Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338

Off-wiki nonsense and a series of unfortunate coincidences...

The article Matthew Tye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted three times, and is currently protected. The last AFD was 3 years ago, back in 2018. The AFD was closed by Sandstein who deleted the article. Last year, the South China Morning Post posted a story about expats in China which arguably gives Tye some coverage. Not a lot, but some.

• Fast forward a year. Admin WhisperToMe (who has commented on the talk page of Tye's broadcast partner Winston Sterzel) arrives on the talk page of editor Shritwod to advocate for the article's restoration on September 15. Though there are clear instructions about contacting the admin who deleted the article (ie. Sandstein), Whisper began a discussion with the nominator (from that AFD back in 2018) citing that article as a reason for restoration (from back in 2020).
• Four days later (on September 19), editor Infograbber19 happens to make the same mistake, independent of Whisper, and arrives at the nominator's talk page to advocate for restoration.
• Five days later (on September 24), editor Demetrios1993 happens to make the same mistake, independent of Whisper and Infograbber, and arrives at the nominator's talk page to advocate for restoration.
• Turns out that on September 16, the day after Whisper's post in the wrong place, the subject of the article posted to Reddit asking his fans and supporters to help him have his article restored. He provided (slightly incorrect) step-by-step instructions as to how this should be done, along with a list of sources (many of which don't appear to be WP:RS).

Having failed to convince Shritwod (which is not a requirement for restoration anyway), the article (and it's 3 year old AFD) were brought to DRV by Infograbber. Infograbber, whose very first edit was to request the article's restoration, is a new account that has made very few edits outside of this subject. The account has otherwise followed the article subject's instructions precisely, with the exception of showing up on Shritwod's talk page.

Demetrios has since provided an explanation for his involvement, but in doing do pointed out that my original interpretation of the chronology (at DRV) was incorrect. Whisper's randomly-timed advocacy for restoration came a day before the article's subject went to Reddit to request exactly that sort of advocacy for restoration. Whisper then provided an explanation at DRV saying that they read the Reddit thread and thought contacting the nominator was the correct process. And in doing so, they strangely pinged their own account. That's right, an admin responding to accusations of sock-puppetry accidentally addressed a comment to their own account. They then rectified the ping, then changed their story about the Reddit thread, and then changed their story about contacting the nominator. At a minimum, accepting those rectifying edits at face value, we have an admin confirming undeclared off-wiki canvassing and concerted meat-puppetry in support of efforts by an article's subject to secure coverage here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: The post complaining about it was written by someone else (in other words, someone not "an article's subject"), I recall, not Tye. (It was a comment on some other thread merely complaining about it. I did not contact that person) I didn't see that as off-wiki canvassing: merely as something that jogged my memory to revisit the Tye case. I mean if it's interpreted as such, I apologize for that and won't use external comments as a basis for opening discussions. Anyhow I regularly edit like this, and the explanation for the editing style is that I'm trying to remember something that happened over a month ago. It's me retracing my steps and making changes as I write. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated I found the relevant thread. It was the top level comment on this thread that inspired me. In that comment CMilk/Tye was merely grousing about his article being deleted, but not yet advocating for it to be restored. I had decided to contact the nominating admin before CMilk started canvassing. It seems the news about the Wikipedia editors being blocked in China was what inspired him. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You acknowledge you saw a different thread (and above) advocating the same thing, with the same instructions, supported by the article's subject, a few days earlier. Then you went straight to the nominator's page the next day to seek its restoration. A new account posted in that thread and then came to your talk page asking for advice as to how they might get the article restored. You knew there was an off-wiki effort to achieve just that. You knew because you were involved in that effort already. Rather than counsel that new account about the inappropriateness of WP:ADVOCACY you continued your own advocacy, and made no mention of Reddit until you were facing accusations of sock-puppetry at DRV. That is wildly inappropriate behaviour for an experienced editor, let alone an admin. Worst-case-scenario, you and Infograbber are the same person and the advocacy, timing, location and editing mistakes all make perfect sense. Best-case-scenario, you're an admin who has intentionally involved themselves in some pretty underhanded conduct. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: I am not User:Infograbber and a checkuser should make that clear. Now, yes I did read laowhy86's top-level comment where he complained, that did inspire me to contact the nominator. I did not contact laowhy86 or promise him anything: the step to contact the nominator was done by myself without prompting from him. I did not interpret that as "canvassing" because laowhy86 was not yet outright advocating for action on his Wikipedia page: he was merely complaining about it, and I felt it was unnecessary to tell the nominator that I got the idea from a Reddit post. Anyhow this is my mistake and I promise not to do this again. As for Infograbber I didn't look into the account at all: I didn't know his background but I assumed it was an infrequent user. At some point later I recall reading the post posted by laowhy where he did advocate for that, but I didn't put two and two together. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If you aren't Infograbber, you certainly knew why that single-purpose account suddenly appeared out of the blue (3 years after that AFD) to support your advocacy; it wasn't coincidence or luck. They had seen the same Reddit thread you had (or the one you saw later). They were there for the same reason you were. And it wasn't to build an encyclopedia. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: I didn't read their editing history. I personally felt that that they were not making a good case and were spamming too many low quality sources, but I didn't look into their contributions. Since I didn't read their contributions I didn't see that they were an SPI. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WhisperToMe on myself so a checkuser can confirm that I am not Infograbber. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And? You were still fully aware of your own motivations for advocating restoration (which, to be clear, are a problem on their own). You knew the AFD was three years old and the best source you could come up with was a year old. It didn't strike you as strange that someone might have had an unrelated miraculous revelation that just happened to neatly align with your own 4-day-old, off-wiki revelation? It didn't occur to you, given your own off-wiki motivations for suddenly advocating restoration, to query if their advocacy might have been prompted by the same Reddit thread as yours? C'mon, mate, we weren't born yesterday. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111:

• 1. "You knew the AFD was three years old and the best source you could come up with was a year old." - That's exactly the point: when new information comes up, it can justify re-examining the previous decision. Cmilk's change to being an anti-CCP activist was a relatively recent development and that was covered by the SCMP, which is listed as generally reliable here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources. An article requires a minimum of two sources.
• 2. "It didn't occur to you, given your own off-wiki motivations for suddenly advocating restoration" - I didn't believe Cmilk's argument (which is perhaps why I didn't repeat the post to the original AFD nominator), but my motivation is that I wrote bios on other foreign celebrities in China, like Amy Lyons, Afu Thomas, Lee and Oli Barrett, etc. and since I knew Laowhy/Cmilk was also one and his had been deleted before, I figured I wanted to write one myself. But that meant talking about the deletion with people previously involved.
• 3. "It didn't occur to you, given your own off-wiki motivations for suddenly advocating restoration, to query if their advocacy might have been prompted by the same Reddit thread as yours?" - That would have required actively checking their post history, which I did not do. Because the user had content on his user page, the link did not appear red, so without clicking the account name and checking the contribs I can't see that it's a new account.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• 1. A year-old source is not "new"; we're talking about two users with the same sudden interest 4 days apart (one of them brand new), and then 3 users 8 days apart. All at the WP:WRONGVENUE. It was clearly prompted by Reddit, not that source or "coincidence".
• 2. So you didn't believe him, but his post "inspired" you to advocate for his article to be restored?
• 3. No, it would simply have required you to remember what had prompted your sudden interest in the same 3-year-old AFD just 4 days earlier.

  Your entire explanation is so ridiculously incredible it borders on trolling. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  1. It is in the context that the source did not exist in the last AFD.

  2. Yes, in that I remembered that he didn't have an article and thought maybe I could look into establishing one.

  3. Well... frankly the whole situation is ridiculous and stupid and I regret being in this. I feel really stupid right now.

  WhisperToMe (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe and Stalwart111: Let's just chill out and let the new SPI sort itself out, alright friends? Did you know that the Killer Whale is actually a type of dolphin? Isn't that a neat fact? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously though, you both have had your say. Other people will weigh in now; you know the drill. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: That's WP:DYN quality right there! ––FormalDude talk 07:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There appears to be material for an interesting DYK!--Berig (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised you don't know about WP:CHECKME, MJL. I've closed the SPI with no action taken. That being said, I do agree that they've both had their say, and it's time for others to weigh in on the matter. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: I do, but I didn't feel it was my place to say anything about that (considering I'm neither a SPI clerk nor admin). Either way, the SPI would probably be a better forum to discuss the behavioral evidence than here imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to begin by correcting again something. Above it was stated that the "Matthew Tye" article has been deleted three times already. While an article by the name "Matthew Tye" has indeed been deleted three times, the first one seems to be about a totally different individual. So, in reality, an article about Matthew Tye – the YouTuber – has only been deleted two times. Second, although User:Stalwart111 did mention that i already provided an explanation for my involvement, he didn't elaborate, and i believe it is proper for me to provide the aforementioned explanation one more time here, for the rest of the users that are reading this thread.

• To answer your question, i ended up participating in the discussion, right after Uzer:Infograbber19 posted in the talk page of Tye's business partner, Winston Sterzel (diff). I have Sterzel's article in my watchlist, and after i saw his post, i simply reviewed his contributions and joined the discussion (diff). You can easily see this from the fact that both diffs are from the 24th of September and approximately three hours apart, yet the discussion had began from the 15th of September. Also, this is the first time i see this Reddit thread, and besides, i was interested in the creation of a new article from August, as i wrote in the aforementioned discussion. Furthermore, the Reddit thread didn't begin "a few days before the above nonsense started" (15th of September), but one day later (16th of September). – relevant discussion

Third, about the statement "[t]hough there are clear instructions about contacting the admin who deleted the article" by User:Stalwart111, at the very least, neither User:Infograbber19, nor myself, can be considered to have any experience with article restoration, or knowledge of its guidelines, prior of now. User:Infograbber19, doesn't have more than 50 edits (as of this post), while myself 2,290 edits in the English Wikipedia (and 3,494 in all Wikis), and i have never requested for article restoration. In short, there are indications that neither User:Infograbber19, nor myself, were even aware of a guideline that we have to contact the admin who deleted the article in the last respective nomination. You can even reason that based on what i wrote in my very first comment in User_talk:Shritwod#Matthew_Tye; namely that i was planning to create an article about the individual, and didn't mention anything about beginning a discussion with anyone. As far as i knew then, i could just recreate an article, and if any concerns would arise in the future, it could always be nominated again for deletion. I created my account back in 2019, but i have been active for only 1 year, and everyday i keep learning something new. Last, even though i learned User:WhisperToMe is an admin, i don't know his exact experience/knowledge with article restoration guidelines; however, i wouldn't be so harsh and decisive on him. Even if he knew the guideline, he might have misunderstood it, or could have even confused the closer/admin of the third AfD, as another administrator (User:Amakuru) who replied yesterday (diff) said that he/she did. Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I knew that the nominator was the nominator and not the closer, but I would not have filed a DRV if I wouldnt have gotten progress with the collective editors who participated in the prior discussions, and the DRV was filed by somebody else. I didn't review the DRV guidelines because I didnt feel I was ready to do so (if I had I would have read the part about needing to talk to the closer and not the nominator), and I never filed a DRV anyway. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've said nothing for a few days on the basis of advice from MJL above, but beyond a more substantive explanation from Demetrios1993 (which repeats the same incorrect chronology; this clearly started on Reddit) this has stagnated. An admin has openly admitted to taking off-wiki instructions ("inspiration") from the subject of an article and working to have their article restored. And they have admitted (several times) to not understanding deletion processes. And there is the thoroughly unbelievable explanation as to why they didn't counsel a new account about WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. But, "I regret being in this. I feel really stupid right now" seems to be about as good as we're going to get while there is no appetite among his fellow admins to take action. What's the old parenting line? I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is this admin still an admin? Off-wiki instructions/"inspiration"? Not understanding deletion process? Here's an old parenting line from my father-- "What gives?" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That they were appointed in 2003 - at age 16 - might have something to do with it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

1. The initial post from the subject was not "off-wiki instructions" but merely frustration on his part. While it started on Reddit, it was a griping post from his, not the subsequent "instructions" post a day later.

2. Also wiki processes change from year to year so I have to review processes once in a while for finer details. Look at what Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (now Articles for Deletion) looked like back then, same with Wikipedia:Deletion review. Of course I have been consistently active since 2003 but even within a year or two there may be policy changes. As for my adminship, Jimbo Wales said around then: "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*." That was the mentality when I became an admin. If anything I consistently play a role as editor and hardly ever use admin tools (the last notable time was helping inexperienced editors at a meetup for women in art in Hong Kong get their articles fast-tracked). Despite having the admin status I rarely do admin stuff. I'm aware things have drastically changed since the old days. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sock, socksocksocksock.... sooooooooocccck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I submitted a checkuser to show it wasnt and that was declined, but you are welcome to re-start my checkuser if you still have concerns. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't look good; if there were a Recall process I'm sure we would be trying it out. That said, I don't see cause for an Arbcom case; "being out of touch" is not cause. There are no blocks since 2014; the recent protection actions involve putting a URL in a wikilink in the summary, mistakenly full-protecting instead of template-protecting, and full-protecting their own talk archives. However, the deletion log is substantial and completely fine. The specific article that started this thread is more likely a COI issue (editing about a friend) than a socking issue. I suppose we could vote to encourage WhisperToMe to either become more up-to-date on site policies or resign the tools, but I doubt that would do anything. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• PS: while some people are forgetting about WP:CHECKME, it seems everyone is forgetting that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases says not to use CheckUser for Suspected administrator sockpuppetry – contact the Arbitration Committee. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, there is clear behavioural evidence of meat-puppetry and off-wiki coordination, but not a lot in the way of sock-puppetry. It would be a very, very clever sock-master who would intentionally submit themselves for CU, while betting on WP:CHECKME being enforced, while pleading ignorance of that policy. If Whisper and Infograbber are one in the same, its about the most clever deception I've seen since a sock-puppet ran for adminship and was almost successful (last week). Nonetheless, the admin corps has been nearly silent here so I guess we should close this and move on, knowing this sort of behaviour has their tacit approval. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Those of us with longer memories can remember at least one sockpuppet successfully running for adminship. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Imia/Kardak

There's been some fighting over the close of the move request at the bottom of the page. I'm wondering if one of y'all could, you know, just close it, with your administrative imprimatur. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Things have now descended from bad to worse, with the arrival of fresh meat apparently canvassed from elsewhere. With such little gems to boot. No such user (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

E-960 TBAN — Request for the lifting of sanctions

I'd like to submit a formal request to the administrators and the community for the lifting of sanctions imposed on me relating to a TBAN on subject matter concerning "Secular Politics in Europe" and "Christianity". The TBAN took effect on 14 August 2020.

Since then, I have refrained form editing articles covering this subject matter. Also, in order to maintain an open and objective account of the past year; there were a couple of stumbles along the way, relating to issues regarding what the TBAN specifically covered, which were raised by a couple of other editors, and on two occasions when editing history articles, I have inadvertently hit on subject matter that was connected to Christianity. In all those cases, these were not topics directly related to Christianity itself, but rather historical events between the 16th and 20th centuries in which the Church played some role in (as often was the case in European politics during the Middle-ages, Renaissance, etc.). Nevertheless, there was a connection to the TBAN, and I served out the two week block without objection. Also, I would like to emphasise that these unfortunate instances were just slip-ups on my part, for which I took responsibility, and they were never intended as a way to flaunt the TBAN, prove a point, or fight the power.

Also, I would like to emphasise that I take responsibility for what I did which resulted in the TBAN, which was to say that another editor's approach was "bolshevik" when discussing text changes in the Religion in the European Union article, and the ugly discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard, which ensued. Again, I would like to ask the administrators and the community to lift the imposed TBAN sanctions. Also, I can answer any questions regarding the original situation which resulted in the TABN, and also my current approach to editing. --E-960 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would support that - Will elaborate later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blocked three months ago for breaking ban, and understates their disruption above. See ANI link imposing the ban. They should also be blocked for breaching the ban in their very recent edits, which include [1][2] (and others) to Battle of Grunwald and [3] to Grunwald Monument. This was battle between the Kingdom of Poland and the Teutonic Order, otherwise known as the Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem which is a Catholic religious order and falls squarely in the middle of the Christianity and European secular politics ban. As they keep on breaking the ban, it should be widened to a more definitive scope.--Hippeus (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hippeus, have you interacted with E-960 before? Just wondering. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes - Hippeus soon after their appearance filed a complaint [4] that lead to this topic ban. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic — Wug·a·po·des​
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ah, right. Up until August 2020 Hippeus just ran up their edit count via automated vandal patrol to get past the 500/30 requirement which is in place for both Israel-Palestine topics and for Poland. Then they out of nowhere, having never interacted with E-960 (in a obvious manner) filed a report on them. Then back to running up that edit count. Then, also out of nowhere, Hippeus starts showing up to AE reports related to Israel-Palestine commenting with great insight on editors they've also never interacted with (in a obvious manner) and then files an AE on an editor active in Israel-Palestine area [5] that they've also never interacted with. It is actually kind of mind blowing how naive admins on Wikipedia are. Volunteer Marek 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek - Thank you for the evaluation concerning the fresh Hippeus account. I don't desire to discuss anything else than the topic of this appeal hence small text size, but since you possibly encountered WP:NPA in this thread, I'll add that... Levivich, who is accusing you of tag-teaming, was just highly supportive of the very Hippeus here [6]. You may interpret this however you want, I'm just recording it for everyone to see. Quote - Damn, the hypocrisy. You tag team while--with your tag team partners--accuse editors who !vote a different way of tag teaming. Shameless. -->[7] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Levivich, who is accusing you of tag-teaming, was just highly supportive of the very Hippeus here - Lol, I didn't even see that. But yeah, Levivich jumps around noticeboards supporting (i.e. "tag teaming") a WP:DUCK account in its BATTLEGROUND reports then shows up here and has the nerve to accuse other editors of tag teaming. ... .... ... smack head again desk. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC) (And Battle of Grunwald and Grunwald Monument are most definitely NOT breaches of the topic ban - this is some really bad faith stretchin' of the scope of the ban. The battle had nothing to do with religion. Volunteer Marek 00:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Topic bans are meant to be "broadly construed", not tested to their limits. This, although not a substantial edit, is more clear-cut: adding a header called "The enlightenment and political turmoil" to an article about a European state is clearly about "European secular politics"... Given that they were blocked in June for a violation of this (their excuse back then was that they missed a reference to politics in a larger section: that at least seems credible. Outright adding "politics" in a header is less of an accident...); they should have figured by now that caution is more appropriate, i.e. a topic ban is "if you're not sure, it probably is under the topic ban, and if you're really really not sure, ask for clarification before violating the topic ban". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thats ridiculous. By this interpretation any edit to, say, medieval history in Europe would fall under the topic ban. Because, you know, people were very religious back then. Volunteer Marek 17:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose, block for breaking the ban, and expand ban to Christianity and European politics broadly construed. E-960 said way more than just the Bolshevik comment, his commentary included: [8][9][10][11]. E-960 had issues with the ban to begin with, which led to warnings and a block. Most of his recent edits are in violation of the ban. Any edits to topics pertaining to European Monastic states, and specifically a battle between the Monastic State of the Teutonic Order and a secular kingdom in the Battle of Grunwald pertain both to Christianity and to European secular politics. The edit RandomCanadian brought up above is also within the ban, the Enlightenment section contains “The latter's conversion from Lutheranism to Catholicism awed the conservative magnates and Pope Innocent XII, who in turn voiced their endorsement.” As the ban is repeatedly flouted it should be widened to remove the possible ambiguity around “secular politics”. @Wugapodes: who implemented the ban.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC) sock puppet

• Astral Leap, RandomCanadian and Hippeus, if you don't mind I'd like to respond to your comments regarding the TBAN, and quote another user who commented previously during one of the debates about me regarding this issue: Elemimele said: ...the phrase "broadly construed" only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response "but construed broadly", that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times. the full comment can be viewed here [12]. Also, other users such as Dawid2009 wrote to me separately voicing their reservations about the TBAN, to which I simply replied that I'll try to appeal after one year. Just as well, you can argue that since Poland was a Christian kingdom, so I broke the TBAN there, or when I edited the page on Helmut Kohl, because he is a European politician, enlightenment, well that's science and art, so I'll be breaking the TBAN if I edit the articles on Isaac Newton or Michelangelo. Also, I would like to highlight a couple of important facts for your consideration, that the TBAN was imposed for a VERY specific incident regarding a text I added which covered the marginalisation of Christians in the EU on the Religion in the European Union page. Never before that, was there an issue with me and topics related to Christianity or Secular Politics of Europe. If I was a serial offender, constantly getting in disruptive arguments regarding the topic of Christianity or Secular Politics of Europe, I could understand your arguments of a very broadly construed TBAN based on several incidents. However, because this was a very localised flare-up, I simply do not understand why you would want to expand the understanding of the TBAN to such a wide scope. Please remember that the TBAN is not a punishment of some kind, it's a tool to prevent disruptive editing and it serve as a cooling off period. So, why would you want to expand the TBAN to areas which were not an issue before? Also, I did not edit text about the Teutonic Knights specifically, in the Battle of Grunwald article, just about Silesians and Vlachs who fought on the Polish side, so again you are stretching the understanding of the TBAN to about as wide as it possibly can gets. --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin, so I shouldn't really be commenting. But since I stuck my nose in last time, and have been mentioned again: my concern was (1) that the TBAN, as worded, unfortunately meant the exact opposite of what was intended. I believe it was a ban on "European secular politics, broadly construed". Pedantically, this would allow E-960 to edit on religious (as opposed to secular) politics, and anything non-political. I believe the ban was intended to cover something much narrower: "The politics of secularisation in Europe", which is actually religious politics. This wouldn't matter, except that people have been using the phrase "broadly construed" to stretch secular politics to encompass more or less everything. And that's problem (2): if you are going to ban someone whose primary interest is European history from writing about anything that could possibly be construed as European politics, you may as well admit it's a site-ban. Overall (3) I was unhappy that E-960 should be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins. It seemed to me best to write off the whole rather sorry saga, start again, look at E-960's current editing (is it good, is it disruptive?) and if, based on this, it's felt that a ban is appropriate, create a new one, worded with less ambiguity. Elemimele (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic — Wug·a·po·des​
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Astral Leap Given your weeks of inactivity and status of a relative newcomer, can you tell us how did you find out about this discussion? And why are you interested in this? Did you and the user who requested this ban to be lifted interact before? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Damn, the hypocrisy. You tag team while--with your tag team partners--accuse editors who !vote a different way of tag teaming. Shameless. Levivich 13:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Since this is AN(I), and you should know better, I ask reviewing admins to consider the above in light of WP:NPA/Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS. TIA Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @Levivich:, it is almost as if these three accounts are a single account for past three months. At Honchy Brid massacre these three, [13] [14] [15], attempted to remove all trace of the crime.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Welcome back to Wikipedia - you took a month-long break, I see. What are the odds of running into you here, huh. Perfectly innocent coincidence, right, Levivich? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)The evidence is in this thread: the posts by you, VM, and GCB. I've previously provided evidence of the tag teaming I'm talking about at ANI in August and on my talk page. On my talk page, I offered to provide more specific examples of you, VM and/or GCB tag-teaming, and I asked you to tell me how many examples would be enough examples to overcome any defense that it's all just a coincidence. You have not yet given me a number, but the offer stands. This thread is just the latest example of you, GCB, and VM tag-teaming. GCB casts the first support. When an editor opposes, VM shows up to question the editor, along with GCB. When another editor opposes, you show up to question the editor (and support). This is exactly the kind of tag-teaming that people have been complaining about for a long time... at least since the days of WP:EEML (to which you and VM were a party), if not earlier. And, you were TBANed for canvassing last year. And it came up again in that ANI thread in August. This is not an aspersion, it's a sustained complaint. (And BTW: I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal: when I brought the TBAN violation ANI thread a few months ago, I walked away thoroughly confused about the scope of the TBAN, so I express no opinion about it or whether it was followed or not.) Levivich 15:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @Levivich - consider the possibility that you may be mistaken. I follow the same pages as those editors since I'm interested in the same topic area. Occasionally, I also reflect on edits of editors interested in my topic area. Is this clear for you? So quit accusing me of the rule violation and BACK OFF. I'm not going to take it lightly if you continue. PS - This thread is about something else, so please stick to the topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC) I've already stopped taking your tag-teaming lightly. When this appeal was posted I wasn't gonna comment. When you supported, I wasn't gonna comment. When VM questioned an opposer, I recognized it as yet another example of the tag-teaming, but I wasn't going to comment. When Piotrus questioned a second opposer, that's what crossed the line for me, and now I'm commenting, again. There are many examples of the three of you doing this, and if you'd like me to provide more, just say how many. The next time I see you three tag-team, I will comment again: this is what I told Piotrus on my talk page last time: I will be speaking up about this; I'm not gonna waste time bringing it to a noticeboard, but I will speak up. Levivich 17:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Oh please. You’re acting faux-outraged that editors who are involved in the topic area and who have commented on this user/sanction in the past several times are commenting again and trying your darnedest to pretend like it’s some great conspiracy and yet... at the same time you got exactly ZERO to say about all the sketchy accounts popping out of nowhere here and hijacking the discussion yet again (nevermind the first responder who spent their time on Wikipedia running up their edit count with mindless vandal patrol to get past the 500/30 hurdle so they could file reports against editors in both Israel-Palestine and Eastern Europe topic areas). Right right. As long as these editors fit your POV you’re quite willing to turn a blind eye to their shenanigans yet you think it okay to invent WP:ASPERSIONS and make wild accusations against long established editors. Got it. Your double standards are clear as day. Par for the course Levivich. Par for the course. Volunteer Marek 19:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC) In which case, this being AN, I repeat my request to the adminstrators regarding whether the above personal attacks, which Levivch refuses to withdraw, can be dealt with here, or if this should be taken to a higher instance. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @VM and Piotrus: to be clear, the thing I am accusing you of is improper coordination, i.e. tag-teaming. An example is that you will "tag-team" to badger participants in a discussion who disagree with you, usually with sea lioning questions insinuating they're a sockpuppet or meatpuppet or that they are hounding or that they are, ironically, tag-teaming. We see this on display here: first, GCB !votes support. The first oppose !vote, VM shows up to badger. The second oppose !vote, Piotrus shows up to badger. This is by far not the first time I've raised this complaint, nor am I the only one who has. I don't take it to a noticeboard because this happens at noticeboards like AN, like right here, and also because you've all been sanctioned before. So, the admin know about this. They see what I see. They can choose to do something, or not, it's totally up to them. I see no point in starting a new thread about it on any page. If anyone wants me to provide more examples of this behavior, they only need to tell me how many. Because I evidence my accusations, they are not aspersions, nor are they personal attacks. I can't block or ban any of you or do anything about this, other than use my voice to call it out when I see it: that's all I can do, so that's what I do. It's the same approach I have to incivility: call it out when I see it. Levivich 20:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC) VM already elaborated better than I could, and as for admins, they should be able to see who is being civil - or not - here, as well as who is supported by WP:DUCK low-edit count accounts that were inactive for weeks and then suddenly found themselves at AN. I wasn't going to comment here until I realized this thread is being abused by suspicious acounts whose names I recalled from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. You can entertain us with irrelevant ancient history of how I and VM "tag teamed" ~13 years ago, years before E-960 or GCB were active; but the recent (~2019) Icewhiz incident and his ongoing socking is a current and relevant problem that reviewing admins should certainly be aware of. This has been pointed out to you clearly yet you have nothing to say about those new accounts that suddenly activated here. Let me end by quoting your post just above: "Damn, the hypocrisy". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Levivich, if you think an admin is just gonna step in and sanction any major EE participant, of either camp, you haven't been following along. A full ARBEE2 case, or it didn't happen. No admin is gonna do anything without Hurricane winds in their sails (something happening of an especially egregious nature), because why would they? If either side wants to establish an incremental buildup of problems that are felt to have gotten too much for whatever reason, ArbCom is that-a-way. The other option is for both sides to keep waiting for Godot, who is generally busy. El_C 15:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure what part of what I wrote leads you to believe I want or expect admins to do anything (especially since I wrote the exact opposite). At the risk of sounding like a broken record: what I'm doing is calling it out when I see it; everyone else can do whatever they want. Levivich 17:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Ah, howling to the wind then, got it. In opposite land, you writing "the exact opposite" was understood by all. El_C 17:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like the lesson has been learned. No need for further punishment, but the ban remains part of the record, and if any problematic editing resurfaces, next one will presumably be much longer, so please be careful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Close without prejudice until the allegations of tag-teaming can be reviewed by ArbCom. I don't think E-960 is party to it and I'm sorry it has to be on their backs, but we can't have one group of editors and their controversial POV dominate the TA. I will support bringing E-960's appeal without prejudice once everything else is settled. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic — Wug·a·po·des​
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me get this straight. First you show up here to tag team with Levivich and brand new accounts that just scream WP:DUCK (like Erin Vaxx) and you do this to ... accuse others of tag teaming. At same time you say, quote, “I don’t think E-960 has is party to it” yet... you have absolutely no problem trying to punish them on the basis of (false) allegations YOU make against OTHER editors??? How the funky does that work??? You’re basically saying “I’m going to oppose this appeal because there are people here who supported it that I don’t like”. Seriously? That’s your justification? That is why another editor should be punished? Because you and Levivich hold a grudge against me and blame me for getting your wiki buddy Icewhiz banned??? (Guess what, he actually got himself banned by making violent threats against other editors) This is a low even for ANI on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 19:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC) And oh yeah, your comment here is pretty much a violation of your interaction ban with GizzyCatBella [16] (which makes this a repeated infraction since you were just blocked for violating it in July [17]). If you had shown up here and opposed E-960's appeal on merits and focused on E-960 then you would've been fine. But then you just couldn't help yourself and you just had to cast some ASPERSIONS about "group of editors and their controversial POV", which is a very obvious reference to GizzyCatBella. Stop stalking their edits. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC) (Similar applies to Astral Leap who showed up here right after GCB and who they are also I-banned with, but at least AL stuck to the topic rather than going off script). Volunteer Marek 20:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Mud slinging aside, tag-teaming is a serious issue, and one that's been been raised repeatedly over the last three years. If you and Piotrus are faultless, taking it to ArbCom is probably a better idea than blindly attacking anyone who makes it. François Robere (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Mud slinging? Mud. Slinging? Seriously? You show up here, make a lot of false and completely irrelevant accusations against a bunch of users, you plainly state that you are going to Oppose this user's appeal for NO OTHER REASON than that you don't like some of the users who support it (and I didn't even support it!)and on top of that you violate your interaction ban and THEN you have the nerve to accuse OTHER editors of "mudslinging"??? Holy cups of tea. Like... how ... why... how ... can anyone do this and keep a straight face? Volunteer Marek 22:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not believe this user has properly addressed the reason for their topic ban, and I don't actually see a need to remove it.--Jorm (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  If it's not lifted, then it should at least be clarified because right now no one knows what the hey it's suppose to cover. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Elemimele above (who I think is like the only "outside" editor here, and User:Elemimele you can certainly comment and !vote if you're not an admin) - if the ban is not lifted it needs to be reworded because currently it's just impossible to understand what it actually covers. My understanding is that it was suppose to cover explicitly "religious stuff" or disputes related to religion (including religion vs non-religion) but now people are pretending that any thing medieval is covered. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  François Robere, I would ask that you re-consider and strike down your OPPOSE statement. I believe that it is very unfair to me that you are opposing my request based on an unrelated dispute with other editors. At this point, that whole tag-team dispute has taken over my request. The irony is that it appears that on both sides here there are editors who follow the same topics or issues. Users Piotrus and Volunteer Marek often get involved in the same topics, as do you FR follow the same topics as Levivich or Icewhiz before he got banned for doing some funny stuff. I'm not implying that there is some nefarious connection here. Seriously, we all primarily edits Wikipedia articles related to history and current events, so I would not expect some Polish editor or whoever — someone who primarily edits pages related to astronomy or botany — to jump into this discussion, because we would have never interacted before. Most of the user here will be folks we interacted with in the past. --E-960 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  I agree it's unfair to dismiss your request because of the involvement of third parties, but that's exactly what was done four months ago with this complaint, and with many other complaints before it. Both "tag teaming" (which is suspected here) and "socking" (which was suspected there) are types of WP:GAMING, and the community should be able to sift them out and consider only the merits; but in practice it doesn't, and when either is suspected the entire case is usually thrown away. Again, I do not think it fair and I'd rather your appeal proceeded all the same, but under the circumstances it might be better to close it without prejudice so it can be re-filed and re-considered later, and this time only on its merits. François Robere (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  FR, this is a DEEPLY problematic statement here from you. Just like the last one. First you say you will oppose the request by E-960 because of how OTHER editors !voted. Then when this is pointed out to you you invoke... some completely irrelevant discussion from like 5 months ago, where you didn't get what you want (neither Piotrus nor anyone else commenting here participated in that discussion - so much for "tag teaming") in which E-960 didn't participate. In fact it had nothing to do with them! What in the flying chelubinsk does this have to do with this request? Let's review:

  1. You first choose to "oppose" this appeal request because of how other editors !vote. This is nothing but spite and the crazy thing is that you admit to it freely.

  2. You then amend that to effectively opposing it with the rationale that... there was some other discussion five months ago which had nothing to do with this one where you didn't get what you want to so you want to screw over someone else now. This is even worse! And the crazy thing is you admit to it freely.

  If there is a more picture perfect, quintessential, archetypal, representative, characteristic, emblematic and demonstrative example of what "WP:BATTLEGROUND" means then I haven't seen it in my 11 years on Wikipedia. This right here? THIS is why this topic area is a total mess. Because of attitudes like this one. Someone who expresses opinions such as these and approaches editing in a topic area in such a way needs to be removed from it ASAP. This here is grounds for a topic ban FR. Volunteer Marek 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to follow up on the recent comments regarding my request for the lifting of the TBAN, and would like to re-state my arguments for the lifting of sanctions. Again, I think that it is important to keep in mind the ultimate purpose of a TBAN as an administrative tool, and that it's purpose is to stop non-productive/disruptive behaviour, or in cases of heated exchanges to provide a prolonged cooling-off period. In my case it was the latter, where a discussion over a disputed text got out of hand. However, it is important to highlight the fact that this was a very specific incident regarding a text on the Religion in the European Union page. Before that there were no issues related to my editing of topics concerning Christianity or Secularist Politics in Europe. This is an important fact to consider because of the repeated calls by some editors to expand on the TBAN, or opposition by others to lift the sanctions. As user Elemimele stated in their previous comment "why you'd want to inflict sanctions" and "what message would you want sanctions against E-960 to convey". At this point, in response to my request for the lifting of sanctions some editors are arguing for expansion of the TBAN because I made a couple of minor edits on the Battle of Grunwald article, where I added two small shield icons next to the links for Silesians and Wallachians, and I changed the description in an image caption from "Actor playing King Władysław II Jagiełło" to "A re-enactor dressed as King Władysław II Jagiełło". How are those edits, directly connected with the issue for which the TBAN was imposed — which was the topic regarding the marginalisation of Christians in the EU? In summary, I think that after over a year under sanctions, the lesson has been learned on my part, and the continued application of the TBAN only creates more unnecessary disruptions and confusion. To highlight the point, I would like to quote user Levivich who noted earlier "I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal: when I brought the TBAN violation ANI thread a few months ago, I walked away thoroughly confused about the scope of the TBAN, so I express no opinion about it or whether it was followed or not." So, in the end, I would argue for the lifting of the TBAN, and starting anew, also keeping in mind that another temporary TBAN or even a permanent TBAN can always be re-imposed if required. However, for now, I think that it would be of benefit to everyone if this TBAN is allowed to end. --E-960 (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I said this when they were blocked [18] and this appeal has re-affirmed my concerns. Talking about burying the lead "Since then, I have refrained form editing articles covering this subject matter" only to then mention whoops that time I didn't and so got blocked. "I served out the two week block without objection." yeah you accepted you were wrong, still found the time to complain [19] about "bit of a quick draw on the block" and "As before, it seems that Astral Leap is more interested in getting me blocked then to ensure that things stay orderly on Wikipedia". And then unsuccessfully appeal [20] [21]. As Hippeus and RandomCanadian have mentioned the editor is still testing the limits of a topic ban. This isn't an editor we should trust to be allowed back into the subject area, instead we should be considering if it needs to be expanded. BTW since people keep asking I've obviously interacted with E-960 per my first diff but AFAIK that is the extent of our interactions. (I could have forgotten something, I recalled the block but forgot the advice I offered until I found it when researching the history.) Since I think no one linked to it before now, the discussion which lead to the block was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#E-960 community imposed TBAN. The clarifications and discussions in 1052 and 1071 were already linked by Wugapodes below and the original topic ban discussion as a permalink above but I noticed these two Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Religion in the European Union — Status quo stonewalling Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Offensive and disparaging comments discussions around the same time which may have added to the concerns leading to the topic-ban. I think that's the extent of topic-ban stuff in relation to E-960 on the boards. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. If anyone wants to nitpick over articles vs parts of articles I'd just say 3 things. One is that you're missing the point. Two well since I like to nitpick too, these are articles covering the subject matter otherwise the edits wouldn't have been a problem. I don't expect E-960 to stay away from the entire Belarus or even Holocaust articles but technically if you wanted to stay away from articles covering the subject matter you would need to. The alternative is to take proper care that no edits cover the subject matter when editing articles which do in part. Either way, when appealing don't make it sound like you've been perfectly behaved only to then go and explain you weren't. Actually the main reason I replied even though it already seems this appeal won't succeed was because I read the appeal and had a WTF moment when I saw E-960 saying the bit about how "since then" as I did recall the violation/block. Which leads to my third comment, repeating my first again, you're missing the point with such nitpicks. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Nil Einne, I don't agree with your comment, I feel that you keep assuming bad-faith in my case, and I would ask that you withdraw your objection based on the fact that you in the past were Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Statements like this one for example: "yeah you accepted you were wrong, still found the time to complain" — is this such an egregious violation that I complained some? Over the years the one thing I noticed on Wikipedia is people complaining (I mean just look at the earlier comments in this discussion). Here is another example, this one you left on my talk page back in June[22] saying: "Instead I suspect at least in part, you feel you were unfairly targeted because of your views and/or religious beliefs. This makes it hard for you to edit in the area without causing more problems. Perhaps this will have changed in 6 months, but I doubt it. Although you have to stay out of this area I find it likely that your feelings on the matter will still have filtered through to your edits enough even without any violations" so right there you already made up your mind how this will play out — this is a blatant example of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions you basically said my religious views (or related thoughts - not sure what you mean specifically) will disqualify me for editing, as they will continue to get in the way. I think you should consider what user Elemimele noted perviously: "the phrase 'broadly construed' only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response 'but construed broadly', that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times" and "E-960 should not be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins". Finally, to emphasise this point I would like to draw your attention to user Levivich who noted earlier in this discussion: "I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal: when I brought the TBAN violation ANI thread a few months ago, I walked away thoroughly confused about the scope of the TBAN, so I express no opinion about it or whether it was followed or not." --E-960 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

    Also, I want to emphasis this point because it is a crucial one, that I don't think you actually know my religious views, as in those 5 years of editing on Wikipedia I stayed out of editing pages specifically related to Christianity or Secularist Politics in EU, concentrating on history topics instead. So, you are casting the net very wide on this TBAN, based only on ONE and I want to emphasise ONE flare-up related to the issue of Christianity and Secularist Politics in EU. --E-960 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

    Yeah, I don’t agree with Nil Einne either. They are almost entirely wrong. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wug· and Girth Summit, I'd like to comment on my overall thoughts regarding some of the solutions proposed during this discussion, as what I find very unreasonable (and impractical) is the desire by some users to not only keep the TBAN, but extend it some more, despite the fact that already other editors voiced concerns about its scope and definition. Also, I want to ask, what is the logic of keeping me under a TBAN indefinitely (note that I've been under sanctions for over a year)? Being a bit facetious here, but even in prison you get parole. If the TBAN is lifted, and I learned my lesson, this saves everyone a lot of time on AN discussions like this one next time around. But, if I breach conduct rules on these "issue" topics, I can get a site ban or something, for being a repeat offender — problem solved permanently. So, again what's the point of keeping me under the TBAN as a precaution, just in case I might do something in the future? If I'm still clueless then let me trip up again and flip out on the exact same (or related) topic, so I'll get a site ban (if I totally come off the rails or something next time around). Instead of raising issue cause I changed an image caption to note that the person dressed as King Władysław II Jagiełło is an re-enactor and not an actor. --E-960 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

E-960, I haven't read the discussion above - it's a long one, and I'm on mobile while making dinner, so I'm not in a position to read through it now. I remember being involved in a previous discussion about the scope of your TBan, but I can't bring the exact details to mind now. I will try to find time in the days ahead to look at this again, but cannot promise anything. I will say this though - as individual admins, neither Wug nor I have authority to override a community decision. Admins can block/unblock people, but community bans appealed at AN are handled by the community, with consensus weighed by the discussion closer. So, even if I were to agree with your observations (no comment either way at present), all I would be able to do would be to offer my own view - if the consensus was against me (I haven't attempted to weigh that), I would have no authority to overrule it. Sorry if you were hoping for more than that. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: this isn't a game where you get off on a technicality. We're not a court, we don't write laws, and our goal is not write unambiguously. Is your topic ban perfect? Probably not, but do you think the community is going to volunteer tons of time to indulge wikilawyering over stuff you should probably just be avoiding in the first place? Unlikely. If you want a good chance of being unbanned, go do something else. There's a whole wide world outside of Europe. You know what has nothing to do with Europe, Christianity, or secular politics? Biographies of Canadian hockey players, geographic features in Africa, women scientists from Asia. The ban is hard because you keep dancing around the edges of it. Frankly, if you want to play around in the grey area, the onus is on you to make sure that you are behaving perfectly. If that's too hard don't do it. This isn't the first time that it's been explained to you and it's not even the first time that I have explained it to you. I said almost the exact thing to you on my talk page in July. Independently, Nil gave you similar advice in June. So sure, we can reduce the grey area in your TBAN, but don't be upset when it's not in the direction you want.

Remember that you were so disruptive in a topic area that the community got together and decided to ban you; it's not going to disappear just because you find it difficult. Quite the opposite, you find it difficult because you keep trying to find the edges of it instead of leaving the whole thing alone. Excluding comments from the regular factions and looking simply at uninvolved administrators, both Jorm and Nil point out that you haven't given any legitimate reason to lift the ban. The argument you make in this most recent comment is that we should just let you loose and site ban you if you mess up again. Why on earth would we want to do that? Firstly, we don't need to lift the TBAN to site ban you. If you insist on being disruptive, we can just do that. Secondly, how is that helpful to anyone except you? The question is whether you can be trusted to not disrupt the topic area, so why are you even entertaining the idea that you could continue to be disruptive? You're essentially asking the community to give you one last chance but haven't shown why we should. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wug· and Girth Summit, thanks for the swift response and input. To follow up on the comments I would like to say that I'm not trying to game the system. However, I would like to provide some constructive and practical input, not to be disruptive, but (perhaps) to improve how the TBANs are instituted, in order to make them more fair, clear and effective administrative tools (including for myself). I'd like show that the TBAN recommendations were poorly articulated (and not because of any administrator summary at the end). The original AN case was filed by user Hippeus, and their original recommendation was I propose E-960 be topic banned from religious persecution, intolerance, and conflict. This was actually, a clear cut proposition, which addressed the exact topic which caused the incident (this way if a violation occurred in the future, it could be judged using the backdrop of the original topic which resulted in the TBAN). However, this is where things get a bit iffy, as shortly there after, user Snowded makes a comment and in bold letters writes Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed and three months off all editing. So, user Snowded "supports" the the ban request set up by Hippeus, yet actually writes something completely different. This created the issue we are in, because as user Elemimele noted perviously: the phrase 'broadly construed' only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response 'but construed broadly', that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times" and "E-960 should not be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins". I would also like to highlight the fact that there were 10 SUPPORT and 10/9 SUPPORT FOR THE WIDER BAN (as proposed by Snowded). Also, there were 5 OPPOSE and 1 reversal from SUPPORT FOR THE WIDER BAN to SUPPORT SELF IMPOSED TBAN. So, there was by no mean an overwhelming consensus to apply the wider/broadly construed and vaguely defined TBAN as proposed by user Snowded. This is why, I believe that this TBAN if not lifted, needs to be re-assessed and at least restored to what was originally proposed. Again, to emphasise the point there was no overwhelming support to institute a wider TBAN, in fact if my arithmetic is correct in the end there were more votes to impose the original TBAN recommendation. Fast forward to the current discussion, and some of the users who voted for the wider ban are here now arguing for an even more expansive TBAN — these users should pause for a moment and ask themselves what I can suggest to better define this TBAN, clear things up and make it fair, instead of blindly arguing to widen the TBAN. And, as far as I can tell their views were not the outright majority or constituted an overwhelming consensus even in the original AN. --E-960 (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In the end, I would again like to quote user Elemimele who said: At the moment, to an outsider reading ANI, the whole thing risks sending a message that WP... can't write an unambiguous ban, but think it doesn't matter because one can always reach a consensus on what it was supposed to mean, later, and inflict justice retrospectively. That just doesn't look fair. This is the case here, the initial TBAN scope was clearly defined, and instead a broad and ambitious TBAN definition was embraced by some users, who now insist that it's being violated. --E-960 (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Per Piotrus: No need for further punishment, but the ban remains part of the record, and if any problematic editing resurfaces, next one will presumably be much longer, so please be careful. but I also agree with E-960 TBAN is not a punishment of some kind, it's a tool to prevent disruptive editing and it serves as a cooling-off period. This was one year ago, after apologies for misunderstandings, and promising to use more reliable sources, I do not see why can not E-960 edit pages related to that matter, especially substantially edit pages related to Christianity which generally is not the same as "secular politics in European Union"? I think we can give them (last?) chance per WP:AGF. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Let's give this editor a last chance to show that they can be a constructive contributor in their area of interest. Certainly, they realize that their work will be scrutinized. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and, as I declared before, I also support lifting the sanctions. I trust this user. I believe that the lesson has been learned. However, (this is to you E-960) I would like you to be extremely careful while editing subjects concerning Christianity or religion in general. If you find yourself in a situation of potential disagreement with other editors, stop making edits and walk away. Assume that you may be mistaken. Simple like that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support: User:E-960 has done outstanding work on a variety of articles relating to history, an area that frequently intersects with religion. User:E-960's appeal has demonstrated that he has familiarized himself with Wikipedia guidelines since being topic banned and has engaged in constructive editing since then. As such, I think he should be allowed to return to editing fully again. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Note - Hippeus (talk · contribs) has been blocked as sock of Icewhiz (talk · contribs). Quelle surprise. nableezy - 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

And Astral Leap (talk · contribs) - sock puppet of the same - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd very much like to hear what @Wugapodes has to say now. Because all I have to say is "I told you so". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Two weeks ago I said Take your concerns to WP:SPI, WP:ANI, WP:AE or any of the other acronyms, but do not disrupt this discussion with off topic bickering. I'm glad someone finally did that. I find it funny that you're so invested in being right but couldn't be bothered to start or even contribute to the SPI, and I think it's interesting that instead of contributing productively to this discussion you're returning to gloat. That's not exactly the behavior that makes me rethink my WP:BATTLEGROUND concerns. I'd take your gloating more seriously if you weren't taking credit for someone else doing what I said you should have done two weeks ago. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And how do you know I did not provide said evidence? In fact, as you well know, I did send some of it to you to as well - which you soundly ignored (not replying to my last email). While I can't be sure how much my findings/analysis contributed to what happened now, I know I did something. This was your opportunity to say "oops, I was fooled by socks and didn't realize there was a sockmaster behind the screen trying to torpedo this topic ban appeal, sorry, I'll be more careful next time". Instead, I am hearing "I was right all along, move along". Color me not impressed. PS. Now, to keep this more constructive and on-topic, how about we collapse this entire appeal outside the initial request, ping all non-blocked editors who participated in it with a note that the appeal was disrupted due to the involvement of socks of a banned editor (who proposed this TBan in the first place), and try again? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: who proposed this TBan in the first place - this is true. They even pinged Wug in that discussion. You got below warning "Piotrus accuses another editor of sock puppetry" but everything you did was informing: "Erin Vaxx made few or no edits outside that topic". This short info is also allowed here. Excluding comments from the regular factions and looking simply at uninvolved administrators, both Jorm and Nil point out (...) Wug, why you mentioned just Jorm who was interacted with E-960 but not for example Cullen328 who support lifting the ban and is example of properly uninvolved (administrator) user here? However let see what other users think in next days (discussion are not helpful if we are focussed on mentioning other usernames instead raching for consensus about E-960's matter, let focuss on his appeal, and focuss does lifting the ban would be useful to constributing into encyclopedia. I have nothing to add to that request except my comment below, I just hope E-960 is going to realise his matter). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: It may help to look at dates before accusing me of things. My comment below was from 5 october and Cullen's comment came 14 October. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I assume good faith to you, I am not accusing you now. With regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes made few mistakes describing the situation (how on earth would he suppose to know everything?) but at the same time they steraed the disussion into the right direction and thanks for that. I believe that was the primary purpose of their action - rolling back discussion into the appropriate tracks. Administrative duties are very challenging folks. Let's just move on, stay on topic and focus on this appeal. Should that be granted? I think it should, especially now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support lifting of sanctions per WP:ROPE and WP:BMB. E-960 argued as reliable a source which breathlessly categorises minor, garden-variety vandalistic tagging as "intolerance and discrimination against Christians", and made some very inappropriate remarks in their defense, which a sock of a banned LTA then brought to ANI, resulting in a topic ban from (1) any edit relating to the topic of Christianity, broadly construed, and (2) any edits relating to secularism, broadly construed, in European politics. A sock of a banned LTA later reported E-960 for edits made to The Holocaust and another edit to a history section, which mentioned churches, resulting in a one-week block. I count myself amongst the observers who do not discern a clear relation between The Holocaust and "secularism in European politics". I'm neutral on whether or not mentioning churches in an edit about history falls under the scope of "Christianity, broadly defined". E-960 makes a lot of edits about historical topics, which may have tangential relation to or include terms related to Christianity or politics, but their contributions to historical topics have been uniformly constructive. The two most vocal opponents of lifting the TBAN in this discussion have been socks of a banned LTA, and have highlighted such trivialities as using the word "political" in an historical context.

Recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard has included the perspective that Sockpuppets are not allowed to edit. Any successful disciplinary measure initiated or spurred on by a sock should be re-evaluated unless there is incontrovertible evidence backing the decision. [23] I believe that E-960's level of disruption in their topic area has been negligible since their initial outburst at RSN which led to sanctions, and further that their sanctions have been unclear, and most saliently that in order not to encourage continued abuse by LTAs, that any sanctions they initiated should be re-evaluted with prejudice towards lifting. Folly Mox (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm changing to weak oppose. I detest socks and their involvement in this. And although I'm generally cautious with WP:ROPE or removing a ban under the assumption we can just re-impose it again if needed, I'm fine if that's the way that goes here given the socks. But I still have very strong doubts about the ability of E-960 to edit constructively in this area. And I'd note that despite the involvement of socks the original ban discussion had widespread support from established editors who've been around since long before the master started to sock. I won't get into the issue of whether the specific ban imposed had wide spread support or we should clarify it for other reasons, it seems likely the ban is going to be lifted outright anyway so it's sort of moot.

  However I will say that if E-960 felt the closure was improper, they needed to appeal this and not just ignore the ban. Likewise where they were uncertain about specific areas, they should have asked rather than ignored it or edited and hoped for the best. As I understand it, E-960 accepts that at least one of the edits which lead to their block was a clear cut violation. While the report was unfortunately by a sock, the violation itself doesn't seem to have been caused by a sock or anyone besides E-960.

  It seems something I said back in June was misunderstood which I have apologised to E-960 for. (E-960's comment above lead me to realise this although I initially misunderstood why E-960 said it leading to a long reply here which I ended up removing [24].) I was in no way intending to suggest E-960's views or religious beliefs prevented them from being able to edit constructively. I do not know and do not care what these area. Instead what I was trying to say was that E-960 seemed to think that the topic ban itself was unfair and that instead felt they were being unfairly targeted for their views or religious beliefs. And I mean a ban in general rather than the specific ban imposed. And as long as they continued to feel this way, it would be unlikely they could edit in the area constructively.

  To be clear, their (general) views or religious beliefs are completely irrelevant as they should be. What matters is whether they accept and understand that their editing was a problem. (Which with so many non sock editors supporting some sanction, my view is it clearly was.) My view and experience is that any editor who continues to reject that a ban was needed, especially a ban supported by so many members of the community, is likely to continue to have the same problems if allowed back into that area. They remain unable to understand when and how their editing becomes a problem and therefore cannot avoid it.

  Perhaps I shouldn't have proscribed a specific reason E-960 seemed to think their ban was unfair although I assume it was the impression I got from what they'd said and done. And this was a talk page message I hoped would help them although it clear didn't. But despite having forgotten about this part of my June response, I came to the same basic conclusion here i.e. that E-960 still felt there was never any need for a ban even if I had no inkling why E-960 felt that way. (Failure to address the reasons for the ban etc.)

  Further than that as said above, to me it still seems they are downplaying any wrongdoing on their part after the ban which from my experience and view also likely means an editor will continue to have problems when returning. They accept they made a clearcut violation in June but only mention this as something akin to an aside. And while there was nothing majorly or egregious wrong with how they responded when blocked back in June, it was definitely not just accepting it in completely good grace like their appeal suggested to me. The fact it was a sock who reported them doesn't change this since even if at the time they had justification to be aggrieved at this editor we now know is sock and so maybe really was just out to get them; this doesn't explain why they implied they just accepted their block without any fuss.

  Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne - Thank you for adjusting your opinion and taking into consideration the circumstances that lead to this TP. Please keep in mind that the ban can be always reinstalled if the problem reappears. I would advocate for it myself. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Conduct warning

I was pinged here having closed the original TBAN discussion and want to note my participation in two related discussions as well: a Nov 2020 clarification discussion and a July 2021 report. These discussions follow a pattern where the same editors show up to carry on interpersonal disputes unrelated to the topic at hand. This is disruptive and discourages outside input. As I said three months ago when this last came to AN, "I'm not convinced the TBAN as it stands is preventing disruption so much as spreading it to new people and venues. That needs to be fixed in whatever way we think appropriate." To stick to this thread, however, the bulk of discussion has been Volunteer Marek and Piotrus making accusations and having discussions unrelated to the topic at hand.

• Marek accuses an editor of gaming the EC permission
• Marek accuses editors of tag teaming arguing that critics of him are holding grudges about an SPI from two years ago.
• Marek calls for another editor to be topic banned and accuses them of battle ground conduct because he disagrees with the editor's rationale
• Piotrus questions Astral Leap's motives claiming AL is a "relative newcomer" and asking how and why they are interested in this discussion, despite both AL and Piotrus having commented in the November 2020 discussion on E-960's ban scope.
• Piotrus accuses another editor of sock puppetry after they provide evidence of tag teaming
• Piotrus claims that discussion about his conduct is a personal attack

Of course, a battleground usually requires more than one faction, and other parties have contributed to the disruption of this discussion. Levivich has accused them of hypocrisy (again) which rekindled old disputes, and François Robere (under an IBAN with GCB) has gone back and forth arguing with Volunteer Marek. This is a general warning: further disruption of this discussion will be met with blocks for the duration of the appeal. You're all claiming to be experienced editors: act like it. Take your concerns to WP:SPI, WP:ANI, WP:AE or any of the other acronyms, but do not disrupt this discussion with off topic bickering. It is unfair to E-960 that their appeal does not get due consideration because your flame wars scare off uninvolved editors. For that reason I have collapsed off-topic discussion above. — Wug·a·po·des 21:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, this statement and analysis is mind numbingly wrong. You and I apparently did not read the same discussion. Volunteer Marek 21:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Astral Leap has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor. nableezy - 03:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

LOFL. Volunteer Marek 03:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Preload for ANI

Hi all - off the back of this little discussion about maybe using {{ANI status}} at ANI, I had a little think about how we'd potentially preload it

I've created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Preload, which we could link to like this in the ANI header, and was wondering what y'all think? ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 17:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly gone ahead and just done it^TM and ANI didn't implode! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 19:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good idea! I like it. Makes the page easier to scan and triage. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You're a minority in that opinion it seems 🙃 ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 22:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The preload now no longer includes {{ANI status}}, lest it add any more in the meantime ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 22:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

What would be really nice would be a javascript based form, like the one we have for RFPP or the one that commons uses for setting up deletion pages. You could have a form where you enter a title, the users involved, the pages involved and your explanatory text, and when you submit the form it generates the appropriate {{ANI status}} {{user links}} and {{page links}} templates, and automatically sends talk page notices to everybody tagged as involved. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That'd be good ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, there's User:Enterprisey/strike-archived. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's, go Brandon

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.

---

This is becoming ridiculous. Draft:Let's Go Brandon! should be a live article if Covfefe is. The draft is well sourced with significant coverage from international press. It is written with neutrality (if anything it defers to the issue of a lack of decorum in US politics) without an overuse of vulgarity. It has become clear that some users just don't like it; a stain on the community wishing to grow a knowledge base.Globgenie (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not an administrator issue. Please review the comments left by the reviewers on the draft in question, as well as the prior Articles for Deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

See also the ongoing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 14#Let's Go Brandon. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Talk:Brandon Brown (racing driver)#RfC about "Let's go Brandon". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2021 (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.

SoyokoAnis unban appeal

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.

---

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

Good afternoon all, SoyokoAnis has made an unblock request; since they are currently WP:3X-banned for repeated CU-confirmed sockpuppetry, community consensus is required to lift their ban. I have included the relevant text of the discussion on their talk page below.

@Ferret Hello users part of my original block. I have been avoiding Wikipedia(as part of WP:SO) for 6 months and trying to make useful edits at the Simple English Wikipedia. I as stated on my user page on Simple Wiki that I am tryionstributions to gain community trust. I believe, I have gained community trust to stop the concerns that raised block in the first place. I will make sure to review policies before making any changes to articles such as requesting deletion. I will make sure not to abuse the New Pages patrol. I will make sure to ask questions whenever nesscary. And, I will not sockpuppet under any conditions any more. All together, I believe I have made it clear about the changes I will make after I'm unblocked. SoyokoAnis - talk 17:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis, I'd like you to do the following:

• In your own words, tell me what you did that led to you getting blocked (other than sockpuppetry)
• Tell me what you are going to do to make sure you don't repeat the mistakes that got you blocked before.
• Tell me one thing you plan to work on if unblocked. Be specific.

GeneralNotability (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability

1. My block was more than just sockpuppetry. It was because of disruption to Wikipedia, it was mostly because of inexperience with tools such as Twinkle and Redwarn and I used them without understanding how they worked and assumed I understood the policies that came with those tools as the Twinkle article says that any edit you make with Twinkle can and will get you blocked. I was also blocked for participating in areas I had no experience in such as WP:AFD, WP:ANI, and WP:RFA. I did not understand at all how to use those tools and areas and assumed I knew how.
2. I will definitely be asking users for help whenever I edit articles or don't understand how to use something. I will make sure to read policies before editing areas I have no experience in. And, my edits will not always be about Anti-Vandalism.
3. I will start editing articles, Wikipedia itself is an encyclopedia and I need to edit to contribute positively to it in areas I like to edit such as video games or television. I will not participate in areas I am not experienced o r at least ask questions before participating in those parts of Wikipedia. And I will never request someone for adminship like I did to another editor while I had under 100+ edits and was inexperienced. I will make sure to read policies at all times. I want to change how I will be on Wikipedia to make sure I don't make the same mistake I did 6 months ago.

SoyokoAnis - talk 18:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

CU hat on, I don't see any evidence of ongoing block evasion. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A further note SoyokoAnis asked me to add: May I also mention that I am going to continue to edit at Simple English Wikipedia even after my block is lifted?. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm abstaining on this as I've been rather involved in her block and subsequent efforts to understand appeal process. Note that Soyoko has been editing Simple Wikipedia while blocked to demonstrate her ability to edit constructively. For completeness, here is where she was being discussed previously, was indefinite blocked, and subsequently unblocked for mentorship. She was reblocked after essentially declining to follow through on mentorship. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#SoyokoAnis_and_tagging. The socking was after the reblock, and I have not seen further evidence of socking since 6 months ago. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock – For context, SoyokoAnis and I briefly tried out a mentorship arrangement focused on content creation before their sockpuppetry block. The discussion leading up to that is here and the mentorship page is here. I'm disappointed it didn't work out, but I'm glad we at least tried it out and of course that kind of arrangement isn't a fit for everyone. I'm encouraged by the work they've been doing on the Simple English Wikipedia since then, including content creation. This isn't someone who operated abusive sockpuppets over a long period of time. They made a series of poor decisions, creating four sockpuppet accounts over the course of a week in April, and I think they understand their past mistakes. I am glad they are interested in returning to the English Wikipedia, particularly after a series of harsh talk page messages they received before a faulty CU finding was overturned, and I support another chance for them per the standard offer. DanCherek (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock – I'm convinced by their positive contributions to Simple Wikipedia and their answers to GeneralNotability's questions (although I would've wished they answer the 3rd question again as they haven't specified what they plan to work on once they're back) that they've understood their past mistakes and will be able to contribute to the English Wikipedia in a level headed way again. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock SoyokoAnis made great contributions to the Simple English Wikipedia and the answers that she gave show she knows why she was blocked and that she won't make those mistakes again. --Ferien (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• From my interactions with Anis, I like her as a person and would like her to be able to find a way to edit enwiki, since she clearly enjoys doing it. My main concern is her history of over-eagerness bordering on WP:IDHT behavior, which I'm not quite sure has passed, at least in the first regard. I advised her a couple times that one way to avoid looking over-eager would be to wait a touch longer than six months to appeal, and if I'm counting right she waited six months and four hours from her most recent (not-overturned) sockblock. That said, this is a CBAN only in the most technical sense; back in the old days of "de facto bans" for socking it definitely wouldn't have qualified. Given that she's been able to meet the terms of the offer, I don't see anything here to justify maintaining a ban. So, support, but I would strongly encourage Anis to 1) seek mentorship (again) from an experienced user, 2) wait quite some time (at least a few months) before returning to the same activities that led to her initial block, and 3) understand that another block would be much harder to come back from. Anis, I'll repeat what I said a long time ago: You have a lot of enthusiasm for Wikipedia, and that's great; I sincerely hope that, if you're unbanned, you're able to find a way to apply that enthusiasm to its full constructive potential. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock, as the six months for the standard offer has passed, and especially because of SoyokoAnis' good edits on the Simple English Wikipedia, as mentioned by Ferien, who is an administrator on that project. Also, I highly doubt that she would have been community banned in the days before WP:3X Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock – I also highly encourage Anis to read and consider Tamzin's helpful advice above. Jr8825 • Talk 21:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock as the request seems sincere, and I think it justifies a 2nd chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the understanding that there will be little to no tolerance for a repeat of the behavior that has been problematic in the past. I sincerely hope that this editor can become a valued contributor here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the strong suggestion that SoyokoAnis take the community's prior concerns to heart, and to take up mentorship. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2021 (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.

Unban request for Soumya-8974

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.

---

Soumya-8974 makes the following request to be unbanned:

I was blocked in 9 January 2021 by Rosguill because of "Disruptive editing, WP:CIR and racism per Special:Permalink/999244891#Soumya-8974,_again". In my earlier requests to unblock, the sysops pointed out that I did not understand the rules of Wikipedia back then. Now I have learnt that competence is required to edit, ignoring feedbacks from others will tell unwanted consequences, personal attacks will make Wikipedia a harsh environment to edit for others, etc. If I am allowed to edit Wikipedia again, then I will promise that I will listen to the feedbacks carefully and try to address them, I will edit very carefully to avoid disruption, I will respect all editors irrespective of age, gender, religion and ethnicity and I will follow the rules of Wikipedia. Just like most of you, I am here to build an encyclopedia. I want to help improve the quality of existing articles, and avoid creating unnecessary redirects. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There's some debate on whether or not they were banned. I read it as a WP:CBAN; the discussion was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Soumya-8974,_again. Soumya reports they are currently subjected to a topic ban on creating redirects, and expresses a willingness to adhere to an additional "topic ban on controversial topics like Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, terrorism, where disruptive edits by me are possible due to lack of competence in those topics. I have no such history of disruptive edits related to astronomy and spaceflight, however". I previously refused to copy over a request on WP:SNOW grounds. I believe this request is better, but has already been opposed by two editors. I will copy over their statements here and notify the blocking admin. I take no position on whether or not this user should be unbanned and/or unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. This user has been given many chances to improve, and WP:Standard offer doesn't apply here.. Generally, a disruptive editor would also disrupt other topics as well, and even then, you have shown to repeat your behavior many times. You don't want feedback and improvement, you just want to get in to Wikipedia as soon as possible, and it is likely that I bet this request is much more convincing than the previous one is an obvious indicator of insincereness. We don't have to unban you becuse you have an eloquent argument, nor admitting people who drain our soul and will even if they make 100 featured articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

While my comments may still sound insincere due to my past behaviours, I have now changed my behaviour since my block due to my participation in other communities. While I may be disruptive in certain topics (Kashmir, redirects etc.), I have never been disruptive on topics about which I have significant knowledge and interest (astronomy, spaceflight). Of course, I am not irreplaceable (since there are several Wikipedians with spaceflight interest), and I am not the centre of Wikipedia either. I am here to volunteerly improve the encyclopedia. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe this should be discussed by the community. While I'm currently unsure if I'd support unblocking/unbanning, I think there's enough here for the discussion. I plan to move the request to an admin noticeboard over the weekend. Soumya-8974, given the oppose above, you may choose to have me hold off if you wish. --Yamla (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This user also has CIR issues on other WMF projects as well, such as Wikivoyage and never communicates with us, and to the point where I had to start nominating Soumya's pointless redirects for deletion (Vaticidalprophet also nominated some controversial Taiwan redirects as well). I've also had to decline numerous file move requests on Commons as well. And what about that copyright violation? SHB2000 (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Note: The two above opposes have been copied from Soumya-8974's talk page (Non-administrator comment) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know this user from the immense amount of redirect related disruption they caused last year, and I'm seeing a huge disconnect between their actions and what they're saying they're going to do. They claim they now understand that communication is important, but looking at their talk pages on other projects shows a complete lack of communication. Their talk page on Wikivoyage [25] has an enormous list of issues, almost none of which have been responded to. They claim that they understand competence is required to edit, but they don't seem to have provided any clue how they plan to develop some, and a look at their other project contributions shows a proposed redirect topic ban on Wikivoyage [26] a commons talk page full of warnings about uploading copyrighted images and policy violations [27] and on wiktionary even today they're unilaterally retargeting ancient project space shortcuts to new places [28]. To support an unblock I would expect to see some evidence of trouble free contributions on other projects and a plan to address the fundamental issue underlying all their editing issues - brashly jumping into areas and processes that they haven't bothered to read up on and bullheadedly making poorly thought out edits that other editors have to clean up after them. As it stands I think we'll simply end up playing whack-a-mole with this editor's disruption, if we ban them from doing X they'll just start disrupting Y instead. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Persistant disruption can get the user globally banned, i.e. get blocked on all Wikimedia projects. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as the closer of the last discussion. While it is possible for people to grow past the issues behind the ban, that's the kind of character growth that takes years, not months. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I remember them from the disruption they caused at RfD and the amount of effort I and others (e.g. Tavix and AngusWOOF)) had to expend to clean up after them. I am always willing to consider that people have learned from their mistakes, however all the evidence shows that Soumya has exactly the same level of competence now that they had when they were blocked, which was exactly the same level of competence they had when they had been here a couple of days, which was - and is - a very long way below the level required to productively contribute here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2021 (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.

GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.

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, Maxim_(talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk

Restoration of Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea

Please restore the latest revision of this article at User:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea. I am not requesting a DRV, nor I am planning to rewrite it, it's just that I need to have a look and will tag it for speedy deletion in a few hours. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP

There's a backlog of about 36 hours at RFPP, would an admin be able to take a look? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks mostly  Done thanks to a number of administrators who lent a hand — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Threats being made to me

Someone claiming to be Bill Stevenson (and who is likely him) is threatening me on my talk page, disliking the article created on him (which was created utilizing all the information I could readily find on them). They dislike that it describes their fraud charges, which I wrote about based on credible contemporary news articles. They are making threats of utilizing their fortune to get me kicked off the website, and god knows what else. Just thought this should be brought to the attention of admins. SecretName101 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ve blocked him for making legal threats such as [29]. If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that. clpo13_(talk) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Clpo13: I believe you blocked the wrong user. DanCherek (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you’re right! That’s what I get for editing on a phone. clpo13_(talk) 17:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This was mentioned on a Wikipedia criticism site, which led me to look at Bill Stevenson (businessman), and while the threats are indeed nasty, it occurs to me that the user (who is also Delawarebill based on the latter's first edit summary) may have a case under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; I'm not sure the article demonstrates sufficient notability for a BLP whose subject has requested deletion. Do we need an AfD or can this be redirected to Jill Biden? See the edit summary by Folly Mox in the most recent edit for their assessment of why this person is notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

He's certainly made his bio article more notable. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I've put this up for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be summarily deleted per WP:G10. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the bio article was created on August 20, 2021, so it's existed for over two months. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Which is an indictment of how Wikipedia fails to enforce its own policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

He certainly may have a point on the possibly WP:UNDUE nature of the of some of the editing choices. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The 'biography' in question is no longer on Wikipedia: "speedy deleted shady attack page". [30] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you say WP:DRV? Don't! El_C 06:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that AfD turned out to be a waste of time. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing that gets trash removed from Wikipedia is a waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as the article-in-question has been deleted & the possible subject of that article, has no more reason to attempt getting it deleted. I reckon this AN report is rendered moot & should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, your creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Stevenson (businessman) has got to be one of strangest I've ever seen from an established editor. What am I missing? Weird. El_C 14:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably just a malfunctioning time machine. —Kusma (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

El_C 14:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes it was quite unique. I voted to 'keep' the article, before the final preparations of the AFD was completed. Now, I see the article has been re-created into a 're-direct' to the Jill Biden article. A lot of twists & turns. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well, since the article was indeed deleted as a "speedy deleted shady attack page" by El_C, I wonder if User:SecretName101 has something to say on the topic. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Why a long-standing contributor thought that article was even the slightest bit acceptable is one question that certainly needs answering. Along with why responses both here and at the AfD making insinuations regarding the 'Streisand effect' were seen as appropriate either, and whether Clpo13's suggestion above, "If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that" is really true, or whether making a 'legal threat' so that attention is drawn to what was self-evidently an attack page is actually the best way to get it dealt with. There was a systemic failure here, and nothing I have seen so far suggests that anyone is willing to learn uncomfortable lessons. Entirely inappropriate reactions to 'threats' brought on by blatantly-biased behaviour by contributors are sadly far too common on the admin notice boards, as the gut reaction is inevitably to circle the wagons in self defence, rather than actually look at the underlying issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is now a redirect. Reckon this AN report is now moot & should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, well since my comment above regarding insinuations about the Streisand effect was clearly in reference to your posts (here and at the AfD [31][32]), I'd have to suggest that maybe you aren't the best person to decide what is or isn't 'moot'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having a quarrel with you. So, you can have the last word. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOLT strikes again. Levivich 06:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Precisely EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I researched the individual, his operation of an influential nightclub seemed to warrant notability. From there, I created an article utilizing all the contemporary news sources I could find. The fact that there were strongly negative aspects was a reality of what I could find published on the subject, not any personal vendetta against the subject. I disagree with the deletion being an "attack page", but do not contest that the marginal notability meant we could veer on the safer side of deleting it. SecretName101 (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So what led you to decide to 'research the individual' in the first place? Why have you suddenly started taking an interest in former owners of defunct nightclubs? And which of the sources you read discussing Stevenson emphasised 'strongly negative aspects' concerning events occurring almost forty years ago? If you, a prolific creator of articles on US political figures, are really going to try to convince people that this article had nothing to do with Stevenson's former marriage to Jill Biden, and to his more recent comments on the marriage, I think you'll need to be a bit more explicit with your explanations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101, your bio about this marginally-notable living person opened with ...is an American businessman and convicted fraudster — you being unable to recognize a serious problem with that —as an attack— calls to question your competence (WP:CIR) in this area. And that you still don't get it after all this, even more so. At the very least, you need to review WP:BLP wide and deep (and maybe look at WP:ARBBLP as well). El_C 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the biography said next to nothing of any consequence regarding the operation of 'influential nightclub', merely stating, without further explanation, that it "became one of the leading rock clubs on the East Coast of the United States". Said assessment of its significance being cited to a Wilmington, Delaware local newspaper, which I'd have thought was a less than ideal source for such a sweeping statement. Likewise, the statements later in the article referring to Stevenson's 'influence' and to "his role as a supporter of the Delaware rock scene" are based on assessments from local papers, and to a 'Delaware Rock and Roll Society' website that does nothing to indicate said society is anything more than an enthusiasts project. Unsurprisingly really, since the other source cited for the 'Hall of Fame' award by the Society notes that it only has eight or so members. Said source being based on information provided by the Society members themselves.

Rather than discussing Stevenson's supposed claim to fame, the section entitled 'Stone Balloon and convictions' instead concentrated almost entirely on Stevenson's legal and financial troubles. The section header was less than honest too, since it highlights 'convictions' while failing to mention the 'dropped charges' also discussed therein. This was a blatant hatchet job, and I don't believe it is in Wikipedia's interests to permit someone capable of producing such work to continue to edit biographies of living persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I too hold concerns about SecretName101's judgement (and motivations) for creating that BLP. I should have just deleted it myself (thank you El_C for doing it). That SecretName101 created the article in the first place suggests to me that they need to be remiinded of WP:ARBBLP and strongly cautioned to exercise better judgement in the future. At minimum, use WP:DRAFT so that it can be reviewed before going on the mainspace. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Charges were dropped only in one case against the subject. Two cases resulted in convictions. From other articles I had seen, you mention in the opening lead when a subject has been convicted. SecretName101 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought it to be in line with articles like Patrick Cannon and other articles (which, I had recalled mentioning pretty early in its lead the convictions of the individuals, and which took care to elaborate on those charges). Perhaps the articles I was considering recollection of are problematic as well, and that led me to not practice best-practices. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You have yet to explain why you decided to "research the individual". What brought on this sudden interest in former owners of 1980s Delaware rock venues? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I had read about him in the news once or twice, such as when the whole Kathy Durst connection was revealed by him in and interview. When I later learned he had a prolific success for a period as an influential club operator, I decided “huh, maybe this guy has some notability.” Is that relevant? SecretName101 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So it wasn't Stevenson's rock-venue-management career that interested you in him in the first place, but the fact that he has made apparently unsubstantiated claims to have a connection to someone who disappeared in the early 1980s? Claims which the article again fails to elaborate on in any depth? Why, if that was indeed what led you to engage in "research", does the article say so little about the episode?

A simple question. Was your decision to "research the individual" in any way motivated by his connections to Jill Biden, and/or by his recent comments regarding the marriage? I'd recommend thinking carefully before answering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm especially interested in the answer to this, given the inclusion of accusations against Biden sourced to (a) a wingnut right-wing site and (b) a local tabloid that merely reports what Stevenson said. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Which site was a wignut right-wing site? And the article said so little on that because there was not much to say. He said he had an affair with her, That was it. Until after the article was deleted (when it came out, just now, that police evidently have talked to him), there was nothing else to say on the relation to Durst. And I only said that the story (along with some others that mentioned him) were the reason I knew the person existed. SecretName101 (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

And, yes, I had become aware he existed in part because another article I had come across mentioned he was the ex-husband of Jill. Did that fuel any vendetta against the man? Hell no. SecretName101 (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I was legit in the "anyone but Biden camp" when it came to those seeking the Democratic nomination. So I have no rabid enthusiasm for the man. Would likely rate his presidency with "mild approval", extra-emphasis on the "mild". SecretName101 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

So, you "became aware he existed" because he was Jill Biden's ex-husband. What made you decide to "research" him? And what, from the sources you 'researched' led you to conclude that such sources weighed the 1980s convictions so significantly that they merited describing him as an "American businessman and convicted fraudster" in the first sentence of the lede? Which of the sources you cited have done that? Are there any sources you have seen that did that? Have you seen such a description, or anything approximating to it anywhere other than in your own article and in the search engine results (e.g Google) which subsequently mirrored the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I decided to research him when I learned he had operated what was apparently a very successful nightclub/college bar. I thought that might merit notability. I have said that before that that is what made me decide to research him. And I explained that articles I had seen before describing convicted politicians (such as those convicted of single charges of bribery) as convicts in the lead were what I was considering when I (mistakenly) thought his past convictions merited mention in the lead. 14:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101 The site concerned is www.independentsentinel.com, which as of today, is currently, amongst other things, running a story claiming that COVID vaccines only work for 12 weeks, which contains the line "On that note, the man with dementia in the White House has instituted COVID traveler rules while allowing anonymous illegal aliens to pour in non-stop, by the thousands each day." Clearly a reliable source, that one. (Note: I just ran it through the source finder and luckily it is used on precisely zero articles in Wikipedia, which is both good and suggests how reliable it actually is). Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump has noted that Wikipedia has failed to apply its own policies in this case by allowing this article to persist for two months. One of the ways in which we enforce our policies is through the new page patrol process, where experienced editors cast an eye over new articles to ensure, amongst other things, that they aren't attack pages. It's not a perfect system (and it can always do with more reviewers), but it catches a lot of dodgy articles. It didn't have the chance to catch this one though, because SecretName101 had the Autopatrolled flag. Given the concerns that have been expressed here, I believe that it would be a good thing for their articles to be reviewed, so I have revoked that user right. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, Girth Summit, I'm not sure how effective such a measure can be in preventing further disruption of this nature. I've given SecretName101 ample opportunity to explain, but found their responses to have been subpar. As a result, I have topic banned them under WP:ARBBLP (direct link). El_C 09:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies, El C, I should have been clearer - I didn't mean my action to be a barrier to any further action if others thought that necessary, or an indication that I don't think any further action was necessary. I saw it more as a bare minimum step - I haven't looked at the deleted article, but concerns that rise to the level of a G10 deletion are obviously not compatible with someone holding the Autopatrolled perm, so I pulled it. No objection to your topic ban, you've looked at this more closely than I have. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No apology needed, Girth. I just felt that if we're gonna do anything, we might as well nip this particular problem in the bud. Which is to say: these sort of egregious BLP violations bring the project into disrepute, so I'm of the view that a firmer hand is called for. El_C 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll admit that the article should have remained as a draft, as was published far too early (if it ever should have been published). Should have not left the draft space. I have only been trying to explain I had no ill-intent in writing it, because that feels like what I am being accused of. SecretName101 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt, I will state outright that I am accusing you of ill-intent in your creation of the Stevenson biography. I find your going-in-circles explanations for why you "researched" Stevenson, and on why such research made you believe he met Wikipedia notability criteria, anything but credible. And it should be noted that I have arrived at this conclusion not just because of your actions in regard to this article, but elsewhere. For example, the discussions at Talk:Michelle Wu (see e.g. here and the surrounding discussion) make it absolutely clear that your editing has been deeply skewed by political considerations, to an extent that simply shouldn't be permitted in such contexts. And I say that as someone who's own personal politics probably aren't that far from yours. All of us are influenced by our politics, all the time. That's a fundamental part of being human - homo politicus. A project like this though needs people with enough self-awareness to realise they are being influenced, and enough judgement to step back and ask if it is wise to use the project in such a partisan manner. Doing so may win a battle or so, but ultimately lose the war as the project becomes less and less credible as a source of information to those using it. And even from the most cynical analysis, as a tactic for political shenanigans, creating attack biographies concerning people who's political relevance is only even potentially of marginal significance is a poor use of your own limited time. I see that El_C has imposed an indefinite WP:BLP topic ban, a sanction which I consider entirely appropriate. At the very least, this might lead you to have sufficient time to put a little more thought into any other editing you do on Wikipedia. Or possibly to consider taking your political enthusiasms elsewhere. There are plenty of contexts where overtly-partisan political writing is appropriate, expected, and effective. Perhaps you might consider using some of your free time to learn how to do it properly: I'd recommend reading a little George Orwell as a starting point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: With Michelle Wu I did not skew either way. I went overboard in outlining her policies and work, but neither attempted outright described her policies as having negative or positive implications. Which is what we are meant to do when we describe people's policies in their articles on Wikipedia. A liberal would have probably loved what they read, while a conservative would have been outright horrified by what her policy was. A moderate might have had mixed opinions. I attempted to let the positives or negatives of her policies, arguments, and actions stand on their own, for interpretation by the reader. That is not skewed writing. SecretName101 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the comment you made at Talk:Michelle Wu that I linked above speaks for itself. You were arguing that content should be included in the article because of your personal belief that she may in the future be "primed to run for POTUS", thereby "fulfilling the dream some had of a Warren-style president". And the surrounding context in the discussion makes it clear that I'm not the only person who considered your behaviour in regard to that article inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NLT and WP:DOLT

Right now, the first is a policy, the second is "just an essay", a phrase I've been subjected to numerous times by people resisting what IMO was common sense. And right now it seems that the way everyone understands the policy is that "we just up and block anyone who makes a legal threat." Maybe that's appropriate for two established editors in an ongoing argument, but to someone who creates an account specifically because they feel they are being slandered or otherwise being attacked through our platform, it sends the message that because they are an outsider they are being deliberately dismissed. These people shouldn't have to be put through a bureaucratic obstacle course simply to have their complaints heard. At a minimum some of the essay needs to be moved into the policy, but it seems to me that a better process needs to be set up to deal with these complaints to ensure that they are addressed. As it is, this required an alert on an external site and a response by at least one third party to raise awareness of the problems with the article. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Like. Kind of a flip of WP:AGF and WP:PACT. Will Remix. El_C 23:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd support merging DOLT into NLT. Levivich 00:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Necessary, but not sufficient. WP:BLP exists as policy now, and yet a long-established contributor seems to think that it can be ignored for no better reason than vague assertions regarding 'research'. Ignoring essentially all of relevant WP:BLP policy: WP:AVOIDVICTIM,WP:BLPCRIME,WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE,WP:BLPPRIVACY,WP:BLP1E,WP:BLPKINDNESS - the whole damn lot. That such a contributor can think this is even remotely appropriate is astonishing. That nobody else should identify the obvious issues over a period of two months is far worse. It is clear and unequivocal evidence that there are systemic flaws in the ways that Wikipedia creates biographical articles, but fails to apply its own policies to them. This in a context where Google for instance will, as a matter of course, cite and directly quote Wikipedia ledes as its top search result for biographical content. Directly quoting gross policy violations like 'convicted fraudster', because nobody has taken the necessary action to rectify it. The system is broken. It doesn't work. It fails to enforce its own policies. It needs fundamental changes in regard to how such material is checked and approved. This isn't 2001 any more. Wikipedia has a presence on the internet now where 'let anyone edit and we'll hope it all gets sorted out later' isn't even remotely appropriate. Wikipedia has to either find a way to ensure that such things cannot happen, or simply stop pretending that amateurism-by-design 'always-improving' wishful thinking is capable of producing appropriate biographical content in the context it now finds itself in. Tinkering with WP:NLT is not enough. Not remotely. The system is broken. Fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Just spitballing here but what about 1. an edit filter that checks for WP:WTW in Category:Living people, or 2. some kind of "enhanced" WP:NPP for BLPs, perhaps a feed that also checks autopatrolled creation of BLPs? Levivich 05:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Relying on edit filters to enforce fundamental Wikipedia policy would seem to be an indication of a deep-running issue that needed further attention, even if it worked. As for an 'enhanced' new page patrol system, I proposed something along similar lines in an off-Wikipedia discussion: that biographies of living persons are not permitted to go 'live' until they have been vouched for as properly-sourced and policy-compliant by at least two established editors other than the article creator. As for what would constitute an 'established editor', that would probably need some thought (maybe a new user-right?), and it should note that even this doesn't prevent blatant policy violations being added later. What is actually needed is a system that ensures that biographical material receives greater scrutiny throughout its lifetime. And a cultural change in Wikipedia that treats WP:BLP policy as one of its core values, not just another set of rules to be wiggled round when they get in the way. A free online encyclopaedia would seem to be a worthy project, but is it really so, if it also acts as a venue for free online character assassination? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I also support promoting DOLT to be a requirement before action is taken. I think too many people know the rule (one strike and you're out) and enjoy the circus, and too many admins act without thinking first because rules. I am not commenting about this particular case as I have not investigated what the NLT-violations involved, but I agree with AndyTheGrump above that the (now deleted) article was a monstrosity. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Sounds like a great discussion to bring up at WT:NLT, it certainly would not be decided here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think an Admin forgot to salt a page which I requested to be salted when I nominated the page for CSD.

The page Draft: Dhoom 4 has been repeatedly recreated by multiple IP addresses talking about a non-existent and non-upcoming movie hoax, as according to the page log [33]. Using Twinkle I nominated the page for CSD under G3: Blatant Hoax, and also check marked the box "Request page salting". The reason why I think the draft page needs to be salted is because the IP crystal ball hoaxer usually copies and pastes the content on the page to either Dhoom (franchise)[34] or sometimes Talk:Dhoom (franchise)[35][36][37]. As you can see, the users who are actually taking time to take care of the article are annoyed at this point. The edits to these pages always occur after the protection for any of the two pages ends. The protection for the Dhoom article page is showing on it's log [38] has been seen going on and off repeatedly, and its current protection is slated to end at sometime in November. There is no way to get a message across to the IP user, as they use a public IP address that keeps changing once in a while. Pining users who are obviously annoyed by the Dhoom 4 hoax vandal. @Bollyjeff: Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: I know nothing about this. – Athaenara ✉ 01:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Athaenara: I replied to you on your talk page. Accidently copied your username on the page history, when I was trying to copy another. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: I’ve gone ahead and salted it. For future reference, you can request page creation protection at WP:RFPP, too. clpo13_(talk) 01:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Clpo13: Thank you.  :) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Has this BLP article been vandalised?

Main article: Felicia Pearson § Early life

The opening sentence states that she was born in red link philly Maryland and the second sentence claims that she was born a "crack baby" [sic], which I don't think is the correct medical term. Other parts seem borderline suspect and there is a lack of sourcing in parts of the article. Darkknight2149 20:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The redink town name has been corrected by firefly. The source on Crack Baby is no longer valid, so I deleted the term. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it takes an arsonist to stop a vandal. Anyways, thanks for looking into it. Darkknight2149 07:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Unban request by Roqui15

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.

---

Ban appeal by Roqui15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) copied over from their user talk (permalink).

For this unblock it's ok for me to be banned from participating in the discussion or editing on the List of largest Empires page, including the talk page. And be able to edit everything else.

I admit my mistake of using more than one account and I understand why I caused a disturbance. And of course, I agree to don't use more than one account again, even when I think it's justified. I will not "bring" anyone else to help me with my wikipedia edits, whether it's family members or friends, whether is in an article or in a discussion. I will always be civilized, courteous, and polite in any editing or discussion with other editors. I would like to be able to contribute again to Wikipedia in general and I will not get into violent disputes with other editors or disturb Wikipedia in any other way like I did before.

And my edits will be always by the support of a trusted source. Thank you Roqui15 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

- Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• No recent block evasion as far as I can see, based on checkuser evidence. --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support if Roqui15 is actually agreeing to all of the conditions listed by Deepfriedokra on 7 June, 2021 on their talk page. Roqui15 previously stated, "I'm ok with all of the unblock conditions above". I think largely, that means WP:1RR in addition to the topic ban. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment for those wondering, it seems this ban was under WP:3X so I don't think there was a formal cban discussion, although there's quite a lot of stuff on their talk page which may help explain part of the history and also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  3X exists so that we don't have to have a discussion. The discussion that approved that was this one. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  @PEIsquirrel: Not sure I see a reason to discuss 3X here? I didn't say anything which disputed the legitimacy of 3X or suggested there needed to be a discussion. And I linked to the 3X redirect so people unfamiliar with this part of the policy could check it out, and this already links to the RfC for anyone unaware of the history of 3X. IMO if anyone did want to dispute 3X, that's irrelevant to this discussion since it is part of policy and their comments should be ignored. (They are free to try and get that policy changed somewhere else if they follow our norms of course.)

Further explanation Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A standard part of ban appeals for me and I suspect a number of participants is to check out the ban discussion to get an idea of what lead up to the ban, and so help them decide whether any conditions imposed are needed or sufficient or if any other conditions should be imposed; and ultimately decide whether to support or oppose the appeal. The appeal mentioned socking but didn't really explain why the editor was banned or link to any cban discussion and so give me an idea of why this was here at AN instead of just something handled via an unblock request. (Do note that many of us including me are not admins and so we don't deal with block appeals ourselves only ban appeals. And those occasional block appeals where despite the lack of a ban, an admin doesn't feel comfortable unilaterally unblock and so asks for feedback; but in those cases the admin generally explains the situation.) So I went to check out the editor's talk page to find it. From there I found out it was 3X ban and so there was likely no formal discussion, which again is fine but is not the case for many appeals. To stop further participants getting confused or spending time looking for a ban discussion, I mentioned the nature of the ban here since no one had yet. However I indicated some degree of uncertainty in my comment as I couldn't be sure there was no formal discussion. I only went by comments I saw on the talk page and didn't spend any time looking for one since I doubted there would be one. But I did link the the SPA and mention the talk page as these IMO provided a good idea of what lead up to the ban and were probably the best alternatives to a cban discussion. Note that if there was a ban discussion I stand by my view that it would be something participants might want to read before !voting and I would have linked to it if no one else had. Which is a different thing from saying we should waste time having such discussions. OTOH, I don't see the discussion which established 3X is particularly useful or necessary for any 3X appeal, in the sense that while ideally all participants should understand why we have it as part of policy, most should already be familiar with it. Given the proposed condition, after my post I checked out the archives of Talk:List_of_largest_empires where I found Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 9 particularly illustrative of the history. But I also found Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 10 and Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 11 interesting as the latter makes me wonder if Roqui15 is technically 1 day too soon for the WP:STANDARDOFFER. As an IP, CUs can't link Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00::/64 to an account meaning we can only rely on behavioural evidence like those talk page comments, and there seem to be several socks bothering that page. I'm not sure if there are more than one complaining about the size of the Portuguese empire. However it's possible some of the editors Roqui15 allegedly invited stuck around. So without a fair amount of further investigation it's hard to be sure who it was. And given it's only 1 day off, it didn't seem worth it. Hence my decision not to link to any of those archives or comment on them. And instead I just decided to leave it at the existing SPA and talk page links. Well until your comment made me think you misunderstood the point of my earlier comment and/or don't understand how some of us review appeals.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said below, I'm rather involved in this. Suffice it to say that behavioural evidence indicates that Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00::/64 is someone else. TompaDompa (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support if Roqui15 is actually agreeing to all of the conditions listed by me on 7 June, 2021 on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Let's try it with the aforementioned conditions and then revisit them later. And I always forget to say "one account restriction," but of course. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Adding WP:IBAN with TompaDompa per TompaDompa's comment below. @Roqui15:, please respond to TompaDompa's concerns on your talk page. @TompaDompa: I'm hoping the expanded TBAN does not prove necessary. Successful unban requests are a rarity. I should hope such a boon would not be squandered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with no recent block evasion, I think they may have learned their lesson. Agree with the WP:1RR restriction & topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support with one-account restriction. User seems to understand now that meatpuppetry is effectively the same as sockpuppetry, so the issues which led to the original block ought not to recur. I don't see much reason for other restrictions at this point, let's just see what happens. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I consider myself too involved for it to be appropriate for me to outright support or oppose this, but I have a few observations/comments to share.
  • One year can be plenty of time for character growth (especially for someone rather young, which I gather this user is), and I think the lack of additional (detected) sockpuppetry for the last year or so is evidence that this has indeed been the case here.
  • Besides articles that would be covered by the proposed topic ban, the user has edited biological articles such as Siberian Tiger a fair amount. As far as I can tell, those edits demonstrate their ability to contribute constructively to Wikipedia.
  • I would probably explicitly specify "Portuguese history, broadly construed" in the proposed topic ban in addition to what was suggested on the user's talk page, since that area was their main focus on the article and talk page in question and some other pages where they used sockpuppets (e.g. Northeast Passage).
  • The user was blocked on Portuguese-language Wikipedia for WP:Harassment directed towards me for things that happened here on English-language Wikipedia. I think a one-way interaction ban should at least be considered.
  Those are my thoughts. TompaDompa (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (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.

Jrs50

This user is vandalising several articles in eswiki, enwiki and wikidata [39]. Often makes arbitrary changes for no reason and keeps doing it despite all the warnings in his discussions [40], [41], [42]. He's been blocked in eswiki for one month for those reasons but he's been doing awful edits on wikidata, changing descriptions in Spanish [43]. I think more severe measures should be taken against this disruptive user that has wasted a lot of time from other editors.--MexTDT (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the account for a week. Next time, please notify the user at the talk page as required.(It probably would not have changed much in this case, but still).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Has this BLP article been vandalised?

Main article: Felicia Pearson § Early life

The opening sentence states that she was born in red link philly Maryland and the second sentence claims that she was born a "crack baby" [sic], which I don't think is the correct medical term. Other parts seem borderline suspect and there is a lack of sourcing in parts of the article. Darkknight2149 20:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The redink town name has been corrected by firefly. The source on Crack Baby is no longer valid, so I deleted the term. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it takes an arsonist to stop a vandal. Anyways, thanks for looking into it. Darkknight2149 07:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of editing like a UPE

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 to everyone here. I came here today in respect of something that happened. On 22 October 2021 I applied for the right of NPR here and just today, I got a feedback here. It so disheartening to read what the administrator(Rosguill) has to say for declining my request of which I did reply here. I'm really not able to understand the situation here and I really want other admins to look at this issue as my edits are visible even anything I've done at AFC is visible. I'm disheartened this evening even while typing this and this has reduced my morale. I know the admin was performing their duties and how they do that is up to them, but doing the job is one thing and affecting others negatively is another thing. I really do hope this is reviewed accordingly. And please if this is not the right place for this, please direct me. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in response to the request, I am happy to explain my reasoning off-wiki to any admin who would like to review my decision to decline permissions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing it. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill:Please why off-wiki? Am I not allowed to see your reasoning? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

331dot email sent; Idoghor Melody, off-wiki per WP:BEANS. If my suspicions are correct, then we don't want to include information that could make UPE editors savvier next time around. If my suspicions are unfounded, other admins can dissent from my position and overrule my action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Idle comment that WP:OPAQUE might be a more useful link than BEANS. The humour tone in BEANS can sometimes confuse people. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the information I was given, and I think this denial of permissions was good and proper. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  @331dot:You reviewed informations that I didn't see with my eyes and you called this justice? I am not in support of this decision. Even if you're not granting me the NPR rights, you should tell me why you think my edits are like that of a UPE. If this ends like this, then this is not justice!!! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

NPR status is a privilege, rather than a right, and not something to which you are entitled. That being the case, I would respectfully suggest that "justice" doesn't really enter the equation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody: As you have been told, we can't necessarily post everything in public view, as this could help others better evade detection. It isn't a matter of justice, but protecting Wikipedia. I'm sorry. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill:If you have a moment I'd be interested in seeing the reasoning as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Euryalus:, sent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: I am being accused of something publicly but you can't make the proofs/informations publicly and you can't tell them to me privately, and if this is not injustice, then what is it?--Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't have a right to access advanced permissions, so it's not a matter of justice. As Wikipedia is a private entity, permissions can be granted or denied for any reason or even no reason. We try to explain when we can and be fair, but that's not always possible. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tbh, 331dot, I feel this is generally wordsmithing. Fairness and justice would also apply to things like the stigma of being called a UPE - that doesn't mean the information must be shown, but the negatives should be freely admitted as such Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

While I would generally admit that this is not ideal, framing it as "justice" strikes me as a bridge too far, as I noted above. It is, I would submit, the worst possible solution but for all the other possible solutions. But yes, obvious that it's an unfortunate place to be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO, while there would be an issue of injustice if my word at Requests for Permissions was final, being able to contest the decision here and have a few uninvolved editors look at the rationale and ratify or reject my decision strikes me as quite a fair process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: and 331dot, I guess this will be my final words here. You've successfully called me a UPE, refused to tell me why and sent emails of what I don't know to other admins who you might have convinced to share reasoning with you. Because if not so, I see no reason why you shouldn't put your reasons here so I can either accept or oppose them. Be that as it may, I believe I'll get this justice someday, and you'll get your own fair share of this experience some day. I was denied fair hearing today/yesterday and I'm really unhappy about it. If there was another way to contest this, I would have also done it. Goodluck to you all and happy editing! --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not seen the email proof but have seen enough for me to be uncomfortable with this editor having NPP rights. MER-C 16:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Echoing 331dot & MER-C look @Idoghor Melody, Rosguill did not accuse you of UPE in-fact you are casting aspersions of which you owe Rosgull an apology ASAP. They only stated that your edits are consistent with that of UPE editors & like said didn’t call you a UPE editor. Per beans, I wouldn't spill too much but how come you have been here for 6 years but a WP:SLEEPER and recently just became active? Furthermore why did you create the non notable promotional article on Liquorose? An area heavily edited by undisclosed paid editors? Furthermore NPR are granted to editors who are proficient with our notability guidelines and you creating that article shows you perhaps aren’t quite fit for the perm. For example why would create that article? are you oblivious of WP:1E and Wp:TOOSOON this alone disqualifies you from obtaining that perm.,Lastly you said if you were a UPE editor you wouldn’t have been granted the afc pseudo rights and honesty that doesn’t mean anything as the threshold for getting that right is relatively low. All this put together makes the decline very plausible. Lest I forget, can you explain this? Prior that we never had any interactions, at least with this account and you left me the message which sounded as though we have ever interacted before which isn’t the case. Lastly I do not see the need for this appeal, what’s the rush? Celestina007 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Celestina007: When they say someone is behaving like a thief, what does that really mean?? And what is your problem with the article Liquorose? why do you question if we have interacted before just because I left a message on your talk page? Or is there any policy that stops me from posting on any Talk page? I am trying hard to understand why you're saying all these and I just feel this is an attack on me for just nothing. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody, “When they say someone is behaving like a thief, what does that really mean??” that would mean the individual in question has exhibited traits of a thief & not that the hypothetical person is a thief. I don’t have a problem with the Liquorose article asides from the fact that it is promotional in nature & is an archetypal example of ONEEVENT, plus they have no encyclopedic value and this is an encyclopedia. However on the other hand I see you may have a little problem grasping WP:1E & WP:TOOSOON. At this juncture you have to really stop and apologize to Rosguill for WP:ASPERSION casting which can get you blocked as it constitutes a personal attack. If I may ask how does a decline for a perm you aren’t qualified for impede your ability to edit? In-fact the fact that you are a WP:SLEEPER who just started editing again, requesting perms such as AFC and now NPP coupled with your obvious dissent and vexation that you were denied NPP is in itself a red flag. You are indeed lucky Rosguill who is relatively one of the easy going admins was the sysop who handled this, Theoretically speaking, if it were sysops such as Nick who observed this and saw off wiki evidence you would probably have been looking at an indef block. Lastly you were asking to see the off wiki reason that seriously indicts you, now why on earth would we show you that? Wouldn’t that be rather counter intuitive? Like i said not having the NPR perm doesn’t impede you from building a collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Saying someone is behaving like a thief is no different from saying someone is a thief. For instance if I should say "Emeka you're behaving like a mad person!", It's an insult to Emeka. Telling me my edits are consistent with that of a UPE is no different. It's an insult to me and they are tarnishing my image to other users. And who told you I have a problem with the denial? I don't have a problem with that but with where it is being hanged. Hanging it on that is one thing that upsets me and the second is refusing to show me why he thinks that way. It's easy to convince someone against another person especially when the person is not present, because if present, the person might have things to say to clear up his name if it's a misunderstanding(but when the accused is not present, it's easy to convince people otherwise). For Liquorose, I think you don't understand WP:1E either, because if you do, you would not say such. I don't want to delve into explaining how the article meets WP:GNG but if you feel it doesn't meet GNG and it is WP:TOOSOON, please AFD is not far from your reach. And the article I created is not promotional in nature, you can also prove how it is. “Lastly you were asking to see the off wiki reason that seriously indicts you” Capital YES I was asking to see it, and if you Celestina007 put yourself in my shoes, you will know that it's important to know of something you're accused of publicly. Dear Celestina, let's be honest with ourselves, and if you think I'm not saying the right thing here then that's your own opinion. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody, I don’t have much to say, 1E is predominantly being notable for one event, which means supermajority of the RS used in the article literally almost all discuss her within the confines of her participation in a Nigerian reality TV show she failed to emerge successful. I’m not AFD'ing anything, good luck. Infact considering you once attempted to create an autobiography i may initiate a proposal at ANI suggesting/mandating you to use the AFC to submit all your articles moving forward. It is Safe to say nothing is coming out of this premature repot so please tone down the subtle invectives, You are yet to apologize to Rosguill rather you are doubling down by being rude, this is my last post here, please do not ping me anymore. Feel free to Visit the WP:TEAHOUSE but please don’t ping me ever again. Celestina007 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Don't be quik to run away. You want to initiate a proposal at ANI suggesting/mandating me to use the AFC to submit all my articles moving forward, what year did I attempt that autobiography?? I think you know the answer to that. But is this not a threat?? Anyways good luck in your endeavors.--Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Didn't I just tell you expressly not to ever ping me again? Do you have a problem with respecting the polite requests of your co editors here? I literally just told you not to ping me again and that is literally what you just did immediately, correct me if I’m wrong but this shows you creating what’s seems to be an autobiography, correct me if I’m wrong. You just accused me of threatening you, once more you are still casting aspersions. Furthermore what in the name of Jesus do you mean by this comment what year did I attempt that autobiography?? I think you know the answer to that? I’m moving ahead to close this rather vapid entry. Celestina007 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I pinged you to reply your last message. Why is that not a threat? Telling me in this discussion that You may want to initiate a proposal at ANI suggesting/mandating me to use the AFC to submit all my articles moving forward. Is that not a threat over something that happened in January 2020 when an editor has no good knowledge of policies, is that not a threat? How does it relate to this discussion? Infact a whole lot of things you said here does not relate to this discussion. And yes, I will never ping you again going forward. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Idoghor Melody You've been asked to stop pinging Celestina, please do so. You can reply to them without a ping and they can choose to read or not read it, or reply or not reply to it, entirely of their own accord. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Noted. I have stated above not to do such again. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This should probably just be closed, as nothing else productive can come from it. Idoghor Melody is angry, with some justification, so having a thread of telling someone who's mad that they were told they're acting like a UPE to apologize to someone, then escalating in a feedback loop of them getting angrier and angrier doesn't seem like the right call.

Idoghor Melody, sorry you didn't get permissions. Due to the wide amount of different types of abuse that gets heaped onto Wikipedia sometimes admins have to exercise an abundance of caution, and can't discuss what they're basing judgements on as to not give away their methods of preventing that abuse. Sometimes that means that innocent editors have to deal with the fallout. It's happened to a lot of us. I'm sorry it happened to you, but unfortunately, it is what it is. I hope you continue editing despite this. Would you object to the thread being closed, or is there more you'd like to accomplish with it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Nothing more to say again. I was just hurt that I was tagged with something I've never done or ever planned to do(even if they did not call me a UPE directly). Please it should be noted that I will not take it likely with anyone who accuse me falsely or accuse me of being like something again. I know there's nothing I can do if it happens again but please it shouldn't happen. I will continue to do my best in this collaborative project. Thank you @ScottishFinnishRadish. Please you can close. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (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.

Moving an article under AfD?

I didn't think you could move an article while it's under AfD, as AEDM got moved to African Electronic Dance Music. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't and it can mess up the scripts we usually use when closing AfDs, but there's nothing technically preventing people from doing so. The best thing to do is to move it back for the duration of the AfD, unless it's obviously heading towards keep. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was something like that, I am not very good at moves and have sometimes messed them up, maybe an admin can fix it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The template on an article that has been nominated for deletion says not to blank the article or remove the template. The template on a something-else that has been nominated for MFD says not to blank or move the page or remove the template. I have been thinking for some time that the wording of the AFD template should be revised. Attempting to move an article to draft space after it has been nominated for deletion is sometimes done in order to try to defeat the AFD or game the system. It doesn't work, because admins correctly move the article back to article space, but some disruptive editors do not know that it doesn't work. So I think that the template notice should be reworded. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleting ".js" subpages

Would you please delete these subpages?

• User:Mann Mann/redwarnConfig.js
• User:Mann Mann/redwarnRules.json

Because it seems Template:Db-u1 does not work on them. Mann Mann (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they've been deleted now. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Mann Mann (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, deletion tags don't display properly on these pages, but they do categorize them. 2A03:C5C0:107E:6033:B561:44BD:193:AE8 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 Phase 2

Following a discussion with over 100 editors, 8 issues were identified with Requests for Adminship (RfA). Phase 2 has begun and will use the following timeline:

• 10/24: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA
• 10/31: The 30 day discussion period has begun (where we are)
• 11/7: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
• 11/30: 30 day discussion period ends

All interested editors are invited to participate in Phase 2. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:PERM#Rollback backlog

Please any admin would sort out the request pendings. It would be better because some are continuously requesting other admin's talk page about consideration of request, regardless of their patience. --Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It is backlogged for around 4 or 5 days till now.--Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello. Could somebody please delete User:Tol/Template/TolBot tasks/tasks.json under speedy deletion criterion U1? I'm coming here because I've used Twinkle to tag it twice, but (because it's a JSON page) the tag was placed on the talk page (with a note to delete the content page), and both times, only the talk page was deleted, despite my note to please delete the JSON page (the second time, I even made it large, red, and bold). Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tol:  Done clpo13_(talk) 20:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Request closure review of RfC discussion on deprecating The Daily Wire as a source

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 not involved in this RfC, but editors have expressed a desire for administrative review of S_Marshall's closure of the RfC and in the interest of speedy process, I am writing this post on the behalf of those editors. MarshallKe (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a quick look; my first thought it I'd like 2 other admins to work with me on a joint close. Any takers? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Bit premature perhaps, Roy? Should really come to a consensus to overturn my close before you appoint a panel of replacements.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe "close" was the wrong word. What I meant was a panel of three people to do a review. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're eminently qualified to do that, and I'd welcome it. We really ought to have an orderly RFC review forum.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, this has taken an odd turn that I didn't expect. My original thought was that it's always good to have multiple people doing a review (like what happens at WP:DRV). I'm going to step back on this one and let somebody else handle it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You literally told people to come here if they disputed it, and now you're trying to affect the review process - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You did a non-admin close on a contentious RFC when an admin usually does the job, and it turned out to be disputed. Yes, the RFC needs a proper admin close - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN had a long-running and quite contentious RFC on deprecating the Daily Wire. As it came up to a month, S Marshall came in and did a non-admin close. However, a number of editors, including the editor who filed the RFC, think that the close is distinctly at odds with how deprecation RFCs have been handled in the past, and reflects neither consensus, nor the argued guidelines and policy. (Disputes like this of deprecation RFC closes basically never happen.) S Marshall suggested we ask WP:AN for an independent admin close. I suspect we might need more than one - it was quite contentious, and multiple opinions would be stronger. Are there two or three uninvolved admins who've done deprecation closes who could give their assessment of the close in RSN? - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard isn't this a duplicate of the above section? -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I've removed the header and converted it to an anchor for historic use. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

My error, sorry, it is! Don't know how I failed to notice that ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

David, that isn't the only error you've made about this. You've also suggested that contentious RfCs should be closed by admins, and that's not the case at all. In fact I have a long history of closing this stuff, and although I've been overturned from time to time, it's usually the case that the community endorses my closes. And you've accused me of trying to affect the close review process, when all I did was agree to RoySmith's proposal. That's not just wrong, it's rather hurtful. I'm here in good faith to do my best for the community in line with the policies and procedures that we've agreed.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You're literally doing precisely that above in this very section, trying to affect an admin review of your actions. You dived into the RFC thinking you were being sincerely helpful, and ended up with a strongly contested close of a contentious RFC. I suggest you consider that your move may have been badly in error, and that proper review without you trying to interfere in the process may be appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'll say the same thing SM did so it's not just him... IMO it is a slight bit rude to plan a 3-admin panel close before there's even a determination that this close was wrong. There's nothing unusual or improper about non-admins closing discussions that don't require admin tools to implement the outcomes. Whether the closer was an admin or not is hardly pertinent to the issue at hand. Reading and reviewing a discussion takes time. It's not a good idea to start overturning closes without proper consideration; the effect will just be that non-admin editors don't wish to spend time reviewing discussions for closure, which itself is a good thing given how large WP:RFCL / WP:RM / etc backlogs can get. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• I do not believe for a moment that I'm badly in error. My position is that it's entirely in order for me to participate in this review of my actions, and it's entirely out of order for David Gerard to frame that participation as "interfering".—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I, too, am 100% correct all of the time. It is so frustrating when others don't understand that, isn't it? But seriously, as someone with no dog in this fight, it does look a bit like you're trying to put your thumb on the scale. Let the other side be wrong on their own for a little bit. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Really?!—S Marshall T/C 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the case for overturning here? I think S Marshall did a careful and considerate job closing the discussion. By numbers alone this was not a clear consensus. Like many editors, I consider 2/3rd to be the general clear consensus when numbers are the only question. By the arguments both sides made policy based arguments and provided references for the position. It's also important to note that the discussion wasn't "Is DW reliable vs not". It was only should a source that is seen as non-reliable be further downgraded into deprecate. The close of "consensus it isn't reliable, no consensus to deprecate" was fair. Disclaimer: in the RfC I supported status quo. Springee (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (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:Levivich’s close of this close review is unimpressive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with creating categories

Can someone please help with category creation at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories? 46.116.237.145 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2021 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Due process — Request to close "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#E-960 TBAN — Request for the lifting of sanctions" discussion properly (archived without formal closure)

I'd like to ask the administrators to close out my "TBAN Request for the lifting of sanctions" filing, it was archived the other day without the due process. At this point, it can be formally closed as there was sufficient input from other users over the past 4 weeks to draw a conclusion. The original discussion, which was not closed but simply archived is linked here: [44] --E-960 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've only had a quick skim of the arguments made at the linked discussion, but it does look like there's some measure of consensus to lift the TBAN. I'm totally fine with someone else stepping in and formally doing something about this, but if not I'll take a deeper look tonight and use this discussion as the "formal close" of the archived threads. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done; there is a reasonable consensus at the linked discussion to indicate that "one last chance" should be offered to E-960. I will be lifting the RESTRICTION shortly. Thank you for your patience. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

battleground IP

88.230.173.190 (talk · contribs), 88.230.176.200 (talk · contribs), 88.230.169.26 (talk · contribs)

• Battleground focused IP making personal attacks against me in their talk page [45]
• Following me around and casting same racial and ethnic rants against me [46], when I tried to inform an admin [47].

Range block may be needed if an admin is willing to help. Thanks in advance, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh and btw, I've never been to the US IP, not sure how you're so strong in your assumptions. But then again, judging by your comments, most if not all of it doesn't make sense regardless, and you're clearly not fit to edit on Wikipedia if these are your comments/aspersions towards an editor you just met, or towards anyone else for that matter. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please create a 𒁹𒀭𒌍𒋾𒀀𒅆 redirect to Sîn-lēqi-unninni

𒁹𒀭𒌍𒋾𒀀𒅆 deserves a redirect to Sîn-lēqi-unninni just like Ὅμηρος. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Finally, someone will solve my problem of accidentally searching things in cuneiform...--Ermenrich (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mm, I know redirects are cheap and all, but the characters in this proposed redirect are so obscure that they are disallowed by the title blacklist. I don't really see a compelling need to give a special exemption for this relatively obscure topic. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Relatively obscure topic"? Let's not be so anti-Sumeric. Levivich 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The real value in +sysop: making all those Linear A redirects I've been wanting to add. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You Cretan! Levivich 16:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You Cretan! Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This thread made me LOL, and therefore my day. Thank you.UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Given this site's predisposition towards nerdiness, I'm somewhat surprised we don't have redirects in Cirth Hog Farm _Talk 16:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Where do I go to declare myself 𒈗 of Wikipedia? Dumuzid (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RENAME Levivich 16:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd do it but can't determine whether this is indeed the correct way to write this name. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean considering I don't even know what it says because they aren't rendering, you're already further than me in that determination -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done The cuneiform is correct and verifiable. The article cites the spelling to the open richly annotated cuneiform corpus at UPenn. The entry in that corpus corresponds to the cuneiform of this redirect. If anyone would like to verify this, Prof. Kateřina Šašková of University of West Bophemia provides a glossary of cuneiform signs which you can cross-reference with the ORACC entry. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the concern was whether the redirect was accurate, but rather if it's really necessary to have a redirect that is in a script that only a handful of people in the world would be able to recognise, let alone read. But hey, what's done is done, I suppose if anyone has issue they can take it to the usual places. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

My concern was the accuracy, as I couldn't figure out the ORACCle. It is a typical case of a probably useless but definitely harmless redirect, so why not create it... —Kusma (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The title blacklist entry that blocked this creation was justified as "very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles". The usefulness of redirects is best determined at RFD not at AN, so the standard I had for creation was similar to AFC: would it stand a good chance of surviving a deletion discussion. The OP gave an example of another famous editor of the ancient canon, Ὅμηρος. At a more general level, WP:RFOREIGN says that non-English redirects are appropriate when the redirected title is an official name of the subject, and the cuneiform is quite literally how the subject wrote his own name in his edition of The Epic of Gilgamesh. As for usefulness, if it's useful for a only a handful of readers it's still useful, and that someone requested its creation suggests that someone noticed the omission. I can anticipate some counterarguments given my experience at RfD, but compared to RFOREIGN I don't anticipate them resulting in a consensus to delete. Given that the redirect was correct and (in my estimation) likely to survive a deletion discussion, I created. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

67.53.214.86 and WP:BLP

67.53.214.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an IP editor who since 2018 appears to have been adding information to WP:BLPs that is sourced to hard to assess sources (typically in Russian/Ukrainian), and often with concerning BLP implications. I first noticed their edits when they added a section to an article stating that the subject "was a close friend of the alcoholic Valery... the son of... who was a close friend of". Aside from the trivial nature of the information and apparent attempt at ?guilt by association?, the references were either in Russian, or did not mention the article subject. Going to the user's Talk: page, I noticed that the page is littered with warnings about WP:BLP violations, WP:COPYVIO violations, WP:RS and WP:V violations, failed WP:AFC requests, and automated bot reversion notices. I tried to review a number of their recent article additions; some were obviously problematic, but others were difficult for me to assess. I think that this editor's contributions to Wikipedia should be reviewed, and further contributions discouraged. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I also see that some of the references they add are not reliable sources, such as compromat.ru for example, and many I have never heard about but at the first glance do not look reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's been going on for years, and I don't see any responses on the Talk: page yet. This is a serious matter, as it has WP:BLP implications, and the damage is too complex to easily assess. They've already been blocked once for a month; unless there are any objections, I plan to block the user until they start communicating. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, seeing as there are no objections, I've blocked for 3 months. Either they will try communicating, or ride out the block, or get a new IP address. Time will tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Block appeal : Copper1993

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 recently pinged into a discussion by Copper1993 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of HordeFTL. I've checked through the history of the SPI and I'm a little confused to what the actual disruption is beyond the original AfD votestacking in 2018. There seems to be some sort of kerfuffle involving Broomhead Reservoir, which I've rewritten this evening using a couple of news and book sources, which should hopefully put a lid on that.

Anyway, Copper1993 is asking for an amnesty and an unblock, which I am considering, and has been supported by Crouch, Swale. I think my basic problem is a number of the articles they've created have been quite stubby, often only including a few sources, which means somebody else has to do the work of beefing them up to an acceptable standard. Still, it's never been policy to just delete stubs for being stubs unless they're permastubs, and I think in a couple of cases mentioned in the SPI, somebody should have taken the articles to AfD just to see where consensus lies. Ultimately I come back to the tired old phrase we are here to write an encyclopedia. Anyway, your thoughts please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support but with 1 account restriction which should resolve the AFD issues in 2018. Possibly there should be a restriction on page creation to ensure that the articles are less stubby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Meh. I endorsed a block in my capacity as a SPI clerk, but I wasn't all that enthused about it. They're evading an indefinite block, but they're obviously not the usual spammer, vandal or POV pusher who shows up at SPI. I'd gladly support an unblock if they were able to stick to the terms of the standard offer. My main problem is that their track record doesn't give me a lot of confidence that they're being honest or that any sort of restriction will actually be followed. For example, on their previous account, they said they'd be willing to take the standard offer [48], but just a month later, they were back to evading their block with the Copper1993 account. Or see this unblock request, where they made statements similar to what they're saying now about how they made a terrible mistake that they regret deeply and won't repeat [49]... but then proceeded to create 6 more sockpuppets in the following week [50]. If they are serious about having changed this time, it shouldn't be difficult for them to take a few months off of editing (during which they could edit other projects such as simplewiki) to regain the community's trust. Spicy (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"They're evading an indefinite block, but they're obviously not the usual spammer, vandal or POV pusher who shows up at SPI." Yeah, that's kind of my thoughts really. But given the conversations on some of the sock's talk pages, you could be forgiven for walking away with the impression that the admin corps think he's the son of IceWhiz. Haven't people over-reacted a bit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose largely for the reasons Spicy has misgivings. They're an admitted sock of HordeFTL, they claim they started socking because they just didn't know the rules (and then kept going for years because ...?), and they have a long history of breaking their word when promising to follow those rules. See for example the heartfelt pleas at User talk:StaniforthHistorian, which were followed by yet more socking. Sure they're a slight cut above a "lol your mom" vandal but their track record (including sock blocks from this very week) suggests a total lack of interest in one of the basic en-WP policies. It'd be better if they actually stop socking for a few months and then reapply, rather than seeking an unblock just days after their latest secret sock is exposed.

In passing, Blablubbs seems to have a point re WP:3X, an unblock here probably cannot be a unilateral action and would require community input (which of course it is getting). Some CU advice would also be valuable as this is effectively an unblock request by the CU-blocked sockmaster themselves. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how we can unblock a sockmaster who has a slew of puppets over years without waiting at least six months without socking. Instead right after the latest sock is blocked, they request an unblock. Additionally, as I read the SPI, there was some IP block evasion as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose At this time I have no confidence that they will stick to one account. Let's see if they can go six months without socking. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose until and unless their behavior is exemplary for at least six months. Someone who repeatedly deceives the community needs to show the best possible behavior before requesting an unblock. Being slightly less disruptive than the usual trolling sockmaster is not really a ringing endorsement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as they haven't even waited 6 months (per WP:SO) to make an appeal. They should also consider contributing to other Wikimedia projects while blocked to demonstrate that they are still capable of making constructive edits. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• We're here to build an encyclopedia, but without those who persistently disregard its central policies and community decisions. The last block evasion occurred on 25 October 2021; it's 28 October 2021. There are two paths: Sockpuppetry and hoping not to get caught, or accepting Wikipedia's procedures and filing an appeal. Sockpuppetry and filing an appeal are incompatible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2021 (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.

JohnWiki159

User:JohnWiki159 (JohnWiki159 (talk · contribs)) edits seems nonconstructive. Admin intervention is required since she/he ignores warning and the user could triger edit war. --AntanO 16:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It takes (at least) two to edit war. I see a content dispute that needs to be settled on the article talk page. - Donald Albury 22:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The user seems not interested in discussion than force edit / edit war. --AntanO 01:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Amir Noor Muhammad edit war

User:Amir Noor Muhammad (Amir Noor Muhammad (talk · contribs)) edits at the article for Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) seem disruptive, as he keeps deleting sections about the political party's controversies (such as PAS supporting the Taliban). Admin intervention is required since he keeps ignoring others' warnings and he has an edit war with User:Francabicon (Francabicon (talk · contribs)).

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@PulauKakatua19: you MUST notify individuals if you are raising a concern about them at ANI. I have done so for Amir, but you should do so for Francabicon Nosebagbear (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I'll admit that i didn't speak to Amir regarding this matter and so i did just now. However I will also let you know that Amir hasn't been respond user to any of the talks in pages or on the user talk pages. I've also stated in my edit that Amir is free to speak to me anytime in many of my edit comments and not just simply removed it without stating why. Guess what Amir not just ignores my comment on editing Amir personally went to 2 of the pages (UMNO and Bersatu) and rally people to prevent me from editing which is really toxic. Also Amir has not just removed my edit but the other peoples contribution which i do not think it is fair for Amir to do so. Not getting stereotypical but i have reasonable evidence to accuse him of Ignorant BIAS views for his edits. By the way he has also changed his user name once for his edit after being called out by one of the users for speedy removal of one page. Francabicon (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC).

• This seems to be an example of how these two users communicate to each other.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• I see lots of back and forth reverting at United Malays National Organisation but no discussion at the talk page. Both users look new. I'd suggest going back to last stable version and warning against edit warring. Maybe protecting the article might encourage them to use the talk page too.VR _talk 13:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: yes I'm new but i do state the facts in our page with reasonable evidence but [[User:Amir Noor Muhammad]] hasn't got any explanation other than "it's not related" or "not party issue" which doesn't explain much of his removal.Francabicon (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC

@Francabicon: I went through the content you are insistent on adding on these pages, and as they were, I think I would have reverted/reorganised/rewrite most of them, if not all, as well. I prefer to minimise/integrate/remove Controversy sections where possible. (See Wikipedia:Criticism). I am more inclined towards Amir Noor Muhammad's reasoning 'personal not on party lines' for because at least as an outsider of Malaysia and her politics, Malaysian politicians are generally seemed more independent of the political parties they belong to given that they can hop between parties without the risk of losing their elected offices, and also all the spilts out from within the parties that we had seen publicly so far, also with no detriment to their elected offices. That's unless that if their actions had an outsized influence or impact on the party's general direction. 3. Some expansion of existing content isn't really warranted, i.e. 1MDB on UMNO's page, given that there is already a separate article on the scandal. Why not update the 1MDB page, and tweak slight the summary in the UMNO page? Those expansions are really just WP:UNDUE. I suggest that you stopping edit for a while, take a step back, read through Wikipedia essayscome back with a fresh pair of eyes. Note: was pinged on this at my talk page, and I don't interact much with either editors. – robertsky (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky: ok that seem fair for umno but i do want to notify to you not just that part about politician controversy had been delete but the parties action had been deleted too like:

• 51 percent bumi policy
• ANTI ICERD RALLY

which is associated with party lines but he did state that it is not related.

IP keeps deleting edits

An anonymous IP, changing every day, keeps editing/deleting informations on Düsseldorf Airport cargo destinations table. He doesn't discuss on his talk pages or the one from the article. He's refusing references as not reliable giving years outdated sources by its own. Maybe this article should be closed for couple of days? Thank you N33dh4lp (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried requesting page protection? DonIago (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Challenge of RSN closure of RFC on Daily Wire

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Daily Wire

To satisfy the request that a close review actually challenge the close, I challenge the close of the RFC at WP:RSN on The Daily Wire. The reasoning provided in the close offers nothing resembling my reading of WP:CON, in which the rationale applies arbitrary numerical multipliers to arguments and comes up with a percentage that is then, again arbitrarily, weighed against a scale that is determined by this one user. The slightly greater weight to those who introduced new thoughts is particularly concerning, as weight of an argument depends on its fidelity to our policies, and not on how novel it is. Also, I find the above closure to be a fairly blatant failure of WP:NOTBURO, the close was clearly challenged and the challenge should have been heard without the pedantry. nableezy - 15:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closer: I think there are good reasons why a discussion closer should assign weight to !votes, and I think that in cases like this the closer does have to assess what the numerical threshold of consensus might be. I could be wrong in my weighting or in my decision about where the threshold lies, but I don't see anything wrong with my process. I should clarify that I did not find that any !votes had greater fidelity to our policies because we don't have a policy on deprecation. What we have is WP:DEPS, and it isn't even a guideline.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close I will repeat part of what I said in the post close discussion at RSN "I did not participate in this one. Having read it through, it looks like a reasonable close." A decision had to made between status quo and deprecate after a lengthy RFC of opposing views. If the only argument against the close is the math assigned to "voting", that imo is insufficient reason to overturn.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• (comment from involved editor) I agree that S Marshall's algorithm for weighing arguments is of questionable soundness (for example, the upweighting of "new thoughts"), but I think he reached the same conclusion that any other reasonable closer would have. (Also, worth mentioning that this calculus of weighing arguments was not part of his actual formal closing statement, but rather came up in a later follow-up discussion.) David Gerard repeatedly characterizes supporters of deprecation as constituting a "supermajority" or "strong majority". The actual headcount appears to be 29 to 19 (i.e. 60% in favour), which I would characterize as a fairly narrow majority. Per WP:DEFINECONSENSUS, An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus. Also, for example, the essay WP:ACD gives the following rule of thumb: As a very rough guideline, no consensus results are usually in the range of 30–70 per cent, and the closer you are to the boundaries, the more the strength of the arguments becomes relevant. The only way there could be a finding of consensus in a case like this would be if one side's arguments had a significantly stronger policy basis, which I don't see here. Colin M (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  At least in the other place where filibustering rules the day, 60% is routinely called a supermajority. nableezy - 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  It can apparently commonly range anywhere from 55% to 75% (see Supermajority § Common supermajorities). Given that it has no fixed definition, and different readers might identify it with a wide range of different thresholds (or simply interpret it as "really big majority"), its use is liable to cause confusion. Colin M (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Challenging the close. S Marshall seems to want to be helpful, and that's great; but this was not helpful. He then tried to determine how his actions would be reviewed, which compounded his evident non-optimal judgement in this case. The close should be run again with a panel of admins. If he's that confident it was the correct decision, then it'll come out the same way - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Surely that argument can be applied to any close. "Why don't you revert your close? If it was truly the right close, a panel will come along and close it exactly the same way." Obviously there needs to be a certain finality to closes, unless they are clearly an incorrect reading due to a substantive reason, otherwise any unsatisfied editor could request discussions be reclosed for no real reason, and then closers would be unwilling to spend their time closing discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I don't understand why this discussion needs either a panel, there was a large number of participants but not so many that it couldn't be fairly assessed by a single close, or an admin close, RfCs of this type are regularly closed by experienced editors who may or may not be sysops. While much larger RfCs of this type can be closed by panels - i.e. Fox News - this doesn't seem to be of that type and S Marshall is one of the most frequent closers of RfCs so he seems qualified to enact a close of this type. That isn't to say he got this perfect, my assessment follows that of Wugapodes below, but I think we need to be cautious about where we require panels and/or admin closers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I'm not thrilled with the summary of how the !votes were weighed. I just don't think it makes a ton of sense to weigh new ideas more heavily then old ones for example. But yes, the argument to depreciate just wasn't strong. Most of the arguments were focused on if the DW was reilable. And what it seemed to mostly conclude is that it is hugely biased in its selection of what to cover, but wasn't wrong on the facts too often. Not reliable, but not something we need to say no to across the board. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Given a brief read of the close and discussion, it looks like a no consensus result which would default to the source keeping its "generally unreliable" classification. The minority opposed to deprecation is substantial and well reasoned, relying on how reliable sources characterize the Daily Wire and their practice of publishing corrections and retractions. That's legitimate cause to not deprecate, and the supporters aren't so numerous that it shows the opposition can be ignored and overruled. While I don't agree with SMarshall's method of bean counting, I don't see any way that I could read that discussion and find consensus to deprecate. The number stuff isn't in the actual close so I don't see any reason to overturn it in favor of someone else's. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close - disclaimer, I participated and argued against deprecation. This looked like a good close in my view. Both sides pointed to RSs to support their claims and both sides made valid claims with regards to the general reliability of the source. As mentioned above there isn't a clear standard as to when to deprecate (this is perhaps a big part of the issue here). Regardless, based only on arguments there isn't a consensus since both sides have made a reasonable case as to how reliable/not reliable the DW is. By the numbers we are right around 60% in favor of deprecation with 19 oppose and either 27 or 29 depending on how we count two of the editors who were not explicit. Additionally, since closing we have I think 2 editors who have said they would have opposed deprecation. I don't read that as a sufficient difference in numbers to call it consensus based on numbers alone. Thus we have neither a clear consensus based on numbers nor reasoning. Any specific extra weighting S Marshall applies doesn't appear to have changed the outcome and such weighting isn't without precedent. How many of us would give equal weight to a brand new IP editor saying, "Support!" vs a seasoned editor with a good reputation who offers some level of explanation? If anything this discussion should perhaps point to the need to better define how and when deprecation should be used so when this sort of thing comes up in the future we can argue for/against based on a specific list of criteria. Springee (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: TFD !voted twice (#1 on 29 September, #2 on 5 October) in the RfC. It would help to know if S Marshall factored this in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks: You're right and I didn't spot it. I ought to have done, and if users here want to overturn my close on that basis then I could not reasonably object. Revising my assessment to take that into account makes the discussion a very close call indeed -- I think that if I subtract TFD's second !vote, then "consensus to deprecate" or "no consensus" would both have been within closer's discretion. I would not criticise a closer who went for either one. I personally would still have gone for "no consensus" on the basis that where there's discretion, I tend to prefer the outcome that's least restrictive. In the circumstances it's right for me to ping endorsing users Selfstudier, Wugapodes, Barkeep49, Springee and Colin M in case they want to re-consider their endorsements.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for responding S Marshall. Courtesy ping for Springee, as I'm fairly sure a new line addition is a requirement for pings to work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank for the ping. I wouldn't change my endorsement. Depending on how we count, by numbers alone it's 29:18 (62%) but that is assuming two of the less than clear !votes are for deprecate. If we remove those then we have 27:18 (60%). If we add the two editors who didn't respond to the initial RfC but voiced their objections after the fact we have either 29:20 (59%) or 27:20 (57%). Taking away one "no" !vote shifts a few percentage in the direction of deprecation but it doesn't change the quality of the arguments presented by either side. By pure numbers alone I still don't see this as anything but a no-consensus or a case where we need to use strength of argument would be needed to tip the balance. I think most people here feel the strength of argument is no-consensus as well. Springee (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn I believe the closer had a good faith reason to think that the community had not come to a rough consensus regarding deprecation, but I think it's pretty clear from the arguments in the RfC that a consensus had been achieved to deprecate the source. We don't need unanimity, and I think a proper closure following a thorough evaluation of the arguments being made would end with the same conclusion. Specifically, I believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. To be clear, I did !vote in this discussion, so I am not uninvolved. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• I concur that this feels like a close call to me. There is a variety of arguments with some unsettled disagreement on many, the deprecate side has a slight numerical advantage but I'd be hesitant in seeing a consensus to deprecate here. I think that spelling out that this RfC does not imply that this source is fine to use is reasonable. Nobody is complaining about obvious supervotes or involved closes or anything and I don't see any obvious indication, either. So endorse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the close that I paraphrase as “No consensus to relabel from Generally unreliable to Deprecated”.

"Generally unreliable" could mean "unreliable for anything of any interest worth a citation", i.e. can be read as an extremely strong condemnation already.

The meaning of “deprecated” was questioned. Does it mean “always unreliable” and worthy of blacklisting?

A good way forward is to write a follow up RFC with a better question. Use at least three people to agree on the RfC question. Wait at least two months before launching the new RfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse I am neither involved, nor would likely use this source for anything, but the close is reasonable in light of that discussion. We certainly do not need a bureaucracy to close such things by a 'closing commission', nor limit such closes to only those with sysop permissions: the close is reasonable in and of itself, without regard to 'who' bureaucracy (see, NOBURO). And whether or not weighting to come up with a new percentage is a fools errand, here it seems sub nominally a good faith attempt to comply with NOTAVOTE. In the end, all the close did was keep to prior consensus on the matter, and that consensus was not overturned, there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. There is a fact that the closer didn't seem to factor in when they made their tally. Many of those who opposed deprecation argued that all RS make corrections as soon as they are known and can be published. Those who used that argument should have been discounted as using faulty reasoning. In the various discussions leading up to this RfC about the reliability of TDW, evidence from professional and academic sources was presented by participants. Those sources exposed fatal flaws in TDW's coverage of certain types of politically-charged facts, and that documentation didn't seem to factor into the tallying decision. So that's two major facts that were not factored into the tallying.

There is a big difference between what RS do when they make a correction and what TDW does. TDW has a de facto position of denying the scientific consensus on climate change (and several other topics) because that is their position, and they will always shade their wording to deny or undermine that consensus. They are thus ALWAYS an unreliable source for that topic, as well as some others where their bias is so strong that they deny or undermine facts. This is what happens when sources are extremely biased; their bias gets in the way of accurately reporting the facts. They do not believe the facts.

TDW's track record reveals that lack of fact-checking isn't the real problem, but deliberate opposition to the facts is the problem, and then they dare to write their misleading opinions as facts. Later corrections, always because they've been called out, are just smoke and mirrors as they will do it again. They don't learn from that experience because learning the facts and then applying them to their editorial decisions is not their modus operandi. They believe and push disinformation, usually in harmony with Trump's positions. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. I don't think that Buffs' defence of TDW as partisan but not careless of truth was adequately addressed by many on the pro-deprecate side, and the discussion could be regarded as ongoing after 30 days. We really need to get the deprecate case right before changing RS/P, so closing as 'no consensus' can be seen as asking for the pro-deprecate side to get someone to put together the case for deprecation properly this time, which seems like the right step to me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close (!voted to upgrade). This appears to be yet another layer upon layers of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Recent 100% in favor of upgrading the RfC, contesting the closure after the RfC, contesting the closure on WP:AN, contesting the upholding of closure on WP:AN, attempts to block me from editing via WP:ANEW, etc. Valjean's comments are indicative of the attitude of those looking to shut it down. "They support Trump therefore they are liars!" and the like are nothing more than an attempt to poison the well. Remarks on the article's talk page are now getting unreasonable, personal, and profane. Buffs (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. I did not find either side to have clearly better arguments, so it's down to the numbers, which can range anywhere from the mid 50s to lower 60s depending on how you handle the ambiguous cases. I think a case could be made either way, and so will defer to the actual decision as a valid exercise of closer's discretion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn - The closer's argument that "we don't have a policy on deprecation; what we have is WP:DEPS, and it isn't even a guideline" is made moot by the fact that WP:RSP, which is in practice the 'policy' of whether or not we can use a source, lists 44 out of 365 sources as 'deprecated'. That is 12% or roughly 1/8th of the list — demonstrating that by consensus and in practice we do have a policy on deprecation. I posit that the closer's viewpoint on deprecation was a barrier to a correct evaluation of the !votes and the arguments/reasonings posted. The full quote: "I should clarify that I did not find that any !votes had greater fidelity to our policies because we don't have a policy on deprecation. What we have is WP:DEPS, and it isn't even a guideline." By that explanation/logic, he would have classified !votes for deprecation as 'virtual nothings', something no more than a person's individual opinion.

Just yesterday, a report came out on the top 10 fringe publishers that fuel 69% of digital climate change denial. [51] [52] The Daily Wire is on that list of "The Toxic Ten". Comparing our WP:RSP to the Toxic Ten report: three we have deprecated (Breitbart, Newsmax, RT), three are marked generally unreliable (The Western Journal, Media Research Center, The Daily Wire), two marginally reliable (Townhall, Washington Times), and two not mentioned in RSP (The Federalist Papers, The Patriot Post). Not a single one of those ten have we listed as generally reliable. So RSP is not too far off of those that are conducting research on these publishers. The report goes on to mention Daily Wire "has published many misleading and false claims, on topics ranging from Covid to immigration ... publishes misleading climate content ... [and] reject[s] scientific consensus on climate change". That barely reaches generally unreliable — the key word here being "generally".

Multiple other reliable sources have consistently listed Daily Wire as misleading for years (for at least the last 4 of it's only 6 years in business), and continuing as recently as yesterday, denoting no improvement of DW's editorial oversight in the direction of truthfulness. This was brought up repeatedly in the RfC. It is beyond me how that could have been missed or granted low value or low importance when the issue being considered was 'level of reliability'. At what point do we as a community of editors start to listen to our own 'recognized reliable sources'? I !vote to overturn the close. (Disclosure: I !voted in the RfC to deprecate.) Platonk (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a policy on deprecation. There does exist a concept called deprecation which has community support, and is defined within the closing summary of WP:DAILYMAIL1 and WP:DAILYMAIL2, but that's all there is. When someone says "there is no policy on deprecation" they aren't passing a personal viewpoint on deprecation, they're simply stating the fact that there is no page tagged with {{policy}} that details what deprecation is (such as what factors cause a source to be deprecated, what kinds of evidence is good evidence for a deprecation RfC [i.e. a checklist like WP:WIAN], whether publishing garbage opinions calls for deprecation, or how exactly deprecation should be implemented). The effect is that votes in a deprecation RfC can't really be weighted in line with any PAG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, you're right that it's not a policy (WP:RS/P is essay-class) but WP:DAILYMAIL1 closing summary did not define deprecation or say Daily Mail is deprecated. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

An issue that is at play around "deprecation" is that the use some editors treat it as (effectively, "a total ban") is different from where its taken from its meaning in computing ("no longer supported, should be replaced in time"). (I did participate in the Daily Wire discussion and believe that what "deprecation" meant over "generally unreliable" was a factor of confusion). Perhaps a better solution is to make sure there's a consensus-agreed upon meaning of deprecation as applies to RS/P (this would also address issues when some editors have in haste rushed through to remove sources that have been deprecated without necessarily good cleanup after removal which have been brought to ANI w/o action in the past), and then if that justifies it, redo the Daily Wire RFC. I would offer that, if this discussion should happen, there should be talk related to RSOPINION factors related to sources that are otherwise "generally unreliable" or considered "deprecated", and that there may need to be a fifth status separate from deprecation, that being "disallowed" (applying to Daily Mail for certain) where even RSOPINION would not apply. --Masem (t) 16:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, the closer (S Marshall) is correct when he declares we don't have an actual "policy" on deprecation, but that declaration begs the question of why he said it. Was it to diss the idea of requesting deprecation as somehow illegitimate, unworthy of consideration, or less due weight in an RfC? I don't know, and I'll AGF, but that seems to be the effect. A request for deprecation is just as legitimate as any other request, and protecting Wikipedia and our readers should weigh heaviest in our considerations. Mistakenly deprecating a source has fewer unintended consequences than failing to deprecate a source that should be deprecated because an improper deprecation can easily be overturned. An analogy is mistakenly preventing a child from eating a gummy candy that is erroneously suspected of being a cannabis edible. That decision has fewer unintended consequences than failing to prevent them from eating it if it actually is infused with hallucinogens. Children shouldn't be getting high. We should err on the side of caution, so we should weigh those considerations higher in a close situation, and in this one there is a clear majority, even if not quite "super", in favor of deprecation.

What we have is WP:Deprecated sources, an informational page, not an essay, so don't diss it. It informs how we apply policies and guidelines, so it carries the weight of policies and guidelines. We do have a practice of deprecating sources, especially those which repeatedly fail fact-checking and continue to push disinformation and misleading content because their real positions are counterfactual, agenda-driven and not just sloppy internal fact-checking. That fact is unquestioned. That is its history, repeatedly pointed out by fact-checkers. That's the way TDW works. Its basic counterfactual beliefs and political agenda in several areas make it resistant to improvement. Year after year it makes the same "mistakes" because those are not "mistakes" but deliberate pushing of its erroneous beliefs.

We have already deprecated several other fringe sources in the Toxic Ten[53][54][55][56][57][58] that are close allies of TDW and push the same types of fringe misinformation. (They should all be considered for deprecation.) TDW is in that list because it has the same fringe agenda and is guilty of the same types of fringe "misinformation crimes", so it is time to put TDW in the same category here as the other dubious sources that RS group together as fringe unreliable sources of misinformation. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

First, both your comments are re-arguing the RFC instead of focusing on the close. Second, in my view you're approaching bludgeoning territory. Third, some of your points are just obviously wrong. that declaration begs the question of why he said it He answered that question already: because there is no deprecation policy, there is no basis for discounting votes as not based on the deprecation policy. What we have is WP:Deprecated sources, an informational page, not an essay, so don't diss it. It informs how we apply policies and guidelines, so it carries the weight of policies and guidelines. Literally at the very top of that page, offset in a box, it says it's not a policy or guideline. It doesn't carry the weight of either because it hasn't been thoroughly vetted by the community. WP:INFOPAGES: In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting., and that is per the global consensus of a guideline. Levivich 16:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse close. The conclusion reached by the closer can be summarized where they stated "The community does not reach consensus to deprecate the Daily Wire". Regardless of the rest of the closure statement, or any other rationale, that seems a reasonable conclusion to draw given both the number of comments on each side, AND on the arguments made by both sides. At this point, there is nothing to be gained by re-opening the discussion over some inconsequential minutiae, as nearly any other person closing it would likely have also reached the conclusion that no consensus could be reached; in such cases status quo ante bellum is reasonable, which is what the closer declared. The rest of this is sour grapes by people who argued for one specific outcome. Many of the arguments to overturn are relitigating the original argument, which is NOT what this discussion is supposed to be about. The close was a reasonable interpretation of the overall discussion. --Jayron32 16:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. I was involved, but I !voted for deprecation and am disappointed in the result. That said, I think S Marshall's close was a reasonable summation of the discussion. NC closes when the weighted !vote count is about 60/40 are reasonable. I do hope to see S Marshall accept some rough consensus here from both involved and uninvolved editors that his over-weighting of "new thoughts" is ill-advised. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The practical effect of upweighting all the "new thoughts and new sources" is to (slightly) downweight all the per-noms. My intention, in doing this, is to give (slightly) higher weight those who engage in evidence-based discussion and move the conversation forward instead of merely repeating things that have already been said, and the policy basis for this is that Wikipedian discussions aren't !votes. Nobody in the discussion above has brought any actual reasons to disapprove of this practice.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • That practice lacks nuance. If the editor clearly seems to show no understanding of the issue, perhaps by voting per a vote that other editors have substantively argued is flawed, I'd find it dubious. Otherwise, it can just be a case of agreement, noting that someone said it better, and realising that writing paragraphs repeating the same points in different words just makes the discussion harder to read. Theoretically the former should receive less weight and the latter should receive equal weight, IMO, although obviously it can hard to determine which one it is, and impossible to say with any certainty. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It's definitely easier in a discussion where I have any policy basis on which to upweight or downweight !votes.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, closing deprecation discussions can be difficult for that reason (also why I haven't really opined here). As I've said before, I do think we need a PAG for deprecation; both to guide deprecation RfCs, provide for vote weighting, and suggest what kinds of evidence is good evidence for deprecation, and also to guide the actual implementation of deprecation. I think we could write one if some of the editors most interested in deprecation were on board with the idea. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
          • I fully agree. While the current informational page at WP:Deprecated sources explains when and how we apply other PAG for that purpose, folding it into a real policy page would be even better. -- Valjean (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Nobody in the discussion above has brought any actual reasons to disapprove of this practice. The reason not to give new arguments more weight is because new arguments aren't necessarily better arguments. Imagine a hypothetical discussion with 50 participants. The first "support" !vote from Editor #1 gives "Argument A". Editor #2 supports but with a new Argument B, and Editor #3 supports per Argument C. Then 47 editors, persuaded by Argument A, each write "per Editor 1". There is no reason to weigh Editor 2 and Editor 3's !votes more than anyone else. If anything, Argument B and Argument C are worse, not better, than Argument A, as evidenced by 48 editors agreeing with A but only 1 with B and 1 with C. So if anything, Editor 2 and 3's !votes should be given less weight, not more. If it's not a vote, if it's about the strength of arguments, then Argument A and it's 48 votes are stronger than B or C, according to the consensus of the 50 editors participating. (And of course if Argument A was not policy based, then all 48 votes supporting it should be discounted.) Levivich 17:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm struggling to make sense of this. Could you say it another way?—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
        • See User:Wugapodes/RFA trend lines for a related discussion. Broadly, the order in which comments are posted is not a reliable indicator of any (change in an) underlying consensus. At best the order can help use evaluate a preexisting belief that consensus changed during a discussion, but in general mechanistic evaluations of comment order are not useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - no consensus to deprecate seems like a reasonable result of the discussion, I don't see a strong consensus having formed anywhere. This reopening here strongly smells of attempts to relitigate the discussion, and also seems to be politically motivated to some extent. Hog Farm _Talk 16:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would like to defend both nominators, David Gerard and Nableezy, against any charge of being politically motivated. I am quite confident that they aren't. I don't just assume good faith, I believe on the basis of reading their words that their motivation is to purge the encyclopaedia of unreliable sources. Per consensus this source is unreliable and on a personal level, I have a lot of sympathy for their case --- even though I'm still not exactly thrilled to have been told that I'm "interfering" with an "administrative review" of my conduct. I hope that a positive outcome from this matter will be a discussion in which the community produces a set of agreed standards for deprecation that could inform future decisions of this type.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I honestly dont really care at all about The Daily Caller or whether or not it is deprecated, just the reasoning for the close seemed very off to me. I barely ever edit in that topic area anyway. As far as re-litigate, you notice I didnt even participate in that discussion? I didnt care enough to vote about it, but I would want to re-litigate it? I disagreed with the reasoning offered, and disagreed with the pedantic close of the initial challenge even more, so I challenged the close. I thought administrators here were supposed to be held to a high standard as far as following policy. nableezy - 17:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO is policy. --Jayron32 17:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Which is why the original challenge should have stayed open? Or do you mean some sort of failing in my challenge here? The line above about sour grapes is likewise a blatant failure of AGF. Nowhere in my challenge did I attempt to relitigate the topic on if this source should be deprecated. I challenged the close because of the reasoning of the close. I do think there was consensus one way, and I think the way votes were weighted failed our CON policy. So here I am. nableezy - 17:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean anything about your comments, Nableezy. By the political references, I meant to refer to comments in the above discussion such as They believe and push disinformation, usually in harmony with Trump's positions Hog Farm _Talk 17:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I'm going to AGF and take what you wrote above as a misunderstanding, not what could appear to be an assumption of bad faith against me. I do not think you intended that, so I'll just write a clarification here. You wrote "seems to be politically motivated to some extent." That's exactly backwards. We do not deprecate sources because of their political positions, but because they are unreliable, and if those sources happen to have a particular political slant, so be it. I was just mentioning en passant a simple fact. All of those Toxic Ten sources, which includes TDW, are strong, often extreme, fringe right-wing sources that push misinformation that is "in harmony with Trump's positions", which RS and our articles here describe as misinformation and conspiracy theories. We even have a whole article which describes the lack of Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. That's a simple fact, and stating it does not imply any form of improper "political motivation" on my part. I just happen to believe RS and the content in our articles. I trust you would see that as a good and wikipedian thing to do. There was no reason to personalize the matter by commenting on it and quoting me. Just AGF. -- Valjean (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't my best comment. I still think it's best not to throw Trump in there. While I agree that there's a lot of very poor right wing sources out there, I still don't think it's great to throw in the Trump name. (For one thing, it sure seems like most politicians lie to an alarming degree, not just that one in specific). Speaking as one of the few open conservatives I'm aware of active here, it just feels unnecessary to say these sources peddle junk, and they agree with Trump basically, when "these sources peddle junk" would be enough. I didn't properly assume good faith, but I think it would be best not to invoke the name of controversial politic figures in the future, when simply presenting the various evidence has just as effective of a point. I'm concerned that personalizing things like that just alienates those on the other end of the political spectrum. Hog Farm _Talk 03:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, it's all cool. I didn't intend to trigger any reaction, and I apologize for any unintended consequences of mentioning "the former guy" (TFG). The relevance of the connection between TFG and the sources that back him isn't always apparent, nor is it always necessary to point it out. -- Valjean (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Im the one who reopened it here, so when you say the reopening here ... I take that to mean me. Id just as soon ban every user who participated in a discussion from commenting on its closure review. nableezy - 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I think there'd be some benefit in working something out to making the deprecate guidelines a bit clearer, such as maybe a community-worked out general area where "should not be used" becomes "deprecate". From my experience, it's not well coded out, and I think RSN discussions would be better off with a more universal and consistent idea of what deprecation meant. Hog Farm _Talk 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Close per Wugapodes and others. Leaving aside the offline "algorithm" that was apparently used to weigh !votes, the close looks like a fair and well-reasoned summary of the discussion, and I don't see that anyone could have really seen a consensus to deprecate beyond the cautionary language already in effect. I also disagree with SMarshall's suggestion of a more robust depreciation policy. The process we already have is working well enough without bringing confusing WP:CREEP into it which would interfere with common sense case-by-case assessment.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would argue that deprecation is being sought/used by some individuals to advance an agenda. I think deprecation should have a much higher bar to clear and clearer guidance could assist in that. Buffs (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • One of our agendas at Wikipedia aims to prevent the misuse of Wikipedia as a platform for the advocacy of fringe opinions from unreliable sources. Unfortunately, the TDW article, like many fringe articles, is being used to advance a fringe agenda, and efforts to stop that abuse are being opposed. Those efforts expose and reinforce the need for deprecation, and certainly not your complete removal, without any discussion, from RS/P we saw before this RfC. That removal was the trigger for the RfC because it exposed a need for an increase of status from "generally unreliable" to "deprecated". Attempts to defend and promote fringe opinions should stop. The article should not be allowed to become the desired platform for pushing fringe opinions, especially in an unduly self-serving manner. Mainstream RS are united in their criticism of TDW, so that is the NPOView which due weight tells us should dominate the article. That will offend believers in those fringe POV, but that is none of our concern. We do not pander to them. Our loyalty is to how RS treat TDW. Articles that deal with fringe content, and TDW is one of them, must follow our PAG for fringe content. -- Valjean (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • WP should not have any agendas, that's a basic failing of NPOV. We do want to make sure we do not misrepresent what are mainstream views or readily-accepted scientific theories under NPOV, and to that end we do not need to give fringe views any type of credibility in WP's voice (particularly when it comes to medical information), but that's not an agenda, that's just policy. That problem with considering an agenda against fringe science makes it difficult to discuss these encyclopedic factor around those points, an issue raised in a concurrent (and apparently unrelated to this TDW issue) at WP:VPP#Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Wikipedia's Values Upside-down.
      • Relevant to this discussion and the RFC, this doesn't mean that WP cannot talk around fringe views, their history and origins, and why those that believe in them do so, as long as we avoid a false balance, avoid unduly self-serving or promoting material related to the fringe view, and make sure any claims remains well out of Wikivoice. There are interesting social aspects on how these fringes theories are developed and maintained even if they are broadly considered wrong (eg the big one right now of interest is the critical race theory after US elections on Tuesday to understand how it caught on so fast). And this is where even a source like the Daily Wire, which may report more from that side of the aisle, is actually useful to fill in any gaps related to these types of theories that may exist in mainstream coverage, again being careful on false balance. Unlike the Daily Mail or state media like RT where the actual truthfulness of what they report is in question, works like the Daily Wire may report with their bias but as shown during the RFC, they still have journalistic practices that avoid actually falsification in reporting and editorial oversight/redactions. Considering that was the line drawn when the Daily Mail was "deprecated" (marked that way on RS/P), that's why this all comes back to having a separate discussion on defining what "deprecation" actually should be (ban or the computer terminology version), if that's separate from "generally unreliable", establishing that as PAG, and then reconsidering TDW within that scheme, keeping in mind that bias does not necessarily equate to unreliability. --Masem (t) 20:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        • On any topic (such as your example of critical race theory) the mainstream centrist media agencies will cover both sides. There is no need to use biased sources in order to 'balance NPOV' in a Wikipedia article. Biased sources are not forbidden, but they are also not encouraged, and if the biased sources are not declared "unreliable sources" (or worse), then we can use them. However, there is never any reason to use a biased "generally unreliable" source in order to 'balance NPOV'. The use which you are hinting at smacks of using biased sources to do primary research which would result in original research. And your opinion that DW has "journalistic practices that avoid actually falsification in reporting", then you haven't read much of the published criticism about said journalistic practices. I have learned much in the last week. Your turn. Platonk (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Let me be clear, our agendas at Wikipedia should be to follow our PAG. Those who misuse Wikipedia to advocate fringe opinions from unreliable sources have other agendas which are at odds with our PAG. That's all I was saying. -- Valjean (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
          • The problem is that you are misusing WP rules to advance your agenda and you aren't just doing it here. By terming TDW as "fringe" without evidence, you are attempting to poison the well. TDW posts largely mainstream conservative opinions. Stating "The establishment media's deep desire to keep people from clicking on stories they want to read, and to re-establish their traditional informational monopoly -- now an effort funded by US taxpayer dollars via NPR -- is truly authoritarian garbage." is a statement of opinion and it's hardly outside the mainstream conservative thought. You can point to errors or bias as to whether or not TDW is a WP:RS for purposes of WP (and we can disagree on that), but that doesn't make it "fringe". You're (badly) conflating the two. Most of the "it's misleading" comments don't actually address the accuracy of the statements made, but instead say "it isn't balanced". By the same token, the sources you've cited are mostly leftist/left-leaning and aren't balanced. They are focusing exclusively on the inaccuracies (which is what TDW is doing too). By that flawed logic, they are just as credible. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Please FOC, not on me. It's tiring. We are justified in calling The Daily Wire a "fringe source" because RS do so. Extreme left- and right-wing sources are fringe. TDW is listed among the Toxic Ten, and all ten are called "fringe publishers" that together were responsible "for nearly 70% of user interactions with content that denies climate change on Facebook". "Mainstream conservative", back when I and literally everyone I knew were conservatives, used to mean just slightly right of center, and overlapping center, but no longer. Now, with few exceptions, it means far-right and extreme far-right, IOW often fringe. That doesn't mean there aren't any conservative, right-wing, sources that are considered RS and which we use. There are, but TDW isn't among them. All of the Toxic Ten are very fringe, and several are deprecated here for good reason. None of them should be used, with the exception of "about self" situations, and then not in a "self-serving" manner or for advocacy of their fringe positions. We can only use them to document their opinions neutrally in their own biography articles, and their use in RS is what tells us what due weight to assign them. -- Valjean (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I'm not a fan of the formula used to justify the close, but in the end I think a no-consensus close was reasonable here. It might be time to close this discussion as well. -- Calidum 17:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. Thank you. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Comment: Section reflist added. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2021 (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.

Possible Legal Issue

An IP brought up their thoughts here Talk:Richard Desmond#Arbitrary break - some broader concerns. and said they read in the article ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/05/richard-desmond-in-legal-battle-with-wikipedia-over-term-pornographer )that there is possible legal action coming, I have not seen any users make legal threats, but I feel some eyes should be kept here. If this is the wrong place to put this. Please let me know. Thank You. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Also if someone knows of a better title for this section. please let me know. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily the "wrong place" to put a note, as more eyes on a now-widely-viewed article is a Good Thing, but I don't think there's anything administrative to do at this particular point in time other than quash vandalism and ensure proper editing guidelines and policies are followed. BLPN might be a better "need help with content" location for article improvement. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Just wanted to bring it up here to make sure that it is known. The IP summed up my thoughts perfectly. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Help

Please block the vandal who vandalizes my discussion page, leaving death wishes in Ukrainian. I also ask you to completely block the IP address of Kyivstar where this vandal is vandalizing. And also clean up the stories on my discussion page. Thanks. --Jphwra (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The user seems to have already been blocked indefinitely by Ponyo. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 20:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstaShop

This is an informational posting. There was an outright fabrication of much of my nomination, by Personalwiki97, who has now been blocked by admin User:JBW. Some of the Keep !votes are either by single-purpose accounts or by sockpuppets.

I think that the deletion discussion is under control again. I am not requesting any assistance beyond what User:JBW has already provided. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I saw something like this last year. MER-C 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely socking here. I'll dig through the CU results and throw together an SPI for future reference.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Insta ioanna and note the link to Delivery Hero, it's the same UPE sockfarm behind both articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

IPs of Special:Contributions/2001:4454:400:0:0:0:0:0/38 misusing Talk pages while blocked

Following Materialscientist's block of this IP range for repeated vandalism and creating vandalising edit notices, the user on this IP range is repeatedly adding nonsense to their Talk pages, with the only edits containing "{{banned}}{{block}}", and subsequently wasting AnomieBOT's resources to substitute one of the templates. Anonymous users cannot be banned as far as I know, and I don't know why the user would keep doing this. I had previously attempted to request protection on one of these Talk pages, with no success. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

No point in this thread now, as this range's block has now expired. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP

Paul Rusling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an unreferenced BLP. Not clear that he meets WP:N either. Can this be speedily deleted or does it need a formal AfD discussion? Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRODBLP? DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if that'll fly, as the external links are more or less being used as refs. Can't hurt to try though. CSD G11 might apply too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It would not - any "source" that provides information about the subject disqualifies it from a BLPPROD. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of G11, as it's obviously a promotional autobiography? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

G11 looks good to me. G10 doesn't quite fit the bill as it's not an attack page. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I was bold and tagged it, worst case is one of us switches it to a prod. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that that page seems to have been majorly contributed by a user named User:PaulRusling (though not solely), and then later a user named User:RadioMann that seemed only to contributed on that topic, this seems like a lot of COI issues at play that at best a TNT may be needed. --Masem (t) 14:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've declined the speed deletion tag. The article is not actually blatantly promotional despite being largely an autobiography, and it is entirely too old (have been started in 2009) to qualify for speedy deletion. It doesn't qualify for WP:BLPPROD either, having been created prior to the adoption of that policy. Take it to AFD if that's what is needed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That it doesn't qualify for BLPPROD doesn't disqualify it from a straight PROD. Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I just brought it to AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: This is moot given the AFD but note that BLPPROD has no date limit, check out the policy page for confirmation. There was a former legacy clause was removed in 2017 [59] as a result of this discussion Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause?. I don't think the article was eligible for BLPPROD since it looks to me like at least one of those sources supports something in the article but the creation date didn't come in to it. (Remember that while adding an RS is needed to remove a correctly place tag, any sources already present supporting one claim makes it ineligible.) Indeed arguably the book links themselves support him having published/written them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I am not going to de-CSD it but AfD is always safer since if the article is recreated it can be speedy deleted as similar to one deleted as a result of a discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt proxying article creation for community-banned user LouisAlain

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.

---

Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is currently proxying article creation for a community-banned user, LouisAlain (talk · contribs), by inviting them to edit her dewiki userspace at de:User:Gerda Arendt/LouisAlain and then taking their work as the base for article creations such as Frédéric Blanc.

I have collaborated with LouisAlain for 10 years, and a few admins representing "the community" won't stop me. My first GA was for for a blocked user, another GA was for a banned user. I am here for content, and I make what LouisAlain supplies, my own. Look above for his name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
— Gerda Arendt's response to the concerns

I'm very skeptical towards this, generally opposing the practice ("banned means banned"). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I replied on my talk. Would Wikipedia be better without the article Frédéric Blanc? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the discussion in this central place and will copy your response below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I was not understood in the AN thread. I said LouisAlain wasn't adding fake references, and wasn't understood. I said that Wikipedia should be thankful for his contributions and wasn't understood. I said that every editor is a human being, and wasn't understood. I better don't go. I strongly believe that Wikipedia would be better without the whole thread, which didn't promote kindness, and only one article afaik. I am here for the content, and when someone is willing to spare me the trouble of a translation, I am thankful. It's no dangerous new content, but content from a different Wikipedia made available here. The following is by a banned user. I am with the outcast.

Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls.

nb: User talk:Wehwalt#Sanddunes Sunrise

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so because your arguments in the ban discussion have not been "understood", the consensus can be ignored. That seems to be a pretty problematic approach to any discussion result. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh Gerda, this is incredibly foolish behaviour. This is essentially meat puppetry. I strongly suggest you very quickly confirm you will stop this and never repeat it, before you end up being blocked yourself... GiantSnowman 15:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I can somewhat understand where Gerda is coming from, but I'm baffled as to how they even thought that this was acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia, it should've been common sense. And using sentences such as "≥a few admins representing "the community" won't stop me" isn't very heartwarming either. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain is suppose to be using his talkpage only for getting unbanned, btw. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access should be revoked IMO. GiantSnowman 15:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems they've been using it actively for anything but getting unbanned. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I've only looked at Frédéric Blanc and not any other Louis/Gerda collaborations, but Frédéric Blanc is a big WP:BLPVIO. The only real independent RS, as far as I can tell, is the ResMusica article. All the rest are blogs, except I think one might be his label (which is probably OK if that's what it is). If I spoke French I'd remove everything sourced to blogs and other non-RSes. I question what would be left and whether this organist meets notability criteria. But using blogs for a BLP... come on. Poor sourcing is what we had to ban Louis for. It's disappointing to see Gerda just charge on and repeat Louis's mistakes for him. Can we stop with the poorly-sourced BLPs please? Levivich 16:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not certain. But I think English Wikipedia prefers sources to be in english, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The general preference is described at "WP:NOENG" in the verifiability policy, but it primarily says that "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia". The quality of the sources, specifically if they're self-published, matters considerably more; see also WP:BLPSPS. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ref. 3 is in English but does not support the statement it is attached to (and is not a RS anyway, and is not something we would call an acceptable source in 2021); none of the French references is a RS indeed except for Resmusica.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see what is the problem. If Gerda adds information provided to her by LouisAlain through other channels, Gerda vouches for it, and it is Gerda's responsibility if the information is correct. In my book, the information comes to English WP from Gerda.--Berig (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, that's wrong. WP:PROXYING is very clear. "Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Since the material originates from LouisAlain, it is not independent to Gerda. Gerda, please don't do this any more. Black Kite (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, but it all boils down to personal responsibility. If the information is shown to be unreliable or wrong, the mistake will be attributed to Gerda, anyway.--Berig (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. At the moment LouisAlain is effectively creating articles at enwiki despite being banned for falsifying sources when creating articles. If, for example, Alain was pointing out factual errors in articles and inviting editors to fix them, that would be different, because any editor would have an obvious independent reason for doing so. Creating entire articles definitely does not fall under that caveat. Black Kite (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, who is currently busy, has asked me on my talk page to provide the following thoughts in this discussion. As I'm unsure how to completely neutrally take the arguments from the message without omitting something that may have been important, I'm copying our short discussion below. Again, I'd prefer the discussion to be centrally held here, not on user talk pages.

Perhaps a look by the community into the thread (which first suggested a topic ban, then had an admin block who had been insulted, blocking for lying which when inspected more closely was "lying by ommission", then a post-block question that was silenced, finally a "community ban" by how few admins?) might help - I don't know. I wanted to spare several users whom I all respect that trouble, but it's why I believe Wikipedia would have been better without that whole thread. - I worked on Kafka, DYK?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Now it's on three different pages, Gerda Arendt. The point about looking at the thread again, and perhaps something that was said after the closure, does seem to be a fine one to make at WP:AN. I'm not entirely sure if it is the revision you're referring to, but you could link to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1050192525#Fake_referencing , for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You do that please. I'm busy real life. - RexxS simply left Wikipedia instead of going to arbcom. I miss him every day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

How familiar are you with that terrible thread? If you have little time just look at the rather short passage of Martinevens123 being called a troll for asking questions I also had. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

End of quoted content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• If there's a problem with the material Gerda is introducing to en.wp, then it is upon those merits that she should be judged (or otherwise). This is not 100% blatant WP:PROXYING, which has to fulfil a number of criteria:

1. To be at the direction of a banned or blocked editor—emphasis in original;
2. The edits must be verifiable;
3. and they have independent reasons for making such edits;
4. And, of course, finally, that editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.
   It occurs to me, re. point 1, that GA can hardly be said to have been at the 'direction' of LA, since the material is subject to her editorship (and, yes, per WP:BUILDWP, I think we do need to take the strictest interpretation of the word, otherwise we end up in a place where what we can say becomes dependent on whether a banned user has said it before)).
   Re. point 2, the sourcing may be poor, but as long as they pass V, then it's a separate issue (perhaps BLPVIO, as noted above) and distinct to WP:PROXYING.
   The third point, that she must have her own discrete reasons for making the edits is pretty comprehensively accounted for by, err, almost everything she has ever written for this bloody project being about singers, songs and writers and especially Geman singers songs and writers.
   Finally, point 4, is pretty clear that as long as one takes responsibility for one's edits—including, in this instance, e.g. of BLP sourcing—then it should stand. Indeed, even the previous section of the policy, cited by the OP—WP:BMB—notes that a banned editor's edits may be allowed to stay if they are deemed productive. It would see, perverse in the extreme to misread policy to such an extent that (very theoretically!) allow a banned editor to fix typos, but disallow an extremely experienced content creator to to re-write pages.
   All that said, Gerda, I kind of agree that sometimes your use of language can be sufficiently opaque as to, perhaps, not make things as easy for you as they might otherwise be in these dscussions  :) ——Serial 16:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to disagree with you, which is unusual. this is the contents of Gerda's sandbox which LouisAlain was editing. This is what Gerda copied to enwiki. So, effectively a banned user is creating articles here. Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's misleading, as Gerda immediately started editing the page and improving it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerda, a nonchalant approach, may not be the best way here. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is a clear violation of policy. The text of WP:IAR notwithstanding (which Gerda seems to be relying on when she discusses "making content"), WP:BMB (and corollaries, such as WP:G5) have been enforced strictly exactly to dissuade the banned user from the notion that they should be contributing while banned. Even ignoring policy, the proxying in this case entirely violates the spirit of the ban. Specifically, the LouisAlain discussion went on for a while and editors were keen to find alternate solutions to a site ban, such as the offer by an editor for LA to write in his userspace and then having someone else check over and take responsibility for the article when moving to mainspace; LouisAlain decided that option wasn't acceptable to him. Ultimately he was banned.
  What Gerda is doing is functionally equivalent to what was offered to him (although it's unclear whether Gerda is checking the articles) and was likely to obtain consensus, but LA declined, and eventually was banned as the status quo was too problematic and LA was unwilling to change his approach in any way, instead he chose to write long soliloquies about Early modern European witch-hunts. If LouisAlain wants to try avail that opportunity again, he should submit a ban appeal to the community. Otherwise, a single editor can't just overrule the consensus in the ban discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Before the pitchfork mob succeeds in getting a good editor blocked, I'll urge careful thought about this situation. Gerda is focused on content here and I've known her to take on responsibility for problematic editors' content many times in the past (Francis Schonken being another recent example). She's never said she doesn't take responsibility for the quality. --Laser brain (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  (I'm definitely not asking for a block at this point; I doubt others are. This is an attempt to find an explicit consensus against the current behavior, and I'm hopeful that the provocative "won't stop me" response wasn't a final answer.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  A block for Gerda at this stage? No - and definitely not if Gerda acknowledges their conduct here has been wrong and promises that they won't do it again. If it does happen again then a block will unfortunately be necessary. Immediate action I would like to happen (the sooner the better) is for LouisAlan to have talk page access revoked ASAP. GiantSnowman 17:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  The requested talk page access revocation has silently already happened 15:50, 6 November 2021. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Grand. Hopefully Gerda will offer the assurances required... GiantSnowman 18:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Laser Brain, I don't see a "good editor being blocked" if said good editor thinks it's a good idea to proxy for an editor rightly blocked for basic fundamentally incompatibility with Wikipedia's core referencing principles. I see "an editor being blocked so the rest of us don't have to clean up their messes", which in general people seem way to happy to leave as "someone else's problem" (c.f. how tough it is to get people blocked for repeated and blatant copyright violations or plagiarism.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  I take your point and agree. Mine was only to exercise caution as I've seen too many of these threads cause more damage to the involved editors than they prevent. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Having good edits elsewhere doesn't render an editor above our rules, especially given that nobody has even suggested sanctioning Gerda at this point. Clearly it is inappropriate to directly copy-paste material from a banned user and if Gerda insists on doubling down about doing so, the one who got them banned will be themselves. I would hope Gerda would recognize this and agree to stop, but I don't see how you can look at those responses and justify them with "they're a good editor tho" or interpret directly copying the text another editor posted specifically for them to copy as being anything but acting at another editor's direction. If that isn't a clear-cut, unequivocal WP:PROXYING violation, what on earth is? --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am wondering why the banned user is not working to get unbanned instead of getting someone to proxy for them? I'm no expert but this case seems to be clear proxying to me. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• I mean, its as blatant a proxy as you can get. But thats beside the point, even if every editor and admin extended the various policies to their most relaxed and effectively treated Gerda's proxy edits for Alain as Gerda's own, what we are left with is Gerda is creating content with similar sourcing problems that got Alain sanctioned. If this continues (which I hope Gerda takes note from the above that it absolutely should not) we are essentially left in a situation where we either have to apply the same sanction for the same behaviour, or admit that some editors get preferential treatment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100%. And combined with her defiant comment that "a few admins representing "the community" won't stop me" I'd say this situation is clearly actionable. Jusdafax (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait, what? Gerda can make a proxy edit if she takes ownership of it. Wanting material to be on Wikipedia is a sufficient independent reason. It's not like he was banned for harassment. If Gerda is willing to take the time to scrutinize the content to make sure there aren't the problems he was banned for, who loses? This all seems like it should come down to "Gerda, do you understand that you're taking responsibility for these edits, and that if they are found to be problematic (like for the reasons Alain was blocked), then you will also be sanctioned or blocked?" Then she'll say yes, and anyone who wants to sanction Gerda can find problems with the proxied content just like any other content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I read "at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" and thought, well Gerda isn't being directed by a banned/blocked user, she is simply taking material, some of which may have been suggested, and then taking ownership of it, responsibility for it, and has more than satisfactory reasons for making such edits (e.g. to improve Wikipedia). Some users here appear to be on a proper witch-hunt, most distasteful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerda is helping a blocked user, who was blocked "for falsifying sources when creating articles", create new articles with the same sourcing problems as pointed out by other users above. She might be doing it to improve Wikipedia, but it's totally against the spirit of the ban. If Alain wants to create new articles, they should've tried appealing their ban. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 22:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

When I asked at AN/I, I was told he was blocked for "lying by omission" about machine translation, which just about tallies with what his block log says. But maybe the blocking admin would like to clarify exactly why LA was blocked. I agree with everything that The Rambling Man has said in this thread about Gerda's efforts. But I am reluctant to contribute any further in case I'm once again accused of "trolling". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

She is not being directed per the policy. And moreover, if there are issues with sourcing, that's a completely different issue from this supposed "proxying" debate. If Gerda creates articles continually which are poorly sourced, then start a discussion about that. Do you think Alain is directing Gerda? Do you honestly believe that?! Of course, if there's an issue with understanding the meaning of "directing", that's for a new discussion to modify the policy. Is suggesting the same as directing? I don't think so. YMMV of course, depending on how keen you are to take someone down. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I've never interacted with neither of these people, however giving a blocked user a space (in this case, Gerda's German wiki sandbox) to write up articles and then creating them in another language wiki for them (directed or not, it's mostly text that a blocked user wrote) seems problematic. Especially when Alain was banned for an article-creation related issues. I'm not proposing any sanction for Gerda, however she should stop continuing this behaviour. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 22:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well I disagree. Unless you have a policy-based argument for it, I'd suggest there's no harm here, indeed it's even a benefit to Wikipedia for Gerda to write these articles, assuming they meet our usual policies (and a discussion on that is not for this thread). If there's an issue with the understanding of directed then seek a change to the policy which makes it clear. Right now, as far as I'm concerned, Gerda is not being directed to do anything. So it's all a bit moot, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• There was a previous similar instance, where a user was posting on their talk page and other users who thought something might be a good edit would implement. A discussion came out as no-consensus - the "at the direction" is the relevant bit here. Now I still think it is unwise, especially given the reason the user was blocked, but it is not quite clearcut breach of the proxying restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• I strongly agree with the tenor of editors above like User:Rhododendrites, User:The Rambling Man, User:Serial Number 54129, and User:Berig: this is not misconduct on Gerda's part, so long as she is taking responsibility for the content added. However, in an abundance of caution, I propose a compromise. Build these articles in draft space and submit it for review by an uninvolved and impartial AFC reviewer. BD2412 T 22:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) My understanding of WP:PROXY is similar to OID, Rhododendrites, and TRM: the editor posting the information is responsible for it. If there are problems with the content Gerda adds, she will be sanctioned for it as the responsible party. I'm perfectly fine with that state of affairs and think appeals to WP:BMB are spurious. Whether he is making good or bad edits doesn't really matter because he isn't making edits. Gerda is making edits, and if there are problems with the content then we can handle it like any other disruptive editing. Is it s good idea to be doing this? Absolutely not, but I'm not going to get worked up over this without some evidence of concrete problems. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich and I provided this evidence above in this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  It seems you pointed out some verifiability problems, which besets all of us from time to time. Is this directly related to the accusastions proxying or are you conflating the two ideas? You (both/either) are welcome to lodge a complaint against Gerda for supposed repeated violations of WP:V I suppose. Would you prefer to do that? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  My point is that we got a substandard article which might have difficulties to survive AfD, and this is being sold as "making encyclopedia better". Most likely it happened because Gerda did not check the article she was posting. This is not really acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  But which aspect? The getting text and suggestions from a banned user, or submitting an article which "might have difficulties to survive AfD"?? I mean, come on, that sounds lame already. As I noted above, if the sum total of all this witch hunt is that Gerda needs to be more thorough per WP:V, fine. But right now that's not the main thrust here, is it? Feels like a few villagers got their flaming torches out (which they'd been keeping on standby) and came out screeching at the first chance. I suggest this thread is closed with a suggestion to Gerda that she takes more time over verifying sources when she, herself, commits to adding material to en.wiki. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to imply that no one had serious concerns or worthwhile evidence, just that the basis of a report should be those things and the basis of this report was not that. The OP was about how to interpret PROXY and my comment should be taken in that context. I'll admit to not having read everything; I've had my fill of sprawling user conduct threads for the week so I haven't exactly gone digging through the article Levivich mentioned, but I think it would be more productive to make a separate report than have it all burried in a thread on a tangentially related topic. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that @Gerda Arendt: is back from the opera. Let's give her a chance to defend herself, here. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay seems pretty clear to me that there's nothing for her to "defend herself" against. Why would you adopt such battleground language? (and editing a ping doesn't make it re-ping.... WP:CIR). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Direct your WP:CIR gun in another direction. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I have to say that in 11+ years, I've yet to see a non-constructive edit from Gerda and I don't think hamstringing one of our more prolific creators of content--quality content, too, not just a churning out of stubs--is to the benefit of the project. As expounded above, if Gerda is making these edits and creating these articles, then she's taking responsibility for them and Alain's involvement feels moot. If there are problems in any of this work, it certainly isn't systematic, and I doubt any of us who engage heavily in content creation can hold up our hands and say we've never misinterpreted a source in error, or created an article which jumped the gun on notability, we're human and it happens. Sanctions of any kind here are simply throwing out far more baby than bathwater. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on! A BLP based on blogs? What is wrong some of you people being like, "Hey, it can happen to any one of us!" No, no it can't. That's not an accident. That's negligence or incompetence. What the actual fuck, yo. It's a new BLP! Levivich 00:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Unimpressive Levivich, very unimpressive. Did you read the title of this section? What are you trying to hang Gerda for? Proxying? Poor sourcing? It's unclear. You're mystifying. And that, as noted elsewhere about your recent edits, is unimpressive. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying everything she's written is perfect but I also don't believe any of us can say the same. What I am saying is that I don't believe these are linked issues; if I or TRM or you or anyone else wrote our next article with subpar sourcing, would it be linked to our last dispute or would it be resolved at the article level? Gerda is clearly capable of writing well-sourced and valuable content, is my point, and I would rather we kept an editor producing content even if it meant fixing some problems. I think TRM is right in saying that this feels like conflating issues for the sake of piling on. As I said, if Gerda is making these edits and creating these articles, then she's taking responsibility for them. If you're unhappy with sourcing on a BLP article, remove the content--I'm always happy to defend to removal rather than tagging of unverified content, for example, or taking something to AFD if it can't stand up when unsatisfactory sources are removed. But do articles like this make up the majority, or even a large minority, of Gerda's work, or are we shining a large spotlight on a smaller number of them just in light of the connection with Alain? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Poor sourcing, and how could that possibly be unclear? Some people are like "well Gerda is taking responsibility for it, so unless there are problems," and then you show them a BLP based on blogs, and they're like, "well, it could happen to any of us!" I say again: come on. This is exactly the response we got when some of us complained about the same problem from Louis. I ask again: what is wrong with some people, willing to tolerate one editor proxying for another editor and creating a BLP based on blogs??? Anyway that's the end of my outrage on this topic. Levivich 00:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Phew, thank goodness for that. Perhaps we can now focus on this thread which purports to be about an alleged proxying issue. If Gerda is creating content which needs improved sourcing, let's make that the recommendation. But that's not what this is all about here. Perhaps a little bit of WP:CIR for the torch-wielding locals perhaps? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
          • That's exactly what this is all about here. Louis was banned for repeatedly making poorly-sourced articles, and now Gerda is copying his poorly-sourced articles onto Wikipedia. BLPs! That's what this is all about. Oy vey. Levivich 00:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
            • So just ask Gerda to improve her verifiability. Ov vey indeed. Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
              • Ask an editor who's been here for 12 years and made 286,000 edits to not make BLPs with blog sources? And you're telling me to get a grip? :-) Levivich 00:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                • In all sincerity, have you asked? Or is this just a triple-conflated pile-on with added flaming pitch-forks? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • In all sincerity, have you forgotten the ANI thread that led to Louis's ban? It was like a month of discussing this exact issue--poor sourcing, with examples from Loui's work, with Gerda being the #1 defender-in-chief. Like this conversation that you and I are having right now, is the conversation Gerda and I had about Louis--just change the names around. Imagine if, a month hence, you made a BLP at Louis's direction request, and it had a bunch of blog sources. I mean, should I even have to ask you to improve your sourcing? Should anyone have to ask a 12-year, 200,000-edit editor to please not make BLPs with blogs? Or should I not even have to ask? Cuz I don't think I should have to ask. It's not an innocent mistake; Gerda is obviously not checking the sources because there's no way someone with that much experience just didn't notice that there were like half a dozen blogs, all but one were obviously non-RS, and I don't even speak French and I can tell that. I don't know how Gerda missed the blog sources, but it doesn't matter... it's well below the minimum expectation for any non-newbie editor. I'm not saying Gerda should be blocked or banned or anything, but I am saying that this is a 100% serious, reasonable concern, not to be dismissed. Levivich 00:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                    • Honestly, you think I lurk around ANI like other users here, ingesting all the vitriol and hate? No, I do not. I'm not even seeing Louis making requests, let alone direction, merely suggestions, but that's for Gerda to clarify. The basic issue here is that this thread starts about proxying, and has since descended into pathetic minutiae about lack of sourcing which can be dealt with elsewhere. This is terribly sad and a poor reflection on those who are striving to perpetuate the issues, both here and at other venues simultaneously. Poor form. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                      • Honestly, yes. You're here now, aren't you? Levivich 01:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                        • What are you talking about? Good night Levivich. A little bit less "oy vey" and little bit more "actual thinking" and we might get along some time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Seriously, Grapple, never? Perhaps you don’t follow arb cases? This is typical of long-standing behaviors of Gerda’s seen in other areas, and whether she stops when asked is a whole ‘nother topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Who follows arb cases? Endless, tireless, relentless and usually incompetently-handled drama carnivals which take months and consume far too much community resource. As for "This is typical of long-standing behaviors of Gerda’s seen in other areas", that feels like a bit of passive aggression, and is unhelpful in the resolution this particular issue. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • • Perhaps you don’t follow arb cases—Honestly I do deliberately avoid them so I'm willing to plead ignorance here; I see Gerda's editing mostly around DYK submissions and at WP:GAN and that's what I would hate for us to hinder. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @Grapple X: hey, look, we're on the same side of an issue! BD2412 T 00:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

      I sympathize, Grapple; it happens that the associated problems frequently pop on my watchlist, per FA involvement, so they are hard to avoid knowing about. Gerda, I recommend taking a closer look at your relationships with a number of editors, past and present, who have interesting account histories, as a way to avoid these kinds of problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If I understand Black Kite's claim, a banned user is creating non-policy compliant content in one of Gerda's sandboxes, and Gerda is than copying banned user's non-policy compliant edits to main space, and the user was banned for creating content that does not meet policy? If that is so, that does seem like Gerda is taking direction. The banned user's edits in the sandbox can only be done under the banned user's free content license, and Gerda can only be copying the banned user's edits to main under the banned user's free content license, repeating the non-policy compliant content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Is she being directed? Can you prove that? Or is she just taking material and using it (in general) for the betterment of Wikipedia (sourcing issues not withstanding)? This is proper lawyering territory now and it's abundantly clear that the policy needs rewording to avoid this malaise in future. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If Black Kite correct and she is copying -- it has to be, it's directly attributable to the banned user, it's his license and it is his content, and Gerda can only copy it under his license. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

So that has literally nothing to do with being "directed"? We're onto attribution now? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It is about direction, the banned user directs the edits, they are his edits under his license, which are then must be copied under his license. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think your definition of "directs" is different from mine. If I wrote some stuff somewhere and someone else thought "oh that looks good, I'll use that", I would not consider that to be direction. If I wrote some stuff somewhere and said to someone "you need to add this to Wikipedia", that would be direction. That's what "directors" do. they tell people what to do, they're in charge. This is clearly not the case here. Or do you think Gerda is being told what to do? Do you think that? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What Black Kite suggested is it looks like Gerda arraigned to take his direction on edits. He edits under his license to her sandbox, and she then copies his edits under his license. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hang on - if you wrote stuff abstractly "somewhere" and it got used, sure. But if you wrote that stuff, in English, directly onto another user's German-language sandbox page - surely the implication here is "you need to add this to Wikipedia". Retswerb (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• The interpretation taken by some editors above is equivalent to just deleting WP:PROXYING altogether. If all you need to do to evade that policy is say you have an “independent reason” which is “improving the encyclopaedia”, I guess we can start proxying for any banned editor. It’s tantamount to unbanning every banned editor and putting them on user-based pending changes instead; as long as someone else approves the edit, you’re good to go (?) (IIRC this idea was once proposed at VPI and soundly rejected) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's nothing other than reading the policy. Gerda isn't under "direction". That's patently absurd. If you don't like the "interpretation", I'd suggest re-factoring the policy so it's clear. What makes this even more absurd is that if Gerda just received all these suggestions via email from LouisAlain, that'd be deemed 100% perfecto because it's outside the "remit" of Wikimedia. You guys need to get out more. Is this damaging Wikipedia? No. Should Gerda do more for WP:V? Yes. Okay, next. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • By proxying for a user who has been banned by the community Gerda is showing contempt for the community. If this was an IP who did this, or an ordinary editor, then they would have been blocked. This is another demonstration that Wikipedia still has a group of superusers who think that the rules do not apply to them.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • That's awfully dramatic. But yes, we would block an IP because it would probably be a sock/meatpuppet. This is an area where it's important that it be an experienced user who can follow the requirements at WP:PROXYING. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ?? No, WP:PROXYING is where we point to to be clear that proxying isn't allowed unless you make sure x, y, z and take responsibility for them. I'd modify what you said: "The interpretation taken by some editors above is equivalent to just deleting all but the first clause of the first sentence of WP:PROXYING." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    Are you saying that such a thing can be done by plagiarism, and copying another's work without attribution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    AHA!! Add another conflation: ATTRIBUTION! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    No. Assuming you're reading that into my use of "take responsibility for," that only means "if it's bad, it's your fault, not theirs"; it's not about copyright/attribution. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    But the claim is she is copying the banned user's work into main space, and the "bad" is what she is copying. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    So, as said many many times, Gerda needs to improve the sourcing. Next. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    I don't know what argument you're making. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    It is about copying the edits of a banned user, from a page where the banned user directs those edits, which she then copies to main space. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    I see your use of "directs" there. It's not, it's where they "make" those edits. Stop trying to be too clever here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is she under "direction"? Prove it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No idea what definition of the term you’re personally using. What would you consider ‘actual’ proxying, and what do you consider ‘being under direction’ to mean? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Under direction means she's being told to do it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • So what’s an example of what you would consider ‘actual’ proxying? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Using a proxy account to make edits? Is it that complex? I was once blocked by one of the might cadre of admins for restoring a message to my talkpage which had been removed as I was accused of "proxying for a banned editor". It's a load of nonsense and needs fixing. This situation is just another example of how poorly worded policy gets the place into a meltdown. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
          • What do you consider a “proxy account”? Sorry for the successive questions, just trying to make sense of exactly what you’re saying here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
            • An account created with the sole purpose of evading a ban or a block. Is that clearer? And please, retain focus on the policy wording. I didn't write it, and it's obvious that it's shambolic, as this thread demonstrates. Take it out on the policy, not innocent bystanders. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
              • Your personal interpretation is quite relevant. Wiki policy isn’t written by lawyers; if you interpret the prose a certain way obviously that makes it impossible to ever violate a policy. It seems to me that you view WP:PROXYING as a redundant duplicate of the Sockpuppetry policy at WP:SOCK. So it does seem the problem here is in your interpretation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                • Not really. The problem here is the policy wording, as evidenced throughout this thread. I mean, if you'd bothered reading WP:PROXYING, you'd understand it's full of holes big enough to drive tanks through. Thanks for the chance to explain though, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be opposed to this, or at least a fundamental rewrite. If the edit helps the site and it's been vetted by a good-standing user, then where's the harm? Change the policy to Editors who make changes at the suggestion of a banned or blocked editor must independently verify the change, or have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. No harm, no foul. Anarchyte (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely not; that would defang WP:PROXYING completely. What is needed is an aditional sentence along the lines of Editors who make changes at the suggestion of a banned or blocked editor must independently verify the change, must have independent reasons for making such edits, and must write all such contributions in their own words - directly copying material written by a banned user is impermissible in all circumstances. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. This would have no change to the practical intent of the policy (ie. that is already the case) but it would avoid any hint of confusion on this point. The purpose of the sentence in question is plainly to allow editors to avoid getting in trouble if eg. a banned editor on wikidiocracy or some other forum points out an error and they correct it. It does not allow, and could never reasonably be reworded to allow, directly copying-and-pasting material - doing so is clearly adding specific text at the direction of the other editor (since you are following their specific directions for what should be added), and plainly lacks the second "independent reasons" rationale (since the wording is being copy-pasted directly, all rationales for it can only originate in the banned user.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly this. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  I see no issue in "defanging" a policy that has the sole intent of beating a dead horse. Anarchyte (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion - if you want WP:PROXYING to have more teeth or just want it to be clearer (that there are multiple experienced people saying that it is clear in directly contradictory ways means it probably could be clearer), then maybe let's move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Banning policy or WP:VPP. If you think that Gerda bears responsibility for problematic edits, focus on that. Preferably that would be at the article talk page, but at very least separate it here from those arguments condemning her actions just for the fact of proxying, regardless of the quality of the edits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: that there are multiple experienced people saying that it is clear in directly contradictory ways means it probably could be clearer Examples? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I will point out that LouisAlain has already had their talk page access locked (quite appropriately) for using WP:PROXYING to inappropriately try to evade a ban, and that more importantly no one in this discussion seems to consider that controversal, ie. lots of people are eager to defend Gerda, but few people seem interested in arguing in the abstract that WP:PROXYING allows a banned editor like LouisAlain to post things to Wikipedia in the hopes that another random editor will take direction from them and copy-paste those things into mainspace. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor ... unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content - The content of this paragraph and its meaning are all that matters.
  Despite the few comments that this material is vague or unclear, it is not. The policy provides exceptions for an otherwise prohibited action. You are prohibited from posting or editing material at the direction of a banner or blocked user unless – that is to say except if – it improves the encyclopedia and you have your own reasons for making those edits. This also means that Gerda could even do so under explicit instruction. The latter prerequisite is addressed sufficiently by an editor being here, specifically with 'a genuine interest in improving encyclopedic content'. In theory, at least, all editors are supposed to be here. The former prerequisite being met is disputed by Levivich and Ymblanter. Those are the only concerns levied in this entire thread that have so much as the potential for merit. They can be addressed at this juncture, if deemed necessary, by making it clear that Gerda is responsible for edits she makes in co-operation with LouisAlain.
  There is no cause, per the policy, to prohibit Gerda from continuing to be here. Those wishing to restrict her available avenues of hereness, may investigate their own motives for it. I am going so suggest one: you might just be upset that your ban didn't unperson LouisAlain. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  I can only speak for myself, but this is in no construable way "my" ban. I was not even aware of the editor's existence. Yet I feel pretty strongly that if the community has banned someone, a single person who "takes over" the behavior with misguided compassion for the oh-so-poor banned user is, independently of policy wording, insulting the community with their behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely not; that interpretation is absurd and would render WP:PROXYING completely unenforcable. Plainly the requirement that they have independent reasons means that they must be able to say, essentially, "I would have made this edit, or one substantially similar to it in all key respects, entirely on my own if this topic had come to my attention previously." It exists for eg. correcting errors pointed out by a blocked user, not for absurd actions like copy-pasting entire blocks of text written by a blocked user; at that point there is no possibility of an independant reason for the wording used, since Gerda is copying the exact text that the banned user, effectively, directed them to paste by posting on talk. It is a clear-cut, unequivocal violation of the rules against proxying as written. Additioanlly, even on top of all that, as numerous people have pointed out above, Gerda has, in this case, failed to make sure that the edits being made at the other editor's direction are verifiable - these edits have the same sourcing and verification problems that got that editor blocked in the first place! That is, truthfully, the real problem here - people are acting like this is some obscure quibble over the definition of "directed", when the real issue is "should editors be allowed to write BLPs that primarily use blogs as sources." If an editor who has been banned for doing so can continue to direct others to copy-paste such material on their behalf, and other editors will defend that, then we've undermined the core principles of WP:V / WP:RS, not just some obscure rule against copy-pasting material form banned users. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• How many ways did you have to change proxy for this interpretation of yours to fit the policy as written? I made zero. You made several including introducing new clauses because they are 'needed' and changing the meaning of commonly understood words and phrases. 'Plainly' an 'independent reason' is 'I did x because y': 'I undid this vandalism because it's damaging', 'I added this material because it improves our coverage of this topic', 'I made this article because the English Wikipedia didn't have one'. My actions followed by my reasons. Key word my; independent means not under the control of others. What would be disallowed, wholly is: 'I did x because y told me to'. Few words, simple to understand. Contortions are wholly unnecessary. Proxy is entirely enforceable. Demonstrate that either a) the edits harm the encyclopedia or b) that the editor cannot justify the edits. It is, I will say, an excellently written policy because it targets only those whose intent or actions are harmful to the encyclopedia. You might have noticed that I've acknowledged Levivich and Ymblanter's concerns (and by extension anybody who has repeated those since). Shall I repeat myself for the hard of reading? Those are the only concerns raised that could have merit. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a good deal of heat and not a lot of light; certain editors need to dial it back. I want to state at the outset that I've collaborated with Gerda on some articles in the past and enjoyed those collaborations. I hope I'm able to do that again in the future. Now let me say this: Louis Alain was banned from the English Wikipedia, and not that long ago. He was banned for being unresponsive to concerns about poor sourcing and machine translations. Gerda objected to this course of action, but her views did not carry the day. Now, the accusation here, not really refuted, is that Gerda is taking Louis Alain's articles from a wiki on which he is not banned and publishing them on the English Wikipedia. It's further alleged, and appears to be the case, that these articles also suffer from poor-quality sourcing. Some of these (all?) are BLPs.

Leave aside all these technical questions of which policies might or might not be in play. We don't need to get into the weeds here. Writing BLPs with poor-quality sources is a bad idea even if you're not doing it in collaboration with a user who was banned for that very reason from this project. It shows astonishingly poor judgment, especially considering that Gerda isn't some new user. She's been here forever. She knows better. I'm not interested in sanctions, because I have the expectation that Gerda will reconsider her approach to this matter. If she wants to help Louis Alain this isn't the way to do it. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This is precisely my position here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Well said. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Will the articles created-in-question, need to be deleted? GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Need"? Not inherently. Can any of them be taken to AFD to be discussed on their individual merits? Absolutely, just as they always could be with or without this thread. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial, obvious cases. Draftification would be a possible approach, but there will probably be at least one person reverting it with a summary like "the subject is notable, fix the issues yourself or start a deletion discussion". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no ties to anyone or any topic in this discussion and so zero horse in this game, but I am curious about the very divergent interpretations of policy here. To me the "directed" language in PROXYING seems only a bit more intentional than "make edits at the request of". And a banned editor writing a whole article in your sandbox that you then copy to mainspace sure looks like acting on a request... Why didn't Gerda just write all of it herself? Also, given that WP:BRV specifically covers Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban (and wouldn't such a straight copy essentially be eligible in spirit for G5?), I interpret the "verifiable or productive...[with] independent reasons" line as applying more to minor edits than full article creation. I appreciate there is more nuance here than in those old LTAs where an editor gets blocked for knowingly translating or copying material at the request of a random banned editor who shows up on their talk, but I don't think our current policy clearly exempts the nuanced stance, either, so in any case this ought to be clarified. I don't think a block on Gerda is necessary, however. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The policy wording is just a compromise between the two divergent philosophies on display here; the policy grew from the philosophical conflict, not the other way around. The point of the policy is to try and side-step these disputes entirely by focusing discussion on concrete disruption and avoiding discussions that are proxy-wars for an abstract philosophical conflict. For similar reasons, it's not a good idea to stretch the CSD criteria. They're for unambiguous cases as a compromise between the deletionism-inclusionism camps, and adding that to this pile is pretty much the last thing we need to be doing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Mackensen, re your post at 02:25 if the expectation is that this thread will cause Gerda to alter her approach, some history may help. This is not an isolated incident.

• Here is the graphic Gerda developed with Alarbus, one reincarnation of sockmaster Davenbelle, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle
• Here is the prize she spreads around the 'pedia (sample1, sample2) to honor PumpkinSky, a Rlevse reincarnation [60] Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PumpkinSky
• Her first collaborators on a defunct "quality article improvement drive" were PumpkinSky and Br'er Rabbit, a different Davenbelle sock (after the two socks worked together to disrupt FAC).
• On this AN page, wrt to the latest banned user she is defending, she refers to her response on her talk page, where she plainly states that "a few admins representing 'the community' won't stop me". With ten years of experience with this cast of characters, I suggest we take Gerda at her word.
• Gerda reinforces her defense with: "The following is by a banned user. I am with the outcast." while displaying the graphic she developed with Davenbelle (presumably the "outcast").

Gerda's priorities wrt sockmasters, arbs, admins and others are plain: "Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls." She does not seem to consider these editors wrongly blocked or banned, does not respect the community or the effect her friends have on others, does not seem to respect Arb decisions, and "a few admins representing 'the community' won't stop" her. Add to that what looks like an inability to let go of Infobox issues following the InfoBox Arbcase, and an apparent tone-deafness to spreading these "prizes" to editors who were hounded by these socks, and this does not lend much hope to the notion that these behaviors will stop based on this thread. Particularly not when some editors from some content review processes are defending the behaviors. Content contributions do not and should not excuse policy violations, as that excuse demoralizes the rest of the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do a support/oppose kind of thing here, but I do want to express sadness that we seems to be working our way towards blocking an editor with 286k edits and whose wiki-resume is liberally sprinkled with DYK, FA, etc. This is especially troubling in conjunction with the section immediately below, where we blocked an editor with 348k edits. I understand that there are rules. But at the same time, quoting from WP:Reader (as I do on my user page), "A reader is someone who simply visits Wikipedia to read articles, not to edit or create them. They are the sole reason for which Wikipedia exists". I'd hate to see where we end up if we block all our most prolific and productive editors and end up with just spammers and socks and people like me who hunt them. At that point, we would no longer be servicing our readers and there wouldn't be any point to us being here any more. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We should consider Wikipedia's policy WP:COMMON. Per WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."--Berig (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm another user who does not follow discussions here usually. Gerda seems to be judged not only for her behaviour but for not showing due deference and respect for this process and the editors who enjoy this process. Umm thinks, if this discussion continues then the rest of us will end up here. However at the risk of being thrown onto the bonfire of the heretics, can I note that a defence of "content rules" should attract the attention of any Wikipedia supporter. I won't add to this debate as it appears to be self-sustaining despite @The Rambling Man: warnings. Victuallers (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Pardon? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, while I’m opposed to this behaviour, I’m not in support of a block or any other kind of sanction. I suspect a similar feeling is shared by most editors commenting in this thread. Gerda just needs to desist from doing this again in the future. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

My position, expanded on Gerda’s talk, is similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I saw this last night, and have been giving the situation much thought. As far as I am concerned, a CBAN is exactly that, a ban. This case also raises other questions, such as meatpuppetry, copyright issues (stuff created at de-Wiki is still subject to the same copyright restrictions as stuff created on en-Wiki, namely that attribution is a requirement) and an apparent refusal to hear what is being said here per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm seeing no acknowledgement of wrongdoing, nor any promise not to continue in the same way. I feel this is so serious that an ARBCOM case may be necessary. In the meantime, I will make a formal proposal to prevent any further meatpuppetry. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  For those saying Wikipedia would be poorer without the articles Gerda creates, I would remind them that there is WP:NORUSH to create them. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• As per Mr rnddude , the wording of WP:PROXYING is crystal clear. If you want to try to take down one of our most productive, cultured, and objectively most appreciated editors, please first do your reasearch. Otherwise it's rather inconsiderate to the community to start this sort of time wasting and unpleasant threat. WP:PROXYING is only 133 words. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• What I don't understand is why at the least Gerda didn't start this in her own draft space. If I were translating an article from another project I would want to edit it first as a draft, using it just as a basis for a new article. I'm also one of those who oppose the whole idea of using a banned editor's work, even if technically it's permitted. Sure, if a banned editor mentions somewhere else that an article on X would be a good idea I wouldn't object to anyone creating it. But this sort of thing should not happen and it's disturbing that Gerda doesn't see the problem. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• As pointed out by Mr rnddude above, as long as Gerda is verifying all the information provided in the de.wiki version brought over to en.wiki is as truthful as they can confirm (not just taking the banned user's word for it), and are taking responsibility for that, PROXYING is met and there's not an issue here, yet. Only if it is shown that the material was in some way wrong (falsified from sources, etc.) and well within Gerda's capabilities to validate, then we can talk about that being a true PROXY problem. Mind you, it would have been better to have the banned user give Gerda sources to use, and Gerda independently write from those sources to separate the contribution more, but PROXY still allows for the case here as long as responsibility is taken. --Masem (t) 13:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Masem: I don't know if you mean to say that PROXY somehow allows this copying. But perhaps you meant this also: here, copying (good or bad content/sources) appears inextricable with potential acts of proxy -- when copying someone else's written work into Wikipedia, WP:C also governs correct content handling and conduct (see also, WP:ATTSIT and WP:PLAG). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  At least using the talk page of Frédéric Blanc as a reference, there is attribution to the de.wiki article (added when the talk page was created), well before this ANI thread started). I do think the attribution route should be more accurate (specifically identify the de.wiki user page as the intermediate, such that the user suggesting the edits is included in that chain) but this does not seem like wholesale lack of attribution/copyvio failure. --Masem (t) 16:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• As many of the above have already said, I'm against the idea of using the work of a banned editor on principle. However, it is clear that WP:PROXYING as it is currently worded does allow this. It might be a good idea for someone to start an RFC on revising that piece of the policy, but AN is not the place for that. There is also the sourcing issue, which especially on a BLP must not stand. I would suggest closing this thread with no formal sanctions, but strongly advising Gerda to be more diligent with verifying the sources in content (especially BLPs) that she has taken responsibility for. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Just a small information bit: The deWP can't any longer be the preparation site, as LouisAlain has just been blocked over there as well, so they can't write anything there in any draft space. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 19:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  With blocks on the three biggest Wikipedias it is probably time for a global ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Checked global contribs, not surprised that today he's copying machine translations onto Simplewiki, resulting in complicate prose that seems inappropriate for that wiki. He's just gonna keep moving to different wikis if not globally locked it seems. Levivich 20:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  For the record, it seems LA is asking editors on other projects to proxy for him on enwiki. [61] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think LA would qualify for a global lock, I think the only option is a global ban like Ymblanter suggested. If anyone wants to attempt to start a global ban discussion on Meta for LA, the global ban policy page is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans#criteria-for-global-bans, and the page where you can file a request for comment to propose a global ban is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

We should not tearing up site policy because a user is well known, popular or productive, WP:PROXYING is very clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It is clear to everyone, just everyone interprets it differently. That's the key take-away here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerda (IMHO), you should completely cut yourself off from Louis-Alain. It just ain't worth the headaches. Totally up to you, of course. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hm. I think a new account doing this would be sanctioned, but an established and popular editor gets away with it. I find that a bit squicky, even though I do and would trust Gerda Arendt's judgment on content in mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would be opposed to sanctions at this time. There is some question as to interpretation in some eyes, but honestly, I see this as a mistake on Gerda Arendt's part, innocent enough, well meaning, nothing got broken, but a change is needed. I would prefer we warn and work on changing the habits rather than using the stick. This requires some kind of statement from Gerda that she will review these methods and make some changes. I don't need begging or even an apology, just an acknowledgement that there are a great many people here who disagree with her methods, and she should be respectful of those opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Gerda Arendt is banned from creating any new pages on en-Wiki

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.

---

Given the above discussion and issues raised, I propose that Gerda Arendt is prohibited from creating any new pages on en-Wiki. This means articles, redirects, talk pages, templates or any other new content. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose sledgehammer solution, ultimately damaging to our readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not believe any formal sanctions will be necessary in this case, and believe Gerda can remedy this situation on her own by acknowledging the consensus developed here and desisting from further proxying. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per this being a simplistic response to a policy failure. As someone noted above, "if you want WP:PROXYING to have more teeth", etc., then a site-wide discussion is necessary. But pinning the failings of policy on one editor is, at the least, kicking the can down the road. ——Serial 11:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Attitudes like this will eventually kill Wikipedia.--Berig (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, I agree with The Rambling Man, and even had I agreed that their article creations were an issue, articles, redirects, talk pages, templates or any other new content is overly broad and effectively bans them from participating in much of the communities processes (as an example, would this prevent them from starting a AFD? Its creating a page, and would therefore in my reading of this overly broad restriction be prevented), and any form of content creation. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I agree that Gerda should stop creating articles for banned people, their overwhelmingly positive contributions throughout the years shouldn't be left unnoticed. Their ban would be a net negative to the project. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 11:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The above discussion seems to suggest there's no case for Gerda to answer. Per Mr rnddude, the only clear policy based reason to sanction Gerda would be if fault could be found with edits she makes for the banned user. Levivich made the strongest argument on those grounds, about the sources not being sufficiently WP:RS but it seems to have been refuted by multiple editors. None can deny the REsmusica coverage is sufficient for passing GNG, & even on a BLP its okay to source non controversial, non harmful details to less high quality / less independent sources. The other complaint seems to be that Frédéric Blanc is cited to non english sources. That was only partly refuted by the OP, which perhaps wasn't enough for you? To add while it goes without saying that we should try to use English sources where possible, the fact we're allowed to cite those written in other languages is so obvious it's not even mentioned in WP:RS. As an example, only yesterday I looked up our Louis Lavelle page & saw the totally false claim "Lavelle has not been studied in France." There's abundant French sources that correctly discuss Lavelle's reception but I couldnt find one in English, so sorted the issue by citing the French. As a result, our article on the good professor is not considerably more accurate than the French version. Anti elitism can be admirable and there is often a case to avoid mostly sourcing articles in other languages. But it doesn't matter so much when it comes to classical music & opera. At least here in London, even native english speakers who like those things will invariably learn molto italiano & at least a little French. So it ought not much harm the interested reader in this case. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this solution as too extreme. They should be given a chance to change their behavior first. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2021 (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 big problem with Wikipedia is us article writers

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 been on Wikipedia since 2003, and I am sad to say that the climate towards those who build Wikipedia only hardens and hardens. Not only are article writers under potential pressure from POV-crusaders, and we have to turn ourselves inside and out to be as NPOV as we possibly can to avoid them, but we have to be draconic with ourselves about our references, and I have to stick to principle that a phrase like "grass is generally considered to be green" needs to have at least one reference to a reliable source published in a peer reviewed journal, because sooner or later someone will add a ref tag to it. We also need to follow all the detailed instructions in WP:MOS, whether we like it or not. The climate is especially hard on us who write articles about non-English subjects because we have to add specific templates for non-English words - *every single one* with hard-to-find codes[62]. We also have to take care to write in a splendid style that is easy to understand. If we don't submit ourselves meticulously to these restrictions we inevitably see one nag tag or another added to the top of our articles, spoiling what we may have spent lots of money on and spent hours writing, and that we may actually have been proud of having written. And, yes, even if you succeed in all of this - don't expect much appreciation for it. In the end, Wikipedia risks only having the wiki-police left.--Berig (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The thread above demonstrates that the wiki-police seem to be almost already in the majority. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a tendency to seeing the encyclopedia as effectively written now. ——Serial 11:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I apply for a refund, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I wish anyone who thinks that would check out our Great Acceleration article. And if anything, it heavilly understates the tendency towards exponentional change this pass two decades. A content editors work is never done. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn't most of the encyclopedia--like over 90%--written by IPs? Levivich 14:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't! Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What a curious assertion. Although it is [citation needed], Wikipedia:IP users suggests that IP user edits are estimated to constitute one-half (54% in 2013) of the general username activity levels. So, among the total daily edits, then about one-third are posted by IP users, while 2/3 (~67%) are logged to specific usernames each time. so unless the IPs are super-prolific, they've contributed absolutely nowhere near 90% of the content of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The question mark indicates it's a question not an assertion. 2013 was a while ago; I thought I read a study that was from the last few years and looked at authorship not edit count. I'll see if I can find it. Levivich 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed TRM, and those figures presumably don't include the rather large number of ip edits that promptly get reverted. There are a few regular ip editors who add large amounts of useful text (one mustn't suggest they are returning banned users, as they get cross) and a larger number who make rare but often very useful edits to things they come across, but these are the exceptions. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No doubt many frequent IPs are ban evading editors & no doubt there is & always will be many socks among us. If they're being productive, I've no problem with that. Just don't wanna seem'em running for administrator or arbitrator. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the above represents a false dichotomy. Good writing is important and I hope valued by most people on this project; I for one value it highly and have said so in the past. Good sourcing is also important, especially when living persons are concerned. I don't see anything incompatible in valuing good writing and insisting that it be based on equally good sourcing, and I think most editors would readily agree. We're a widely-read project, much more so than in 2003, and we owe that to our readers. We also have to consider who our readers are. Berig (talk · contribs), did you ever read Template:Lang#Rationale? What do you think of it, and who do you think you're writing for? Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wouldn't all of your frustration evaporate if you interpreted clean-up tags as what they are: a neutral notice to other editors about outstanding tasks, not a attack on your writing skills? It's not that hard to look up ISO language codes (they're usually in {{Infobox language}}, for example) but if you don't fancy it, don't do it. The magic of this whole endeavour is that someone else will just come along and fix it later. – Joe (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Only if we retain content contributors ahead of wiki-police/-lawyers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Except it's the same group of people. The people who raise concerns about content contributors are other content contributors. For proof, just scroll up and read this thread. The folks raising concerns about Gerda/Louis's content contributions are all content contributors themselves. The folks defending are also content contributors. This entire discussion is a discussion amongst content contributors. As they all are. You rarely see, e.g., a bunch of template coders raising concerns about whether an article meets V or NPOV. I think more often, content contributors are policing non-content contributors, e.g. writers complaining about what template coders are doing, than the other way around. Levivich 16:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Would that it were, but it's not. It's like the admins we have who we ask to fix issues on the main page, a large number of those who do aren't content contributors really. This project is slowly being overcome by the likes of those users who simply contribute to AN/ANI and other drama areas. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think this section on the general nature of our editor base is not really of relevance to the discussion at hand and indeed might be a distraction from it. Suggest CATTT. ——Serial 16:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

But I commented, GoodDay  :( ——Serial 18:21, 7 November 2021 (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 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.

---

Head for closure

Are we done here now? It's evident there's a spectrum of interpretation of WP:PROXYING, LouisAlain has been banned at de.wiki, Gerda is going to work harder on more reliable sources for BLPs she creates. Changes to WP:PROXYING need a much wider audience, probably an RFC, but it seems clear it's required. Anything else for this forum? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Dennis Brown asked for some sort of acknowledgment from Gerda, which hasn’t happened AFAIK. I would also feel better about closing this thread if we had some acknowledgement that goes the opposite direction of her earlier statement that “a few admins representing the community won’t stop me”. I understand Gerda had a busy day, but it would be helpful to hear from her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Short statement for now (as I have a busy day again): It will not happen again, LouisAlain using a sandbox, others (such as myself) reviewing it and publishing it taking responsibility. This was a concept earlier in the AN thread, and I regret that I didn't support it. I am sorry to have caused so many people so much trouble by trying to help a friend. Thanks to you and others for advice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Gerda is a known quantity around here, and an asset. I don't see any purpose from dragging this out any longer. It was a mistake, she admits it was a mistake, she has earned my trust over the years enough that I take her at her word that she will refrain from directly proxy editing again. This event alone is more incentive than sanction, and given the circumstances, a sanction would be punitive rather than preventative. IMHO, we can close this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This relieves all concerns from my side. We should probably discuss a clarification for WP:PROXYING, whichever direction into, but independently of this specific ban, and not at this noticeboard. Thank you very much for taking the time to read through the huge, partially heated discussion, for taking the concerns to heart and for providing a clear statement. Sorry for any unnecessary hassle caused by this discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2021 (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 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.

Repeated Vandalism on 2021 Nicaraguan General Election Page

This is clearly a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Please follow the instructions and steps at WP:DISPUTE. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Asaturn has repeatedly vandalized the 2021 Nicaraguan General Election page, adding or removing information without consensus. This has occurred over the past two days (at least while I have been involved), and he has been reverted by myself, Lucasdmca, Innisfree987, and NoonIcarus, in addition to Alsoriano97 expressing disapproval on the talk page of Asaturn removing multiple paragraphs of information that Alsorian had added. I'm requesting assistance here because I do not want to cause an edit war and argue in five paragraph essays on talk pages like Asaturn did over the past two days (something I used to do years ago that got me blocked). Bill Williams 02:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A quick view of the edit history of 2021 Nicaraguan general election shows me and my fellow editors attempting to improve the wording of the article, while Asaturn removed large sections of text or added wording that disagreed completely with the consensus (hence he was repeatedly reverted). He also attempted to start arguments of multiple paragraph length on the talk page, which I did not engage in for more than a message or two because I did not want to argue with someone behaving argumentatively. Then he proceeded to notify an uninvolved admin who topic banned me many months ago, and tell him that I was violating the topic ban, and state the same to a user involved in the dispute, even though my topic ban was lifted months ago, and only pertained to American and not Nicaraguan politics. Bill Williams 02:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

First, the POV tag should be removed from the article. To add a POV tag require the editor to make "clear what the neutrality issue is" what wasn't done. Asaturn rationale to include the tag is not based on our policies, and it's pretty much based on some kind of conspiracy theory about "western media" and etc. Several WP:RS called the election a "show election" and that's what matters for us, not if the source is from "east or west". Second, this same editor "contaminated" the article's talk page with numerous political discussions and talk pages are not WP:FORUMS. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 03:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

For proof of what Kacamata stated, see these edits made by Asaturn and some of the reversions of them: [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Bill Williams 03:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I realize this goes against normal WP:TALK practice, but I have edited your comment in order to remove personal details, specifically related to the possible IP address of the individual. If an admin agrees this removal was proper, could you please rev-del? It should not affect the substance of your post, or weight of your evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah my bad, I suspected that might be personal info but I thought I could add it since he publicly edited the article. My apologies for the mistake. Bill Williams 04:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I thought about filing a request on the same issue, but I haven't had the time. If I may add, arguably the most troublesome issue with the edits is the repeated and unilateral removal of referenced content, which has included entire sections ([72][73][74][75][76]). I warned the user at least twice about this behavior ([77][78], to no avail. Considering this, along with the conflict with other editors and apparent unability to reach a consensus, apparently shows that admin involvement is needed. If needed, there's also a thread in the BLP noticeboard that dates back to 2019 involving Asaturn that might be of interest: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive278#Ro Khanna. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, your comment made me look further into the issue. Coincidentally, I edited the January 6 Capitol Riot article, which is about supporters of a President storming into the legislative building to support the overturning of election results where the aforementioned President lost (US), and Asaturn compared that [79] to nationwide protests against an authoritarian regime that was fraudulently reelected (Nicaragua). If this isn't communist propaganda (frequently utilized by RT News, which Asaturn is also an ardent defender of, or for example a Belarussian news network recently announced that they were accepting a Capitol rioter for political asylum) then I don't know what communist propaganda is, because this is the most clear cut case of it. Asaturn has repeatedly made accusations of pro-Western, pro-US, anti-Ortega and anti-communist agendas by editors, when I have nothing against his communist views, but his vandalism in support of them. I am relying on reliable sources (e.g. NYT and WaPo) while he is peddling conspiracy theories without any factual backing or sourcing. Bill Williams 04:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

this truly is a perfect example of why Bill is banned from editing political articles right now. Asaturn (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Also Bill if this isn't you accusing me of being a communist I don't know what point you were trying to make talking about RT and calling Nicaragua an authoritarian regime that I'm "also a defender of". Good grief. Asaturn (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not have any problem with you being a communist. I am simply comparing your edits defending[80][81][82] a communist-ally propaganda outlet (RT news) and mentioning how you use their methods of propaganda (comparing the January 6 Capitol Riot to political protests when the Capitol Riot was a violent insurrection) and the fact that you are comparing it to the Nicaragua protests. Bill Williams 04:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is another barrage of direct personal insults! ONCE AGAIN you are in flagrant violation of WP policy. This is totally unacceptable behavior. I have never once "defended" a country, "defended" a propaganda outlet, or "used methods of propaganda." My mention of Jan 6 was to show how the Capitol riot which killed 4 people was called an "attempted coup" while the Nicaragua riot that killed hundreds was called "a protest" as a demonstration of a violation of TONE and NPOV policy. This isn't your personal forum for political rants or insults, this is a neutral encyclopedia website. Asaturn (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

you "warned me" twice in a row as if they were separate occasions. this entire spectacle is ridiculous. all I've ever added to the article is context for the information presented, which any rational user would agree is a good improvement to the article. the only content I ever "removed" was bad faith edits and speculatory NPOV violations from users like @Bill Williams. If I removed anything else, it was accidental. I MOVED content from one part to the other, as the entire header was a redundant list of individuals arrested prior to the election. Trying to claim you've "warned me twice" AFTER you refused to participate in the NPOV discussion on the articles talk page is rather silly. this is the first time I've had an actual discussion on this charade and, as expected, it's in the context of "my" violations of WP rules, not yours or the other editors violations of NPOV or tone, not to mention @Bill Williams endless accusations that I'm "far left" and a "defender of the authoritarian communist regime" - and other personal insults (totally unacceptable behavior on this platform). Where are the admins on THESE violations??? Why am I singled out as some violator of rules when all I've tried to do is improve a totally garbage biased article??? Asaturn (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

For starters, you were warned by NoonIcarus, myself, and multiple other editors more than "twice in a row." Furthermore, you removed far more than "redundant" information, including at one point your removal of the entirety of the lead, leaving it with only a single sentence, or deleting an entire section that was multiple paragraphs long. Additionally, can you show a single time when I accused you of being "far left" or "defender of the authoritarian communist regime"? I simply stated, with factual evidence provided by reliable sources, that you were adding communist propaganda accusations that were politically motivated to hurt Ortega's opposition. Also, I am very confused as to what "personal insults" I have called you. I only stated what occurred, which is that you pushed propaganda, and that is not an insult but a basic description of the situation. Bill Williams 06:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The entire lead was redundant as the entirety of it was already included in the "controversy" section. If the issue was that it was "only one sentence," perhaps it needs to be re-written without copying and pasting another section into it? Your track record of insults is all over this page and in the very post I am currently replying to. I'm not going to waste more time with your bad faith argument here. This isn't a forum. Nothing I added to the article was "communist propaganda," it was literally additional context on the arrests from the already-cited articles. If you are obsessed with saying "pre-candidate was arrested" but not mentioning WHY they were arrested or WHO arrested them, and then adding an uncited claim that the president personally arrested them, you are the one violating the rules here. The additions I made were very clearly cited as "alleged." For the 6th or 7th time, please stop insulting me personally, it is totally unacceptable behavior. Asaturn (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Not that this matters, but the edits I made to Ro Khanna were endlessly reverted by users with IP addresses registered to the United States Capitol. I was trying to add context to a claim that he "doesn't accept PAC money" by linking to FEC filings for his PAC. If memory serves me correctly, users claimed that the Federal Elections Commission was not a reliable source, and continually removed the PAC citation. I gave up because if Ro Khanna's paid staffers really want to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform, and admins aren't going to stop them, I won't waste my time. This was over 2 years ago and completely irrelevant. If anything, it shows my track record of attempting to make good faith edits and being thwarted by obsessive NPOV violators who attempt to abuse the rules of Wikipedia to censor other editors. Asaturn (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I was already attempting to deal with this. I have multiple messages on these users' talk pages and on the talk section of the article, which they are refusing to engage in. Bill is currently banned from editing American political articles for this exact practice. He and others are accusing me of being some sort of "authoritarian communist" agent. I have clearly explained the NPOV issues in the talk page and on their user talk pages as well as in a COI notice board post. As I said in all of those places, I'm not familiar with the more advanced editing systems but all of these users are making accusations and not assuming good faith. There's no claim of a "conspiracy" from my end. The multiple issues with the article are clearly explained on the talk page. I thought we had reached consensus when these editors continued to wipe away my good faith edits and insert their own uncited opinions. This is ridiculous and a blatant attempt at badjacketing. Asaturn (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is going to be my fifth time stating this, if you ever read a single one of my responses to your rants, but I haven't been banned from editing American politics for eight months, and that is irrelevant to this dispute on Nicaraguan politics. Additionally, I have not, nor have others, made any accusations against you of being a "authoritarian communist agent." You are just a normal person with no ties to any communist government as far as I know. You are the one making unfounded accusations that I am pushing Western propaganda. Bill Williams 04:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Look at your above comment dude. This is ridiculous. You were banned for this and IMO you are violating that ban. Nothing I added to the article detracts from the factual nature. The removal of the info I added removes context to fit your preferred narrative and violates NPOV. I'm done here. Admins, choose an outcome please. Asaturn (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, can you read what I am saying for once. I was never "banned for this," only topic banned from editing American politics specifically, and that topic ban was ended eight months ago. You repeatedly accuse me of violating NPOV when I added reliably sourced information, and you removed it, and you were reverted not just by me but multiple other editors on numerous occasions. Bill Williams 04:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I was in bed without my glasses and I thought it said 2021 but it said 2020. So to clarify, you WERE banned from editing political articles, and you SHOULD be banned again since you clearly have learned nothing. You continue to insult me (calling me a "defender of an authoritarian regime" and other insults). This and your NPOV bad faith edits (claiming arrests "were so Ortega could win" without citation) and other tone violations are a clear cut case for your ban from editing at least the Nicaragua article. This is what this discussion should really be about. Like your uncited claims made in the article, there is simply zero evidence that I'm doing anything wrong. Asaturn (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have learned from my past mistakes, and did not revert you numerous times, instead letting other editors take care of your vandalism, while you repeatedly reverted myself and others. Once again, my claims are reliably sourced[83] and clearly state that "The outcome was never in doubt after his government jailed seven of the leading potential opposition candidates, clearing the field for Ortega to sweep to a fourth consecutive five-year term. With all government institutions firmly within Ortega’s grasp and the opposition exiled, jailed or in hiding, the 75-year-old leader eroded what hope remained the country could soon return to a democratic path" which backs up my claim and proves that you have not a single source backing yours up. Bill Williams 06:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a dubious claim: he had 5 opponents on the ballot and yet still managed to get 75% of the votes. If you have a source that can explain this, feel free to add it to the article. Adding opinion articles that are all one point of view while removing any that cast doubt on their claims violates NPOV. This is becoming a discussion that needs to take place on the talk page of the article itself. Asaturn (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Asaturn has just [84] made yet another revert of another editor, this being the sixth[85][86][87][88][89] editor who Asaturn has reverted or been reverted by in just the past two days. Bill Williams 06:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bill, please go find something else to do. As I mentioned in the comment, the revert was made without real explanation. The edit I made reverted the revert and the additional edit I made corrected the mistaken wording that was made in good faith. The original citation said "organization backed by..." I changed it to "organization affiliated with." This is in reference to Urnas Abiertas' claim of only 18.5% voter turnout. My citation adds credibility to the organization, as their association with Wilson Center means they receive US Congressional funding. This also shows they are associated with https://idea.int, a globally recognized elections observation organization. If you want to remove this context which lends credibility to the claim that election turnout was much lower, then by all means, be my guest. If you do this, do I then get to accuse you of being a communist sympathizer, as you have done to me for the past 2 days? Asaturn (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: this is clearly a content dispute, so please stop calling edits WP:vandalism. Calling edits, even bad edits, vandalism when they clearly aren't is a personal attack i.e. something which will lead to you being blocked if repeated, and also discredits any complaint you have. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It is referred to as vandalism when the edits are repeatedly removing or adding information that is opposed by all other consensus editors, especially considering he has reverted or been reverted six times. That is not a personal attack but a statement of fact. Bill Williams 06:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: It's WP:Edit warring. It's probably not vandalism. Calling it such if it's not vandalism is indeed a personal attack and so far you are the only editor who seems to have a clearly demonstrated need for a block. Edit warring is a serious problem, so frankly I have no idea why you would make a false accusation rather than concentrate on the actual problems with Asaturn's edits. It's just lame to repeatedly call stuff vandalism which isn't vandalism when you could actually describe the problems with the edits according to our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism can most certainly include blanking entire sections of an article [90][91]. "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" considering he has been warned and reverted numerous times, this can be interpreted as malicious intent, and the fact that he is using unverified information (he cites no sources while my fellow editors and I do) and he uses original research[92]. Is there some definition of vandalism that I am missing? Bill Williams 07:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Keys words malicious and without any regard to our core content policies. It seems clear that Asaturn is not doing anything maliciously. They have a different via as to how to achieve compliance with our content policies from you and other editors. They may be wrong on what their edits are achieving and if they're wrong that's a problem. it doesn't automatically turn their edits into vandalism though. Indeed a lot of the worse edits are made by editors in good faith with the attempt to improve Wikipedia and are clearly not vandalism but are incredibly harmful because the editor has allowed their POV to get in the way. I'd further note that even if Asaturn is right, if they keep edit warring they probably need to be blocked. (Although this could easily apply to anyone else in the edit warring albeit while it doesn't justify edit warring, in a WP:1AM situation it's often only the one who needs to be blocked.) But you've provided zero evidence that Asaturn isn't trying to improve Wikipedia, indeed all the evidence such as their own comments leads us to believe they think they are making encyclopaedic improvements. One more time, trying but failing doesn't turn their edits into vandalism. So please talk about the actual problems with their edits not made up ones. If they keep edit warring, then talk about that. If they are removing source content and adding content that is unsourced please talk about that. Discuss the actual problems with Asaturn's edits, not made up ones. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you should look closely to 2021 Nicaraguan general election history, to its talk page and to Asaturn's editing history. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 07:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

But that's why the above dispute is so silly. If Bill Williams wants people to look into Asaturn's editing history, they need to accurately explain to us what the problems with Asaturn's editing history. We're not the ones bringing the complaint, they are. So don't call stuff vandalism which doesn't seem to be. Instead, describe the actual problems with Asaturn's edits so we have an incentive to look in to it, don't call it vandalism when a cursory check suggests it isn't the case. Further that fact that this discussion had I think 25 replies from existing participants before anyone uninvolved had joined in isn't helping anything. (To be clear, this isn't really your fault Kacamata.) Such complaints are often closed with no action in part because no one can be bothered working out what the heck is going on. There's rarely any good reason for such lengthy back and forths between existing participants. Talk to each other somewhere else perhaps directly on your respective talk pages, or maybe just drop it. There is often no need to reply since whatever new comment the editor said should have already been sufficiently addressed in one of the earlier replies or just doesn't need to be addressed. E.g. this will probably be my last comment in this discussion at least until and unless someone else gets involved and says something new and I feel it's worth offering my view because I feel I've said enough. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure why Bill hasn't already been banned after insulting me numerous times and even going so far as to doxx me (which was removed by another editor or admin). I have clearly demonstrated I am attempting to add good information to the article and follow NPOV guidelines. I'm new to editing so may make a few mistakes, but I'm not trying to spread "communist propaganda" or whatever. Asaturn (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not insulted you a single time, unless you can provide a single shred of evidence. Additionally, I never "doxxed" you, you literally edited on a public website called Wikipedia with your IP address, and I simply added one of its edits to this page because it provided evidence showing that you have been repeatedly reverted. Also, it is completely and utterly false to claim that you are "new to editing" considering you have had an account for 13 years and edited regularly for the past two. Bill Williams 07:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Editing a word here or there doesn't mean I'm an expert editor. I am still very much confused by how Wikipedia works, even if I did create an account 13 years ago. Asaturn (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Asaturn: don't crow here. I haven't looked at your edits but if you've reverted against multiple other editors and no one in the discussion agrees with you but you keep reverting, you're very close to earning a block yourself, if you haven't already earned one. You need to achieve WP:consensus for your edits, and stop trying to force them in by edit warring. It doesn't matter if you think your edits are achieving policy compliance if you haven't been able to convince anyone else of that. As always if you cannot achieve consensus by discussion with existing editors, seek outside help somehow rather than just edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "don't crow." I asked for input on the talk page as you can see for yourself. Very few people participated. Bill did his usual insults and implied I was a communist agent. I have added neutral information to the page. As I said, I am new to editing so if I made a mistake it was not intentional. I am not "reverting everyone's edits." The example provided by Bill was a revert to a good faith edit I made that simply deleted it rather than correct it or replace it. I "reverted it" to bring the old text back so I could improve upon it (which I would assume even Bill would agree it is now improved as it lends credibility to the claims that voter turnout was only 18.5% not the 65% claimed by the Nicaraguan government). I apologize if whatever I said comes off as insulting, but I've been dealing with 4 or 5 people just endlessly deleting any good information I was attempting to add to the article. It's pretty ridiculous. Thanks for your time in looking into this dispute. Asaturn (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is now the seventh[93] and eight[94] editor in two days who has reverted or been reverted by Asaturn. If this is not vandalism Nil Einne, since Asaturn knows that many editors consider his work malicious, and during this very discussion in this noticeboard he continues to make said edits, then I don't know what vandalism is. I am concerned about this because [95] this page had 8,000 views yesterday and 15,000 the day before, meaning that hundreds of people view this page every hour, and it is significantly changing with every edit Asaturn makes. Bill Williams 07:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

My changes are not very significant. I have mostly added more details and citations to support the information already present in the article. Asaturn (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Asaturn is one of the worst cases of WP:BATTLEGROUND I've seen here on Wikipedia. Almost all their edits are an attempt to push their POV in articles and talk pages. This is pretty much their edit pattern on WP. They had a lot of conflicts in several other articles and their arguments are always the same: "western bias", "US propaganda" and things along these lines. I could present diffs, but I don't have time to do it, right now. However, any careful editor who look into their edits will see what I'm talking about. They pretty much destroyed 2021 Nicaraguan general election and its talk page. This article was good enough to make the MP (I know because I voted for it to make the MP) and Asaturn destroyed it, just to prove their point of view and this is not even the first time they do it. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 07:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a POV on the Nicaraguan election, I simply think the article itself pushes one western/US/Euro-centric POV without very good neutral sources cited. I have added plenty of information that are cited via verifiable facts which happen to support both the pro-Nicaraguan and pro-US points of view. Personally I have no stake in what happens in Nicaragua. I hope for peace, but beyond that, it's not my country and I don't live there. Asaturn (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Just like you thought that there were "western/US/Euro-centric POV" in several other articles before this one? This is pretty much all you do here on Wikipedia. You go from article to article trying to push your POV and saying that the article has a "western/US/Euro-centric POV". This article made the MP meaning that the article was evaluated by numerous experienced editors and published in the MP by a sysop. You tried to add YouTube as a source on the article, and then you claim that you "added plenty of information that are cited via verifiable facts". You were reverted by several editors. All this says a lot about "who's right and who's wrong" here. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 07:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

All of the citations in the article are from US-based and European-based news sources and most of them offer no citations or clarification. That being said, I was accused of vandalism even when I used those same citations... so it seems like the POV issue lies with everyone else, not me. I was not aware that a YouTube video published by the organization being cited (at https://urnasabiertas.com/blog/) was not a good source. I don't want to get into a political debate, but it's clear that some editors are attempting to push an agenda via this article. And since it keeps being brought up ("This is pretty much all you do here") - My talk page comments regarding RT was a question about the inconsistencies of labeling RT "government propaganda" but labeling PBS "public broadcasting." It was a question so I could better understand how sources and citations work on Wikipedia. I was never "defending" RT. Asaturn (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Also the talk page was empty when I started editing the article, so I'm not sure how I "destroyed the talk page" unless that was an accident and there was something there (but I don't see that in the history). Are you referring to the fact that I'm basically the only person contributing to the talk page? Asaturn (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

He is referring to the fact that you filled up the talk page with over two dozen paragraphs of your rants, which included numerous instances of bolded wording, and some cases of all caps or enlarged font, basically implying that you were yelling through your computer at the dozen editors who disagreed with you. Bill Williams 07:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if what I was saying came off as yelling, I was simply applying emphasis per WP rules. It is frustrating to spend hours adding good information to an article only to have someone call you a communist agent spreading propaganda and then post their own paragraphs on talk pages and noticeboards implying you're vandalizing Wikipedia. My hope was that the emphasis would make it easier for users who think I'm a secret Ortega defender to get to the point. Hope you can understand. Asaturn (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see the talk page on the article. I am trying to come to some consensus for adding context and verifiability to the "18.5% voter turnout" claim. The sources I added as citations were removed by you, so the claim is now in the article without any citation. This doesn't seem like a helpful edit IMO. Asaturn (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You literally have no source, while the "18.5%" turnout is sourced by [96], which is a reliable source [97] unless you can prove otherwise. And if you want to rid the article of that, contend with [98] which is also a reliable source. Bill Williams 07:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem confused. I never argued that UA is cited by a few news agencies. In fact, I'm the editor who added the metholodgy for the research used to come to the 18.5%. I also added a few more citations to IDEA.int (an international elections monitoring org) and Wilson Center (a DC think tank funded by US Congress) which add credibility to the claims made by UA! It's kind of confusing that you're both labeling me a "communist propagandist" while also saying I'm "vandalizing the article" by bolstering the claims of the organization that is directly challenging the official voter turnout number. Which is it??? Asaturn (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, Bill, please stop replying to my replies that are made to other users. If you want to contribute to a discussion on the article, please take part in the discussion on the talk page. Replying to everything I post (even when it isn't directed at you) is getting really annoying and seems like bullying/harassment at this point. You are making me feel unwelcome. Asaturn (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Being able to create an article on a subject that was locked by an admin 9 years ago?

Hello, and I hope I am in the right place with this question. I recently saw some news coverage about the news resource Benzinga [99] and I thought that I could make an article out of it. However, I noticed that some silly people ran amok 9 years ago and wound up getting the subject locked indefinitely by an admin [100]. I would ask the admin who locked the subject for help, but he has been absent from Wikipedia from more than a year, and I wondered if I could get this unlocked so I can add a new article that meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you create in draft using the WP:AFC process. GiantSnowman 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much. I will do that right now. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added the text of the previously deleted version to the draft talk page, in case any of the sources used there can be plumbed. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Providing restrictions on creating "Ghazwah Al-Hind"

I can't understand why I am being prevented from creating the page titled "Ghazwah Al-Hind". I've tried saving my edits twice, but I'm not being allowed to save my edits. The reason being shown, is that the entry of this page related to the same or close topic has already been made. I searched and found that the similar title "Ghazwa-e-Hind" is associated with the page Indian reunification. But that page politically points to the reunion of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, after 1947 partition. But "Ghazwah Al-Hind" is a hadithic prophecy uttered by the Prophet Muhammad, which indicates the victory of the Muslims in Indian subcontinent through a war. There is a considerable difference between the two, and if the article itself contains an entry of "Ghazwah Al-Hind", it is completely irrational and different. Note that Bengali, Urdu and Arabic Wikipedias also have separate articles on this topic, so why this topic has been entered in another article in English Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki N Islam (talk • contribs) 10:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wiki N Islam: all titles containing "Ghazwae Hind" or varaitions of that title were blacklisted due to years of persistent sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6 for example), and therefore can only be created by template editors or admins. If you want to create an article on this topic your best way forward would be to make it in draft space, then an admin can move it to article space when it's finished and accepted. I think that an article on this topic has already been deleted once before though: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghazwatul Hind, and went through a recent deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_June_9#Hadith_of_Ghazwa-e-Hind? You'll want to address the concerns in those discussions in any new article. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@163.1.15.238: OK, I understand. Thanks for your kind suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki N Islam (talk • contribs) 12:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Oldfart404

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 blocked Oldfart404 (talk · contribs) for having the word "fart" in their username. They have made an impassioned defence of their username as being inoffensive, and I'm minded to accept it. However, I don't want to make a precedent for "fart" in usernames being acceptable in general, just that "old fart" may be accepted as inoffensive in British English, so I thought I'd note it here. -- The Anome (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Personally I think the username is perfectly fine. I don't think the word "fart" is at all offensive (perhaps only slightly uncouth, which I don't think is an issue). Indeed, in the UK an "old fart" tends to refer to an older, out-of-touch person. As a self-label I personally think it's fine. — Czello 09:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It could be a regional difference but as an irishman, "old fart" here is equivalent to "old fogey", it's not really meant to be puerile or offensive. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the username. I'm an old fart too. -Roxy the farty dog. wooF 10:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think the username is fine. There is nothing wrong with fart.CycoMa (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) About half of the old guys I've known in my life have referred to themselves as "old farts" at some point (I am from Michigan). I've never seen anybody treat it as offensive. jp×g 10:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe we use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names to decide in such marginal cases. FWIW I also thought that "old fart" was common term for "older, out-of-touch person". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

+1 Oldfart here. Lectonar (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2021 (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.

Suspicious edits made by User:Ahmadyarpk

Can someone more technically-minded please look into the edits made by User:Ahmadyarpk? Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but it looks like he or she is editing the articles of closed colleges and universities to (a) claim that they're now open and (b) add "new" URLs for the institutional websites that are at best incomplete and confusing. Bluntly, I suspect that this editor may be involved in phishing or other nefarious activity. ElKevbo (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, need to ban this guy. Obvious scam is obvious. First off, all the websites he adds are .ORG sites, but were these legit USA sites they would be .EDU. I looked at some of the domain registries, and they are registered to PSI-USA, which despite the name is a German company notorious for use by Russian fraudsters. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked per the now-suppressed statement earlier that they were here for SEO purposes, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Hog Farm _Talk 16:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Stephensuleeman, RIP

Our colleague User:Stephensuleeman has, sadly, died (reported here: [101]); please lock their user page as specified at WP:DWG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Do I have the right?

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,

I would like to introduce this change [102]. The Algerian government via its minister officially gave an assessment of the number of deaths during the sand war, assessment that I wanted to add to the article. I had used a source of the declaration from an Algerian newspaper, reverted by User:M.Bitton [103], so I brought a source from the official Algerian press agency [104], reverted too. Is my modification legitimate or the Algerian government is not a reliable source? I am asking here for your opinion because I feel that my freedom to modify is restricted. Thanks all. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It was reverted because there is nothing "official" about history and as I said to you in the edit summary, that infobox was discussed on the talk page that I invited you to read and that you chose to ignore.

 Note: Now that you brought this to ANI, I would like the admins to have a look at your editing history (which speaks for itself), also noting that you do this every time you get a longish block on fr.wp. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid making judgments too quickly this is not the first time today and I am starting to get seriously annoyed.

The last message on the talk page dates from 2018. [105]

The articles are from August 2021. [106]

Nothing official? What could be more official than the Algerian government to give these data?

I think there is a serious problem, on each article that I intervene in months apart, you go behind by reverting for wrong reasons[107], and after you end up accepting by changing the location according to your own criteria [108], do you have a special status on Wikipedia or is it a personal approach?

You cancel a modification then you have to insist that you leave it while its author is a specialist but only where you want to put it.

When I intervene to explain that the sentence does not conform to the source, you revert, I initiate a debate, you answer me with a personal attack, without answering the subject. [109]

It is very problematic, there is a certain aggressiveness which will not help anything, I try to stay calm personally but I feel the impression that you are forcing yourself to control certain articles by using wikipedia to block certain modifications which seem particularly to bother you. Are you a super user?

You talk a lot about wiki fr, I've never seen you there yet it's strange, I wonder if you have another nickname on wiki fr?

Thanks. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you ignored what it says right at the top of this page, including the part in red, is telling. You can say that again: there is a massive problem with your edits and your cross wiki nationalist POV pushing. The reliable sources cannot be trumped by a what is said in a newspaper in a middle of verbal war of two countries with no diplomatic ties. The previous discussion where you made all kind of baseless statements before abandoning it is there (I'd have to be crazy to entertain, yet again, another time wasting exercises of yours). I watch fr.wiki for a laugh, but most important of all, to make sure that those who turned some of its articles into a cesspit won't be able to do the same thing here. Think what you want. M.Bitton (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That's what I thought, you are trying to explain your revert through personal interpretations. So, you judge what is right or wrong ?

There is a real problem, we are absolutely no longer in the spirit of Wikipedia and it is very dangerous for the neutrality of the articles.

You are confirming that you have withdrawn official and sourced information on the basis of personal interpretations.

I think there is a serious problem with WP: NPOV.

For information, the request was not against you, I wanted to know if my approach was correct, and if not, how could it be solved.

If it was against you, from the start I would have mentioned the problems with the article pastilla, namely the non-respect of the Bouhlila source and your reaction to my opening a talk page dialogue.

However, your scandalous personal attacks are intolerable and suggest that the problem is deeper. Disagreements cannot justify disrespect. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@SegoviaKazar To answer your question, the Algerian government is a primary source, and it is not an independent source with regard to a conflict it is involved in. Unless that information is independently published elsewhere, it's best not to include it. WMSR (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2021 (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:KingdomHearts25‎ possible compromised account

Hello. I came across User:KingdomHearts25 while looking through Category:All orphaned articles. I came across Revengers Tragedy (song) which I suspected was a hoax, so I sent it to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revengers Tragedy (song). As I suspected this was a hoax, I thought it would be a good idea to see if this user has made any more hoaxes. However, I noticed the current revision of their userpage looks like to be spam text. This user has been posting what looks like spam on their userpage since October 2020, including today (November 8th). Leading up to October 2020, this user had been making edits that look constructive. However, from October 2020 onwards, the only edits are the spam text to this userpage. Therefore, I think this user account is possibly compromised. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Revengers Tragedy is not a hoax, please check it out before commenting . And yes, I have been using my userpage to make notes relating to creative projects I am involved as I like timestamps on what I add and Apple Notes, for instance, does not allow me to do so. Too busy to regularly edit Wikipedia, so not making too many "constructive" edits at the moment. My current IP, which I can always prove to anyone at any point, will match up with the user location (city, state) previously present on my userpage and I am always up for any possible tests that you may have to prove my authenticity, such as knowledge on articles majorly edited by me in the past (eg. Backstreet Boys discography). Cheers. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@KingdomHearts25: Wikipedia is not a free web host. You cannot use your user page as a notepad unrelated to the project's goals. – Joe (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It may not be a hoax, but the article appears to be inaccurate, so we end up at the same place. The article Revengers Tragedy (album) already exists for the album, and there doesn't appear to be a song of the same name. So this can be safely deleted. Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Help me attack

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.

---

Kyivstar vandal again putting up a vandal photo. Please remove the photo, also from the commons, and block this range. thanks --Jphwra (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

For reference to admins, I believe Jphwra is talking about User:Кепреч's edit here. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 12:45, 9 November 2021 (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:Egaftrawefewg

Hi. I would like to highlight the editions of User:Egaftrawefewg. In this edition [110], [111] and again [112] he posted a fake photo [113]. And He did the same in the article List of tallest buildings in PolandTokyotown8 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tokyotown8, this is not the right venue for this. Please take this to WP:ANI and notify the user you're reporting on their talk page. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 19:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed this happening. Wasn't sure if it was malicious or just some kind of incompetence. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie's disruptive editing

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 Echo1Charlie is engaged in disruptive editing and edit-war with multiple editors on multiple pages while giving misunderstood policies as rationale for reversion and large-scale content removal (see 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). The editor also questions reputable RS just because it comes from a certain country (see 1 & 2). The user doesn't understand what WP:PRIMARY means (see 1, 2 & 3) or what WP:LONGQUOTE means (see 1 & 2). Calls a print magazine a WP:SPS (see 1 & 2). The user has already been warned for such behavior. Tagging @Satrar and Samee: for more input. --119.157.254.153 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems more like an ANI matter rather than AN, so I'd suggest taking it there (and don't forget to notify the user you're reporting on their talk page). Cheers. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 17:10, 9 November 2021 (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:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia

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.

---

We have this Warsaw camp hoax edit-warring ongoing again. Last time I blocked the users, and got multiple suggestions of an immediate desysop, had a medical emergency which took me weeks to recover, and who cares that ArbCom fully agreed with me. I am not going to take any action again here, but we need an admin to stop it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you note that this user [114] should not have been editing that article at all due to the 500/30 restrictions Ymblanter?[115] I hope you are not questioning the enforcement of the ArbCom restrictions now. Do you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I noted that you reverted a long-term user in good standing, who is perfectly entitled to edit the article. It is also not difficult to look at the edit history of the article and see very clearly that there is no consensus for removal of this material. Just somebody, based on the previous experience, is sure they are not going to be blocked for edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And that “user in good standing” (sic) was tag teaming/edit warring together with a red linked account that doesn’t meet the 500/30 restriction imposed on this topic by ArbCom. JFC. We JUST went through the whole Esoterix/Icewhiz sock thing like a couple weeks ago. Yet here we are back again with some users or red linked accounts trying to “protect” Icewhiz’s “legacy” on Wikipedia, and here we are again with some admins bending over to enable them. Maybe the reason this keeps happening is because there’s absolutely NO CONSENSUS for inclusion of this piece of trolling by Icewhiz in the list and the only reason it keeps coming back is because Icewhiz’s old buddies from the ArbCom case days keep restoring it despite consensus and trigger happy admins protect them. Volunteer Marek 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the edit summary[116] the edit warring editor in good standing wasn’t aware of the fact that the editor in question wasn’t permitted to update that subject. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Then you would have to discuss with her before reverting. It is still edit-warring, exagerrating by tag-teaming. Exactly as last time. Precisely the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And if what you are doing there is not tag-teaming then I do not know what is tag-teaming.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What? @Ymblanter - Perhaps I should have insisted on apologies back then. (do you know what I’m talking about or you want a diff?) I learned my lesson now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We're talking about an essay page? An administrator is needed to stop experienced editors from fighting over the content of an essay? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Please stop; consider gaining consensus for inclusion, as you'd do with WP:ONUS for articles." Done? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree - Breaking news! What a surprise! brand new account arrives to revert to Icewhiz’s version -->[117] So what are we going to do about this account popping up and breaking 500/30 restriction? @Ymblanter? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Why, of all administratiors, are you asking ME? You perfectly know that I can not do anything related to this page now without being dragged to ArbCom, and being dragged to ArbCom is not my first priority.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Because you brought this here. I’m going to enforce ArbCom remedy that can be seen here -->[118] and reads:

All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring

@Ymblanter if you have anything against me enforcing that remedy say it now please - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A dozen of users in good standing repeatedly restored the piece, because, well, there is no consensus to remove it to start with. However, the piece is currently not in the article, and we need a protection so that at least if it gets restored it gets restored by an editor in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella that language is no longer in effect. The current language is The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. I have no comment at this time about the dispute but felt it important to note the current language. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wouldn't we get rid of these problems if the page in question was simply deleted? What purpose does it serve (any yes, I've read the 2015 deletion discussion and find the reasons for keeping far from persuasive)? I really can't be bothered with nominating it for deletion myself, but would support anyone else who did so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is always an option, indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Page fully protected for two weeks after further reverts; possible responses to this action are finding something else to do or participating in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Can someone close this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (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 with 348k+ edits blocked for copyvio

I have indefinitely partially blocked User:Werldwayd, who has over 348,000+ edits and 290,000+ edits to mainspace for copyright violations; they were legitimately warned 13 times since 2009 before I blocked them today; more background can be seen at User talk:Werldwayd#Blocked. I've opened an investigation into their edits at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Werldwayd, which hasn't been filled out with their edits yet- when it is, I would appreciate it if others could help sort through the mountain of edits. Given my previous posting here on the matter of dealing with copyright violations, and the extent of them in this case, I am posting this here so the communities eyes are on it. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest starting with their ~1,000 most edited pages, which account for ~89,000 of those edits. BD2412 T 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sheesh. I mean I agree with the block but still, sheesh. One of the project's most prolific editors and yes, you're quite right, a lot of copyright violations in their edits. Canterbury Tail talk 22:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, Moneytrees. CCI is a depressing place when you look at the backlog, and even after going through a fair few articles in two cases, I'd barely made a dent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not to diminish the problem, but Wikipedia falls within the DMCA safe harbor (in the U.S., at least), so the project faces no immediate legal jeopardy over copyvios. BD2412 T 16:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Does a remediation page of some form make sense? Yesterday, there was a similar issue with pages created by an SPI OlympicSport being deleted en-masse. Though that one was not copyvio. I was thinking, if we draftify these pages and then have a central repository / page of all articles that have been draftified, categorized by some logical buckets -- editors who might be interested can work on repairing the articles and bring them back to the mainspace? I have seen some projects have a 'required articles' section, I envision this remediation page being no different. Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If there are pages that were created by User:Werldwayd that were not heavily edited by others that would make sense for those pages. BD2412 T 16:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ktin What would probably be most effective if a project-wide drive like Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, which successfully completed the then largest CCI ever within a few days short of a year. I could get to making a page for WerldWayd, but won't be able to for at least another month (too much real life work). Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct. This is what I was looking for, but, rather than a page just for Blofeld or for Weldwayd or for OlympicSport, I was thinking of a page where we have all articles that have been moved to some sort of a bin (e.g. Draft) and is looking for volunteers to examine and move back to mainspace. This has to be driven almost as a project by itself. Ktin (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

There is a content dispute concerning Mass killings under communist regimes that I am trying to mediate at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Many of the regimes in question were or are in Eastern Europe as normally defined, and the article talk page carries a note that it is subject to Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. Some of the principals have already received notice of discretionary sanctions. Some of the principals and I are in agreement that the dispute may take longer than two or three weeks to resolve. I am trying to focus on content and to figure out how to let the community decide on the structure of the article in accordance with neutral point of view and reliable sources.

Another editor brought to my attention that they were canvassed by one of the principals. I don't know what the purpose of drawing additional editors into the dispute is, because it will either be resolved by one or more RFCs, or it will not be resolved in spite of one or more RFCs, but I have already said that I do not intend to conduct a mass discussion, and I will abandon the DRN if necessary. That won't help the editors, because that will almost certainly end up either at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement, which will probably sanction some of the editors and let the survivors finish working on the contentious article.

I am only requesting two or four admin eyes on the case, and no action at this time, because I think that the community would prefer a resolution that doesn't involve mass banning of editors due to a dispute over communism. I am about to post another moderator statement to try to make some slow progress. Thank you for any attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

An editor who has been discussing the article on its talk page has said that maybe it should be nominated for deletion. First, I understand and have stated at DRN that an AFD takes precedence over all other content dispute resolution vehicles, so if it is nominated for deletion, I will put the DRN on hold. Second, if it is nominated for deletion, I expect that the AFD will also be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I can only say, Robert, that you are very brave to take this on. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I added the article and talk page to my watchlist, and I've been keeping tabs on the discussion. @Robert McClenon: feel free to report any issues you see on my talk. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears that they are going to argue at length about how to do the arguing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

High Guardian Spice

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.

---

There's quite a bit of debate over what constitutes a reliable source for post-release reviews of the show. It's possible Historyday01 wants to keep the reviews skewed positive by discrediting sources that review it poorly. It's also possible that they are right about what constitutes a reliable source for reviews of content. They definitely have a potential motive to want to keep the reviews positive, so I think, at this point, it would be a good idea for an admin to take a look at the sources cited, previously and currently, and clarify what a reliable source of reviews is to prevent any potential warring. Lobuttomize (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lobuttomize, Historyday01's removal of a "Know Your Meme" citation appears to be fine, as there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus that it is a generally unreliable source (WP:KNOWYOURMEME, red table entry). Eidako's citation of a self-published source is problematic; I have reverted it and informed the user about the problem. If there is general doubt about the reliability of a citation, you may like to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. If there is edit warring after a warning, a report can be created at the edit-warring noticeboard. To not let the situation get to this point, Wikipedia offers the following advice:

• WP:Dispute resolution

Creating a thread at the Administrators' Noticeboard is a final step if everything fails. Your question and my answer are probably more suitable for the Teahouse, where editors can ask all kinds of questions including how to deal with a specific situation. I thus recommend that someone closes this section.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• If you are not sure if a source is "reliable" or not, go to WP:RSN and use the search feature for the domain name. If there has been a discussion on it, it will show up in the results. That is always a good first step, for if it has had discussion and the outcome was clear, you question is answered. You can always start a new discussion if you have a domain you aren't sure about. But ToBeFree sums it up, this is the last resort. We do NOT decide content at WP:AN, we deal with problems and right now, you can deal with your own problem. If there ever is a behavioral problem, the correct board is actually WP:ANI not WP:AN, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Lobuttomize, Sigh. I have said time and again, that I am willing to cite negative reliable sources and reviews, it is just that I have not come across such reviews. The sites which have been cited for negative reviews have been from unreliable sources from what I can tell, up to this point. That's my only comment on this matter. I have no vested interest in keeping reviews positive, I only want to page to be neutral and use the best sources available, which are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's guidelines. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2021 (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.

Entry includes offensive language

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 “etymology” section in the state of Vermont page includes offensive language. Can you please review it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.204.178 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Handled. IP warned. Buffs (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2021 (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.

Y'all, immediate block

...for User:GFYCAT XXD, and revdeletion, etc. And maybe add those images to the blacklist. 207.229.101.47 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ohnoitsjamie, thanks. It's another instance of Boofjjg . 207.229.101.47 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Mobile editor trouble

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 major problem at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board is occurring. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2021 (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.

Giovanni van Bronckhorst

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.

---

An admin really needs to protect this page immediately its getting beyond a joke over there! PP was requested 2 hours ago but the vandalism is getting more and more! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tommi1986, page protected by User:Barkeep49. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:52, 11 November 2021 (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.

Nur-Sultan Astana

The move of the article a year ago, when the city was renamed after the longtime dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, should have never taken place, as English Media and other sources always used and still continue to use the name Astana more commonly. As it was proven on the article's talk page by this source as well as a Google Trends reference:

An exclusionary search using Google Scholar by year (as of 10 Oct 2021)
Date range	Both A and N-S	Astana only	Nur-Sultan only	% both	% A only	% N-S only
2020	1,760	6,450	3,800	14.7%	53.7%	31.6%
2021	1,070	3,590	2,810	14.3%	48.1%	37.6%

WP:COMMONNAME Was applied in similar situations with renamings, which took place in India, like Prayagraj or Ayodhya (district) in the past years, where the articles were NOT renamed because English sources still use the old names, but it is not applied with Nur-Sultan.

Numerous attempts were made to correct the wrong on the talk page, but noone ever provided a source that Nur-Sultan Was the common name and noone corrected the mistake and moved the name back to Astana.

Can someone pls help correcting it?

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You would need to open a RM at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

He actually did, twice, followed by a move review I'm about to close. At this point, he should be blocked for disruption and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. No such user (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME + WP:NAMECHANGES both support my argumentation, that the article shoulda never been renamed as „Nursultan“. Common name, it's clear why, Nursultan never was the common name and Namechanges, because of:

„If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Topic-ban proposal

Recently, Tecumseh*1301 has opened:

• Talk:Nur-Sultan#RFC - Requested revert to Astana (4 october, procedurally closed)
• Talk:Nur-Sultan#Requested move 8 October 2021 (speedy-closed as disruptive)
• Talk:Nur-Sultan#Requested move 9 October 2021 (closed as no move)
• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November#Nur-Sultan (3 November, unanimously endorsed)
• [119] 8 November, Badgered DerHexer,
• [120] 8 November, Badgered AxelBoldt,
• [121] 10 November Badgered Toddy1 on the issue, who politely explained him the situation for the tenth time.
• Opened this AN, despite being told numerous times that the evidence they present was skewed and insufficient (as even a casual look at his above searches could confirm -- "Astana" is a common surname and a word in Indonesian language.)

I'd say that enough is enough, and propose topic ban of Tecumseh*1301 from the topic of Nur-Sultan/Astana, broadly construed. No such user (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on the comments below, I would support a ban from all discussions related to article moves.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Tecumseh*1301's other fixation is wanting to moving the article on Allahabad to "Prayagraj".^English. And he has done this on many languages, for example: Azerbaijani, Hebrew ^{(wanting אללהאבאד changed to פראיאגראי)}, Latvian, Russian ^{(wanting Аллахабад changed to Праяградж)}, Scots – see his global contributions. An argument he/she used in English Wikipedia in the most recent Allahabad/Prayagraj move discussion was that since Astana was moved to Nur-Sultan, Allahabad should be moved to Prayagraj. After the failure of the last attempt to move Allahabad (which also had a move review), he/she then launched the Nur-Sultan/Astana RM. I tried to explain to him how to do evidence – see User talk:Tecumseh*1301#How to do evidence in Wikipedia move discussions, but I do not think he/she really understands. I do not think he/she is good at reading and writing English. Also difficult stuff, like doing research and weighing evidence in English, seems too difficult for him/her.

I do not think topic banning him/her from Nur-Sultan/Astana will address the real problem, which is that he/she desperately wants to move Allahabad to Prayagraj, and having failed on English-language Wikipedia he/she wanted to try a WP:RM on another city and picked Nur-Sultan/Astana. He/she is trying to get Drvengrad changed to Küstendorf on Spanish and Swedish Wikipedias and on Wikidata.^{Global contributions 6 Nov 2021} A better approach would be to topic ban him/her from trying to change the names of places. I have no idea whether you would be able to explain such a topic ban to him/her such that he/she understood.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Toddy1 here. The disruptive behaviour seems to expand much further beyond Nur-Sultan/Astana and the common part of all the disruption is Tecumseh*1301's attempts to change place names. A topic ban from initiating RMs/Move Reviews about place names would be a more helpful solution in my opinion. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 13:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I concur that the Nur-Sultan related disruptions are the direct follow-up of their opinions about a place-name in India -- a topic which should fall under India-Pakistan-Afghanistan discretionary sanctions. As a result, I don't think a topic-ban will suffice. Either they can stop disruption now, or they can get a full block. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • To a certain extent, there are enough objections to Wikipedia article-name changes specifically for places in India that those tend to take longer than article-name changes of places in other countries. I'm not saying it's good or bad or right or wrong, it simply is. At Talk:Nur-Sultan, there was an argument for titling the article Nur-Sultan: newspapers, etc. generally use Nur-Sultan. Also, the existence of organizations such as the Astana Cycling Team that still use the old name is not considered a reason to not move the city article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• This user also badgered myself [122], SmokeyJoe [123], and Alaich Emis [124] about the Nur-Sultan matter, and shows no signs of dropping the stick. I agree that the problem centers less on this particular city and more on moves in general, and I would support, at minimum, a topic ban from the page moving process (inc. RMs and MRs), broadly construed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• There are WP:COMMONNAME guidelines right? So, what gives anyone the right to not Stick to the guidelines? Noone ever has provided a source, that Nur-Sultan was the common Name. It is as simple as this. So why is noone moving the article back to it's original Name? Everybody is discussing anything, but not the core of this discussion, what is going on here?

I have stopped the Allahabad/Prayagraj move attempt as soon as being presented with evidence, that Allahabad still is being used more frequently in English sources. Before that, I thought other arguments also play a role, because I knew of Ukrainian cities and Astana being renamed, I thought this would apply to Prayagraj as well. But this is not the case. To me, it is crazy. Sometimes the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines are applied, other times they are not. But the real strange behaviour is, when I ask if anyone can Provide a source, that shows, that Nur-Sultan Was the common Name, suddenly noone replies. I have lived in the USA a long time, I surely understand English very well User:Toddy1, thanks for suggesting, that I didnt. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe some time in the future another discussion on the article's name will be had and there will be consensus to move. At this time, the normal venues have been exhausted with no consensus and there needs to be a period of calm. There is usually no "trump card" argument on Wikipedia (only if one side points to something critically important like a BLP violation; from the policy viewpoint, nothing is critically important in this naming dispute, regardless of how strongly someone feels about the issue). You may very well be right, but there wasn't enough interest in the discussion and the move initiative did not garner sufficient support. It can be very hard to move pages sometimes. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Language barriers and bias in WP:BEFORE

I've noticed a lot of articles on Non-English (mainly Asian) films getting put up for PROD and AFD by good-faith users, but its not rare for many of these to turn out to indeed be notable when a user who is able to speak the language and read its script comes along and takes time our of their day to provide sources. It seems to me a somewhat problematic to delete articles on foreign language subjects when its very possible none in the discussion is actually able to do a throughout BEFORE check on the subject. I don't know if there is any way to try to remedy this issue, but I thought it might be worth bringing up.★Trekker (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is a collection of suggestions, not some kind of holy text. If an article is unsourced and nobody has bothered to provide a source, deletion is a perfectly legitimate outcome. ("If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion" if you want the actual policy.) If someone subsequently finds multiple independent reliable sources, we can always either re-create or undelete the page in question. ‑ Iridescent 06:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Iridescent's reply may be sufficient but I do wonder if it is possible for a Group or other collaboration of some kind to work on such articles? Munci (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I never said it was a holy text. Its still a problem that preventable deletions happen disproportionately to non-English subjects.★Trekker (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a discussion that would be better suited to the village pump, it's not really an administrative issue. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the result of systematic bias. An inescapable reality, really. ✗plicit 13:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

it’s not systematic bias. The solution is for editors to source their articles properly. On en.wiki editors have to use their best efforts to determine notability regardless of the languages sources are in. Well sourced articles don’t tend to get deleted. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing definitely is an issue. Well-meaning and sometimes not so well-meaning editors often source foreign films and actors (plenty of English-based too) to press releases, imdb, instagram, facebook, etc. So the first impression is poor sourcing. With english based, it's relatively easy to abide by WP:Before and find something reputable, but the odds go down dramatically in foreign languages. AfD may be the best chance at having another editor find those sources. Slywriter (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I always thought it was strange that I can create an unverified article and other people are required to search for sourcing first before they can delete it. Seems backwards. Levivich 17:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree! - Donald Albury 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

+1 Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It's almost like some of us are here to build an encyclopaedia. But other people have their own motivations, I guess. WilyD 00:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Eric Zemmour talk page: Abnormal and biased closure

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 think the closure of this chapter is abnormal for several reasons:
1/ Discussions continued, with several new opinions, by new contributors also such as Guarapiranga, and new issues raised in recent days.
2/ The reason given for the closure, a "consensus on ..." is twice incorrect:

2.1 On the one hand, this RfC was intended to gather comments on the qualification of Zemmour, NOT on the alternative use of the qualification far right versus right wing

2.2 On the other hand, the initiator of the RfC was himself in favour of a double qualification, and I agreed with this opinion. So if there is consensus it is on this point, NOT on the withdrawal of the right wing qualification

3/ But above all, the withdrawal of the qualification is contrary on the one hand to the sources, and therefore to WP:BALANCE, and on the other hand and especially to WP:NPOV.
4/ And the last comment I made, here, [[125]] which has never been answered, addressed the subject.
The question, which was thus introduced in this RfC, with the conclusion drawn by this closure which rules "ultra petita", with a closing summary more inaccurate and incomplete, constitute a diversion of procedures, so as not to apply the fundamental rules of Wikipedia on the neutrality of point of view.
Dual qualification should therefore be maintained in the lead.
--Emigré55 (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Emigré55: Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, you are supposed to reach out to the closing editor before going to WP:AN. ––Formal ^talk 10:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Apologies if I did something wrong. I simply followed advice I got from JBchrch in a previous discussion, here, [[126]].

Maybe I got it wrong, but never intended to do wrong of course.

I propose to resolve the issue in a friendly manner, so that to promptly close then the thread at ANI. --Emigré55 (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Emigré55: Very well.

1. It sounds like you're saying I closed the RfC too early as there was still some comments coming in. I believe it had more than enough thorough discussion that had reached a definite conclusion at the time of my close. This was primarily evidenced by a general agreement amongst a majority of editors that preferred to include "far-right."

2.1 The dispute may have started off on just whether or not to include "far-right", but that question is immediately relevant to whether or not to also include "right-wing", and as such, much of the discussion the RfC received was about just that. Several editors voiced their opinions that "right-wing" should not be included and "far-right" should.

2.2 You and the RfC nominator alone do make the consensuses on Wikipedia. The nominator specifically does not have any special weight. There was a lot more discussion from other experienced editors just like yourselves, and I evaluated that in addition to your two's comments.

3. "Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself."

4. My close was not ultra petita, it was well within the scope of the discourse that occurred. There was no diversion of closing procedures, and all Wikipedia policies, especially neutral point of view, were considered in the weight of the arguments made. ––Formal ^talk 10:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Emigré55 and FormalDude: My apologies to both of you for forgetting that step in my advice. JBchrch talk 19:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse, there had been more than sufficient discussion to allow a consensus to emerge and that consensus was crystal clear.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Addendum: RfCs normally last 30 days but there's no rule which says they must.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Imho, you forget WP:OTHERCONTENT, which also states that "When an editor introduces new information to Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether the inclusion and organization of such material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view(...) ".

Hence, pretending there is a consensus towards eliminating the other qualifications used by other numerous media, as duly cited in refs, would clearly go over this rule and would be a crystal clear breach of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE.

Consensus not here, and not to be used to circumvent rules, and in particular NPOV. --Emigré55 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In my view, editors did consider those policies. I think the consensus was that "far right" is the correct, NPOV, description for Monsieur Zammour according to the reliable sources, and that it would breach NPOV not to describe him as far right.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "editors did consider those policies": I is not possible, as WP:OTHERCONTENT comment was introduced 10 days after the thread was open, way after all comments, and there was only one comment after it (on the fact that "far right" is a loaded term) before the thread was abruptly closed on November 4th;
• "it would breach NPOV not to describe him as far right": it was never discussed "NOT" to describe him as far right. But in as much as not "to describe him as far right would be NPOV", you then cannot deny that it would breach NPOV not to describe him as "right wing", or other many qualificatives used by numerous sources which do not call him far right (precisely because the term is loaded, and all the more since there are numerous sources, as mentioned, which do not call him far right).--Emigré55 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• OTHERCONTENT is part of an essay, not a policy. NPOV/BALANCE is policy, and I agree with S Marshall that the participating editors did take those into account. In addition, of course it is possible to adhere to a policy, guideline, or essay in a discussion, even if it has not been mentioned explicitly – saying that it isn't possible for editors to have considered OTHERCONTENT until it was explicitly mentioned is a fallacy. Besides, you made that comment on 31 October, and the RfC was closed on 4 November. --bonadea contributions talk 10:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from the RFC nominator: I consider this to have gone on more than long enough. I hereby detail the process which led to the RFC (and its two sister RFCs) in the first place: 1° I added sourced information copied and translated from the French version of the article. (in September) 2° This was partly reverted and partly modified. 3° I realised this (in October) so began discussing it on the subject talk page. 4° The talk page discussion did not lead to a clear enough consensus so I brought it to RFC 5° The initial RFC was considered insufficiently specific so I closed it and opened three others for three specific issues, of which this is the second. 6° And now we’re here. By the way, the first sister RFC is still active while the third has just been replaced with a reworded version. Munci (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is rightly pointed out in the above summary that, despite the (many) different RFCs or discussions at the said talk page, "4° The talk page discussion did not lead to a clear enough consensus". The closed thread did not either. Trying to imply answers to others questions raised after discussions was closed is "ultra petita" or NPOV. So status quo: stil no clear consensus, notwithstanding the fact that consensus cannot go against rules, in any case (such as WP:OTHERCONTENT). --Emigré55 (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Emigré55: There is a clear consensus to use only "far-right", and it doesn't go against any rules, certainly not WP:NPOV. ––Formal ^talk 09:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude:Your conclusion is erroneous, when you use the term "only", which was btw neither in the question, nor in the debates or comments, hence also "ultra petita"; Plus, ONLY calling him so goes clearly against WP:BALANCE (as duly sourced), hence against WP:NPOV.--Emigré55 (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you want me to name and quote each person that argued for only "far-right" specifically? ––Formal ^talk 10:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Good close which agreed with the consensus, which was very clear. Emigré55, your behaiour is approaching WP:BLUDGEONing. --bonadea contributions talk 10:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Blocking the /42 range

2607:FEA8:6940:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

I would welcome quick confirmation whether or not I've done right thing today (see here).

Background: Over the last 6 months I have had a blocked registered user repeatedly evading that block by IPv6 editing. Despite my blocking of numerous addresses on the /64 range, they keep coming back to edit. So, using this tool I determined that a /42 rangeblock was the most effective way to deal with this. I can see no collateral damage (as there would have been had I blocked on other ranges). But as I've never gone outside the /64 range, and am still rather new to range block matters, I'd welcome some oversight of my actions. I did try to support this editor, as deleted talk page posts will show, but have become frustrated by their constant attempts to evade their original block. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I've found the MediaWiki documentation very helpful especially the table showing how many addresses are in a range. I don't make range blocks that often, but /42 seems large. It's the size of an organization-level allocation, and if we treat a /64 as a person, it covers about 4 million people. If the only edits coming from that range are disruption, I don't think there's major harm, but you might want to consider multiple, smaller range blocks next time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would not assume that it covers 4 million people. It covers 4 million /64 ranges, yes, but with about 2 billion /64 ranges for every human being on Earth, there's no reason to think that every /64 has a person behind it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes Thanks for your comments. I did actually start from that page before I blocked - hence my concern, as I was aware of the logarithmic increase in addresses affected. I have just gone back again and looked once more at every possible set of Special:Contributions between /64 and /42, and the only other one that comes close to catching most of this person's IPv6 edits, with virtually no collateral damage is a /48 rangeblock, but many are still missed with that. Rangeblocks above /42 seem to be ineffective in catching them all - so I'd still welcome guidance as to which would be the next best rangeblock to apply to this editor's myriad of dynamically assigned addresses if /64 isn't doing the job, and I seem to be constantly firefighting and revert multiple edits from yet another set of /64 address. I should stress that I am only too happy to have a more experienced admin remove the rangeblock if they feel I've overstepped what was appropriate or acceptable, especially as I set a longer than normal expiration time for that block. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good enough reason. You shouldn't have to play whack-a-mole across such a wide range, and given Suffusion of Yellow's comment, I'm less worried about unexpected collateral damage. The /42 struck me as big at first, but sometimes that's what's needed. Seems like this is one of those times since smaller ranges wouldn't be effective. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've been playing with Johnuniq's rather useful-looking rangeblock calculator at Template:IP range calculator, and think a /48 block plus a few extra /64's might have been better than the /42 to stop them coming back and trying to edit again. But I am rather learning on the fly here! See IP calculator below. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

/42 isn't that wide – /32 rangeblocks (that's 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 IPv6 addresses or 4 billion /64s) happen fairly regularly; heck, I've blocked /29s (34 billion /64s) belonging to webhost providers before. IPv6 address space is rather cheap compared to IPv4, so people can afford to own far more than they actually assign. I tend to not think about mathematical IP count too much when I make rangeblocks because assignment patterns vary so widely – I think "number of discernible individual logged-out users/amount of total logged-out activity" is often the more useful metric. To make an example, there are /24s (and probably even individual IPs) in Asia that have more active IP editors on them than the entire /16 that I am editing from (because a) different ISPs cram varying numbers of users onto their ranges and b) our editor base isn't evenly distributed), so even though the IP count may be 256 times larger on my range, the amount of collateral won't scale with that. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a good rangeblock. All or most of Ontario who uses Rogers is on this giant 2607:FEA8::/32 range. Their geolocation is good; for many ISPs globally it's hit-and-miss. It looks like communities (which is more apparent for smaller ones, that is not something like Toronto or Ottawa) appear to be on /42 subranges. So, for example, you blocked Barrie, Ontario on 2607:FEA8:6940::/42. Innisfil, Ontario is the next range down from Barrie at 2607:fea8:6900::/42. Cambridge, Ontario seems to have a /41 range at 2607:fea8:6000::/41, but note that it's equal to two /42s back-to-back. There will be some collateral damage from this block (there are some legitimate users on the range), but as it's anon-only the effects should be minimal. There may be more Rogers ranges for Barrie other than this /42, but as far proximal IP addresses outside of this /42, they are almost certainly not who you're trying to block. Maxim_(talk) 14:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs@Maxim This is good to hear - thank you. I was half-expecting a "blithering idiot!" type of response from someone who properly knew what they were doing. I still thought it sensible to link back in the block explanation to the user's talk page where the block is further explained. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

IP range table for these IPv6 addresses

Sorted 5 IPv6 addresses: 2607:fea8:6940:1800:532:c9ed:eb2b:9fe1 2607:fea8:6940:da00:546e:bf26:55f6:d1bf 2607:fea8:6941:ec00:7561:dc9a:25b7:fc7c 2607:fea8:6961:9800:d9f:eb15:6e91:b739 2607:fea8:6962:b100:5a4:38f1:73c6:95b4 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 4M /64 4M /64 5 2607:fea8:6940::/42 contribs 384K /64 128K /64 3 2607:fea8:6940::/47 contribs 256K /64 2 2607:fea8:6960::/46 contribs 64K /64 65536 /64 2 2607:fea8:6940::/48 contribs 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6941:ec00::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6961:9800::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6962:b100::/64 contribs 5 /64 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6940:1800::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6940:da00::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6941:ec00::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6961:9800::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6962:b100::/64 contribs

IP blocked but never made an account?

Well I've tried to make an account this evening and its informed me my IP is blocked from doing so and that it was only done last month so how does that work?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.93.234 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lot of problems coming from the range that your IP belongs to. Try Wikipedia:Request an account if you want to create an account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Account hijack?

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 see: User talk:Dr Salvus. I don't know how to handle this, but this would appear that an IP address was blocked on an account. Someone requested a reset of their password. They still can't edit. Possible account hijacking? Can someone answer on their talk page? — Maile (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66, this is normal behaviour for IP blocks as blocked editors can only edit their talk page and send mail. Not an account hijacking in my opinion, but the IP address may have been blocked for good reason. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I left a note pointing them to WP:UTRS, which is the better way to deal with this since he may have to provide a little bit of private info (IP, etc). There isn't anything else we can do here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for telling me what it is, and thanks for replying over there.— Maile (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• IPBE granted, situation resolved. Hrmph. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:53, 13 November 2021 (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.

Continued Harassment

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.

---

Continuing the discussion from WP:NPOV noticeboard, which Asaturn started to create an unnecessary argument, Asaturn has been asked [127] to stop harassing me on my talk page but continued to repeatedly personally insult me [128][129] and spread conspiracy theories composed of original research and unsourced information (see Draft:Urnas_Abiertas). Bill Williams 11:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Bill Williams' history and talk page speaks for itself. Bill Williams has been banned and sanctioned for this sort of thing. Bill Williams blanked my article and is attempting to gaslight, badjacket, etc. I am making good edits and attempting to act in good faith and improve Wikipedia, as agreed by multiple other users. Bill Williams continues to claim I am "not citing my claims" by ignoring 8 out of 11 of them and focusing on 3. Bill Williams accused me of being a "supporter of authoritarian regimes," "defender of propaganda," as well as a "communist propagandist." Bill Williams has been stalking me all over this site for days, has doxxed my personal identity and geolocation, has been warned by other users to stop implying I'm vandalizing articles, and continues to erase my good faith contributions to Wikipedia. After I've warned him twice and provided good faith discussion, he continues to imply I'm the person breaking the rules and now is playing the victim in his own game of harassment after not getting his way. I don't know what else to do here. This has become childish. In my over 10 years on Wikipedia I have never encountered such a completely bad faith user. I have been made to feel not only unwelcome, but unsafe. I fear for my personal safety since Bill Williams seems to know where I am located and seems to be taking all of this quite personally. He is typing in all caps and seems to think I am ruining his life by contributing information to articles that challenges his own POV. This is becoming a safety issue. Asaturn (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely false. You added unsourced information into an article with your IP, which I reverted. I never once publicized your location, all I did was provide an edit difference from your IP showing an unnecessary revert, and someone in AN removed it as personal information, so never again did I send another IP of yours. Additionally, I have never called you a "supporter of authoritarian regimes," a "defender of propaganda," or a "communist propagandist," I simply stated that fact that you added unsourced, original research in a highly biased manner, AKA propaganda, in support of a communist regime that recently fabricated election results, according to every reliable source. Bill Williams 11:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

And you conveniently forget to mention the fact that I was previously blocked for violating consensus, when in this case eight[130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137] different editors were either reverted by you or reverted you in a span of two days, therefore you have no consensus backing. Also, you forgot to tell the discussion about how I asked you six different times to get off my talk page, yet you continued to spam it, and personally insulted me. Bill Williams 11:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Correction, he has been asked seven times to back off my talk page[138][139][140] and continues to argue there. Bill Williams 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Leave me alone!!!!" and then sending me another message is a bad faith argument. You aren't being harassed, I am. Leave me alone and stop vandalizing my edits. If you want to make good faith positive contributions, go for it. This isn't a forum and this isn't a soapbox. I have no problem completely avoiding you on here if you can do the same. Asaturn (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Typing in all caps" began on my side after you harassed me on my page, but had been a frequently used part of your messages on talk pages, for example Talk:2021_Nicaraguan_general_election has constant bolded, capslock, and large font text while you ranted, and you did the same on my own talk page. Bill Williams 11:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The record speaks for itself. You were warned multiple times for doxxing, falsely accusing me, and for personally insulting me multiple times — I was not. Please stop relitigating everything. Add constructive stuff to this website or move along. This is not appropriate. I feel unwelcome and unsafe. Asaturn (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

[141] I was told one single time to not post an IP address, which I did not realize was against the rules, but I do now. You are the one falsely accusing me of "doxxing you" multiple times. Bill Williams 12:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't had a chance to go into this in any depth, but I do notice that Asaturn has posted repeatedly on Bill Williams' talkpage after being asked not to. That's harassment. Stop posting there immediately, or you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC).

  This is pure insanity. This guy has literally put my personal information out there in an attempt to intimidate me after insulting me personally at least 3 times. He was warned by an admin to stop and he continued. He can't complain that I'm "harassing him" after he continues to vandalize my edits and has started at least 3 noticeboard complaints about me after I warned him and attempted to engage in good faith. This is absurd. Just look at his edit history. I have left him alone and he continues to try to mess with my good-faith additions to Wikipedia. Asaturn (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I never once intimidated you by using your personal information, I simply linked a single edit your IP made that I considered a bad edit, and my link was removed from the discussion, the end. You started two discussions (one on NPOV and one on COI) and I only started two on AN because you were repeatedly messing with myself and other users, as I have stated above. I was not warned by any admin to stop doing anything. All you have done on Wikipedia over the past few days is concern yourself with this, I was actually creating maps for articles and updating demographics etc. until you started harassing me again and made my focus shift back to this. Bill Williams 12:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Those were not regarding you alone, they were regarding the article and the current editors who were all pushing one POV. It included you, but you were not the main topic of anything I was doing until today. Asaturn (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Asaturn is about 1/2" away from an extended block for harassing, casting aspersion, and general purposes. All this claiming about your personal safety and such is grandstanding. If you really were concerned, you wouldn't be continuing to harass and edit, so get off your high horse, I don't buy it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  This guy implied I'm a secret communist agent after putting my physical location on Wikipedia. I am feeling unwelcome and unsafe, and if you're saying I'm a liar, I'm sorry you feel that way. Bill has continued to stalk and harass me on this site. My responses on his page were in good faith, and while I have become frustrated, I was trying to help him understand the entire time. If he wants to egg me on and try to make it look like I'm harassing him, he's in for a disappointment: I've figured out his game. Unlike Bill, I can easily never post to his user page and never interact with any articles he edits. Can he say the same? I genuinely hope he isn't actually deranged and doesn't show up to my house. Asaturn (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

[REDACTED - Oshwah] You live numerous states away from me. Stop accusing me of being insane. Bill Williams 12:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

So you know my age and my gender? You know where I live? But you claim you haven't doxxed me... Admins: This is what I'm talking about. This is intimidation and harassment. He'll cry now and pretend I'm falsely accusing him. Asaturn (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

[REDACTED - Oshwah] Considering that you did not make your account when you were one or two years old, basic math necessitates that you are over twice my age. And again, I clicked on your IP address when I saw you edit the article, and it showed you living far, far away from me. How is that doxxing you or intimidating you? [REDACTED - Oshwah] Bill Williams 12:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Admins: My account is 10 years old. That gives zero clue to my age. And there's no way to just guess my gender or what state I'm in. This is what I'm talking about. This guy is playing a game. Asaturn (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

[142] your account is 13 years old, and unless you were under [REDACTED - Oshwah] when you made it, you're over twice my age. This is basic math. And again, I clicked on your IP a single time when you edited the Nicaragua article, and the geolocator put you far away from me. I did nothing wrong by looking at this info... Bill Williams 12:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Adult man" is not listed anywhere on my Wikipedia profile. You have doxxed me and you are doing a really bad job of lying about it. Leave me alone on here unless you have something to say to the admins. Asaturn (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Asaturn, you make a lot of accusations without a single diff. I'm not sure how you expect admins to evaluate those accusations — just take your word for it because it "speaks for itself"? That's not how it works. See Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide, and note that Bill Williams does provide some diffs, for instance for you calling him "unhinged" here. That's a pretty nasty personal attack. I agree with Dennis that you're close to an extended block. Bishonen | tålk 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC).

  I have no idea what diff means. I said unhinged because the conversation was going in a loop where I would say "look at this (xyz)" and he would say "I already looked at (abc!)"

  So apparently I can't call him "unhinged" for seemingly coming from a parallel universe where he's responding to a different message, but he can imply that I'm some sort of evil "authoritarian defender" or "communist propagandist?" Literally painting a target on my back. As I said, I can leave him alone, I somehow doubt he will do the same. Asaturn (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know how to link to the old discussion where Bill insulted me at least 3 different times and was warned for it. He then falsely accused me of vandalism and was warned for it. I have left him alone. He came to the article I was editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Urnas_Abiertas) and started blanking it out. He is not the "victim" here. Let me know if there's a guide of how to find old noticeboard discussions and I'll be happy to link to the conversation that took place there. I have tried to avoid this guy and he seems focused on following me to any article I edit. Asaturn (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  See Bill's response above "You are an adult man over twice my age. You live numerous states away from me."

  Bill has doxxed me and knows my identity and where I live. Bill is making a veiled threat while playing victim. Asaturn (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Bill, back off. Asaturn, either provide links to your accusations, or strike them, or expect to get blocked. You have used up all the good faith I have to extend to you already. I don't want new claims, or more chatter, I want actual links to PROOF of these things you are claiming. Or you can strike them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Here you can see his insults to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive338#Repeated_Vandalism_on_2021_Nicaraguan_General_Election_Page

  On my talk page you can see he created two notices of "warnings" for this noticeboard after I asked him to stop vandalizing my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asaturn

  On his talk page you can see him continue to demand answers from me (after he allegedly wanted me to leave him alone) and me trying and somehow failing to explain to him that all of my sources were from the organization's own website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_Williams

  I may have a 10 year old account but you can tell I am not great at using the Wikipedia editing/board/talk systems. Let me know if there's a specific accusation you want backup for and I'll try my best to get it. Asaturn (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, you don't get off that easy. Stop playing games. You said he doxxed you. The other stuff is meaningless. Show us exactly where he doxxed you. You made the claim, a very serious claim, now back it up with evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Comment above on this page: "[REDACTED - Oshwah] You are an adult man over twice my age. You live numerous states away from me"

  How did he guess my gender and age and location based on my IP address as he claims? He clearly has looked up things I posted and figured out who I am.

  To say "you're a big scary man who lives a few states away [REDACTED - Oshwah]" is a sick game.

  his original doxxing was listed on the noticeboard (now archived) - user BilledMammal removed it via rev-del https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive338#Repeated_Vandalism_on_2021_Nicaraguan_General_Election_Page Asaturn (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Asaturn: I came here to tell you to show evidence for "You were warned multiple times for doxxing," I also am about to block you if you can't prove this. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  see above comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive338#Repeated_Vandalism_on_2021_Nicaraguan_General_Election_Page his doxxing was removed with rev-del so I don't even know what he said. he claims he somehow guessed my gender and age from "just my IP address" and he keeps bringing it up (see above "[REDACTED - Oshwah]. You are an adult man over twice my age. You live numerous states away from me") Asaturn (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  there are other things I can bring up that would show he has doxxed me but by sharing them I would be doxxing myself and I would prefer not to share them outside of his obscure references. these are truly the reason I am feeling like this guy knows where I live and is implying a threat to me. I would rather walk away from this site than continue to play this game. Asaturn (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Asaturn: But that isn't what was said above. Above Bill Williams said they guessed you must be an adult given the age of your account. That's a reasonable assumption. I don't think it's so reasonable for Bill Williams to assume you created your account at [REDACTED - Oshwah] or later, indeed they seem to be an example of why not but whatever that's largely an aside. As for the gender thing, it's fairly common for people to assume editors are male. It's wrong but it happens. It isn't evidence of doxing. From what I can tell the location thing seems to arise from the fact you once edited with your IP and so geolocation likely gives a likely location at least accurate to state level in most cases. Geolocating an IP is not considered doxing. That said, if you just accidentally used your IP to edit rather than used it to sock, it's generally inappropriate to comment further on the details it revealed. So Bill Williams should stop commenting on it. If it continues, it could be considered OUTING, but it's not DOXING. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I was never editing with my IP to my knowledge. Whatever the case, Bill continuing to imply he knows my age, gender, and location, is a veiled threat even if he's bluffing. It's not appropriate. Asaturn (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  But there's no implication or veiled threat. Bill Williams simply stated they as an adult man over twice their age they feel it is ridiculous for you to say you are scared of them [REDACTED - Oshwah]. I'm not sure if it's the best argument, still it's clearly not doxing or even outing and can't reasonable be called a threat. Also if you never edited with your IP, then why on earth were you complaining about Bill Williams geolocating an IP a few days ago? Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  As a point of clarification, it wasn't geolocation you complained about but 'doxing'. However FWICT, you were complaining about 'doxing' because Bill Williams linked your editing to that of an IP or at least Bill Williams clear thought that was all they did [143]. As I mentioned earlier, if you just accidently edited with an IP then Bill Williams shouldn't have linked it to you and shouldn't continue to comment on it. But while it could be outing, it's not doxing. Even in terms of outing if it happens in the middle of a dispute it's not always clear if it's an accident or some sort of sockpuppetry so I think they can be forgiven for making that mistake. Although Bill Williams does need to stop commenting on any geolocation or other details revealed even in the abstract. More to the point, if the IP wasn't even you then there isn't even an issue. And if it was you but you don't want to confirm any connection then you need to deal with this privately rather than continuing to bring it up at AN. Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Asaturn: please don't use this as an excuse not to reply to the doxing thing but why on earth are you complaining about Bill Williams falsely accusing you of vandalism when you did the exact same thing? I'm sure I saw it somewhere else (after my last reply to the AN thread) but in any case you did it right here on this page "Leave me alone and stop vandalizing my edits". Incidentally the false accusation of vandalism was wrong, but you harassing Bill Williams by continuing to post on their talk page and the false accusation of doxing are far worse. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would be happy to chat in a private secure channel with exactly what Bill has revealed about me that makes me seriously fear for my safety from him. posting it here would be doxxing myself and bringing attention to it. I emailed the safety team directly. Bill is playing a game and it is really gross. I have never once intentionally vandalized any articles on here. the one time I allegedly "blanked" an article it was because I re-arranged the content to be more orderly. I have been more than happy to engage in discussion, as you can see on the talk page of the 2021 Nicaragua General election article (which has almost no replies to my good-faith attempts at discussion!) Bill is obviously politically motivated and feels that he "owns" the Nicaragua article along with a few other editors. this is bad for Wikipedia. Asaturn (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  also is it not vandalism to completely blank an article (or the majority of one) for no reason other than you don't like it? that's what Bill did to my article on Urnas Abiertas. He inserted a bunch of citations that had nothing to do with the article and removed 2 of the 3 paragraphs which had far more inciteful information simply because he didn't like them. He claimed they were "bad sources" but they were literally the official website of the organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Urnas_Abiertas&diff=prev&oldid=1055019574&diffmode=source Asaturn (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  No it's not vandalism anymore than you removing stuff from the Nicaraguan election article because you didn't like the sources was vandalism. (While we don't deal with content issues here, I'd note that official websites should be used sparingly if at all as sources for writing about the organisation.) And again Bill Williams was wrong to accuse you of vandalism but you also false accused them of vandalism. So pot kettle black and all that, stop complaining about it. And likewise, whatever Bill Williams allegedly did wrong, it was completely inappropriate for you to harass them by posting on their talk page when asked to stop. Finally, if you are unwilling to provide evidence of doxing here, then you can privately email arbcom but you need to withdraw your accusations here as they are without evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  At this point I don't care. I have wasted so much time on this website trying to make good contributions only to be accused of "vandalism" and be tacitly doxxed and threatened [REDACTED - Oshwah] who somehow knows quite a bit about politics and even abortion.

  I never "removed stuff from the Nicaraguan election article because I didn't like the sources," I added information from the existing citations and moved content and Bill and other users removed my additions because they didn't like them because it challenged their admittedly anti-FSLN POV (who else would go on and on about conspiracy theories and "authoritarian states" etc?)

  If this is the level of quality Wikipedia wants in politics articles, I want nothing to do with it. it sounds like editing political articles is off-limits unless you are [REDACTED - Oshwah] with 5 people willing to back you up in removing anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

  as for doxxing details, I don't know what arbcom means - at wikipedia dot com? Asaturn (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I cannot seriously believe this man is allowed to accuse a [REDACTED - Oshwah] of a serious crime. I do not want to engage with him, but I cannot sit idly by as he accused me of lying about being a [REDACTED - Oshwah] and says that I am issuing veiled threats because I supposedly know everything about him. He has absolutely no evidence, besides me clicking on his IP address a single time, and me basically saying "he lives no where near me so I am no threat to him." No where near me includes millions of square miles with hundreds of millions of people. I [REDACTED - Oshwah] wasted some time two years ago editing the abortion article, I don't know how that makes me no longer [REDACTED - Oshwah], and I certainly don't know how me editing political articles to update sources and information requires the brainpower of an adult. Now he is adding to his userpage that I am a threat to his safety. I did not ever want to get involved in these extended arguments after my block years ago, yet here I am dealing with this. Bill Williams 13:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• • • • @Asaturn: if you are going to edit logged out you shouldn't be surprised when someone sees it and comments on it. It's something you need to avoid. It was correctly suppressed (so even most Admins can't see it), not rev/deleted, and User:BilledMammal certainly didn't do it, they simply removed it and suggested an Admin might deal with it. It was correct to suppress it, but as it was public for a while it isn't WP:OUTING. Ah, just noticed that you've been blocked for a week by the same Admin who suppressed you IP address. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hope you all don't mind if I crash this discussion here, but after reading through both AN discussions between these two editors, and all of the issues, warnings, and requests for evidence and other information - I had to put my foot down and say that "enough is enough". I've blocked Asaturn for seven days, and have left the user a custom notice with an explanation and some information on his/her user talk page. Any administrator is welcome to extend, shorten, remove, overturn, or modify the block that I placed if you wish to do so; you don't need to consult me for approval or input before-hand. Just message me and let me know what you changed and why is all that I ask. Sorry, but with all of the factors taken into account, if anything, this discussion was just going to go further into the wrong direction. Enough is enough... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think you did the right thing at the right time. I wouldn't have been so generous with the duration, opting for a month, but I think you were entirely reasonable here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown - I appreciate your response and the kind words. Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

There are legends, whose origins are shrouded in mist, that once Oshwah has blocked a user for 2 weeks, and protected a page for 3 weeks... El_C 08:14, 14 November 2021 (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.

school

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 everyone, 205.237.30.142 is the IP in our school. Please don't block it forever. Could you please allow students to create an account even if the IP is currently blocked? Can you modify the block setting? Joe Pig (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Joe Pig Students may create accounts at home, or can request them at WP:ACC. It is not uncommon for school computer networks to be blocked due to extensive vandalism by students. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Pig, unfortunately there was a regular pattern of people editing inappropriately. The good news is that anyone who creates an account (such as on their cell phone) can still edit even with this block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

But our IP is blocked permanently in the French Wiktionnaire, it's not a good idea. Joe Pig (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This noticeboard is only for the English Wikipedia. If you have a concern or dispute with the French Wiktionnaire, you will have to discuss it on the appropriate board at wikt:fr:. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I've already talked about this there, they understand, but they don't agree. Joe Pig (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way we can help you here with that. Sorry:( DMacks (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2021 (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.

Blocking and redvel

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.

---

Account Ruy es un idiota (talk · contribs), offensive username, threats and WP:DUCK of Dark Green Storm (talk · contribs), globally banned. Ruy (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2021 (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.

Untitled

Not related to the English Wikipedia
The following discussion has been closed by CuriousGolden. Please do not modify it.
Hak Ve Adalet Partisi sayfam sürekli şikayet ediliyor. Neden oluyor? Bu seferde değişiklik yapmam engellenmiş buna bir çözüm getirin lütfen.. BU BÖLÜMÜ KALDIRILMASINI İSTİYORUM. Parti kendini "Sağ ve sol ayrımı yapmayan, teröre bulaşmamış, bayrağını seven, cumhuriyeti seven, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devletini seven, Atatürk ilke ve inkılaplarını seven, toprağını, vatanını, ülkesini, ülküsünü ve bunların yaşattığı değerlerini seven herkesle her kesimle her kurum ve kuruluşla her partiyle kucaklaşmak, birleşmek için kurulan bir parti" olarak tanımlar. Parti 2014 Türkiye yerel seçimlerine katılmamış olup 2014 Türkiye cumhurbaşkanlığı seçimi'nde ise Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu'nu destekleyeceğini açıklamıştı. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hak ve adalet partisi (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Machine translation of the above: My Rights and Justice Party page is constantly being reported. Why is this happening? I have been prevented from making changes at this time, please provide a solution to this.. I WANT THIS SECTION TO BE REMOVED. The party states itself "with everyone who does not distinguish between right and left, who is not involved in terrorism, who loves its flag, who loves the republic, who loves the Republic of Turkey, who loves Atatürk's principles and reforms, who loves his land, homeland, country, ideal and the values ​​they keep alive, with every segment, every institution and organization, every party. defines it as "a party established to embrace and unite". The party did not participate in the 2014 Turkish local elections and announced that it would support Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu in the 2014 Turkish presidential election. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC) User has no contributions in neither English nor Turkish Wikipedias (which is presumably the venue the user is talking about). And the page they're talking about has not been edited since January 2021 in the English Wikipedia. So this is clearly the wrong place for this rant. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 19:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC) I figured, but I didn't have the time to investigate. Feel free to hat as out of scope. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Need a block 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.

---

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at the unblock request at User talk:Blkfrasure? This is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bfrasure. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, WP:BIGDADDY, the lesser-known senior branch of WP:BROTHER  :) ——Serial 15:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would you want to unblock a sock? Why isn't the sock-master himself blocked? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The other relevant discussion here is User_talk:Bfrasure#Other_accounts. Absent strong evidence to the contrary, this does seem to be a case of father and son with the same first initial, not sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sceptical of the -it's only my son- claim, but I'll leave it with you fellas. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You can never know for sure in these cases—even CU can't tell you who's behind the keyboard—but self-doxxing twice over would be a lot of effort for a lie. And not a level of effort I'd associate with the kind of person who'd create a sock with a near-identical username. (Not a fella, by the way. /lh) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The block looks like it was done in good faith, but I'm open to unblocking. My gut says this may really be father and son, due in part to how clumsy this would be a for a real sockmaster. We can always monitor them, and blocks are cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Come on, surely a couple more admins can take a peek here.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I just looked and would have supported an unblock, however, it's been done. Blkfrasure (talk · contribs) is unblocked and Bfrasure (talk · contribs) was never blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2021 (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 block requested

Requesting review of block of User talk:Ahmadyarpk, per user request. I stand by the block, based on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive338#Suspicious_edits_made_by_User:Ahmadyarpk and some now-suppressed revisions on the user's talk page and here at WP:AN I don't think I can link to due to the suppression (can't see the material now, but saw it before it was deleted - pretty sure deletion was due to addition of email addresses). But requesting review due to challenge of block by the user on their talk page. Hog Farm _Talk 15:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Something's fishy about the websites they add. They all have poor English, have several "Lorem ipsum" instances, and list phone numbers with "+1" which is not standard US English. Obvious scam websites. CBAN & possibly globally lock. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• FFS, I said a week ago to revoke TPA. He's just wasting everyone's time; as Bison says he's probably a scammer, but the one thing we know for sure is that he's done nothing but use WP for promotion since he joined. ToU violation, indef lock and load. ——Serial 16:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yanked TPA and removed email use, due to the scam concerns. Hog Farm _Talk 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Scam, scam, scam. Excellent block and removal of TPA. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• It seems to be some kind of scam, and they aren't the only account to be doing it, see also the contibutions of Universityinf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and COLORADO HEIGHTS UNIVERSITY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on one of the same university articles that Ahmadyarpk was changing, different URL but same idea. Perhaps it's some kind of Cybersquatting? Registering URL's with similar names to defunct universities to give the appearance of legitimacy to a business? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • CU delivered nothing useful: the account was operating from a huge and now-blocked range with tons of other (innocent) accounts. I found no relation to the all-caps account, FWIW. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Unban/unblock of ParillasAndrie

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 want to support to unblock the original account, ParillasAndrie after a 1 year from blocked. 49.144.33.23 (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• ... are you this user? -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Request denied. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2021 (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.

TUFS and Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

I think need implode history of this articles. 194.50.12.7 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right. Doing this.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Wallyfromdilbert

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 anyone help me, this user keeps adding a short description on film articles, and ignoring my explanations about the removal. Infobox film has an auto-generated short description, thats why I removed the short description template, that is in Wikipedia. Can anyone help me? —It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 07:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: {{Infobox film}} does add an automatically generated short description but it can be overridden by a different manually added short description. Don't remove such overrides unless the automatic description is clearly better. The automatic description is not mandatory or favored but explicitly coded to allow manual overrides. Wikipedia:Short description#By transclusion into multiple pages says: "All templates that generate a default description should include a |noreplace parameter so that the result can be overridden by a later manually inserted instance". PrimeHunter (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've also removed the short description in song articles, because the local description and the auto-generated description is almost THE SAME. the use of short description template in songs just only increase the bytes of the article, we need to cleanup some articles.—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 07:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The article has already a short description, why we need to provide another short description template to provide almost the same description? We need to use our common sense here.—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 07:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ctrlwiki: I already explained this to you at Wikipedia talk:Short description: Please do not remove accurate local short descriptions, which have been added by editors to improve upon the automated description provided by the infobox. Your edits are disruptive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

But why he also reverted my edits in other songs of Twice and Blackpink. The local and the auto-generated descriptions are almost the same, and no improvements happened. Example: the local desc:"2021 song by twice", and the auto-generated desc:"2021 song by twice", is there any improvement happened?—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 07:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: You came here to report a conflict with Wallyfromdilbert on film articles. The examples I examined had very different descriptions. For example, you removed "2015 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios" from Avengers: Age of Ultron.[144] The automatic description is "2015 American film". Your "cleanup" saved 69 bytes of a 229 kB article (0.03%). That's not a valid reason for a major difference. You have removed short descriptions from many songs. If you want to discuss one of them then link it. We shouldn't have to examine a lot of recent editst to guess it. I see you also had to be asked for a link only a day ago at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Auto-generated short description. Please try to learn from your mistakes. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

How about the songs, can I remove the local short description of some songs, because the local and auto-generated description is the same.—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 07:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: If you bring a conflict here then we have to see it before we can judge it. For starters, is it really the same description, and does the automatic description really say "2021 song by twice" with lowercase t? Lots of reports make false claims. It's always suspicious when a user wants support for a page they refuse to reveal so I examined your recent edits but didn't find a match. PLEASE POST A LINK so we can see what you talk about. I did find you removing {{Short description|2020 single by Twice}} [145] with an edit summary starting "there's already a short description". No there wasn't. {{Infobox song}} is coded to only add a short description if the infobox name is found in the lead of the article. It should probably be changed to recognize common redirects but it doesn't now so your edit summary is false since the article uses the redirect {{Infobox single}}. Based on what I have seen and your refusal to reveal which pages you discuss, I have to say that you cannot be trusted to remove short descriptions. Stop doing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me explain. Before doing anything, I'm making sure that the things I'm doing is in the rules of Wikipedia. I see an editor removing a short description template to an article of a song, so I asked him why he did it, because I know that short description is important, and he said that the infobox song can provide an auto-generated short description, so I search that article in the search box of Wikipedia, and I saw the same description, it means, there is already a short description without the shortdesc template, because of the Infobox song, and with or without the short description template, the description still the same:"2021 song by Twice", because I'm editing on mobile phone, so I can see the description. And it's actually "2021 song by Twice" not "twice". Now, what is the use of an auto-generated short description, if we do not use it? If you don't want me to do this again, you should warn the user who did the same thing. If you can't answer me if I can use the auto-generated short description, it's ok, it's not a problem. Thanks.—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 12:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: You still haven't posted a link so I haven't examined the unidentified editor. I don't know the practice if a manual and automatic short description actually are the same – unlike all those of your edits I examined. A manual description makes it easier for editors to see what is going on and possibly change it. An automatic description may disappear or change if the infobox template is edited, or just if the infobox parameters in the article are modified, or the infobox code is broken as often happens. I wouldn't remove any reasonable manual description just because an infobox is currently producing the same. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I can link 2 separate articles. This one, What Is Love? (Twice song), is a single recorded by Twice with a local short description "2021 single by Twice". Another article, Scientist (Twice song), is a new release single by twice without a short description template, but with an auto-generated short description "2021 song by Twice" (if you can't see the description, maybe you are in a desktop view), do you see the difference, no? because there is no difference. What I mean to say is, what is the purpose of the local description, if the auto-generated description is the same as the local description, did the local description improve the article of the song? Let's forget the film articles, because you'll right, but what about the song articles? I don't want to link the user who remove the short description template. But if you all don't want to answer me why that user restored the local description with the same description as the auto-generated. It's ok. Thanks.—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 00:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Thanks for finally posting a link where the descriptions are the same. Considering the reasons in my previous post and your huge error rate in removing non-identical descriptions, I don't think you should remove any descriptions. I cannot speak for the editor who restored it but I would have done the same for all your removals after seeing that error rate. When you systematically do something which is nearly always wrong and never improves the article, don't be surprised by mass reverts from editors who don't have time to examine if one of your edits didn't actually damage the article but merely made no difference. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

My sense from reviewing their edit histories on these articles is that both User:Wallyfromdilbert and User:Ctrlwiki are displaying a bit of a warpath mentality, which is bound to lead to an escalating conflict, but Wally's edits are not wrong, and therefore should neither be reverted nor particularly complained about. If I were in Wally's shoes I would find these mass reversions both incorrect and irritating. BD2412 T 07:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I also note that User:Ctrlwiki failed to notify Wally of this discussion. We are likely headed for a WP:BOOMERANG. BD2412 T 07:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Ctrlwiki: You must collaborate with other editors and do not repeat edits that have been contested until disagreements are resolved. Judging by the discussion so far here and at WT:Short description#Auto-generated short description, some plain talking might be needed, so here is a warning: disruptive editing will lead to a block. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This really feels like it should have been a talk page/Wikiproject discussion. AN isn't the place to get advice on short descriptions, and it really just feels like ctrlwiki is fishing for a reason to cause trouble for a person they're having a content dispute with. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• I follow many film articles, which is why I noticed Ctrlwiki's removal of many short descriptions. It was a little surprising and frankly confusing to see Ctrlwiki's insistence that the "rule" on Wikipedia is to prioritize automatically added short descriptions from infoboxes over manually added ones by users, especially as Jonesey95 had already explained to Ctrlwiki at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Automatic short descriptions for infobox redirects that the automatically added short descriptions from infoboxes are intended as a stopgap until one can be added manually. I should have tried to explain the situation better to the other editor, as I'm sure they were shocked as a newer editor to see the large number of reverts pop up in their notifications, and a more complete explanation by me may have been able to deescalate the situation. There is clearly some inexperience with the internal processes on Wikipedia, and Ctrlwiki would benefit from reading the comments by others more carefully in this thread and at the short description talk page, but I hope they are not discouraged from continuing with their constructive edits. I assume that they now do understand that manually added short descriptions should not be removed in favor of the automatically added ones from infoboxes, and the comments on the short description talk page appear to have uncovered some issues with the automatically added ones in certain templates that PrimeHunter has now fixed. Hopefully this thread will be closed soon, and other further questions or concerns are dealt with on the short description talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I wasn't faulting you in this. I was faulting ctrlwiki for opening this thread in this venue with a "help me win this argument" type mentality. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Sergecross73, I didn't mean to make it appear that I was responding to you. I appreciated your response and completely agree that this is not the right forum. I just wanted to leave a comment to express that this seems like a good faith misunderstanding by Ctrlwiki, with the hope that this thread was closed soon and I can go back to no longer following this drama-board. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Maybe I spoke too soon, as Ctrlwiki still does not seem to want to listen to the explanations provided by several other editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Please let me know if there are further unhelpful changes to short descriptions with a couple of diffs showing edits after now. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2021 (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.

Topic ban review appeal

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 request that my recently reinstated topic ban for Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 topics be reviewed because I believe there were many details overlooked. The AE request seemed to focus primarily on stressing that I had previously been topic banned and had later gotten it appealed. In the months following the ban being lifted, there had been requests for my ban to be reinstated not only once but twice, and both times the arguments were found to be groundless, and both discussions had far more outside participation than the third one did. So, clearly there had already been a consensus that my ban wasn't lifted "prematurely".

The topic ban had also not been lifted under any special 0RR or no WP:BOLD editing conditions. Looking back at the diffs shown in the AE request, I admit my behavior wasn't perfect. I should've opened a talk page discussion right away, but I had assumed Grandmaster would because he was the once changing the last consensus version. I will certainly keep this in mind for the future, but otherwise it was a fairly ordinary editing dispute, not unlike thousands that happen every day. Still, since being unbanned, I have opened many talk page, RfC, and DRN discussions, which I would think attest to improved behavior since the topic ban was removed. Even the user I had been feuding with that led to my original topic ban, LouisAragon, had commented on the AE request to point out a part of Grandmaster's request was incorrect. I do not believe the AE request could've resulted in a topic ban, let alone an indefinite one, without the context of highlighting a previous topic ban I had been given several years ago.

And on the subject of things from years ago, Grandmaster, the user making the AE request, was not just a concerned Wikipedia citizen. We had disputes on many articles for the past several months, including ongoing ones. There was even an ongoing DRN discussion being moderated by Robert McClenon. Robert had requested that no back-and-forth discussion take place in the statements, which Grandmaster completely ignore, demonstrating a large WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Back in August, Grandmaster had opened a failed sockpuppet investigation against me, and he also commented in another failed one in October. Clearly, there had been a lot of WP:HOUNDING going on leading up to the AE request.

"This is the part of the game that we all must learn to play. We need to provoke opponents to break the rules, and then report them. You yourself on the other hand need to strictly follow the rules, so that no one can find fault. The Armenians have learned this well, and it's time for us. On the English Wikipedia, we play this game pretty well. Here you have to do the same."

— User:Grandmaster[146]

I had pointed out evidence that the AE request was a WP:WITCHHUNT, which never went addressed. What's more, if my topic ban is still so relevant, then something everyone should be aware about Grandmaster is that he had been blocked on the Russian Wikipedia for leading a WP:MEATPUPPET mailing list of dozens of other Azerbaijani users. In this mailing list, Grandmaster would direct the Azerbaijani users to vote to control consensus on articles, vote to support Russian adminship for users he felt would support them, and taught how to WP:BAIT his "opponents" into getting banned. Eventually an Armenian user hacked into their group and leaked their entire chat history. An investigation was opened on the Russian Wikipedia, in which the leak was confirmed to be authentic and the Russian Arbitration Committee found that Grandmaster was the organizer and mastermind of the mailing.

Even 13 years later, Grandmaster still displays the same WP:GAMING the system mentality he displayed in the mailing list. I said I had wondered why Grandmaster had been so slow to go to the Lachin talk page, and now it is clear why. He waited until I had made three reverts (albeit on different days) before creating the AE request so he had an example of edit warring (despite Grandmaster changing the consensus version) to help padding his suggestion my topic ban was removed too early. He baited me in the exact same way he described how to get "opponents" banned in his mailing list. What's more, the failed sockpuppet investigation that Grandmaster contributed to but didn't create was created by Brandmeister, who was a member of Grandmaster's mailing list. It seems they are still in contact.

In these leaked chats, Grandmaster does not appear to be a naive new user who just didn't know the rules at the time. He was fully aware of how the system worked and how to game it. In describing how the mailing list should all vote for something: "You voted six minutes apart. If 3 people vote so harmoniously, it raises suspicions. We have to wait a bit, and then vote. At least a week has been allotted for voting, so there is time".[147] If a user is still gaming the system over a decade later, they are likely never going to stop doing so.

Also, in the discussion on Talk:Lachin#Looting, it would seem that I was right all along to revert Grandmaster, because Laurel Lodged and Alexander Davronov agreed that his edits contained excessive detail and original research. --Steverci (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this request or on the previous Arbitration Enforcement case. This was a dispute in which I tried to avoid getting into the history of the dispute, because I was trying to focus on resolving issues about article content, and I saw that there was a long unpleasant history between these two users. Much of the battleground editing that is seen in Wikipedia has to do with areas of the Earth that are or have been real battlegrounds, including the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I would have liked to get the case resolved, but maybe I was being too hopeful. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I am obviously involved, but I strongly oppose lifting of this topic ban. Steverci has been previously topic banned for life from AA topics, and after that ban was lifted, much of their activity was to report their opponents here so that they get topic banned or blocked. Since most AA discussions are decided on the basis of which side could canvass more votes, this was purely tactics to get the numerical advantage, not to improve the encyclopedia. I Think this topic is better off without them. (And before someone starts again shouting at me that Grandmaster was sanctioned by the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom for running a mailing list coordinating reverts in AA topics, let me remind them that I was the drafting arbitrator of that very decision).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your appeal seems to be giving us reasons we might want to sanction Grandmaster. So perhaps someone who isn't topic banned could raise a proposal for sanction against Grandmaster, preferably someone neutral or uninvolved or on Grandmaster's side. However you appeal doesn't seem have that much on why we should consider lifting the sanction against you which is supposed to be its purpose. Nil Einne (talk)

@Steverci: […] Alexander Davronov agreed that his edits contained excessive detail and original research.
I did NOT agree that edits by Grandmaster violated WP:OR; my actual reply is following [01:46, November 9, 2021]. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

First, I don't see how an incident from 12 years ago on another language wiki could justify Steverci's behavior here. Second, unlike what Steverci suggests, there was no consensus on removing sources and information Steverci was trying to remove in Lachin, it is still there, but as was noted above, after a suggestion by an uninvolved user it was agreed just to trim down some particular details. In general, after return from the permanent ban, Steverci's contribution was largely edit warring and tendentious editing across multiple Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, and I don't see how lifting his topic ban for the second time would address these issues. Grandmaster 10:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

unlike what Steverci suggests, there was no consensus on removing sources and information – How can Steverci get consensus on something that you added yourself relatively recently [148], [149]? If anything, the WP:ONUS was on you to reach consensus for your disputed additions, and Steverci's shortly followed edits at the time seemed like BOLD reverts and restoration of the longstanding version of the article. Steverci also argued his/her rationale in the Lachin#Looting talk discussion, it wasn't like they were doing blind reverts. I added my 2 cents and tried to inform this in the AE case, but it was left unnoticed I guess.

but as was noted above, after a suggestion by an uninvolved user it was agreed just to trim down some particular details. – But the excessive looting details are still there, some of which you restored recently contrary to achieved consensus [150]. How is that considered "summarizing in few words" which the uninvolved user AXONOV suggested , and which isn't the case now?

For the community, please also note that Steverci was already tbanned when a 3rd party user joined the discussion in Lachin and made their suggestion, so even the actual consensus/suggestion regarding the trimming of Grandmaster's additions came in much later (see AXONOV first comment of 17:58, 8 November 2021 in the talk page, followed by the suggestion a day later, and Steverci's tban, 16:05, 3 November 2021). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alexander_Davronov that this appeal is light on reasons to review the ban but seems to provide prima facia evidence for an investigation into Grandmaster's activities. Has the leopard changed his spots or is he just running the same old games? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This "appeal" of Steverci is itself a violation of his topic ban, because to a large part it doesn't actually consist of an appeal but of renewed accusations against his opponent, which are unrelated to any argument for lifting his own ban (including things the other user supposedly did 13 years ago on a different wiki). Under his topic ban, Steverci is banned from raising such issues about other editors in the topic area. I'll therefore impose a block to enforce the topic ban and suggest speedily closing this section. I'll note for the record that Steverci also failed to notify me (the sanctioning admin) of this request, or even just ping me, which of course he ought to have done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 16 November 2021 (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 Binksternet

This user objects to any new edit on Bauhaus (band) article. Last month, there was a rfc asking if one could include the opinion of a musician concerning their legacy and their opinion on other artists. The rfc demander really wanted to include a quote of this band Bauhaus tagging other acts as supposedly gothier than them., even if critics unanimously agree that Bauhaus were the band who cemented the gothic rock genre. I think that this edit of mine still respects the result of the rfc, the opinion of the musician is included + the Bauhaus fan wiki user who wanted to include these specific quotes of Bauhaus pigeonholing other bands, is still satisfied. The rfc doesn't mean that an article is carved in stone. Another problem, the person who obstructs to any new edit, has never added one single historical fact with a source in a music related article, they are a cleaner, someone who acts like an administrator. This becomes tiring for an user like myself who has been spending ten years enriching the encyclopedia, finding sources and historical facts to include in music related articles. Woovee (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the nature of the RFC on the talk page Talk:Bauhaus (band), in which Woovee was the sole dissenting vote based on the idea that the band are reliable as rock historians (which is accurate but irrelevant to the material being added, in that it was simply the band commenting on how the band got described, and not the band trying to establish a formal rock history as outlined by others in the RFC), Woovee's editing warring to add the material that tried to create a formal rock history within the article (eg [151]) doesn't seem appropriate. I don't think Binksternet is obstructing here - its just that the band's page is not the place to draw out the history of goth rock. It would be a problem if the band's quote was being used on the goth rock to establish that (as I said, they are not reliable historians themselves), but in the contents of the page of the band, its basically just an RSOPINION statement from them that is more about being modest and don't consider themselves the first. --Masem (t) 14:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked both users for 3RR. I don't care about any history; neither editor was vandalizing, both were edit warring to keep their preferred version in place. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  Jpgordon, Did you mean to site-wide block Binksternet for two weeks? I can see if you look at the block log it looks "escalating", but the last block was six years ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Jpgordon: I think that this is disproportionate. An article-specific block (WP:PBLOCK) for both editors would have sufficed to stop the disruption, because it is limited to one page. Sandstein 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. I was pinged by Woovee earlier (but didn't get round to responding until after the block) to look at this issue, and I agree that a block was necessary; just not this length and scope. I'll reduce the block to what I would have done, which is just the article for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: you agreeing with Sandstein does not a consensus make. Now you're equating Binksternet's block lock (as you noted, nothing for six years) with Woovee's, who came off a 31 hour block by EdJohnston in October. So, rather than escalating blocks, you've sent out the opposite signal. Bizarre. 24 hours for Binksternet (per your suggestion) and a week for Woovee which would be the escalation jpgordon originally went for (before, I agree, over escalating!). ——Serial 18:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think it's fair to leave two long-standing contributors unable to edit anything while there's disagreement amongst administrators. If either of them resumes edit-warring, there'll most definitely be a longer block. Having looked at the RfC in question now, my view is that Woovee needs to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Still trying to get my head round the idea of gothic cement. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I reckon it's pitch black in colour. Bauhaus is my fave song by Madness too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"My name is Mies van der Rohe". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You're gonna be in the bow-wow house for that awful pun, Lugnuts. WaltCip-(talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just pull up my lawn chair and watch. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) All this edit-warring about the result of an RFC, and I'm not sure why either of them are doing so; neither have bothered to use the talk page since that RFC was closed. Both edit-warring blocks are well-deserved, though the initial 2 weeks was harsh. Until the editors actually discuss why one version or the other is better on the talk page, I'm not sure what else to say. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

ACE2021 election spam

As a reminder, for the 2021 ArbCom elections, eligible users are invited to submit a nomination statement for the Arbitration Committee elections at the elections page. There are about 60 hours remaining to self-nominate. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Only ~59 hours to go for a rush of nominations, then :D ——Serial 12:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Please folks, there are only 3 candidates so far. I've already taken my punishment had two terms and various changes in my personal life don't leave me with the time or I'd sacrifice consider running again. We need more good candidates for the eight vacant seats. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Can User:Beeblebrox please announce on WPO that Serial Mumbler is standing for ArbCom. That should stir things up a bit! ——Serial 15:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

As last time, I expect there will be an ebay-style rush at the last minute. There had better be! If not, I think I'm right in saying that not all the seats have to be filled. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bid sniping they call it. In my halcyon days on eBay I had become quite the sniper, better sometimes than the sniping software, more immoral than the prevailing immorality, but I don't have the long fuse needed for administration, dispute resolution, and arbitration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There will be a rush at the end of candidates hoping to avoid proper scrutiny. And honestly, we don't need to encourage people, no-one's going to just look at this and think "oh yeah, I need a year of pain". There are plenty of people waiting in the wings for the last-minute nom dash. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

How does a last-minute nomination help to avoid scrutiny? I am not seeing it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've seen this accusation before, but the question period remains open well after the nomination period, so I don't really buy it. What I do know is that sometimes people feel like they should wait and see if enough good candidates come along that they don't feel compelled to run. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It reduces the time the community has to assess the candidates, and allows the candidates to let questions linger a bit and then head into the voting period. There is, of course, literally no excuse not to add nominations from the get-go, especially this year, I cannot fathom why anyone is still just hanging on for the last minute for any other reason than reducing the likelihood of a tricky issue being dug up. After all, don't forget we did recently have an RFA which nearly resulted in the promotion of a sockpuppet to admin, and who had utterly overwhelming support from the community. These things are altogether possible. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that people do not want to go through elections and wait until the last moment whether there are other candidates. But they do not want to go through elections not because they want to avoid scrutiny, which is impossible once they listed themselves as a candidate, but because they want to avoid additional mud throwing which is part of the process.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't really follow that. But whatever, as I said, mudslinging/scrutiny etc, it's all a bit artificial anyway, just ask the 123 people who were satisfied that a sockpuppet should be an admin. This bizarre "wait until the last minute" nonsense from Arbcom contestants is quite unbecoming. I would default to oppose on them at this point for not submitting to the process as soon as possible. But hey, two days to go, anything is possible, expect to see Willy on Wheels making a last-gasp dash for the committee. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Reply to The Rambling Man, collapsed to avoid distracting from the main message of this thread Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in claiming that there are a bunch of people who are waiting to submit at the last minute to avoid scrutiny and claiming the only reason to wait is to avoid scrutiny or it's impossible someone is waiting because they only want to run if they feel there aren't enough other good candidates and/or they have a chance of winning. If there are a bunch of people so waiting, then we can assume that there may also genuinely be people waiting because although there are only 3 candidates now, they expect there to be more at the end whatever the reasons these other people are waiting. If you feel that waiting for other candidates isn't a good reason, fine. But it doesn't mean other people don't genuinely feel that way especially about the lack of desire to run if there are people they'd prefer to win than them, or simply are more likely to win making it a wasted effort; rather than having some desire to reduce scrutiny etc. In any case, your focus here seems to be in the wrong direction. We should always assume candidates may nominate at the last minute for a variety of reasons. If candidates nominating at the last minute is causing problems, we should resolve that by shortening the nomination period, lengthening the period between nominations and the vote opening or something else which deal with the problem rather than making a fuss over last minute nominations. If you haven't tried to do that and you feel there is a problem, sorry but the person at fault is you (and anyone else who feels there's a problem of course). If you have tried to do that but the community has rejected it then I guess the community doesn't share you concerns, sorry. While you're entitled to your view there is a problem including to reject any candidates who nominates so late, as always we care about what has consensus not what one individual editor thinks so it's irrelevant to the process. I'd also note that if a candidate nominates at the last minute and then fails to answer questions, or does but their answer raises issues and there isn't enough time to deal with this in followups, it seems likely most voters are going to say "well it's (at least partly) your fault so tough luck" or "maybe you had good reasons for waiting to the last minute but ultimately my concerns aren't addressed so I can't support you", rather than "okay this candidate hasn't satisfactory answered my concerns, but that's because they didn't have enough time because they nominated at the last minute so I'll give them a pass". At the very least, you've presented no evidence this isn't what would happen since the RfA definitely isn't that whatever mistakes may have been made there. There's also the question of the likelihood something new will come up, or whether it's that much less likely people won't raise an issue when voting is still open even it it's near the end meaning the difference between getting in your nomination at the beginning or end is only about 33% more time. I think there's a good chance as with a lot of things in the world, most of the scrutiny happens with a week or at most 2, with most people bored of it by that time. As I understand it, nominations close at "23:59 UTC, 16 November 2021" and voting opens at "00:00 UTC, 23 November 2021" which by my count leaves 6 days for post nomination scrutiny before the vote opens. In the case you highlighted the candidate accepted at 2021-10-17T05:50:46. The editor concerned was arbcom blocked at 2021-10-20T01:00:03 less than 3 days later. So whatever mistakes were made there, it doesn't seem to provide evidence 6 days of intensive scrutiny is not enough. Even accepting this was one editor and there could be 8 more arbcom candidates or something, it seems to me the much greater concern and focus over arbcom means it's likely they could still be dealt with in that 6 days time. If you want to start of the period from when that editor was first nominated for RfA at 2021-10-14T18:29:43 well it's still under 6 days. Not to mention we still have the question over whether it's reasonable to scrutiny stops the moment voting starts since in this administrator case it didn't vote the !voting. Ultimately we do have to accept that it's unreasonable to expect everything to be uncovered given human nature, the volunteer nature of Wikipedia, the fact for good reason we don't require editors to link their account to real life identities, the length of time Wikipedia has been operating, our privacy policy and other limits we place on what editor may discuss and look at especially publicly. We have to accept the longer we go on, the likelier it is we're eventually going to have an arbcom member who is a sock. Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC) @Nil Einne: Extremely tangential, I know, but re socks on ArbCom, we've already been there, done that. Graham87 08:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Just as a further reminder, the nomination period may end in this timeframe, but the voting does not begin until 23 Nov. There is still plenty of time for examination, scrutiny, and questioning of the candidates. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yup, and the 123 people who supported Eostrix's RFA are a timely reminder that "examination, scrutiny and questioning" isn't a big part of this process really. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Deadlines spur actions. The reason that Eostrix's case went from backburner issue for the arb who did the investigating to top priority for them and the rest of the committee was because of the RfA. The deadline spurred the action. Personally I think we could safely shorten the nomination period to a week and put a couple extra days in the question period. But that still would have most people going on the last day or two it would just be over a shorter time frame. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Nah, people who want to run know it already and have known it for a while. Going for Arbcom is not (and shouldn't be!) a knee-jerk reaction, those are the last sorts of people we want on the committee in any case. Leaving it to the last minute is a poor indicator. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. In my case it was true - I had basically developed all my ACE stuff ahead of nominations opening. But I was waiting to see how the field developed. If Tony had declared before me instead of ~50 minutes after me, there is a chance I wouldn't have run last year. That said, and I hope they'll be OK with me sharing this, but at this point in the process CaptainEek had either not begun or just begun to think about running. Their candidacy came together quickly but I wouldn't say was knee-jerk. Finally I guess I just respectfully disagree with the idea that waiting until the deadline is a moral failing. But to the extent that we want candidates earlier in the process - and here I agree with you that it would be healthier for the community if people didn't wait for the last minute - we should think about how we could nudge people in that direction. For instance, I would support saying, especially if we shorten the nomination period to 5-7 days, that questions aren't asked until after nominations are over. This removes a small disincentive. Perhaps there is another nudge or two we could add for review next year so we don't get so many people waiting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, by this point I don't think I'd even considered it yet. It was thanks to someone I have great respect for DM'ing me like six hours before the deadline that I even ran! So the moral: you too can run at the last moment. Also, if there is someone you think would make a good candidate: tell them so! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No one wants to run unless they have to, and they don't know if they have to until the last day when they can see who else is running, so it's normal that there would be a last minute rush. I don't think it has anything to do with avoiding scrutiny since there is still plenty of time left for that. Also, no one who wants to avoid scrutiny would run for arbcom in the first place, since it's like the most-scrutinized role on the website. Levivich 23:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Being an arbitrator would be too much of a headache for me. Besides, nobody's gonna support me for the role. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can get some celebrities to run? I'm sure Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bruce Springsteen could get the votes to serve. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• If I were an admin, or thought I'd have a chance, I'd totally run; I'm up for the challenge! But alas. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rockstone35: There's no requirement to be an admin. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I know, but I doubt non-admins are going to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. I'll save the community and myself the trouble, and I'll avoid inconveniencing the electrons required to submit my nomination. Now, if someone else wants to nominate me, I'll take them up on that offer. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • User:Rockstone35, I'd start by removing that tiny font tag from your signature. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: -- what's wrong with my font tag?! -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
        • User:Rockstone35, what it says in your signature, is it "Send me a message"? I can only see that in this edit mode. It's tiny. It's too small. People can't read it. And IP, The Rambling Man is correct--non-admins don't get elected. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
          • @Drmies: -- how is this signature? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Regardless of your "font tag", non-admins don't get elected. Full stop. So you're right about not getting involved. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Well, I guess I could use a larger font tag (like yours) regardless. But yes, it's not worth applying to Arbcom and dealing with all the crud if there's no chance I'm going to be considered. Maybe one day, though. (I think I said that 12 years ago, too) -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 02:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: The larger font size in the signature is much better. As far as "nominating" you for ARBCOM, I don't think that's a thing, but I will say publicly that I think you would do at least as good a job as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @力: -- that's an endorsement if I've ever heard one! . Eh, maybe next year. :-) -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Last minute

For those of you waiting until the last minute, now would be a good time to quit waiting. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, actually there's still over 24 hours. Anyone, unfortunately, Dark Clouds of Joy disruptively threw their hat in the ring. Someone ought to remove it. Nothing but trolling.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Well the flood of last-minute noms starts here. I think Dark Clouds is not the worst candidate. But hey. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me? Disruptively? Trolling? Kindly explain yourself, Bbb23. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unlike a lot of people here, I would welcome an actual joke candidacy. Particularly if they were funny. I don't exactly "welcome" zero-chance candidates, but wouldn't dream of removing them if they're actually running in good faith (or if there was even a tiny chance they were running in good faith). This is neither of those, this is trolling and sock puppetry/block evasion. I will, of course, defer to the EC if they disagree, but it seems like "no blatantly obvious trolling" should be the default until they make a decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Wow, I'd literally mentioned earlier about the possibility of a sock running and being elected. This is like something from a Trumpian dystopia. I love it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  You also said "I think Dark Clouds is not the worst candidate."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  I still mean it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• As a reminder, per WP:ACERFC2020#Nomination timing, unfortunately 23:59 UTC on 16 November 2021 is going to be a hard deadline, and if you attempt to transclude your statement even a minute later, my understanding of the current consensus is that the Electoral Commission will not have discretion to grant you an exception. To avoid unexpected technical issues, if you intend to run, I would try to get your statements transcluded a little earlier than the absolute last minute! Mz7 (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

4 hours

Hello friends. There is a little less than 4 hours left to nominate yourself for ArbCom this year: WP:ACE2021/C. As I mentioned above, per WP:ACERFC2020#Nomination timing, 23:59 UTC is a hard deadline, so to avoid unexpected technical issues near the deadline, I would recommend transcluding your nominations now if you intend to run. There are 8 vacancies with 9 candidates so far. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Arbitration Committee elections: nominations now open

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.

---

Somehow, it is already that time of year again. Eligible editors are invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections. The nomination phase will end at 23:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC). Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Often considered running, but no. Not giving up any personal info, to do it. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't really need to give up personal info unless you have an account you'd need to disclose. You can sign the NDA with your Wikipedia username. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Footnote A from the nomination page does say "Provide contact and identification information", though the Access to nonpublic personal data policy does not appear to require any ID info. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a good catch. I've removed the and identification part to align with what the policy currently says. (Regarding contact information, all that is required is an email address, and many ArbCom members simply create separate email addresses for Wikipedia-related work.) Mz7 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps best to consider an RfA. Better to be an administrator first, rather then go directly to being an arbitrator. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You would certainly provide an interesting perspective, I don't know if anyone has ever been elected to the Arbitration committee after being the named party in an arbitration case.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, this year there are eight vacant seats: see WP:ACE2021#Vacant seats for more details. Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're thinking of running you might be interested in my thoughts on what the job entails and questions to consider before running. As it says there I am happy to privately (or publicly) talk to anyone who is considering a run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Steady stream of emails" from editors wanting to be un-banned? That just ended my ambitions. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I hereby nominate myself for another year of not being on ArbCom. BD2412 T 04:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

My only observation is imagine the amount of work the job entails and double it. Or triple it? Ten times? Oh, and do not expect to get barnstars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Liz, what you say here doesn't match my experience or what I wrote in the link above. At most times an arb can stay abreast with 5-7 hours of work a week. I expect anyone the community would elect is already spending more than that on Wikipedia now. And while I haven't received any barnstars in general there is more thanks than opprobrium sent my way for my arb work. Now as the essay says it's not all roses but it's also not been unceasing misery either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm the sort of chap who'd probably unblock Kumioko as "time served, better to keep them inside the tent pissing out than vice versa" and would have strongly opposed desysopping Kudpung and RexxS, so needless to say I'm completely unsuitable material to be an arb. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If the only people who ever run all share exactly the same mindset, will anything ever change? Primefac (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It's not those things that would lose you the election: many people agreed with you/ disagreed with the committee wrt Kuds and Rex. And while Kumiokio might appear more difficult, in wiki-years it was a century ago, with so much new blood in the community that enough people would probably not care like some of the old workhorses might. No, I doubt if they'd hurt you election chances.

What would kill your Arb-run stone dead this year are the frankly bizarre events of last year's Electoal Commission election, in which the simple fact of having to sign a confidentiality agreement resulted in your your candidature descending into farce; your behaviour was described by User:Swarm as bordering on trolling ([152]) and by User:Ealdgyth as wasting people's time ([153]). You then proceeded to claim that it was all a waste of, actually, your time, blanking the discussion ([154]) and edit-warring with an arb clerk who reverted you ([155]).

And this was just the electoral commission. You run for arb com, they'll hold the front page at WPO ——Serial 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course, next year you'll probably be fine... ——Serial 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I'd forgotten about that, but that's a good reason as well. (I declined an offer to serve in this year's Electoral Commission for the same reason). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 9 November 2021 (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.

This RM needs sorting ASAP

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 sure if this is the right place to post this but an RM I have submitted needs to be done immediately and must be done before the week is up. The page in question: Julius Jones - details of the move I have placed here [156] Many users are mistaking this Julius Jones (An American football player) for Julius Darius Jones (a man about to be executed in two days time). His case is receiving international attention and 99% of people visiting that page are going to mistake that Julius Jones for the person facing execution. The RM I have submitted will not be resolved until the 20th/21st (after the execution date on 18th) which is realistically when the page will receive the most views. I think it is irresponsible for this move to not be changed ASAP and potentially damaging for the Julius Jones (American football player). Please can an admin get this closed ASAP to avoid a case of mistaken identity and inevitably a lot of vandal/troll edits to the subject in question. Thank you. Inexpiable (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't that the point of the hatnote? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:36, 17 November 2021 (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.

Vandalism, Aspersions and calling my sister names User:Fred_Zepelin

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 everyone,

I received an email today that a page Wheels (2014 film) I made years ago been suggested for speedy deletion even though it was voted keep years ago. I was new to Wikipedia (as I still am), but was having personal medical issues before. Now I am better and decided to give it a go again. I litterally just found the in window editor. Yay! So much easier! I updated the references on the page. It seems all of my references IndieWire, American Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider were all taken down by @Fred_Zepelin. He had also taken down other references in the past the are viable. There was no discussion about any of this on the Talk page.

I looked at his page and there are multiple mentions of vandalism from other users, that were deleted.

Then the person went on my talk page and called my sister a name or something.

Then he mentioned to other people, that I was another person and a sock puppet.

I just honestly don't want to get tangled in a mess or drama. I was excited to make some edits and give this a try again. I am feeling better and it was fun to do the edits, but I am unaware of how to deal with this situation and am not interested in feeding someone's negativity. I am here to edit and have fun. Not have conflict with people.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Also suggestions about how to get mentorship if you have any. Thank you in advance for any help you might be able to offer. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think the person was tagged. I want to make sure they can defend themselves. He also did send me an email that was civil. I just want to be transparent. User:Fred Zepelin Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added the talk page note as specified at the top of this page.

Regardless, this is just messed up. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

MJL ‐Talk‐^☖, that wasn't "messed up". The sockmaster claimed the Binaza sockpuppet account was his sister (although before he was blocked, he denied having anything to do with the Binaza account). I literally asked "How does your sister Binaza feel about this?" There is no "sister". Those two accounts were working on Wheels (2014 film) and Donavon Warren. Film Fanatical10069 started the Donavon Warren article way back when and immediately started working on the Wheels (2014 film) article just minutes after Ugochukwu75's appeals were finished being denied. Then he tried to erase evidence of starting the article (here) and shortly thereafter claimed that he didn't start that article. (here). Fred Zepelin. (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Another noteworthy aspect - despite having a high level of proficiency, this Film Fanatical10069 account is asking for "mentors" multiple times, including in this discussion. The Binaza account asked for the same thing in that account's final edit; I assume they felt the walls closing in with the their sockpuppet investigation about to expose them and were trying to play as if they were a new child-like account, staring at the Wikipedia world in wonder. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Everyone,

I figured out why I was emailed after so long. When @Fred Zepelin put the notification of speedy deletion on my talk page (or wiki did) it sent me an email. I honestly have not had an email from Wiki in years. I did not receive one for Donavon Warren, I believe because I did not create that version. But I was happy to do some quick research and update some of the links. Since then I have discovered the visual editor and it's a game changer. It really is!

I am happy and pleased you caught a sock puppet or multiple sock puppets. Sock puppets go against policy. I am here to update Wikipedia and be professional. I obviously am not a sock or that sock or whatever is suggested. My account is 6 years old, Fred's is 30 days. I am still learning but am trying to take the proper channels and keep discussions civil. I ask Fred please stop posting on my talk page Fred.

Vandalism - From my understanding deleting valid references repeatedly goes against policy. In the instance of Fred deleting the following references on the Wheels page. IndieWire, American Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider were all deleted, saying they were paid promotional websites. I have made notes on the Wheels talk page regarding those references. It looks like there are multiple other past references that are taken down as he seems very emotionally involved. If you can please just look at his edits on the page Wheels (2014 film). He has been warned about vandalism by multiple users. Is this against policy?

Casting Aspersions - He has been warned about this on multiple occasions. He keeps posting that I am a sock puppet every where he can. It's on 7 pages now I believe. Is this against policy?

And yes. I would love mentorship. I found it frustrating before and gave up when the Donavon Warren article was deleted. But I am ready to get back into it. It's important to me to understand how this works so I can create more pages and make more edits. That's what I am interested. But it's important for me to understand it this time. To my knowledge I have done everything to have proper sources and it was marked keep. Will all my references be taken down in the future? Am I dealing with this correctly? Is this the proper channel for this discussion?

In the meantime, I will try to focus on people who are deceased, older movies or blockbusters that have not come out. They are just tough to find and most pages have already been edited heavily and there is not much new information. I will do more research about mentorship and how to find one.

Thank you again for every ones help. I really am thankful for any instruction, advice or knowledge you can pass down. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Ugochukwu75 deleted multiple concerns from his talk page about paid editing. He then admitted to undisclosed paid editing after he was blocked. He denied it beforehand. He was paid to edit Donavon Warren and paid to edit Wheels (2014 film). After he was blocked, Film Fanatical10069 showed up after 4 years of zero edits, started editing Wheels (2014 film), tried to delete evidence that he started the Donavon Warren article, then denied starting that article, and after I pointed out he was lying, now says "gave up when the Donavon Warren article was deleted". Evidence speaks for itself. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@MJL, @SVTCobra I apologize for another comment. I really am not trying to get caught up in this drama. What is the policy on this?

BTW - Did I do that linking correctly? Thank you again. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is where you said you didn't create the Warren article. Here is the evidence that you did create the article. Here is your deletion, yesterday, of the talk page bit that points out you created the Warren article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin I don't want to keep stating information I have already stated. Yes, I obviously deleted that 4 year old section. Same as you have deleted multiple warnings of vandalism and warnings about aspersions on your very own page.

Let's keep this professional and let the advanced users advise or take action on this. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You just linked to a false positive by a bot, and also linked to Liz's warning to me, which I have not deleted, and you said I deleted it. Stop trying to deflect. Explain why you said you didn't create the Warren article, and then deleted the evidence on your talk page that you did create it. You also deleted multiple concerns on your talk page about paid editing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to engage with you any longer. This was clearly articulated to you here. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There's literally nothing at that link you posted that explains why you created the Warren article, then denied you created the article, and wiped the evidence from your talk page that you did create it, and why you now admit you created it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin: My apologies. I'm someone who has had people try to use MJL's Evil Sister and my sister as a means to get at me (generally offwiki), so I wrongly assumed that was happening here.
Next time, if you are going to make a sock allegation, maybe provide a diff or something next time? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I've provided over a dozen at this point. Getting frustrating. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant originally when you first confronted FF about it, but I guess that's pretty moot now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: User:Binaza is a confirmed puppet per this investigation. In this edit the sockmaster (as far as we know) claimed Binaza as a sister, yet here we have Film Fanatical10069 claiming the same 'sister'. Fred Zepelin seems to have lost 'their cool' regarding this situation, but there is something going on here that is not OK. As far as I am concerned, it began at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_filmdaily.co_a_reliable_source? and it opened up a rabbit hole of sockpuppetry and paid editing some of which has extended to Wikimedia Commons. --SVTCobra 08:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am going to start from the end here, which is, I believe Ugochukwu75, Binaza and Film Fanatical10069 are all the same people or are engaging in meat puppetry. When I wrote the essay titled WP:NANE i noted that a common tactic employed by editors engaging in less than ethical practices is the act of reporting editors (who are about to nab them) to admin related noticeboards, it’s no surprise seeing this play-out precisely as I stated. They claim Fred vandalized, this isn’t true, they claim Fred also called their “sister” names, again very untrue. That all three accounts indicted here are all one and the same people or operating in the same sock/meat paid farm is undeniable. This SPI in itself is enough indictment warranting a block if Film Fanatical10069 is claiming to be related to Binaza. RoySmith tagged the SPI as technically unrelated, but hasn’t checked for behavioral evidence due to time. If or when they do so, OP would be blocked as well. Generally speaking I believe more effort should be put into consideration when handling possible sockpuppetry pertaining to behavioral evidence, any editor with Checkuser privileges knows too well how easy it is to beat a Checkuser and know they make majority of their nabs when the editor being reported “slips up”. Furthermore I’d also like to point out that the OP asking for help as though they were confused is puzzling, seeing as they have shown proficiency in the past. I think I also document that in the essay I wrote as a tactic optimized by editors engaging in socking/UPE. I have tackled undisclosed paid editing on Wikipedia way too long to know there is something very wrong here. I’m in total agreement with both SVTCobra & Fred Zepelin, the sole mistake on the part of Fred is mildly being “too confrontational” which is a very common mistake with anti spam editors due to frustration. A mistake I painstakingly learnt to correct. Having said it’s safe to say Fred wouldn’t be making that mistake again as I would teach Fred how to tackle UPE better without much confrontation, asides that this whole report in my opinion is likely a deflection tactic. Lastly let the record reflect that the OP has been here for 7 years with only 150 edits, and prior this, their last edit was 4 years ago. In my opinion, a quintessentially example of a WP:SLEEPER. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Celestina007 Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time. Given the circumstances, I must clarify, I am not a meat farm (I don't even know what that means exactly), nor did I ever claim to be related Binaza. The @Ugochukwu75 user is the one I believe made that claim. @User:Toddy1 said "There seems to be a difference in behavior shown in the filter logs" regarding my account and that other person. So I am not sure how to refute those accusations. But I will try to offer my two cents on this. I have not touched the Donavon_Warrren page. I simply went back and added references that were missing and never put on the Wheels page, that's it. I only learned after that it can't be deleted if marked keep. It seems like @Fred Zepelin deleted valid references. Again IndieWire, American Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider were all deleted. I have received no response on that. That's all I have done. Was update references for a page that was made 7 years ago and was marked keep 4 years ago because Fred marked it for speedy deletion after deleting valid references and half the article. And yes I have explained why my account was inactive, I got discouraged, just like this is discouraging. I logged on today to upload and have fun editing, yet I am tied up in the mess. I don't know if 150 edits is considered proficient, but I don't think I am there in the slightest. I honestly can't even figure out how to update the formatting on my talk page. So circling back, please help me understand your thoughts on this. What would my sock puppet motivation be? To come back to life to keep a page that was safe? If I was sock, wouldn't I have come back sooner? What would updating 4 refences accomplish? It looks like 6 other people tried to create that page, are they socks? Why have the deletion questions not been addressed? Also, last question, this is exhausting, is this normal? Should I expect this long term?Film_Fanatical10069^t@lk 19:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Depends. Can you explain why you were looking to create an article about Lisa Hoggarth? Is that a paid editing gig, or just a random article you wanted to create? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry. I don't know who that is. This is from 4 years ago? Please explain. Film_Fanatical10069^t@lk 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

More evidence of this user's socking:

Film Fanatic: "Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time."

Ugochukwu75: "Thank you so much for taking your time to give a detailed explanation."

Hope this sheds a little more light. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have answered this question 4 times. @User:Toddy1 has even clearly explained it to you. At this point, I really don't know how to handle this. Does anyone else have questions for me? Should I leave this alone until it's resolved? The whole point of this discussion "Which I Started" was to deal with the fact that @Fred Zepelin constantly deletes valid links and keeps vandalizing a page I created. Yet it has turned into the user who blatantly vandalized the page, accusing me being a sock puppet. Why did you delete valid links @Fred Zepelin? Why do you keep making accusations on other peoples talk pages about me being a Liar, Sock Puppet and Paid Editor without any evidence? What is your motivation to take down that page? Are you going to turn around and upload another movie with the title Wheels? I just don't understand the logic here. People are not addressing the reason I started this discussion. Is it ok to vandalize? Is it ok to delete valid links? Is it ok to name call? What am I missing?  Again, any help is greatly appreciated. Film_Fanatical10069^t@lk 21:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Looks like a duck to me, based on behavioral cues that I could rather not divulge. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown Thank you for your 2 cents. I can't defend information your not divulging, but I understand you must have your reasons. I am still confused as to why I still have not received any help or advice. If I didn't follow proper procedure, broke policy or offended someone I apologize. Film_Fanatical10069^t@lk 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • • This isn't a court of law, I'm not a judge. We don't deal in justice here, just solutions. I'm just waiting to get a second experienced opinion for my own purposes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

      Understood. Thank you. Film_Fanatical10069^t@lk 00:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked after I did some more digging. Behavioral cases can fool you, and I still won't disclose details (because I'm not here to teach them to be better socks....) but I'm very confident that this is the same person. It could be a meatpuppet, but really, I'm betting its the same person. I think we're done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 12 November 2021 (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.

Odd behavior from two new accounts

Can someone please check the behavior of the two accounts at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2. They aren't acting abusively, per se, just adding what looks like valid bibiliography entries for a bunch of architects. Something has my spidey-sense tingling however. Does anyone recognize this? --Jayron32 16:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32 I was also somewhat intrigued by this, and asked the most recently active account about it. I have a feeling it’s an undeclared school project or something, having seen similar enough things before… firefly ( t · c ) 17:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to say that there's more than those two. Contribs links:

• Jbm0090
• Jeremooski
• Szd0060
• O.brown1
• Bodyarmorlover
• Bernard Cousins III firefly ( t · c ) 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Someone teaching a class?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's good work, so I don't know that I am really looking to sanction anybody. I suspect this is a class project of some sort. Just wanted more eyes on it; I don't think based on behavior anyone needs to be blocked as yet, but when you see something weird it is always good to get some more feedback. Let us know if you hear anything back from your attempts to make contact. --Jayron32 17:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Will do :) firefly ( t · c ) 17:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

RSN closure challenge for ASPI

A recent non administrative closure for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute entry on the reliable source noticeboard marked it as a marginally reliable source (wp:merl). Multiple editors including myself challenged this decision but our efforts to overturn it have so far been unsuccessful. The closer suggested we take this issue to the administrator’s noticeboard (wp:closechallenge) so I have brought the issue here

These links provide the background information to the dispute. [157]

[158]

Pinging the editors who were involved in the post factum discussions. User:Tayi Arajakate, User:Horse Eye's Back,User:GretLomborg, User:Mikehawk10 Estnot (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The discussion was open for over a month, and the closure summary accurately captures the general consensus. While many of the bolded votes seem to vacillate between two of the pre-selected options, the closer wisely (IMHO) avoids falling into the trap of vote counting, and does an excellent job of capturing the consensus of the points that were being made. If you ignore the bolded "votes", there is a pretty clear consensus, and the closing statement seems to represent it well. --Jayron32 15:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse Aye, seems like an obvious agreement that this source can be used with in-text attribution & people consider it an useful source but for opinions not facts. Even if we go by strict head-counting, it seems like Option 2 would have won ("Unclear or additional considerations apply") and the actual arguments give a clear indication of what the "additional consideration" is. I think the problem here is that the 4-options scheme that these RfCs follow is a bit of a Procrustean bed which does not represent nuances like "useful but needs in-text attribution" well, leading to confusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse Having read through the discussion, I agree with the closer's conclusions. Number 57 17:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have issues with the summary of the close, and think aspects do not accurately reflect the discussion in a material way. Specifically "...is reliable in its area of expertise (defence and strategic issues) but...", doesn't capture the ASPI's demonstrated expertise in China, specifically on Xinjiang internment camps/Uyghur genocide where it's done prominent and highly-cited work (e.g. its reports have covered in detail New York Times, AP, Guardian, Deutsche Welle, etc. as accurate factual information). That area of expertiese was most-discussed in the discussion, and the "defence and strategic issues" language kind of came out of nowhere and has much less support from the discussion. I think the close message should be amended to specifically mention Xinjiang/Uyghurs (IMHO it's too much of a stretch to read human rights or Chinese domestic policy into "defence and strategic issues") or to remove the list entirely with language like "...is reliable for facts in its areas of expertise (defence and strategic issues) but..." I think the later is preferable because the discussion's focus was too general to establish a list of areas of expertise in the way the close message did, but if such a discussion occurred Xinjiang/Uyghurs would definitely be on it. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC) (note: I just saw this and it was recently archived, so pulling it back out). - GretLomborg (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse as reflecting the discussion itself. I feel that GretLomborg is relitigating the merits rather than weighing the close against the discussion. I almost just closed this, but chose to review and opine instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse as reflecting the consensus. GretLomborg opposes the result, not the close, and we can't do anything to change the result. ——Serial 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I guess I'm not clear on the distinction of "result" vs "close". I think the close message does not accurately reflect the result of the discussion. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• The close reflects the result. You disagree with the result, ergo you dispute the close. But as Dennis notes above, there is no mechanism for relitigating the result. ——Serial 20:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse close as a fair and reasoned summary of the discussion reflecting the consensus. I think this is a fine NAC and even made an amendment based on a reasoned suggestion of another editor. I don’t think the discussion was particularly heated or controversial. Any edit dispute over at the ASPI article is completely irrelevant to an RFC on ASPI as a source. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Just adding as a response to some of the discussion above - I think "defence and strategic issues" is suitably (even too) broad to describe ASPI's area of expertise. Even if the close was narrower, I don't think drilling down on ASPI's work on China as "entirely factual" is appropriate although this is the work for which ASPI has received the most mainstream media coverage. An example I raised in the RfC was ASPI's China Defence Universities Tracker that was described by the AFR as controversial. ASPI does lots of work on far less controversial and eye-catching topics like climate and trade issues for Pacific Island nations that are regularly cited in academic works. I tend to agree with the editor above that Gret's main issue seems to be with the result and not the NAC. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspecting a user of disruptive reverting

Lets say I wrote 3 different things in one edit. the 2 things was a small one where I changed a word to another word. For example "many" to "a lot" the other was an edit that needed a reliable source. does that make someone having the needs to undo the whole thing instead of just removing it manually?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaaBaaTheSheep (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

This is presumably about [159], and is not appropriate for this noticeboard, perhaps try WP:TEAHOUSE instead. Also pinging @Magnolia677:. --JBL (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse

The Kyle Rittenhouse verdict was just returned. I suggest folks might want to keep an eye on Kenosha unrest shooting and related articles for a while. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Epbr123

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of Epbr123 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: CaptainEek, Casliber, Maxim For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 02:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level 1 desysop of Epbr123

User:Epbr123

I could use y'all's help: I've never dealt with a compromised account before. I need a CU as well. Ritchie333, this one tried to log in as you as well. I'm sure someone knows who this is. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the situation is resolved now. The account is blocked, globally locked, and desysopped. Usually, account compromises happen when users share username/password combinations between Wikipedia and websites that have been breached. I suppose this is as good time as any to remind administrators to ensure that their Wikipedia passwords are unique to Wikipedia and that two-factor authentication is enabled on their accounts. Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This user's contributions seem to consist of almost nothing other than welcome templates

I noticed that User:MollyPollyRolly's recent contributions seem to consist of almost nothing other than (possibly automated) welcome messages to new users. This is either a warm and helpful service to mankind, or possibly an undeclared bot intended to obtain extended-confirmed status without actually doing the hard work.

Administrators may wish to review this in order to determine if this is an acceptable use of Wikipedia, or indeed the correct circumstances to deploy the welcome templates. Salimfadhley (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Extended confirmed status only requires 500 edits and this user has nearly 5000. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them from user and user talk namespaces indefinitely. It looks more like a WP:COMPETENCE thing than trying to game extended confirmed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 Just noting that MollyPollyRolly is a declared alt account of User:Filmomusico (see User talk:Filmomusico#August 2021). Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ritchie333: why would you block someone for this? Facepalm Maybe we should shut down WP:Welcoming Committee too while we're at it? What's the "competence" issue in somebody welcoming new users to Wikipedia? Please reconsider your userspace block. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The user has been warned here (for welcoming a user appearing to support the Klu Klux Klan and who was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet), and here (again, cautioning them not to welcome users who might be disruptive socks), and then this ANI thread. Spamming one user talk page a minute with welcome templates is not constructive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, they've been asked to stop welcoming users with 0 edits, and stop welcoming trolls, but as far as I can tell, they have. Where have they been asked to stop welcoming people at all? And why did you block from User: namespace, too? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia, which they haven't been doing since 14 October. However, as per usual, any administrator is free to reverse any blocks I make without needing to consult me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Am I also using the welcome twinkle to much? I don't want to get blocked in talk spaces The furret lover (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, your entire contribution does not contain evidence that you are here to build an encyclopedia. You are obviously here to do something else.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they're using their alt account, User:Filmomusico to edit article-space. But that's almost besides the point. They were not asked to stop before being blocked. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've unblocked. That block was too quick, and therefore based on incomplete information, and rude. It appears "disruptive editing" has really lost all meaning on WP. As has "competence". Come on. I would go so far as to say Ritchie owes Filmomusico an apology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think MollyPollyRolly should have been blocked, but I do think that the accounts should be declared on their userpages. Flmomusico was advised to do that and said they would.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Filmomusico has a pattern of saying they will comply with various guidelines, then not doing so; lather-rinse-repeat. DMacks (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the importance of alt-account notices was already stressed back in August and September (on their user talk page after a short block), but that this still wasn't done for some reason... This suggests that DMacks' concern is valid. —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

From WP:SOCK#NOTIFY: Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts.^{[emphasis mine]} AlexEng^(TALK) 19:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is there anything here that's actually a problem? This seems to be making a big fuss about literally nothing. Bad block, fish smack to both OP and blocking admin. Maybe all of you should go and do something useful than worry about someone welcoming new editors? Silverseren^C 19:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  Hi, OP here. I reported this because it seemed odd and suspicious that an editor who was issuing hundreds of welcomes but had not edited articles or created a user-page. This seemed like a suspicious editing pattern to me. As I originally said, this is not directly abusive behaviour, but might have been an indication of something worth investigating.

  Now that I understand that this is a single-purpose account operated by an editor in good standing, it does not seem to be a problem.

  My suggestion is that @MollyPollyRolly should be asked to list all of their accounts on all of their user pages. For each state the purpose of that account That way a future editor wondering will understand the context of these unusual edits. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Salimfadhley: Not everyone who uses an account need to create a user page. Look at FloridaArmy for example.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed - user pages are usually optional. I do feel that in this case where a user operates multiple accounts for special purposes, it would be helpful to other editors to make the purposes of these accounts explicitly known. I think this is what @Bbb23 was saying above. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Filmomusico: Others may disagree, but if you really want to keep your user pages redlinked, a prominent note at the top of both of your user talk pages would be sufficient. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for welcoming 'new' editors to Wikipedia. But MPR is going to the extreme on this, don't ya'll think? GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't come here much but reading this over, is Assume Good Faith a thing here anymore? RxS (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

PS: IF Filmomusico has a number of other un-announced accounts. Wouldn't those be socks? GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Just gonna note that Filmomusico got an unrelated 72 hour block during this discussiom. So, the Alt account maybe does matter a little more. Or not. Slywriter (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the blocking admin, and I've been warning this editor previously for their conduct. For what it's worth, I can corroborate what Dmacks said above - the editor has a history of going right back to their bad habits. While I would normally not support blocking an editor who does nothing but welcome people, the editor has been bad about curbing their behavior in regards to unsourced editing and needless infobox tinkering, so I doubt they would have voluntarily curbed their welcoming activities either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree it matters a little more. If Filmomusico uses MollyPollyRolly in the next 72 hours, that'll essentially be block evading. Whether or not we all agree that MPR "deserved" to be blocked or not, on their main account, Filmomusico hasn't learned anything and continues on in an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT manner. An ANI thread was started the other day on them correcting (the formatting of) others' talk page comments, but they were still doing it earlier today on my talk page. Even while responding to Sergecross73's concerns on Filmomusico's talk page about things they asked them to stop doing in April of this year, Filmomusico saw fit to revert me twice ([160], [161]) with reasoning that boils down to "WP:ALT has to be a policy before I follow it" and "until you add alt= to everywhere else there is an image on Wikipedia I don't think we should have to do this" (despite the fact both articles were articles Filmomusico had only changed the formatting of the other day). So everybody's warnings to both MPR and Filmomusico are going to come to naught because this formatting business is a replay of Filmomusico's behaviour from April of this year, and this warning over welcoming people who aren't here to build an encyclopedia will be something they choose to ignore too. They haven't learned a single thing after being told numerous times. The negotiating and tunnel-visioning on only one issue they've been warned about in their requests (pings to Serge) to be unblocked demonstrate this too. Ss112 02:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ss112, removing whitespace is hardly a violation of TPO. The ANI thread was about them correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Enough. I've created userpages for both accounts with the required userboxes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Cross our fingers, that there are no more alternate accounts. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying to Determine if a Page was Deleted

Hi there. About a year ago I seem to recall reading an article in English which now apparently only exists in Japanese (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%81%E5%8F%A5%E8%A6%B3%E9%9F%B3%E7%B5%8C), Chinese (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%81%E5%8F%A5%E8%A7%80%E9%9F%B3%E7%B6%93), and Dutch (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanmingshiju_Guanyinjing). I put the Japanese version through Google Translate and it looked similar to what I remembered reading. Is there a way for an admin to check if there was an English version that was deleted? I'm not 100% sure what the English version of the article would have been called (perhaps "Yanmingshiju Guanyinjing" or "Shiju Guanyinjing" or "Jukku Kannongyō"), and for this reason I couldn't find a way to simply search for the article title, but perhaps it can be located based on the versions in other languages. I know that to request undeletion I would need to go elsewhere, but first I just need to confirm that I am remembering correclty. Thanks so much! DJLayton4 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There has never been an article on en-Wiki under the title Yanmingshiju Guanyinjing. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Another place to look for this sort of hint is wikidata:Q2855249, which has no links in its history. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for the help and quick replys! It seems I am mis-remembering after all! I assume the Wikidata approach is probably pretty definitive, although the English title could have been rendered in a variety of ways. Although the Dutch version is "Yanmingshiju Guanyinjing," the current Chinese version would be romainzed "Shijuguanyinjing" (the spaces or lack thereof between words being somewhat arbitarty in romanizations) and the Japanese version would read "Jukkukannongyō." Other possibilities are "Shiju guanyinjing" (with spaces) or "Jukku kannongyo" (with spaces) or the longer Japanese title "Enmei Jukku Kannongyo." Would it be possible to check these? I apologize for asking, but just want to be sure so as not to reinvent the wheel or run into the same potential deletion issue if I make this article. Thanks! DJLayton4 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

None of those have existed, either. One doesn't need to be an admin to check whether a page has ever existed; just go to create a page with a particular title, and if a page with that title has previously been deleted, there will be a record of that above the edit window. Deor (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Djlayton4: To see if a page has been deleted go to Special:log and enter the page title into the "target" box. If it's been deleted it'll show up in the list of actions. 192.76.8.75 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, good to know. Thank you all very much! DJLayton4 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Djlayton4 you could also try searching https://deletionpedia.org/ -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggested rewording of Restoration of adminship

Please see WT:ADMIN#Suggested rewording of Restoration of adminship for a topic that may be of interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry accusations from User talk:Snackmurat

Closed as requested. Snackmurat has removed the warnings, so are aware of how to report users as socks in the future. The sockpuppetry alleged by Snackmurat was found through CU evidence to be the case and the SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alivahedian. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently came across an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamibekami) which will easily be deleted. The nominator, Snackmurat, in the nomination accused JackJons7 of being a sockpuppetry account. I then non-template warned Snackmurat about not doing personal attacks, i.e. calling another editor a sock account without proof, with a suggestion to remove the accusation. The response from Snackmurat was "Sock puppet. Meat puppet. Member of the same troll farm. Whatever the proper term may be, I stand by my claim. These accounts and IP addresses are working in concert.". After Snackmurat's response, I dropped a level 2 no personal attack template on his talk page [162], which was removed by Snackmurat with the edit summary of "I know what I said. And don't give a damn about your toothless warning. They are sock accounts. End of story.".

Even after a non-template request and a template warning, Snackmurat continued the accusations in edit summaries, which cannot be edited. Any chance an admin can check on Snackmurat's sock claims as well as officially warn Snackmurat for the personal attacks? Elijahandskip (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• CORRECTION: While I was typing this, another editor just alerted me to the investigation into JackJons7. Please close. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing overdue AFD

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 any capable sysop be so kind as to assist in closing this AFD? It has been opened since Nov 2 & was brought to my attention by my colleague Cordless Larry who noted that this revert I made might be the reason it hasn’t been closed accordingly yet. I’d appreciate it , if any one of you all capable hands could be of help here. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2021 (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:Xezbeth

I have taken the trouble to report my case from Meta-wiki here, the articles related to international actors or actresses that I have recently edited was that when I realized that I was separating the terms for example; "voice actor" covered all the work as an actor and even changed and improved most articles of celebrities who had already obtained citizenship before (I mean a certain Peter Wingfield) or that Japanese voice actors had already appeared in series and drama films (for example Mao Ichimichi, Mamoru Miyano or Aoi Yūki) the fact that the occupations that you gather in Wikidata goes only first, not everything, because in the short description there it says so, but I notified you on your discussion page in Wikidata about the same theme and kept hinting that I'm only still guided by the first occupation mentioned in both articles, which was the wrong approach ad normal, she decided to behave like that in that way by treating me like an IP vandal that I am and I am not true. Xezbeth keeps reverting all my edits both here and on Wikidata itself (For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97) and even threatened to block all my IPs that I use because, according to her, nothing else here I vandalize by just correcting all the mess that those same IPs of unknown origin that they did during that time If I did not do anything vandalism, what I could not say is that she had to revert the last stable version most of the article that always separated the occupations of the actors and follow the example of abiding by what it said in the short description about inclusion of biographical data do not put them all together, it is uncomfortable for me also I do not understand anything about it. 179.52.200.192 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This really belongs at ANI, but I've notified Xezbeth for the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment presumably Xezbeth believes the IP is evading a block. There's a long history of ethnicity-related disruption. The changes in the 97 diffs include English v. British and French Canadian v. Canadian of French descent, along with the rest of the style-warring greatest hits. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@力: That cannot be, she should see my non-vandalism current review before reversing the amount of articles that I have altered on international voice actors (including Japan) which is why I wanted to separate the two professions that I used to confuse, I mean to this and it is also in Wikidata here but it is also not vandalized because of the edit filter that was detected when it was triggered. 179.52.200.192 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Standard offer : ElijahPepe

ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for generally being disruptive, particularly for edit-warring on Living with Yourself and lashing out at those who disagreed with him. It's been two years since the block, and he claims to have been doing productive editing on another wiki elsewhere on the internet (the URL in question, https://wiki.cemu.info does not work for me, so I'm not sure how I can prove that) and has had a go at rewriting npm (software) on his talk page. Unlike the behaviour that got him blocked, he has been patiently sitting out the block (unless checkusers can show otherwise) and I think we should just let the standard offer play out. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm often inclined to offer good faith on users who are genuinely following WP:SO, per WP:ROPE. My one question is that you say he's been working on the npm article, but I only see that he copied the information in January, 2021, but I don't see any further edits to it. Not really a deal-breaker; if he's given an allocution and is willing to play by the rules, I have no major issues letting him back. --Jayron32 17:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't catch that, thanks, but I think as long as he doesn't break 3RR while lobbing personal attacks at the other party, and there's been no socking, unblocking looks like a net positive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, a second chance should be given. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No objection to a second chance, as long as we don't suspect there's been socking. —valereee (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Two years is more than enough time. It would've been even better if they made some edits on other projects in the meanwhile, but I see no reason to object an unblock. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging User:ST47 - the blocking admin - to see if they have a strong opinion either way. WaggersTALK 15:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Benchu937711

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.

---

Five times in the past year, this user has edited to Daylight saving time in the United States to remove past dates, including twice in the past day with edit summaries "Anyone found to revert this edit will have their account terminated. Do not vandalize this article and revert this considering that outdated dates are not necessary" and "Do not change my edits We do not need past dates. This is your only warning. If you do so you are considered doing vandalism which can result in actions being taken aganist your account." No discussion on talk page, and seeing how many of [their edits have been reverted, I believe WP:NOTHERE applies. User previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1076#Disruptive_removal_of_content. Reywas92^Talk 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for disruptive edits. I think there is a CIR issue as well, but I don't have time to investigate for that and don't see the purpose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 17 November 2021 (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:ManaliJain

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.

---

There is an issue with respect to this account user. It seems they are following WP: OWN and WP: COI in the article Ankit Gupta. They are constantly inserting unreliable sources such as "the bulletin times" as these [163] & [164] in the subject's article. When someone is removing them saying they are unreliable, they are being adamant to have these sources in the subject's article and constantly reverting the other editors edits giving a vague and invalid reason Unconstructive and disruptive editing. Plus, they have inserted the same unreliable sources twice or thrice in the article. They're not even allowing the others to remove the extra unwanted unreliable sources and improve the article. Please check all the diffs between: [165] and [166]. Can someone please stop them from constantly causing WP:OWN & WP:COI type of editing in Ankit Gupta. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.246.86.28 (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2021 (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.

ANI archive fix

Hi, just hoping someone could help out figure out/fix what is currently wrong on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084 that I am unable to determine myself.

Something occurred between this edit and this edit that caused a whole bunch of mess up to be in a closed topic together, from 'Babydoll9799' to 'Christopher1968 - communication problems'

Any help fixing this would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I found an unclosed nowiki tag. Closed and the rest of the markup is good now. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I found what happened. The BabyDoll discussion had an open nowiki tag on it which went undetected by the markup software until another archived discussion was added that had nowiki tags again. This caused the markup stuff to go wonky as it appears the routine that would stall out on an unclosed tag was restarted again, causing the previously unclosed tag to cause problems. At first I thought it was an error with the bot but I now think not. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Appeal for change of restrictions

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.

---

• Initial restrictions

This is a request for an alteration to my current editing restrictions. I would like for the first part of my restrictions to be amended to "The C of E is banned from proposing DYKs on topics related to politics on the Island of Ireland and LGBTQ topics". The reason I ask is that I recognise my behaviour in the past was inflammatory and I was engaging in being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement, which I now realise I was wrong about and I apologise for this. I recognise the hurt I caused editors and for that I too apologise.

I would like to have the chance to prove I have reformed by a minor loosening of the restrictions to demonstrate the change and maturity that has come on since the restrictions were imposed. I recognise that editors might not be willing to trust me on Irish topics for the moment, but I would like the chance to be able to propose DYKs based on British legislation and Christian churches and hymns again which I am currently unable to do. I will be willing to submit to an immediate recall of restrictions in 6 months if at any point, any admin feels I have crossed the line. Thank you for your consideration. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. You could have proved that you've given up your past antics with DYK hooks in other topics. Instead, a month after your last appeal went down like a lead balloon, you tried to get "Nigger Love Watermelon, Ha Ha Ha!" onto the main page. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• • As I explained in the nominations, It's a historical piece of music yes with an abhorrant title but it is a revealing snippet of life in America back then. It wasn't there to be provocative. I even made sure I watered down the mentions in the article (only in the lead sentence) and proposed alt hooks without mentioning that word. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:ROPE, I may be willing to see a voluntary mentorship option. If C of E can find a sponsor who will independently review their main page nominations for appropriateness before they are posted, then perhaps we have a path forward for loosening restrictions. To be clear, I am in no way volunteering for such a role, but some kind of "supervised release" may be a path forward here, if someone wants to take this on. --Jayron32 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe Roe, and the reply below that. If you don't understand what stirring the pot is, you don't need to be submitting for anything on the front page. As Jayron32 said in the previous failed appeal, they have "spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page" and the Watermelon song is just more proof of that. Since the purpose of a sanction isn't to benefit the individual, but to restore order to the community, it is a no brainer to keep the current restriction, perhaps indefinitely, as the reply above clearly shows that breaching is either in their nature, or they lack good judgement overall. Either way, we don't need the hassles on the front page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose especially in light of the request to nominate topics on legislation. Given that one of the more deliberately-provocative nominations that led to these restrictions was about a piece of legislation, I'm not confident that even limiting it to British entries wouldn't be an out for further disruption. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Grapple X: With respect, that wasn't legislation. That was a court case. But if I am granted the opportunity to prove I have changed, that particular kind of article would still be covered under the amended restrictions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe and Dennis. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe, I would have been more likely to support had it not been for that egregious bit of nonsense which showed that nothing whatsoever had been learned (and I suggested a possible relaxation last time). Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe & Grapple, perhaps another six months of keeping your nose clean and try again? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Withdrawn Fine, I see where this is going. I am disappointed but I see I have no choice but to withdraw my request here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2021 (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.

Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request

User:Whatsupkarren contacted me off-wiki with an unblock request. They are a cu-confirmed sock of User:Tariq afflaq , who in turn is banned under WP:3X. I am forwarding their statement from their talk page. They state that they no longer have the password to the User:Tariq afflaq account, so I told them to use User talk:Whatsupkarren. I'm posting this here as a clerical procedure since they can't post directly to this page; I offer no opinion on whether they should be unblocked or not.

statement

My salutations, After more than 6 months, I would like to appeal my ban, I didn’t use any account for editing in any way on English Wikipedia, I’m not using any account on Wikipedia other than this one, and have no intention of creating any others. and would like to apologize for all my previous actions. I will describe what happened to me: I was first blocked for a few hours for edit warring and failing to gain consensus on a major change, I was totally unaware of any wiki policy, didn’t know what's sockpuppetry, ( I must say that the blame is on me for not familiarizing myself with wiki policies ), I'm not saying that it's simply because of me being unaware of the policies, I repeat that I take responsibility for my actions, When my original account Tariq afflaq was blocked, I immediately created a sock ( George51725w5218 ) and came to the same talk page that I was talking in and provided some sources to support my claim ( again I wasn’t familiar with WP:SOCK ) then I was blocked, at first my actions weren’t intended to break the rules I didn’t know them, I did later and continued being abusive and I own up to it, I was extremely arrogant, and I think the ban was very needed to me, it taught me a hard lesson, and I genuinely promise to avoid the behavior that led me to be blocked/banned. I understand what I was blocked/banned for, sockpuppetry ( I should not create and use account(s) to avoid sanctions, mislead etc even if justified ), Edit warring: (Disagreements should be resolved through discussion & no POV pushing, also when I’m reverted, I must follow the standard process WP:BRD and try to seek agreement from other editor or WP:consensus, etc), gaming the system, using improper language ( I promise that I’ll remain civil, polite, courteous when interacting with other editors, via edit summaries, talk page etc, and I will refrain from responding in a hostile manner when concerns are raised, and I’ll never cause damage or disruption again Regarding my activities in the last six months: I’ve created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias, if you want to see the full list please tell me. I think the ban is no longer needed because I understand what I was blocked for and I will not do it again, I promise that I will only contribute positively and follow all Wikipedia policies, and I’ll make useful contributions, especially in articles about the Near Eastern History and culture, I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns. thank you. Whatsupkarren (talk) 2:19 pm, Today (UTC−5)

-- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This user was an extremely disruptive editor from earlier this year. Their unblock request mentions only a couple other sockpuppets, Tariq afflaq and George51725w5218, but it does not convey the fact that they have actually created an inordinate amount of sockpuppets deliberately to evade scrutiny: see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tariq afflaq for the 16 confirmed sockpuppets and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tariq afflaq for 2 more suspected ones.
  • For example, with their 4353Phone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) account, they were involved with a dispute with the editor Chris O'Hare regarding the Syrian or Lebanese nationality of a particular biographical subject, see [167].
  • Later, with the Sidoc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) account, this user pretended to be Chris O'Hare, who had just been blocked, in order to try and trick administrators into thinking Chris O'Hare was evading their block. In doing so, they also threatened to "hack" someone else's Facebook account. See [168].
• Many of the other 16 accounts have activity centered around changing the nationality of various biographical subjects to Syrian, see e.g. [169][170][171][172]—it seems that this was their goal for evading scrutiny. In short, it is clear to me that this is someone who previously made very calculated, intentional efforts to deceive this community by creating a large number of sockpuppets, and regrettably, their apology less than eight months later is not sufficient to convince me that they will be a net positive to this encyclopedia if they return. If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The conduct detailed above is too egregiously deceptive and and WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. Multiple sock puppets? Threatening to hack someone's off-Wiki social media? Attempting to pretend to be another user in an effort to discredit them? Outrageous. Trust destroyed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Addendum I note the request begins with, "I will describe what happened to me." That strikes me as showing this is a wholly self-serving request. No concern or even recognition that "what happened" was to the community is evident. No consideration is offered as to what benefit the community might derive from unblocking this user. The perpetrator has presented himself as the victim. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - deleted previously via AFD

I normally wouldn't post this here, but I tagged novaPDF and DexOS for speedy deletion as G4 over 24 hours ago. It would be helpful to know if I need to take these two articles to AfD instead. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• SL93, I don't really think the current versions are identical to the deleted ones, so I removed your tags. Fun fact--from a quick look it seems like the deleted versions were actually better than the current ones... Drmies (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)