if it's sent by an actual person (and if it's clear to them that this was the case, which I'm not sure it always is; the streamlined welcome makes a small language tweak to fix this). One thing to note: I'd say about 90% of editors have been welcomed by a person by their tenth edit. I sometimes filter recent changes for "learners" (autoconfirmed but below EC) to see who's getting missed, and there are some, but many editors in that category also turn out to be vandals or socks or some other type of problem user. Sdkb (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Every day, I welcome new editors I come across who edit articles on my Watchlist whose edits seem constructive. The Teahouse use to have a very robust welcome system for new editors and I use to see these messages all of the time but less so now.

Rather than a long list of rules--which probably aren't read--I think a pointer to the Teahouse would be of more practical use. It's personal and it's where someone can go with a question instead of presenting them with a long list of policies they won't read. I know when I started editing regularly in 2013, I came to the Teahouse a dozen times, often with frustration, and the welcoming attitude there was key for me sticking it out and learning how to do things, the Wikipedia-way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: completely agreed. The streamlined welcome I mentioned above is hopefully exactly what you're looking for. Sdkb (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I found the exact wording by scrolling through my notifications. If nothing has changed since September 2018, a new user will recieve the 3 notifications that I did. The first one said: Welcome to Wikipedia, Clovermoss! We're glad you're here. The second one said: You just made your first edit; thank you, and welcome! The third one said: You just made your tenth edit; thank you and please keep going! Then, I got welcomed by Nick Moyes [59]. Interestingly enough, I actually wrote about the notification when I posted a question to the Teahouse here. Clovermoss (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Do you know, where do they take you if you click on them? Sdkb (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: The first notification takes me to Help:Getting started if I click on it. The second notification takes me to where I made my first edit, which was God Help the Outcasts. It shows the current version of the article, not the diff of my edit. The third notification takes me to the Teahouse if I click on it. The Teahouse is where I made my tenth edit. Sorry for the delay, it takes awhile to scroll through hundreds of notifications 50 at a time. I'm surprised there isn't an option to increase the amount of notifications per page. I think it's also worth mentioning that the upper-right corner of the notifications page itself has a help? button that links to Help:Notifications/FAQ. Clovermoss (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Thanks for doing the scrolling haha! Ah yes, Help:Getting started, our intro page that's just a list of all our other intro pages since we couldn't agree on what our actual best intro page should be. The place where eager young editors daring to imagine that they can figure out how to edit here go to learn that, actually, it'll take them ten years just to read every page with "introduction" in the title and they probably should just not bother trying. Our best asset if our goal is to prove the world right that we're an impenetrable maze. I can't say I'm a fan. Sdkb (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: "As a new contributor, you may feel a little overwhelmed"... yeah, no kidding. And out of all those links, there isn't even one to the Teahouse! Clovermoss (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Those thinking 60 pages with no TOC will work should read over this...reason some long time help editors are concerned with 60 pages tutorials with no TOC is we know how readers navigate. That said we have no clue why someone gets an account ....perhaps their bio is all wrong....best first page with no TOC is Help:Contents that covers everything...even a link to the 60 page tutorial that is an accessibility nightmare. Accessibility is more than accommodating people that can't use a mouse. It's also about people that prefer not to use a mouse.---Moxy 🍁 06:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• A bot to welcome new users is a perennial proposal; there doesn't seem to be much of an appetite for it, tbh. ——SN54129 09:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

HostBot welcomes new users who make a certain number of edits within a certain period (10 in 24 hours when approved) with an invitation to the Teahouse. You can see an example here (a sock's talk page, to avoid making any truly new users uncomfortable). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: Indeed; the operative phrase their is ... who make a certain number of edits. Cheers, ——SN54129 12:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The Teahouse does a great job, but of course it can't help people who don't visit it (sadly I see too man). Or people who don't know the right questions to ask. How will they learn through the teahouse the things I pointed out at the beginning? Our articles reflect reliable sources, not our opinions or knowledge. They reflect all important points of view, positive and negative. Here's a list of things that we aren't and things that we are. Links in those sentences, maybe a small number of other links. Short, easily digestible, links to places to find out more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Agreed, the Teahouse is fantastic. In addition to what you said, the other downside is just that it takes a lot of ongoing work to give personalized answers to questions, whereas writing good help pages only needs to be done once (and then maintained a bit). Sometimes the personalized help is needed, but often it wouldn't have been if the help resources were better. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: I wonder a bit whether the Teahouse hostbot invitation results in fewer personalized welcomes because it turns red talk pages blue. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I expect that varies with the editor. For me their edits and what else I'm doing on Wikipedia (perhaps I'm working through a backlog of pending changes, which can require concentrated attention, or fixing typos, which won't) have a much greater effect.

I don't think bot welcomes to new users who haven't made an edit will be particularly helpful. Like Moaz786, I've received automated welcomes at wikipedias whose languages I don't understand, and would prefer not to receive those. Most accounts never make an edit: see Special:ListUsers, start at any page, and scroll for a bit. This discussion is four years old, but has some numbers; there are probably more recent ones I didn't find. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Public Wi-Fi block

During an earlier discussion on this noticeboard, it became apparent that it was handy to have a template that can be used as block reason when the IP address linked to a public Wi-Fi network is blocked. As such, I have created {{Public Wi-Fi block}}, largely based on Template:School block. Is the current template good and if so, should it be added to MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown? --MrClog (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Does it need to parameterise for whether account creation is permitted or not? (Can this be detected automatically?)

At present it says "create an account at home", which is a bit dismissive to those whose only access is via a public access (Although I was told yesterday that such people in the UK are unimportant and they should just get proper broadband!). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If the admin sets the "home" parameter to "no" ({{Public Wi-Fi block|home=no}}), the template says "To edit, please create an account and log in" instead of "To edit, please create an account at home and log in with it here." --MrClog (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The default behavior should not be telling editors to create an account at home. There's no way an administrator will know whether someone has broadband access at home, so an optional parameter doesn't resolve the systemic bias issue. Many people only have access to Wikipedia from public wireless, and we should not assume that our readers and editors are privileged citizens of industrialized nations who have the luxury of home internet. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, sorry, but you're wrong here. In the developed world, significantly more people have home internet access than via mobile (see this exact discussion I just had with Andy over it with regards to the UK numbers. 98% of UK internet users have a wired connection. US percentage is lower at ~80%, but even those users normally have access through multiple mediums. I'm not sure the number for other Western nations, but my suspicion is it is very similar.) Telling someone to create an account from their home wired connection when encountering an account creation block is the best advice that can be given. If they don't have a home connection we have options, but those options suck and are usually backlogged months.

The exception to this would be developing countries, and for a variety of reasons, range blocks in places like India, Indonesia, and Nigeria aren't the norm. Those ranges tend to be exceptionally active, and many times the damage is wider than we can justify blocking for what is usually one problematic user. We also tend to get far less disruption from non-Anglophone countries, so the ranges where "majority mobile or public" is a thing don't tend to have many accounts being created to begin with.

In Western countries, most people will have access to multiple networks on any given day. Not everyone does, but we don't give advice based on the exception to the rule. en.wiki has a primarily Western editor audience because of historical reasons of where English is dominant. Giving people the sound advice to create an account at home when it's a safe assumption they have home internet is a bias, but it's one we really can't get around unless we want to direct everyone to ACC and thus lose them. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense; I've struck my objection. Thanks for taking the time to write that out! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

98% of UK internet users have a wired connection.

Please stop misquoting that. The ONS report doesn't say that (It says 88%). Even then, that report is widely challenged. Radio 4 just yesterday for one, in reference to the internet as a communcation medium during this crisis, and the number of people who were dependent on libraries for access, which are now closed.

Although internet access in the UK is huge, it's not complete and its incompleteness is strongly correlated to either poverty or rural locations. (Per the other discussion) many people's access is via mobile networks, especially teenagers, especially the rural population. For WP to take any sort of "let them eat cake" attitude here (which is what your claims are coming across as very strongly) is an elitist position what WP absolutely does not and should not be taking. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have {{rangeblock}}, {{anonblock}}, {{CheckUser block}}, and others. The list doesn't need to be made more cluttered. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Three isn't cluttered. And {{SharedIPEdu}}, which is one of the most-applied of these, should be on there too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• {{School block}} is on it I believe. --MrClog (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed. SharedIPEdu isn't actually a block template - the schoolblock template is what's used for the block. We also have more than three block reasons already listed. Actually I quite like this template, though I'm tempted to tweak it a bit - it arose in the context of a hardblock which isn't really dealt with. I know of several occasions it could be used, though it doesn't really fall into the common uses that admins look for in the dropdown. I'd describe it as highly specialized. There's a multitude of specialized block templates which aren't listed and would only clutter the list. What I've found with regards the dropdown, is that if admins need something listed then they will add it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Zzuuzz: I've got you covered. --MrClog (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• I can see value to this, but my question is whether it's usable (not that that's a reason to not have it). How do we identify when somewhere is "public wi-fi"? Libraries, sometimes, (locally though they're indistinguishable from local government offices). Cafes though tend to buy their internet from the local domestic ISP, same as houses. Can we distinguish them? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  No not always, and sometimes we have better or more generic templates. However some places like Target and Home Depot and Lowe's (and there are others) are clearly identifiable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with NRP that this makes it cluttered. {{rangeblock}} or {{anonblock}} both do the trick. No objection to people using it if they want, but I wouldn’t add it to the drop down. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ip range 37.160.0.0/14

I've opened this request to ask admins to review the block of 4 "/16" ip ranges: 37.160.0.0/16, 37.161.0.0/16, 37.162.0.0/16, 37.164.0.0/16. The reason of the block is that a user of these ranges has been vandalising 2 pages: Ross Butler (actor) and Frank Oz. It's right taking measures to protect these pages and prevent the vandal from further disruption, but blocking for a month 4 ip ranges is beyond what's necessary to do to keep safe Wikipedia. I'm asking to change the block in this way: keeping these ip ranges blocked, even for more than a month, but only for the 2 vandalised pages and eventually others, i.e. preventing anonymous users from these ranges to edit the vandalised pages. It's quite simple and it's a commonly used way to deal with such issues. As an alternative, those pages might be semiprotected for a month or more, so that the vandal won't be able to edit them anyway. The aim of the current block is avoid further vandalisms, isn't it? Well, either of the methods I've suggested balances optimally the need of protection for the encyclopedy with the least possible collateral damage (there're a lot of constructive edits from these ranges if we exclude the vandalic user). I'll be waiting for a reply by an admin, I hope that my request will be granted. MaicroMista (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't done anything about blocking, but I have semi-protected both articles for a month. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

They weren't disrupting two pages, but many dozens, including a lot of BLPs. I would not have blocked such a range for the sake of two articles. Note that I blocked them with account created enabled, so anyone prevented from editing (there weren't many collateral issues) can create an account. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

As I've pointd out in the blocker's talk page, the vandalised pages aren't "many dozens" but a few more than one dozen. In my opinion, the measure taken exceeds the aim and caused too much collateral damage. Is there any other admin who agrees my statement?

MaicroMista (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You aren't reading the contributions correctly, as I've pointed out on my talk page. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The 4 range blocks together block the entire 37.160.0.0/14 range, which is used for Iliad Italia's mobile network -- blocking a total of 262,144 IPs. It certainly is a huge range and it does affect many users who are not vandals. I haven't reviewed the editing by the range enough to judge whether I'd consider the block appropriate (and do not have the time to do that now). However, it may be useful to set the blocking reason to something like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} <!-- persistently removing/changing information without sources and no attempt at communication -->. Such a message is probably much clearer to anyone on the mobile network that is trying to edit Wikipedia. --MrClog (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've unblocked the 37.162.0.0/16 range and the 37.163.0.0/16 range as they do, apart from one edit, appear to be free of the issues. The remaining /15 block does not really "affect many editors who are not vandals" - it is a very lightly used range and indeed, apart from the vandal, I count fewer than a dozen productive edits in the last month. Also, the block message which blocked users will see actually is "persistently removing/changing information without sources and no attempt at communication. Please register an account if you wish to edit." Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason I personally think a template like {{rangeblock}} is handy to use is that users that try to edit see quite an intimidating message where a normal block reason may be easily missed, while a clear and colourful template may not be missed. The current block reason is fine too though.

I meant to say that the IP (as a Mobile IP) is used by many individuals, not necessarily editors of course, as you correctly pointed out. --MrClog (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Halving the blocked range is a good compromise. Thank you! MaicroMista (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

AP295 on the Principal Component analysis page.

Some disruptive edits by new user AP295 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Principal Component Analysis page, with violation of 3RR. Some WP:OR and as a specialist the point in the page was correct (and cited): PCAs are applied to Z Scores and the page discusses the two alternatives.Limit-theorem (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I warned the user about the three revert rule. On the talk page, AP295 seems to be pointing you to a reference that explains their edits. Are you familiar with it? If so, perhaps you could explain why the current source should take precedence over Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, or why that source is not particularly useful. I would encourage you to try discussing the dispute with AP295 and other editors more as the discussion at Talk:Principal_component_analysis#Dividing_each_attribute_by_its_standard_deviation_changes_principle_components seems to have gotten very heated very fast. Beyond the edit war, administrators cannot do much in content disputes. You may want to try some form of dispute resolution if you cannot come to a consensus on how the article should read. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute, but WP:OR bordering on vandalism or reading comprehension. Some methods normalize the variance, others don't. This is explicit in the text. Whether machine learning uses nonnormalized variances can be added (I will do so, as I am also familiar with ML PCAs). It does not appear that the editor has much knowledge of statistical techniques (he can't even spell it right), or Wikipedia standards, which makes it hard to argue with them. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: "– and, possibly, normalizing each variable's variance to make it equal to 1; see Z-scores.[4] " this sentence says that there are two different approaches (which we use with Z-scores.Limit-theorem (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Limit-theorem: As I mentioned previously, AP295 has pointed you to a work that they believe supports their point. So it's difficult to justify blocking when the editor you want blocked has been doing everything you've asked of them. In your first revert edit summary you ask them to use the talk page. AP295 then posts on the talk page. Your first reply to that talk page message is an accusation of OR and an immediate threat to report them. AP295 responds claiming it is not OR and provides the title and author of a book they say supports their claims. There's a brief back and forth about math that I don't quite understand. AP295 makes a suggestion on how to improve the page, and in response you "give up", accuse them of vandalism, and claim that they'll be blocked for behavior that has up until this point appears to be entirely good faith. I will remind you that one of our guidelines that editors should follow is Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. If the editor seriously does not understand the mathematics behind the topic, you will need to do a better job explaining that because for those like me who do not know the details of PCA, this looks like a good faith content dispute. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: There must be a misunderstanding. He is removing and deleting sourced content. I am really sorry if I did not make it clear. (In other words there are two methods. I accept that the one he suggests is used, no problem (the text makes it clear). But he is deleting the other one as non adequate, which is OR. I am a statistician and I use the method all the time, which is why I find this weird.) Limit-theorem (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

They stopped after being warned about the 3RR, and are now attempting to build consensus on the talk page. If they resume edit warring, make a report at the edit warring noticeboard. There was no 3RR violation (it's > 3 reverts, not ≥ 3 reverts, common mistake), AGF on the citation they gave makes me hesitant to rely on OR claims, and the newbie is behaving in a constructive manner. Unless there's something I'm unaware of, I don't see anything that justifies administrator action.

On a personal note, I understand the frustration of dealing with Randy from Boise, but being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is one of our fundamental principles. Trying to find common ground with people who may not have the same expertise is part of the territory, and that collaboration often leads to some of our best content. It may be weird, but for someone who uses PCA in different contexts from yours it may actually be useful. Consider AP295's suggestions as feedback on who the article is not serving well. If they're focusing on one aspect, maybe it could be explained better so that others don't come to the same wrong conclusion? — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Wugapodes: for both understanding the specialist's frustration and wanting to keep WP an open enclyclopedia. Will help him. Limit-theorem (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added a short summary of my concern to the talk page. Many of the same points are made in the article itself, Section 3 Further Considerations (which I just noticed), and also follow from the formulation of PCA given in Bishop, so I do not believe they comprise original research. AP295 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like AP295, you are still not getting it. There are two methods to normalize (by mean or mean plus variance, i.e. Z Scores). You are removing the second method (which is sourced) because some book you've read does not mention the second method. 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Duplicate Wikipedia files

Hello!

Can some admin please take it upon him- or herself to check this category perhaps once a day so entries doesn't stay there for so long? This is done perfectly on Commons but I see no one does it here. It's not that a troublesome task so please someone can spare a few minutes a day for this? Jonteemil (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Please tag the unused copy of each such image with a speedy deletion template: {{Db-f1}} which will place it on the speedy deletion listings for admin attention. Thank you!— Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Jonteemil : If the duplicate image is on the Commons, the speedy deletion code is {{Db-f8}}. — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I see. Perhaps {{duplicate}} should be redirected to {{db-f1}}?Jonteemil (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The place to suggest that would be WP:Templates for discussion.— Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Okay, done that. Thanks.Jonteemil (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

License washing

Lennox Theodore Anderson looks to be using en:wikipedia as platform for license washing, as he/she is cropping files (images) en masse with a restrictive attribution/share alike license from Wikimedia Commons and releasing them here with a wrong "PD-Self" license. He/she has been reported here before, to no answer.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

pinging @GoodDay:, the former user reporting this, in case he/she can shed more light onto this.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I left a blunt message at User talk:Lennox Theodore Anderson#Stop requesting that they engage here before continuing. Please notify me if further problems occur before a consensus is reached here. A recent upload to enwiki is File:Michael Lord 2019.jpg. That looks incredibly like the Commons File:Official portrait of Lord Framlingham.jpg particularly (cropped), except the image is flipped and has glasses. Surely they haven't added the glasses!? Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I did a check and yes, there is a very slight rotation, the addition of glasses, and some odd cropping, but otherwise it's the same image (and has been deleted). Primefac (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've tried getting LTA to stop, but he/she simply ignored me. This has been going on for months & so I figured either LTA's having WP:CIR issues or he/she just needs a blunt reaction from the community, to get the message. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are some unfortunate initials for a Wikipedia contributor... --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Now, he's just finished page moving (back & forth) the John A. Macdonald article, apparently to create a new re-direct for that article. This is looking like an example of WP:CIR. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not the first time they've moved pages like this before. I remember a few months ago spending way too much time cleaning up another similar mess. Connormah (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the editor has stopped since the warning earlier today. I agree that this is disruptive along the lines of CIR (and/or communication is required) and would be willing to block accordingly if the behavior continues. (It looks like Johnuniq is at that point also, though apparently only regarding the image uploads.) --Izno (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Newbie mistakes can be fixed and forgiven, and we should try education before enforcement. But LTA needs to engage with the concerns about their editing and understand the problems, preferably before doing anything else but certainly before uploading any more files or moving any more pages. If they don't, then unfortunately an indef block may be necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

LTA's refusal to communicate here or at his talpage, is quite vexing. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I've left them a message requiring them to communicate before they make any more edits. If they carry on regardless, they should be indef'd by the first passing admin but hopefully they'll take heed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

He's currently working in his sandbox. Past experience, tells me he's laying low, hoping for this to blow over. Then he can continue is disruptive pattern. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

But just look at the bizarre content of his sandbox, which he has been editing since receiving the latest message. Please just block now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that if he's banned, he'll resort to socking (ip or new account). I personally believe he's deliberately ignoring all of us, because he damn well knows how to respond here & at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Any admin is free to lift the block without discussing it with me if they believe the issues are resolved. Given the history, though, this will be a high bar to reach. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if it's him, but an IP has just shown up on John A. Macdonald to blanket replace all "Macdonalds"s with "MacDonald"s. And can we delete the hoax article at User:Lennox Theodore Anderson/Sandbox? Meters (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the sandbox. I took no action on the IP, but have no objection to someone else taking action on that. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a while for obvious block evasion. Hopefully that will calm things down for a bit. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the initials "LTA" are a coincidence. DS (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:WikiIndustrialComplex

Someone is having a hard time following the instructions for writing up an unblock request. Maybe one of you can help them; I have a feeling they don't want to hear from me anymore, not even to give them a link to NPA. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• No problem, I'm happy to help. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (2nd nomination) - snow close

An uninvolved administrator is requested to decide whether a snow close is appropriate here - the first AfD was closed yesterday, and the nominator of the second one does not seem to be accepting the snow close. I am personally involved, since I commented (thought not voted) on the previous AfD. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson speedily kept it (NAC) but Sanmosa, the nominator, reverted that.[60] I don't have time to deal with it right now, but it does need dealing with. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've re-closed it and posted a question on Sanmosa's talk page. They want to discuss some issue (judging by their edit summaries in the AFD) but it's not clear what it is, and the AFD nomination statement does not clarify (it reads more like a keep argument than a deletion one). Perhaps they just need to be pointed to the correct place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy and paste move?

I think a copy and paste move occurred here - Andrey Yuryevich Vorobyov to Andrey Vorobyov - [61] [62]. If so, not sure if any histmerge, clean up or other untangling is required, posting here for those more experienced to consider. Spokoyni (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Move help needed

New(-ish) user Eshaan11 attempted to "correct" the spelling of Color photography and moved it to Colour Photography without consensus. Because they did this without discussion (per WP:MOVE and MOS:ENGVAR) I went to reverse it. I noticed that they had also moved it incorrectly so that there was no talk page at the new location but I did not notice this was because of the incorrect title capitalization. I was unavoidably called away in the midst of this and the end result is that there now appear to be two separate articles: Color Photography and Color photography. Could some kind admin put this back together for me? I realize that attempting to do reverse this and stepping away in the middle is less than optimal behavior for a relatively experienced editor and I apologize but life interrupts sometimes. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User has also done similar mayhem to Deafblindness. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, could you please specify what should be the final destination? Color photography?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, correct. Color photography was the previous location. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, another one already moved by Tbhotch--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

How dare you have a life away from Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Ymblanter and Tbhotch. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC) And to Phil Bridger: I know? Right? How rude!

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports closed

An arbitration case regarding Motorsports has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs) and Tvx1 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports closed

Chaos Music

Hello!

I want to create a page for an Argentinian music label, Chaos Music. But I am unable to do so. When I tried I got the following error, "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism"."Any administrator can create or move this page for you"..--Rashijain1992 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please create the article in the draft space and then, if it gets accepted, somebody would move it to the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rashijain1992, I see that you're unable to create the Chaos Music and Draft:Chaos Music pages because the page names are affected by the title blacklist. (This is because someone back in 2013 created a bunch of spam pages with the word "Chaos" in it.) I've prepared an empty draft page for you at Draft:Chaos Music. When you're finished with your draft, please click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" on the draft page. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 22:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have started understanding the Wikipedia process much better now. Really appreciate your help.--Rashijain1992 (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any other questions about editing.​ — Newslinger talk 07:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Unable to undo an edit (due to Spam-blacklist)

Hello. All the edits (except this edit) by 2601:580:4200:71D0:81E0:9585:599C:BBBE have been undone, because they are dubious. The user has been warned. But I am unable to undo the remaining edit. When I try to publish my edit, it is not saved, and the following message appears "Error: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist". The link that triggered the protection filter is moz.com. MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist contains dromoz.com.
So I think that there is no error in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but I still want to undo the remaining edit. Could you undo this edit? Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that \bmoz\.com\b is at meta:Spam blacklist. I guess that a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist might be needed because my attempt to hide moz.com (by making it not a clickable link) did not work. Johnuniq (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edit in two steps by editing section 0 and restoring moz.com (unclickable link), then removing the external links which is not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Johnuniq: I had forgotten to look at meta:Spam blacklist and I was unaware that unclickable links were OK for the filters. --NicoScribe (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Psl631 unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Psl631 is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim_(talk) 13:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Psl631 unblocked

Comment from a grumpy person re: April Fools

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I’m not going to suggest we cancel it. I don’t like it, but it’s an accepted part of internet culture, especially on this site, so okay.

What I am going to point out to many of our pranksters, a fair portion of whom are young or full-time students, is that this is a particularly stressful time for many of us: depending on which predictions you believe, the world is heading for an economic scenario unseen since the Great Depression and millions of people are losing jobs. There are people terrified because of the virus since they have underlying conditions, and since the Wikipedia demographic tends to overrepresent retirees, that’s likely a substantial portion of our editing base. Even those of us with relatively secure jobs and who are in good health are nearing the end of our streams of patience with being confined to our homes in many countries, and are thus more stressed and on edge than we’d normally be.

All this to say: this might be the year to tone down April fools and not do anything that you think might bug someone. If you have to debate whether it crosses the line between “harmless fun Tony and other curmudgeons will roll their eyes at and move on” and “things that might actually upset and/or seriously annoy a few people” it likely will fall into the later this year and is best to be avoided. We don’t have to be all doom and gloom, but we should be sensitive that this year might be a bit different and act accordingly. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this post TonyBallioni. The thing about a good April Fool's joke is that it is funny. I haven't seen one of those yet this year. That includes the thread just below this one. One suggestion is that people partaking of the day please post your item on your own talk page and leave all the other notice and policy boards to their regular business. That way your talk page watchers can laugh or not as the case may be. Those of us dealing with all the difficulties of this time can focus on those and regular editing. I don't expect this suggestion to be taken up but I had to make it anyway. MarnetteD|Talk 03:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thread was removed here. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with you, Tony. I was thinking about this when I saw some planning for April 1st for the Main Page. But I don't think that editors who will participate in this annual ritual are editors who read AN and will see this message. So, the only thing we can control is how we respond to the inevitable joking that will occur. I propose not encouraging it but also not stomping it down and deleting it when we see it. Joking can also act as a way to release stress so, let's AGF and try not to let ourselves be angered or too irritated when we see it should we come across it in our daily work as below. No matter lame it is (see below). JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

+1. Too many people at the best of times treat April Fools as an excuse for institutionalized spite or pointless disruption, and this is not the best of times. Don't be afraid to treat people who are being obnoxious as we would any other disruptive editor; it's our job as admins to protect Wikipedia's integrity, not to provide a safe space for a bunch of dimwits to treat as their personal sandbox. ‑ Iridescent 03:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh, if it bothers people so much they can take the day off. If something like that is just to much for them, it sounds like they could use a break anyhow. There is always time for foolishness especially during sad times. But if that is all just to much, they can just not participate and perhaps focus on improving the encyclopedia elsewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, that's "they can just not participate and perhaps focus on improving the encyclopedia". ——SN54129 04:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

See! Now that's the spirit! PackMecEng (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, there are clever jokes (like some of the AfD nominations) and then there is just plain vandalism. I've seen both tonight. We are trying to tolerate the first and prevent the latter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, look, I get folks are not in a great mood, but just quashing any humor is counter productive. Go stop the ignorant trolling on COVID articles, but Cullen328's removal of my clearly silly [63] that I put a modicum of effort into is frankly more disruptive than the post itself. I rather hope he regrets himself. It's disheartening to see people stomp out any joy.  EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It is rather unfortunate, if they cannot have fun then no one is allowed to have fun. PackMecEng (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, EvergreenFir, I didn't think your post was funny or amusing but I wouldn't have removed it myself. You weren't getting a great response to it and I thought that was a better statement than removal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

EF's post was not humorous, silly, joyous or fun. Nor was it original. Maybe edit some article for awhile. MarnetteD|Talk 04:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Made me giggle a little. Lighten up you two. PackMecEng (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

While I am generally more sympathetic to April Fools humor than some of the above editors, I don't think AN is the best place for jokes. Also, the 'ban Jimbo' meme is pretty well-played out at this point. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the crap done isn't funny to a decent portion of folks. I thought it was fresh enough, but if i'm wrong ok. But deleting it and telling me to piss off wasn't remotely helpful. One up it and close it with something funnier if you didn't like it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The question of how April Fools should be observed on Wikipedia is one on which reasonable people differ. The important thing is to keep mainspace free of disruption. Jokes in the Wikipedia namespace do not need to be policed quite so aggressively, but sometimes they are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I get that and can see that. Was my first (poor) attempt. My feelings were hurt but no reason to get upset I guess. I'll look at memes on facebook instead and keep doing admin stuff. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, EvergreenFir, my initial post was mainly aimed at the high school aged students who do a majority of the April Fools stuff and might not realize why everyone is so stressed and that putting a template to turn AfD upside down might piss people off more than normal, but I think your post unintentionally made my point that people are more on edge than normal right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw Liz's link to the AfD for 2020, then saw this, which I thought was an April Fools prank but was apparently intended seriously, which just underscores how our current reality is much more absurd than any April Fools joke could possibly be. Perhaps this is why Mad Magazine went out of business. 28bytes (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Before I needed to protect the main april fools page for vandalism, there was a mini discussion at RFPP where someone pointed to uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid and I think that's a good summation of my problems with April Fools on Wikipedia. I agree that many people are worried, and I had seen that Google is forgoing its usual April 1 silliness out of respect for...*gestures at everything*. Personally, after being cooped up inside so long with minimal human contact, I appreciate the bit of levity and even took part. Unfortunately good jokes are hard to come by, and most of the stuff I've seen is just noise that gets in the way of actual work. if only there was some site that was a spoof of wikipedia where the whole point is to make jokes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that April Fools is a success if I don't end up posting this image at some discussion. Doing good so far. And I always join in for a little, but in unconventional ways (among others, check out my account creation log); wish more people could enjoy it too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: And that "joke" account has now been globally locked as an LTA. You've duped a hard-working steward dedicated to fighting cross-wiki abuse. Funny? Not so sure. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Heh! Run a CU immediately, we've already got the confession  :) ——SN54129 15:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know our stewards are so overwhelmed already that making one block on April Fools is completely going to tear apart the fabric of the WMF. And I explicitly create them for fun, so anyone who thinks they're a genuine threat isn't reading the creation summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

...yeah, just hilarious. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, someone probably had to wake them from their naps to do that. PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So what amount of disruption is acceptable if it's done "for fun"? How many admins, stewards, or serious editors could I inconvenience before it's no longer tolerated? One? Five? Or is it fine being disruptive indefinitely if I'm an admin and promise that I'm having a giggle while doing it? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You and I both know it's a case by case question, sort of the Miller test if you will. The day is almost over anyway. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably 42 or so. Though WP:NOTREQUIRED comes to mind. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• +1 - I've joined in a few AFDs where I consider them to be creative and or funny but the majority are all what was done 5 years ago and are repeated every year to date, But I agree people should be careful and should be less-disruptive as possible. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. idk I pretty much missed most of last year's shenanigans, so this is the year I have taken to actively participate in an April Fools Day on Wikipedia. I've been incredibly stressed out recently, and I have been on Wikibreak because of it. I thought that would help, but it only compounded to my feelings of loneliness and helplessness about the situation all around me. My spirit was effectively crushed to death as I realized all my plans and hopes for the year were effectively null and void by the very start of it.
  I knew if I came back to Wikipedia, it would just be a nightmare of anxiety about what to do and what to say first. I'd be overwhelmed with the people I needed to respond to and things I fell behind on.
  Still, today is the only day all year I felt like it was possible for me to stop doing nothing and feeling bad about things. It's a day meant for fun, and that's what I want to do because I'm tired of feeling sad all the time.
  I guess all I can say is that it is rather frustrating that the one day I see as a relief has been used to vandalize and be disruptive. There's always going to be some level of disruption, but it shouldn't be spread to pages outside of projectspace for starters.
  Those are my thoughts on the matter and such. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Classic All Fools, outrageously poor taste, or somewhere in between?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Upsidedown Keyboard/Templates/COVID, which is now being used on as many pages as possible, apparently.

I bring this here because it's not indicative of a behavioral problem, merely a difference in perspective. And it's discussions such as these which establish boundaries for next time. ——SN54129 14:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Page deleted and salted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly established clear boundaries  :) Thanks, Floquenbeam. ——SN54129 14:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted this too Wikipedia:Questionable Cabal/COVID-19 Outbreak EvergreenFir (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not appropriate, and not really particularly funny either.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, EvergreenFir  :) ——SN54129 14:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 - Thank you Floq for getting rid of these distasteful and not at all funny templates. –Davey2010^Talk 14:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

All the pages were from an accident, apparently WP:TROUT has transclusions to the Project space article. Extra additions were not intentional whatsoever, and the category updated just a few minutes ago from a fix that happened half an hour ago. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Upsidedown Keyboard: can you now assure us all traces of this prank are gone? -- The Anome (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: As far as I am aware, the templates added to all those archives were just from WP:TROUT, and have long since been removed. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear it. Given this, if Upsidedown Keyboard can make a commitment to this not recurring, I think no further action is required. -- The Anome (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: Gonna one up you, I am making a commitment to never editing on Wikipedia again. Enjoy your April Fools, bureaucrats. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably for the best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

And good riddance. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

what's up with the insult? –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions} 19:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No, they weren't. I just cleaned up more garbage. If I find more, i'm blocking folks. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• While we're here, can someone have a word with User:Computerfan0 (user page + edit summary, also this at VPT) ——SN54129 16:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the VPT discussion, There's boundaries you don't cross and that for me is one of them. –Davey2010^Talk 16:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Davey, and NYB has removed the stuff from user page, so we're probably all done here. Happy days huh! ——SN54129 16:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries SN, Looking forward to the normal day tomorrow lol, Suppose it's never normal here but you know what I mean :), Happy editing!, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added some stuff back and just want to check if it's OK. 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Computerfan0 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you promptly followed the above up by claiming that you were actually referring to Corona beer, and your edit history appears to quite literally consist of nothing but disruption, is there any reason I shouldn't just indef-block your account, cookie-block your computer and hardblock your IP? ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, can't see any reason why not. I look forward to hearing what areas they plan to constructively contribute to in their unblock request. creffett (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor made a couple useful edits prior to this rampage. I'll block indefinitely if there's any more disruption. I think the message has been sent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I read in the New York Times that April Fools Day has been postponed due to the outbreak. If only that were true! (Is "April Fools Day has been postponed" one of those oxymoron things, like "Everything I say is a lie including this"?) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's more like "Opposite Day was cancelled." –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

To avoid this in future, Donald J. Trump has signed an executive odrer removing April 1 from the calendar and replacing it with March 32. As it is unclear if this is retroactive, I will wait until tomorrow to add it to any articles. O3000 (talk) 19:56, March 32, 2020

A suggestion: would it not make better sense to mass message some thing along the lines of “Happy April Fool’s day. While we have a tradition of a little Foolery (linked instead to one of the more amusing, less controversial hoaxes), please, no medical jokes, in view of widespread concern about Covid19. Mass message it, and paste it to the top of the usual landing places. Then nuke ‘em on sight, with a non-judgemental reference to the message. The problem children will show themselves quickly, and others won’t be insulted over their variant senses of humor. Qwirkle (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't have to be reminded not to make tasteless, unfunny "jokes" during a global pandemic where thousands of lives have been lost. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Every day something horrible is happening, human nature being what it is, and everyone’s tolerance for gallows humor varies. I dont see this general trend ending well. Qwirkle (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Or just confine it to user space. Being able to edit outside of mainspace (and, realistically when we say "avoid articles", we're effectively directing editors to project space)—because no-one "owns" that (compared with the greater degree of autonomy each has over their own userpages)—that in turn encourages one-upmanship. Like the crap we saw today: "I'll nominate X at MfD" leads to "I'll nominate the nomination at MfD" leads to "I'll nominate MfD itself", etc. Nothing is achieved, a lot of time and energy is wasted, and all because we let it. Happy fucking days. ——SN54129 18:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: There's literally no point to that joke anymore since I jumped the shark. The game is over, and I clearly won (as shown here, the software won't even let you go further than that).
  Also, I pay things forward by by clerking a serious thread while I'm busy cracking jokes. :P –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Can we please have a blanket ban on all this AFd/MFD nonsense already? It's wreaking havoc for people who are actually making real nominations and trying to patrol Wikipedia. This was a funny topical April Fools day gag. All the nonsense making messes is not. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Please. creffett (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

At least the AfD ones are all being lumped into "April Fools Day nominations" so we don't have to actually look at them. There are currently 89 of them! Might it not occur to some of them that this kind of "joke" has been done to death? And will they all be speedy closed after midnight wherever? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: Yes, they will be speedy closed. Invalid^OS_talk 19:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN Unfortunately too many of them are not being tagged correctly (and many of us who track these things are tired of being pinged every time a filter is set off.) Praxidicae (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that some of the AfD/MfD "jokes" are being sorted into a separate section and kept (to be speedy closed a little later), while others are being CSD tagged as vandalism. Which is the preferred approach to these things? I'll be happy to speedy delete them if that is the consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would support a blanket ban/ UP/TP-only ban on this, Admittedly I participated in these years back but the jokes ran dry and it became boring (and some of my stunts felt more disruptive than funny), I've spent the majority of my day today CSD-tagging the unfunny AFDs some of which are still waiting to be deleted lol.(Thanks Black Kite!)

Seems as the years go on AFD becomes more and more unfunny, stale and just humourless really. –Davey2010^Talk 19:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I started a RfC here for whether to blanket ban AfD/MfD. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I miss the good 'ol days. Arkon (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• All of these suggestions are moot as April Fools officially ends on UTC time so we are talking about 3 more hours. Any changes to custom have to be discussed in advance so we need to have these discussions prior to April 1st for the succeeding year and disperse any new guidelines. I'm hoping that we all will be in a different place psychologically and physically on April 1, 2021. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Skype number

Some smart-arse IP added a Skype number to List of Mr. Robot episodes. I reverted it, but perhaps one of you fine folks should take a look and see if more permanent removal is in order. Stay safe! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Done. Next time, please contact Oversight per email if possible instead to minimize exposure. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)