Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	28	0	28
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 sockpuppet investigations
• 26 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 17 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 2 requests for RD1 redaction
• 48 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 14 requested closures
• 108 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 19 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (63 out of 8825 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin KC Santosh 2024-11-07 19:28 2024-11-10 19:28 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Talk:H:LINK 2024-11-07 18:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan Template:MedalComp 2024-11-07 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2517 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Puneet Issar 2024-11-07 15:06 2024-11-10 15:06 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Travis Head 2024-11-07 14:55 2024-11-11 14:55 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User talk:Quebecney 2024-11-07 12:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Kappa Pi Beta 2024-11-07 12:41 indefinite create drop for potential recreation Primefac Akoko Edo 2024-11-07 12:15 2024-11-14 12:15 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP: requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Joseph Williams (music publisher) 2024-11-07 02:21 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry Liz William Joseph Williams (singer) 2024-11-07 02:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly created by sockpuppets Liz JSW 2024-11-07 02:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Liz Joseph Williams (composer) 2024-11-07 02:08 2025-07-11 18:51 edit,move Stronger protection is warranted as last sockpuppet was autoconfirmed Liz Bhardwaj 2024-11-07 01:26 2026-11-07 01:26 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: Perennial problem Yamaguchi先生 Second impeachment of Donald Trump 2024-11-06 22:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: American politics Ymblanter Draft:Paris Innovation 2024-11-06 21:40 2025-01-06 21:40 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User talk:Quebecneee 2024-11-06 21:00 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Battle of Kurakhove 2024-11-06 20:23 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR SilverLocust User talk:Maximalistic Editor 2024-11-06 20:16 2025-05-06 20:16 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Yamla 2025 United States presidential inauguration 2024-11-06 14:08 2025-02-06 14:08 edit,move Similar protection to target article; stop move issues; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato 2024 United States presidential election 2024-11-06 10:44 2025-02-06 10:44 edit,move returning to EC protection, step down from full Risker User talk:Quebecne 2024-11-06 06:41 2024-12-06 06:41 create Repeatedly recreated Risker Israel and the nuclear program of Iran 2024-11-06 04:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Template:US 2024 presidential elections series 2024-11-06 02:05 2024-11-13 02:05 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Risker Kourage Beats NSI 2024-11-06 01:33 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Kourage Beatz (producer) 2024-11-06 01:25 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Kourage Beatz (record producer) 2024-11-06 01:25 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Kourage Beatz NSI (Producer) 2024-11-06 01:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Kourage Beatz NSI (Nigerian record producer) 2024-11-06 01:14 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Kourage Beatz NSI (producer) 2024-11-06 01:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz User talk:Qcne/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk 2024-11-05 22:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:Qcne/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk 2024-11-05 22:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:Qcne/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk/talk 2024-11-05 22:04 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Draft:Battle for BFDI 2024-11-05 20:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; WP:BFDI Queen of Hearts Dov Lior 2024-11-05 20:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade User talk:Qcne 2024-11-05 19:57 2024-11-08 19:27 edit,move Widr Template:2024 United States presidential election B 2024-11-05 16:40 2025-01-31 23:59 edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:AP2. Match protection level of 2024 United States presidential election.; requested at WP:RfPP Ahecht Wikipedia:Good articles* 2024-11-05 09:47 indefinite edit,move Used in a high-risk template and no need for regular editing. Elli Wikipedia:Featured articles* 2024-11-05 09:46 indefinite edit,move Used in a high-risk template and no need for regular editing. Elli Tim Walz 2024-11-05 04:05 2025-08-27 20:53 edit Persistent vandalism: Major vandalism by an autoconfirmed user. May fall under WP:AMPOL too, but this isn't arbitration enforcement; it may be removed by any other administrator Nyttend JD Vance 2024-11-05 04:01 indefinite edit Candidate in a worldwide prominent election; another candidate was just pagemove-vandalised by an extended-confirmed editor; protection will expire just after the election Nyttend Jewish National Fund 2024-11-05 02:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case The Bloodline (professional wrestling) 2024-11-05 02:24 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Pratihar (Rajput clan) 2024-11-05 02:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Ada vbe Eben 2024-11-04 23:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Amortias Wikipedia:Unified login 2024-11-04 20:51 indefinite move Persistent vandalism; lengthy history of vandalism here and no reason for changes without cause BusterD Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced 2024-11-04 17:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Asian News International 2024-11-04 16:55 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Daniel Quinlan: Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Protection Helper Bot Prachi, Gujarat 2024-11-04 13:05 2025-02-04 13:05 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE Primefac Oduduwa 2024-11-04 10:52 2024-11-18 10:52 move Persistent sock puppetry Callanecc Ada and Abere 2024-11-04 10:51 2024-11-18 10:51 move Persistent disruptive editing Callanecc Egusi 2024-11-04 05:16 2024-11-11 05:16 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Chetsford Highway 4 shooting 2024-11-04 01:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement,WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade June 1980 West Bank bombings 2024-11-04 00:58 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Muhammad Shabana 2024-11-04 00:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade The battle of Hatikvah Neighborhood 2024-11-04 00:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Hussein Hazimeh 2024-11-04 00:43 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Rula Hassanein 2024-11-03 22:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Operation Tyre 2024-11-03 22:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Operations attributed to Israel in Iran 2024-11-03 22:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 2024 Israeli Secret Document Leak Scandal 2024-11-03 22:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 2038 Asian Games 2024-11-03 22:31 2028-11-03 22:31 create Repeatedly recreated: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 13#2038 Asian Games Sdrqaz Eskerê Boyîk 2024-11-03 22:22 2025-05-03 22:22 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Ymblanter Ole Sæter 2024-11-03 22:16 2025-05-03 22:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish

Requests for closure

There is a dreadful backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Are there no admins regularly working that page? SpinningSpark 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As I point out every time this is raised, most people ignore it because it primarily consists of one user listing RfCs he’s uninvolved with that may or may not actually need to be closed. It overwhelms the board. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying there. Is someone mass-adding requests? If so, filtering out the ones that were requested by someone who did not take part in the discussion may be the solution. Or just forbid drive-by requests altogether. Whatever, something really has to be done about it; this is an important board. If we don't have effective dispute resolution processes it will lead to more behavioral problems and come back to bite us in the ass from a different direction. SpinningSpark 12:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Just did a quick headcount. By my count ~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from Cunard. ~20 are from all others combined. I know Cunard says he has been trying to take on the concerns of the community about this, and I believe him, but from a numeric standpoint his requested account for the overwhelming majority of the backlogged discussions needing closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So do you agree that they should be closed as "not done" if there is no evidence that the participants wanted an admin close? I'm willing to go through a bunch of them and take the flak for that, but I'd to feel there was consensus to do that first. A lot of them are completely stale anyway. SpinningSpark 14:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I’d support responding to stale requests at ANRFC with {{nd}} if there’s no evidence those involved wanted a formal close. Might be worth letting others chime in, but I think decreasing the size would increase people’s willingness to respond to requests there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At some point, a realisation will sink in that certain requests are being deliberately ignored. If that happens, and making more requests be an obviously fruitless exercise, they might wither on the vine... ——Serial ^# 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, the problem is that this has been the subject of multiple noticeboard threads for years and apparently hasn’t noticed that no ones closing the stuff. If you want a symptom of how bad the problem is, finding the prior discussions is difficult because his signature is so present at ANRFC it clogs up the archive search. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, ah, I misuderstood. Well; if something has been raised as potential issue, agreed to be one, and the issue continues as before then that rather limits our options. ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just say there have been a couple times that I've been involved with a discussion and didn't list it here because Cunard had already done it. It would be a shame if those weren't closed just because people got tired of Cunard's postings. I've also been in discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it. I suppose it's possible that Cunard could be posting against the wishes of those involved, but I haven't seen it (then again, it's not a page I really monitor -- I'm just drawing on discussions I've been involved with). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this thread from February to be the last discussion of this topic. My thinking on this hasn't changed since then so I will just quote myself It always difficult for me to assess how backlogged it is because so many of the requests come from one editor who may or may not have even participated in the discussion for which they're asking for a close. Not every discussion needs a formal close and the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way...with the result, I suppose, that you then went elsewhere, and the backlog got longer. Absolutely your prerogative. But I imagine you're not the only one... ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your supposition about me is correct. I also suspect I'm not the only one who would pitch in sometimes if it were easier to find the closes that most needed attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Per the suggestion in that thread and here, I’ve gone ahead and marked 10 discussions as  Not done. More probably could be marked as such, but those are the quick ones I was able to clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I've done a couple more of the oldest ones which had quite clearly already been actioned by the participants. I think that Cunard could at least ask the participants if they need a formal close before posting here. I marked as nd one that was on the footie Wikiproject; the participants there might actually positively resent an admin poking their nose in where it wasn't wanted. SpinningSpark 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
      • This is good, for the time being. Now, all things being equal, do we have the means (or the inclination), to stop the issue becoming a perennial one? (Anymore than it is, perhaps.) ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I started closing some of these when it was originally posted, then edit-conflicted with Spinningspark with some "not done" ones that I could close. I'm going to sit this one out for now, but I tried. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: Sorry for the edit conflict. I've left a note on the requests page. Please don't let me stop you from closing some more. The instructions do recommend using the {{doing}} or {{closing}} templates. SpinningSpark 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily going to stop, just going to stop while there is active pruning going on. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Drmies (talk · contribs) and Primefac (talk · contribs) for your work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC yesterday. I deeply appreciate your hard work. Drmies, this was a nuanced and very well explained close of a contentious RfC. Primefac, your close here allowed the article to be updated to the version supported by consensus.

  The below is a modified version of my post here. I in the past listed all RfCs at WP:ANRFC. The community's feedback several years ago was that I was posting too many "consensus is clear" RfCs. I responded to their feedback by making changes to my approach. As BU Rob13 wrote in June 2016:

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

  Since June 2016, I have continued to "list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all". I started closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs myself and listing only the remaining RfCs where I think a close would be useful at WP:ANRFC. This significantly reduced the WP:ANRFC backlog. I have become even more discriminate in my close requests by omitting RfCs that look like discussions such as RfCs 3 and 6 in this list by leaving them unclosed or closing them myself. This has further reduced the backlog.

  I have listed RfCs at ANRFC for over eight years since the creation of the board. Why have I consistently spent so much time collating the list and closing RfCs for eight years? I have in mind users like Triptothecottage who may not remember to list an RfC for closure or may not know about WP:ANRFC. I have in mind the RfCs mentioned by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs): "discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it". I do not want the time and effort of the RfCs participants to have gone to waste when an RfC ends without anyone determining whether a consensus has been reached.

  As Scott put it so well here in January 2014:

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

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

  More concretely, Primefac (talk · contribs) yesterday closed a stale 95-day-old RfC with the result: "There is a narrow margin for converting the pie chart to the 'Pew' version listed below." Primefac then modified the article to use the updated pie chart based on the RfC consensus. If this RfC had not been closed, the article likely would never have been updated.

  This 95-day-old RfC was one of the 12 RfCs yesterday that was marked {{not done}}. If Primefac had not assessed the consensus in the RfC at the same time it was marked not done, a change that had consensus likely never would have been made. For the other RfCs that had been marked as not done, I think closes would have been helpful but will not contest those decisions. I will procedurally close the RfCs and direct editors to create a request at WP:ANRFC if they would like a close.

  Cunard (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted two of the procedural RfC closes after a talk page request. I wrote: "Do you want the consensus for these RfCs to be assessed by a closer at WP:ANRFC, or do you think they do not need to be closed and should be archived without closure?" SharabSalam (talk · contribs) responded: "if they got archived I will restore them. I dont know how to request a closing in WP:ANRFC but I will try. I understand that there is a dispute between you and other editors. I support your position but I dont support your latest closings. They seem WP:Pointy."

  I have made these RfC close requests in part for editors like SharabSalam who do not know how to make a close request at ANRFC. I informed SharabSalam about how to make a close request which SharabSalam has now done for both of the RfCs.

  I made the procedural closes to inform RfC participants that the RfCs would not be formally closed since they had been declined at WP:ANRFC. This is to inform editors who might have intended to request a close at ANRFC but didn't because they saw I had requested the close that if they believe an RfC close would be helpful, they would need to file a close request at WP:ANRFC themselves.

  Cunard (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I dont really know what is going on here. I just thought that there is a dispute between you and that Admin because he seems to be closing request for closers with "Not needed". I dont agree with the admin who was closing those request for closers. All RfCs need closing. Anyone should be able to request closing. Cunard was doing a great job by requesting closer for RfCs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• All RfCs need closing. - Not so, per WP:RFCEND. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can only speak for myself, but I've always appreciated Cunard's diligent listings of expired RfCs. There were many occasions in which I was going to list a request for closure, but found that Cunard had beaten me to it. I've just relisted WP:RFCL § Talk:One America News Network#RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor. This RfC is intended to resolve a language dispute that was subject to edit warring, but nobody has implemented the consensus yet, and a {{Dispute inline}} tag remains on the wording in question. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• I think it's fairly outrageous that legitimate closure requests should have to sit ignored for months because people can't be bothered to simply skip the requests signed "Cunard" (if that's how they feel about Cunard's requests). It adds literally seconds to a job they are committing to spend hours on, so that's a remarkably lame argument. I've been on the receiving end of that BS several times, and I didn't know the reason until now. If people are going to abandon the ANRFC system in droves, get rid of it—although we sorely need more uninvolved closers and closures, not less. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've requested that Cunard stop posting to ANRFC, and I actually take points like Newslinger's above to be an argument in favour of this: yes, Cunard is making some requests that are needed, but if they are needed there's a very high likelihood that someone who is actually involved with the thread will make a request for closure. This problem has been going on for years, and it's made ANRFC one of the most backlogged areas of the project.

Yes, it's super lame that people aren't willing to just skip anything with his signature and look at the others, but part of the problem is that you have no clue if the things with his signature by them are meaningful discussions in need of a close or an obvious no consensus that not even the participants care about anymore. So yes, he may select some RfCs that need to be closed for closure, but the fact that he's the one picking them likely causes there to be a delay in closing. That's disruptive, even if done in good faith.

Tl;dr: I think we've reached the point where we've been having an ongoing discussion for years about one person causing a backlog at ANRFC and have never just asked them to stop outright. I've now asked them to stop outright, not as a sanction, but as a way to see if the page improves. If people notice that because he stops requesting things get closed, we have this sudden crisis on Wikipedia, then we can request he start again. I don't think that will happen, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for closing, TonyBallioni, I appreciate it. I've been accustomed to seeing closing statements on RfCs, especially ones about heated topics, but I suppose that changing this expectation would make editors feel less dependent on closing statements for implementing consensus. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to wax philosophical here, but the idea of a wiki is that it is a lightweight collaboration tool that doesn't need formal approval mechanisms to make changes to published content. On the English Wikipedia, we've developed a complex dispute resolution system because well... we're the 6th largest website of all time and it's needed. Even then, most of our content and disputes do not need formal approval. If there is consensus on the talk page, as there was at One America, someone can just implement it. By moving towards an every RfC must be closed mentality, we're moving away from a wiki mindset, and it causes things to stagnate. We want our editors to feel comfortable implementing consensus when it is clear it exists, which is why we shouldn't be listing everything at ANRFC :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I responded here. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible solutions going forward

I suggest that we should tighten the guidelines for posting new requests on the board. If we still have regular repeat offenders after that, then that is a behavioral issue that we already have the mechanisms to deal with. Here are some suggestions for possible guidelines;

• The nominator has requested the close
• A participant in the RFC has requested the close
• The RfC is on a substantive issue of policy (not a discussion of clarity or style)
• An administrator has requested the close
• If the RfC has very low participation, the issue would be better settled at Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Adding one or more of those, or something similar, should do the trick. SpinningSpark 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is the wrong forum to discuss changes to the guidelines of that page since WT:ANRFC exists. I also object to listing an adminstrator requests the close as administrators have no special authority over content and while RfCs can be dispute resolution mechanisms and thus quasi in the sysop realm, this gives sysops more authority than I think we/they should have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm not a regular here. I was really just trying to respond to user:Serial Number 54129's comment and get a discussion going on what should be done going forward. It was not really meant to be a solid proposal, just some bullets to give the discussion something to focus on. What I don't think is a solution is leaving requests to fester unanswered. That results in frustration for good faith nominators and loss of faith in the adminstration of the site. SpinningSpark 05:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Requiring that requests meet one of the first three points above seems reasonable (I agree with Barkeep on the fourth point being kind of inappropriate). Though there are occasionally cases where the participants forget about an RfC but an unimplemented consensus has been reached, in which case Cunard's listings can be helpeful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm with the majority that all of the first three are fine, definitely not the fourth. In regards to where the participants have forgotten about it, but if closed would cause a change, that's reasonable, but I find it better to first drop a new section on the talk page calling attention to it and see if people are happy to handle it themselves. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If the participants have forgotten about it, that's a good sign nothing really needed to change. Not trying to be dismissive, but sometimes lack of action is a form of consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If this proposal helps to prevent the dreadful bloating of the ANRFC board with requests that don't need closing, then I certainly support it. Tony and Barkeep have hit the nail on the head above with the reasons why it's not a place admins choose to spend their time.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to add my thanks to Tony for sorting this out. It has been a problem for several years. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The second and third points seem fair (nominators are participants so the first one isn't needed). Closing contentious discussions is one of the nastiest admin jobs around and having a massive bloated backlog is definitely off-putting to anyone considering helping out. Hut 8.5 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question. I used to close RFC's all the time until I was asked to slow down/stop. I have not done as many closings since then. If there is a desire for more clerking on that board, I wouldn't mind helping out. A lot has changed since I stopped clerking it, but I have played it safe by avoiding doing so because I am not an admin. Would folks mind at all too much that a non-admin closed a contentious discussion or should I still avoid doing so? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd want to see why people asked you to stop. But there is generally no need for an admin to close things. I've gone trough that list and closed a number of them when I've had time. I think it's useful (and honestly I may start asking people at RfA if they've closed many, seems like a darn good way to judge people's ability to gauge consensus and explain their thoughts. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I can provide you the reasoning later tonight when I'm on Desktop. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: As you can see here, several admins had major WP:CIR concerns with me; so my adopter, Swarm requested I hold off on closing discussions for the time being. That was a little more than a year ago now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @MJL: Just so we're clear, you've moved well past the point of ruffling feathers as a newbie and absolutely no part of me thinks that any of that unfortunate episode is still relevant today. You know that, right? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Swarm: I do! It's just that you never responded when I asked if I should start closing things again a few months ago. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Oh man, I'm sorry MJL. :( I've had a bad habit lately of clearing talk page notifications with the intention of coming back to them, and then forgetting about the messages. That reminds me, I should go check on that right now. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
            • @Swarm: lmao it's all good! I do the same thing tbh It gets worse when you admin on another wiki.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• The problem was, as Tony said, one user consistently flooding the board over the course of years. Said user has recieved the renewed complaints at this time and has made a pledge to substantially scale back their use of the board. I don't see the need to implement bureaucratic regulations in response to one specific problem that has resolved itself. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure that that was the only problem. The really old ones are still not getting closed (except for those that were declined in the initial cull). I did a few myself, but stopped when it became apparent that no one else was taking part (perhaps just picking off the low-lying fruit). I don't want to adopt this board as my personal domain. It is shameful that a request has been open for 321 days at an admin board. SpinningSpark 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Amazon corporate blocks (including 205.251.232.0/22's block)

• 205.251.232.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 205.251.224.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

• 54.240.196.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Hello, it seems that 205.251.232.0/22 isn't actually an AWS range, "merely" owned by Amazon. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-ip-ranges.html#filter-json-file for further details. Could you please have a look? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: There's some unusual WHOIS records in that range, and some other things that say to me that at least some of it is part of their corporate network. Some of the later edits also look a bit specialized. Unless anyone has some contrary views I'm happy to unblock it - we have the /20 blocked so I'll take a chance on unblocking that. You know it's also globally blocked, right? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment zzuuzz. I'm aware of the global block, I just wanted to wait with removing the global one, in case some enwiki admin sees something I didn't :). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. I figure it'll probably be best to convert it to a local soft block rather than unblocking, to help deter someone just hard blocking it again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I've just removed the global portion. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Why do you think it's better to convert this to a soft block? I don't understand that part. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll admit it's not ideal, but there are two scenarios a soft block avoids. First, a lot of Amazon blocking is done by bot, from the IP file, and the bots will (or should) exclude any ranges already blocked. Second, if there's anon editing then someone someday will look up the WHOIS, see Amazon, and just hard block it again. A soft block allowing account creation is not a great burden for the end user, and I'm sure they will understand without feeling offended or put upon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi zzuuzz, I'm the one who brought this block up with Martin Urbanec.

It seems to me that blocking Amazon by bot, or based on a single glance at the WHOIS, is problematic. Some of Amazon's published IP ranges are used for the public-facing IP addresses of EC2, which provisions virtual machines that can run arbitrary applications, such as sending arbitrary Internet traffic. However, other Amazon IP ranges are not used for this purpose; the documentation of the public IP ranges go to some length to clarify the distinction. The services that run from other Amazon IP ranges are things like databases, storage, logging, etc., and simply don't allow running arbitrary code.

Other large cloud providers also provide detailed information on their IP address ranges (e.g. Microsoft Azure IP ranges, Google Compute Platform IP ranges and a script to enumerate them easily). Amazon appears to control about 1.4% of the total (!) IPv4 address space, if I did my calculations correctly based on the published ranges, and I would guess that including cloud infrastructure from other large companies increases this total several-fold.

In my opinion, the description put on these blocks ("open proxy") is confusing and probably exacerbates the lack of feedback from users about IP ranges that have been erroneously blocks. It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a block message that says something like, "Your current IP address has been identified as belonging to public cloud computing environment XYZ."

Also, it appears that English Wikipedia (at least) doesn't have a clear policy on whether or not it's reasonable to impose IP blocks on IP ranges belong to public cloud computing platforms; it seems to me that they fall under the general category of shared IP addresses, but this is pretty vague. While there is obviously potential for abuse of these services, because they allow users to provision IP addresses that are not easily associated with their "normal" home networks, there are also many legitimate reasons to use them, or even why particular users can't escape them. (A lot of corporate networks and VPNs' egress points go through such clouds.)

If there's a more appropriate forum to discuss the general issue of how public cloud IPs should be treated on Wikimedia sites, please do let me know. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moxfyre: Thank you for bringing this up. For the record, I do deal a lot with IP addresses and open proxies, and situations like this, but I do not get involved with the mass blocking of these ranges - when I do I do it as conservatively as possible. Having had some memorable experiences with Leaseweb and SoftLayer a long time ago, I fully recognise the various useful (and often restricted) apps that can use these services, and I try and impart this message at every opportunity. Unfortunately, the main users involved in blocking these ranges are not currently very active, but I'll be sure to point this out to them at the next opportunity. Although having said that, who on earth is going to be editing from databases, storage, or logging servers?

The blocking of AWS generally falls under the 'anonymising proxy' policy, which is fairly liberal on this wiki, when you look closely. I do happen to know the latest round of blocking was kicked off by some rampant vandalism hopping all over the AWS ranges, and we had no choice but to step on it. It wasn't the first time either.

I would be in favour of both a better template for the blocking reason, and an informative page about data centres including clouds and compute hosts (or these providers generally). We could also provide specific information about collateral risks. We don't currently have that. It might take a little momentum to kick it off, probably starting with an essay and some discussion at the village pump, with notifications for the blocking policy and the open proxy policy pages. These discussions can get easily derailed by people wanting full editing from open proxies and such, but a focused discussion might be of use. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the best way would be just to do some editing to the template with a brief information page. I know I have a significantly more liberal view on mass blocks than you do, but I don't really think policy-wise much should/needs to change. We allow for mass blocks of ranges and since SQL and ST47 started doing this systematically locally (as well as Jon Kolbert globally), we've seen a real decrease in certain types of abuse, particularly when it comes to spam sock farms and POV-pushers trying to evade CU... it's just much harder now than it was 5 or even 1 year ago. I think linking to a page explaining this to people might be a good idea, but getting a wiki-wide effort going to rework a policy that has achieved very good practical results precisely because of how broad it is would not be something I think would benefit us. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Thanks for the ping.

It has happened once or twice that I've seen where Amazon retires a range. I've unblocked a few of these over the years, and prior to my break, I was watching for them.

However, that is not the case here.

This range appears directly in https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json.

{

"ip_prefix": "205.251.232.0/22",

"region": "us-west-2",

"service": "AMAZON",

"network_border_group": "us-west-2"

},

This is an amazon AWS range, per amazon Amazon Web Services (AWS) publishes its current IP address ranges in JSON format. To view the current ranges, download the .json file. To maintain history, save successive versions of the .json file on your system. To determine whether there have been changes since the last time that you saved the file, check the publication time in the current file and compare it to the publication time in the last file that you saved.. SQL^{Query me!} 23:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, the other range appears here:

{

"ip_prefix": "205.251.224.0/22",

"region": "us-east-1",

"service": "AMAZON",

"network_border_group": "us-east-1"

}, SQL^{Query me!} 23:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and SQL: as I wrote above linking to the same source, these are not Amazon EC2 ranges. That document goes to some length to clarify the difference between EC2 ranges and non-EC2 ranges. The bottom line is that the non-EC2 ranges don't contain virtual machines where the public can run arbitrary code. This one here happens to host [some] the Internet-facing egress servers for Amazon's internal corporate network. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxfyre, I don't know how to clarify beyond Amazon's own words. Amazon Web Services (AWS) publishes its current IP address ranges in JSON format. To view the current ranges, download the .json file.. It sucks if they choose to mix in corporate ranges, but it seems from that quote that these are AWS ranges. Affected people can request IPBE - I know this because I've granted it many times for this very reason. SQL^{Query me!} 23:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@SQL: Yes, it sucks for Wikimedia (and for Amazon employees trying to edit Wikipedia) that AWS ranges are mixed in with corporate ranges; Amazon (and Microsoft Azure) are known for dogfooding so it's probably not too surprising that some of their corporate services run from IP ranges that are associated with their public cloud services. To also quote Amazon's own words, To allow an instance to access only AWS services, create a security group with rules that allow outbound traffic to the CIDR blocks in the AMAZON list, minus the CIDR blocks that are also in the EC2 list. IP addresses in the EC2 list can be assigned to EC2 instances (emphasis mine).

What this is saying is that only the IP ranges described as EC2 can be used to provision arbitrary public virtual machines. The others are not used for this purpose, and it does not make sense to block them, at least not on the grounds that a member of the public could use them to cheaply get a new IP address. (The document could be much more explicit and clear about this.) —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: "who on earth is going to be editing from databases, storage, or logging servers?" Hah, true! Presumably no one. I was just listing those as examples of things that shouldn't be blocked. The reason that this block came up is because it was also including [some of] the Internet-facing egress servers for Amazon's internal corporate network. Obviously there are cases where blocks are warranted due to sustained abuse or PoV editing, but I believe that in general you try to avoiding blocking networks just because they're associated with the employees of particular organizations, even large and powerful ones.

A lot of users connect from networks which do render their traffic effectively anonymous (IPv4 NATs with too many hosts behind them, institutional network egress points) even though anonymity is not the users' intention. I will try to kick something off over on the Village Pump. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

We have always been very accommodating to employees of these server firms using the corporate parts of their network. I'd also agree that part of this network is their corporate network. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, Based on...? Direct ARIN whois doesn't mention anything along those lines. SQL^{Query me!} 23:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just adjust that link a little. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz, Martin Urbanec, and SQL:, there's another range which has also been erroneously hard-blocked for the same reason: 54.240.196.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). It's also apparently used for Amazon corporate network egress. As with the others listed here, this one is erroneously described as an “open proxy”, whereas it is in fact an AWS but not EC2 range from Amazon's docs (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-ip-ranges.html#filter-json-file).

Could you convert this one to a softblock as has been done for the other ranges discussed? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxfyre, I’ll let SQL look at this more, but based on the discussion above, I think IPBE for any user who is actually affected is the best way forward and that the hard blocks should likely remain in place. There have been zero actual complaints from real people using these ranges. I don’t think proactively unblocking AWS ranges that may theoretically be used by an amazon corporate employee makes any sense at all. If they’re having issues, we have a tool to make an exception for them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The discussion above should make it clear that these are unambiguously not IP ranges which are available to the general public for running virtual machines that can send traffic to the public Internet. They are not open proxies by Wikipedia's lose definition.

I am an actual person actually affected by these ranges, and brought them to the attention of admins and stewards as mistaken based on Amazon's own published data. I know of others affected by them… I conjecture that one reason no one has complained is because the error messages are confusing and do not suggest that someone has made a mistake. Known-affected and motivated-to-do-something individuals aside…

Shouldn't Wiki(p|m)edia projects have a general policy of not hard-blocking IP ranges when there is no rational motivation to do so?

Shouldn't Wiki(p|m)edia projects have a general policy of removing blocks when a previous rational motivation is confirmed to be mistaken? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What was shown above was that part of this was the corporate range. I have given you IPBE to help deal with this. That was the simplest solution. This also impacts some people on Amtrak and Virgin trains, since both of those use AWS to provide in train internet. For the handful of people that impacts, we give IPBE. AWS is used as an anonymizing tool and typically falls within our understanding of what should be blocked. We’ve done an excellent job of hard blocking it in its entirety and that has greatly decreased disruption. For the extremely small minority of editors who get caught in inadvertent collateral, it is much easier to just give them IPBE. I’ve done that for you now. You shouldn’t have any more issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What was shown above was that part of this was the corporate range. Not quite right. What I've shown is that the entirety of the specific ranges named in this section (205.251.232.0/22, 205.251.224.0/20, and now 54.240.196.0/24) are categorically not available for provisioning EC2 virtual machines. There might well be some justification for blocking them, but "can be used as anonymizing proxies" is not a rational justification. "This IP is in an AWS range" is an insufficient condition for judging an IP to be available as an anonymizing proxy, and I'm trying to demonstrate that the additional information needed to make this determination is straightforwardly available.

We’ve done an excellent job of hard blocking it in its entirety and that has greatly decreased disruption Wiki(p|m)edia shouldn't be hard-blocking AWS in its entirety; while I have some qualms about hard-blocking EC2 in its entirety, that would at least be consistent with the "anonymizing proxy" justification.

I greatly appreciate you giving me the the IPBE, but I'm not really concerned about myself; I know how to split-tunnel and use a variety of other techniques to more-or-less-effortlessly ensure my traffic is not subject to such blocks. I'm much more concerned that Wikipedia is excluding a very large chunk of the IPv4 address space by overly-broad blocking of address ranges that are associated with large cloud providers, and thus quite likely catching many would-be editors as collateral damage.

The fact that these are hard blocks which cannot be avoided by creating an account using a less-suspicious IP and then logging in while using a more-suspicious IP makes this problem much worse. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is impacted for a reason like yours, they are free to request IPBE and it will be granted quite liberally. Currently three total people including yourself have requested it that I’m aware of for similar reasons. Two for trains and one for you. There might be a handful of others, but I follow IPBE on these ranges fairly closely. It’s not having a vast impact.

As a whole, AWS is very likely to continue to be blocked globally as well as locally as a hosting provider. These blocks have done a significant amount of good reducing abuse with extremely limited collateral. It is far easier and takes significantly less manpower to block all of it than to identify individual ranges that are used by Amazon corporate or for things like train wifi. It just makes more sense to block AWS and grant IPBE as needed, and you’re likely to see that trend continue both here and at the steward level. It’s a question of limited resources and preventing significant harm. There’s always going to be some collateral with any range block. The question is how we deal with it. There’s no indication we’re being overwhelmed with valid IPBE requests. That’s the easiest way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• While y'all are discussing things I don't understand, the vandalism goes on and on. This is the third one today, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting review of a case of hostile and combative editing

I am requesting a review of the behavior editor GPinkerton in the talk page of Gothic Architecture. I think he has been extremely aggressive and hostile in his commentary, while repeatedly undoing edits he doesn't approve. I hope someone might ask him to treat other editors little more calmly, to tone down his language, to be a little more respectful of other opinions, and to be more open to cooperation instead of confrontation. It might calm things down. I have notified him on his talk page that I am writing to this Notice Board. Thanks very much for your help. . SiefkinDR (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: The only edits I have undone are the ones already opposed by myself and others on the talkpage, or those which manifestly contradict the reliable sources, and in both of these cases it is obviously impossible that consensus is in favour of SiefkinDR's edits, which mostly are geared towards adding acres of blank space to articles by shoehorning badly formatted galleries into every section and then shoehorning all other images into these galleries, regardless of their size, shape, or relative importance. I have also had to make a number of changes to avoid WP:UNDUE weight being given to SiefkinDR's favourite French mediaeval cathedrals. Others I have had to remove as undue weight given to Gothic architecture itself where such is not merited, as at Rib vault. I have many times explained why SiefkinDR's additions are not helpful in this respect, but they continue to blithely edit regardless, forcing their beloved "packed" galleries into every conceivable article. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this response by GPinkerton gives a good idea of how he communicates with me and other editors. See also his commentary on Rib vault. Could someone please just remind him that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a continual battle? Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban

I cordially request of Administrators here to lift the current topic ban against me in the ARBPIA area so that I might effectively contribute in that important area. A ban has been effective against me for one-year. The last appeal that I made was here, a little over six months ago. The history of my blocks in this area is one of rare occurence, while others with many more blocks than me have been allowed to edit in this area. I enjoy this topic area and I hope to contribute more fully for the betterment of our online encyclopedia, if given the opportunity to do so.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Davidbena I am going to suggest that you need to address the issues that brought the ban about in the first place. To quote from the close of your last appeal "...while requesting to lift the topic ban, to come up with specific suggestions what type of articles they would like to edit and how best to avoid the controversies in articles of this type, and what to do if other editors disagree with the edits." In my experience just waiting for time to pass without addressing the previous issues is usually a non-starter. This is just a suggestion on my part and you will get reactions from admins in due course. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD. The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused two other editors in the ARBPIA area of having ulterior motives, when I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. This was clearly wrong of me to do, and I have since made strides to amend my behavior. I bear no ill feelings towards any co-editor here, even in cases where we might disagree on political issues. After all, our world is made-up of pluralistic views, and that's a good thing. The same editors that I disagreed with, I have also a long record of cordial relations with, here on Wikipedia. I'm simply asking for a second chance to prove my worthiness, and to expand articles (make corrections, etc.) in this field.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post this Davidbena. I don't know how things will go but this is a positive first step. MarnetteD|Talk 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Link to the TBAN discussion. Note that this is actually Davidbena's second TBAN, which was enacted pretty shortly after he successfully petitioned for the lifting of the original one, and then resumed problematic behavior; two topic bans in the same area in less than two years is a lot of rope. Also, note that The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused two other editors in the ARBPIA area of having ulterior motives, when I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. is only a part of what drew the second TBAN. I hope that Davidbena will be more honest about their past behavior in this appeal. Reserving my vote until I see more acknowledgment of the problems on display as recently as that last appeal. Grandpallama (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To be more specific, I had actually thought that two co-editors were stalking me because of their "opposite" political views. Does this help? As I said, I can get along with them. My edits in the ARBPIA have mostly been very constructive, as the record will show. If I have erred in judgment regarding these two editors, which I did, let us fix the problem with a reprimand and move-on, without hampering the ability to contribute effectively in the betterment of our important online encyclopedia. If you're counting the number of topic bans, both the editors with whom I contended have a greater number of topic bans in the same area than myself, and, yet, they are free to edit. I have no complaints about that, but hope that admins here will be impartial to my case. By the way, I will be unable to answer here for the next two days, as one of Israel's holidays is commencing this evening.Davidbena (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Валко per NOTHERE

I indefinitely blocked Валко this morning per WP:NOTHERE. Whereas I think this is a good block, on a second thought, there are a couple of issues which I outlined below which could make it better if the community reviews it. The user essentially does not speak English, they have been indefblocked in the Russian Wikipedia and moved here. Their interest is mainly the Russian Volga autonomy republics such as Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. They have some unorthodox views on the history of these republics, not shared by other users and not particularly based on reliable sources - whereas they sometimes seem like an expert fighting against a bunch of profanes, a closer inspection shows that they reject mainstream academic sources and refer to interviews and this kind of less reliable sources. A good example of their modus operandi is here: Talk:Bashkortostan#Soviet Encyclopedia Now Russian Encyclopedia where they use a bunch of sources to combine the conclusions (original synthesis) to come to an opposite conclusion to what a reliable encyclopedia states. This was going on for years on the Russian Wikipedia before they were indefblocked, and it subsequently was continued here, against the same opponents. They also tried to edit the Russian Wikivoyage, where I blocked them, because their main idea was to introduce a bunch of detains which were possibly wrong but most certainly unnecessary for the project and out of scope, and after the block they continued to send me these details by wikimail, presumably trying to convince me that I am wrong. (We very rarely, I would even say exceptionally, block users there who are not spambots or vandals). This was my only intersection with them, I never interacted with them on the English Wikipedia. However, since I have not even given a warning to them and blocked straight indef, and since I might seem to be involved because of my Wikivoyage block, I think it would be better if uninvolved admin(s) would look at my block. If somebody needs Russian translations, I can assist with them. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As a starting note, INVOLVED specifically notes that if you've only had prior administrative interaction with them, then you wouldn't be involved, which would also seem to apply cross-project. @Ymblanter: - on Russian Wikipedia, did they edit any other areas than these ones? That is, the indef could be justified if they're only here to campaign for their points, or indeed if their English is so bad that CIR applies (though that wouldn't be a straight block to me). Were they not indeffed on Russian wiki, I might be more inclined to suggest a couple of TBANs (though that would require sufficient ability/willingness to engage here), but with it, it's probably a good call - I'll be certain when I can do a longer check. Yours, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I will answer all questions, show sources and documents. I'm not a vandal. Валко (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Duplicated from user's TP Nosebagbear (talk)

Thanks a lot. I think this is part of the problem. Did anybody say the user is a vandal? I am pretty sure they will be able to come up with a lot of links in Russian to read. --Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, next time you should use uw-indefblock — the once the block has expired bit in the standard time-limited block message could be confusing for new users. El_C 17:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the one I was never able to find though I knew it exists--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• "@Nosebagbear, El C, and Ymblanter: Great Russian encyclopedia: created national-state. Education within the framework of the RSFSR: the Volga Germans Labor Commune (10.19.1918), the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic (03.20.1919), the Autonomous Tatar Socialist Soviet Republic (05.5.1920), the Karelian Labor Commune (8.6.1920), the Chuvash Autonomous Okrug (24.6. 1920) and others.

decision ru:Арбитраж:Игнорирование АИ Despite the absence of a detailed analysis of the authority of sources in the discussions, a wider recognition of 1919 as the year of foundation of the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (albeit under a different name and in a smaller territory) was shown in these discussions.

Under a different name and in a smaller territory. I suggest as in the article Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (initially, the Turkestan Socialist Federative Republic

The Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (initially, the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic) [1] and [2] [3]

@Ymblanter: You said that I was not a vandal. Then why blocked? Валко (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)"

There were multiple edits by the user here, with the number of templates not making it smoothly drop into a quote template Nosebagbear (talk)

@Валко: - you weren't blocked for being a vandal (you weren't trying to damage the encyclopedia). You were blocked for being here more to advance a specific agenda/pov and convince others rather than enhancing the general encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear:, I’m not promoting anything, it’s well known, but for some reason they want to hide it. The Republic was formed under the name Bashkir Soviet Republic User talk:Ezhiki#User Валко and his original researches on the Bashkortostan topics Валко

@ Nosebagbear : On March 20, 1919, as a result of the signing of the “agreement of the Central Soviet Government with the Bashkir government on the Soviet Autonomous Bashkiria”, the autonomy of Bashkur-Distan was recognized by the central authorities and transformed into the Bashkir Soviet Republic (BSR), as well as the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic (ADB ) [thirteen]. ru: Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic # Official names of the republic , So what's the problem? Valko ( talk ) 14:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)"

Emily Ratajkowski

Should this type of edit not be striked out? [4], Seems somewhat vile of a post. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, Govvy (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Death of George Floyd

I would like for an uninvolved admin to consider topic banning "All Lives Matter" editor User:Frozenranger. While they aren't responsible for starting a rather ridiculous thread on the talk page (see Talk:Death_of_George_Floyd#The_point_of_races_in_the_lead--yes, there are seriously a few editors who want to whitewash the mentions of race out of that article, pace all reliable sources and common sense), they are responsible for a number of really insensitive forum posts, and for a condescending remark toward User:EvergreenFir. Another user, User:RandomCanadian, managed to remove the police officer's race from the article, twice, and posted a number of puzzling remarks on the talk page (essentially questioning/denying that race had been discussed as a relevant matter in the coverage by reliable sources), but they haven't lowered themselves to forumposting yet.

I'm asking for another admin since I, Muboshgu, and EvergreenFir will likely be seen as involved. Please note that both Frozenranger and RandomCanadian were notified of AP2 and BLP discretionary sanctions; Frozenranger reverted that. Thank you. Oh, and please close that ridiculous conversation, since EvergreenFir's list of reliable sources should make sufficiently clear that those who want to erase race from the article (or the lead) have no leg to stand on. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither the article talk page nor the user in question had received a discretionary sanctions notice/alert. I have now done so. El_C 20:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: - The user had indeed been notified: [5]. They promptly removed it ([6]) and minutes later removed the race of the officer from the article ([7]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed that in Drmies' opening. Anyway, actions are as follows: I have partially blocked the user from the mainspace article, but they may have one last chance in contributing to the article talk page (and other talk pages, including this noticeboard report), so long as they start adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines from now on. Failure to do so may result in a topic ban or other sanctions. I have also closed that article talk page discussion, see my closing summary at the top. El_C 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

LTA hoaxer

Do any of the old-timers remember who that fool was who kept inventing American wars? One of their socks was User talk:FrancoRussoGreco , and I just CU-blocked User talk:MinnesotaMapping. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of the CU data, but is it Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amarjeetpardeep? ST47 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Haha, maybe it's his Indian cousin. No, this guy does American stuff, and it reminds me of someone from a few years ago, but I don't think I was directly involved in it, and I sure don't remember. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Perhaps you're thinking of the Upper Peninsula War. Style is similar, but that article was from 2007, and the creator doesn't seem to have any publicly documented socks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is the war I was initially thinking of, thanks--but I'm pretty sure this is not related. What I saw, a few years ago maybe, was more recent. Drmies (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

There has been a backlog at UAA since yesterday, and it just keeps on getting longer. Can some uninvolved admin kindly help out? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

REVDEL request

Can an admin please give a second opinion to this WP:REVDEL request and act (or not act) as appropriate? I don't do enough Revdeling to feel confident in acting on this. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely revdelete — serious BLP grounds. Anyway, I have now done so. El_C 05:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

AfD for Kobi Arad

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

---

I failed to create an AfD for Kobi Arad. Don't know what is the issue. There was an error saying it is blacklisted. - Thebiv19 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This thing back again? There was some paid editing ring around this a few years back. I remember having deleted at least one copy of the article and blocking a few socks involved in that ring. If I'm not mistaken the title was salted too. Don't know why AfD link is blacklisted though. I think the AfD title might've been blacklisted accidentally after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad. Maybe someone who deals with blackists can shed some light. —SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I started the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (2nd nomination)‎, but it could still do with User:Thebiv19's rationale, as nominator :) ——Serial ^# 06:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

For those who want the timeline, it's in the log files, though you might have to do a little digging via Special:Log. See Special:Diff/928367156. The page was created at Koby Arad, reviewed by ComplexRational via Wikipedia:PageTriage, and moved to Kobi Arad by admin Anthony Appleyard. Yunshui ran a check on the page creator (PelicanBaySquad) and said he was unrelated to the sockmaster. The blacklist is still active, but it was evaded by using an alternate spelling. The title blacklist cites Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad as justification. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've re-WP:SALTed the article, given it was deleted under CSD:G5. Pretty much done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk page warning notice

Could someone take a look at a "talk page warning notice" discussion? -- Otr500 (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Otr500, I set it to expire. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The bizarre thing is that I couldn't see any notice whatsoever instructing me to do or desist from anything. Where'd it go? ——Serial ^# 18:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it magic? Hopefully to the "Not really the best worded template subject" Wikipedia boneyard. Thanks, -- ~~

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: 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.

• • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
  • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

Block review

• WikiLover4Ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked this user indefinitely because despite numerous messages and a previous block, they continue to add material, including to BLPs, without citing sources. Of their 500 edits to date, 499 are to mainspace, the sole edit outside mainspace was this following a warning from Materialscientist. Anyone is welcome to unblock if the user begins to WP:ENGAGE, or to convert to a partial block from article space or something, or shorten it. Guy (help!) 22:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Guy: If the goal is to get the user to communicate more, I have to imagine a mainspace partial block would be much more effective than a straight indef. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Withdraw of Afd

Hi friends. I made a mistake on this Afd. Could you please close it? Thanks! Ixocactus (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, strictly someone agreed with you—invalidating WP:SK#1—but since they are *ahem* an inexperienced user, NOTBURO came into play... ——Serial ^# 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You might want to double check what you wrote in the close, "the only keep vote" you mean "the only delete vote" I am sure. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

ha! Thanks Govvy. Now re-caffinated  :) ——Serial ^# 10:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protests

I know that most admins here are aware of the George Floyd protests article but I think there is not enough attention. The article is flooded by many new and old accounts who are editing the article rapidly. It is hard to follow up, there are editwars and disruptive, POV edits in between these rapid edits that you can't notice. Many new editors are unaware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned on ANI, I have move protected the page, indefinitely. I have also just enacted a one month moratorium on any further move requests following a flood of these which was beginning to hinder the stability of the article. El_C 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that I have now also extended the moratorium to the subarticles. I'm not prepared to allow the same conversation to be conducted from one article to the next when it was already addressed in the parent article. El_C 01:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Support the moratorium; there've been many RMs in a short period of time, and enough is enough. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of NOTHERE block template for deletion

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

---

The template {{Uw-nothereblock}} has been nominated for discussion at TfD here. Given that this is a built-in block reason at Special:Block along with the standard block/warn extensions, I am bringing it here for wider discussion. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• As I noted at here, if you use the {{Uw-nothereblock}} template while the discussion is ongoing, a notification appears on the blocked user's talk page above the block message inviting them to join the discussion at TfD. This is not ideal for a number of reasons (e.g. an invitation to block evasion, potential confusion as to how to appeal the block), so admins should be aware of the issue while the TfD discussion is ongoing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, as I already noted, this seems like a WP:POINTy TfD that is actively disrupting the project. El_C 20:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Ponyo, El C, and Black Kite: see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Does_the_community_still_approve_of_NOTHERE_blocks?. For what it's worth, I agree with El C that this was pointy, but if we need to reaffirm that there is still broad support for the practice every five years, we can have the discussion at VPP. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Closure needed at RfC at WT:NFC

Can an admin that hasn't participated yet please close Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Requiring_non-free_content_to_indicate_that_in_their_filenames? It has been open for two months, and while it was close to 50/50 in the beginning, there's now about twice as much opposition as there is support.

I intend to put a few proposals on that page (unrelated to the one above), and have been holding off until this one is closed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I've closed it as unsuccessful and removed the do-not-archive template. ~ mazca ^talk 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Michael Brown "recently deceased"?

Michael Brown died almost six years ago. Should Shooting of Michael Brown remain under DS-BLP? The article gets little attention these days, aside from a steady trickle of uninformed, quickly reverted edits by unregistered or low-time registered editors, which never warrant discretionary sanctions. If anything, the article would be better served by permanent semi or ECP than by DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No longer recently deceased; no longer covered by BLP, DS or otherwise. In any case, agreed: Semi-protected indefinitely. El_C 23:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Brown may not be recently deceased but Darren Wilson, who killed Brown and who is discussed extensively in the article, is alive, as are other people mentioned in that article whose actions were controversial. That being said, I would not object to shifting to semi-protection if there is little disruption of this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And I see that was done while I was researching and writing my comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The BLP DS is usual assigned to the article subject, which is not Darren Wilson (police officer). Anyway. I removed the BLP DS. I'm not sure it is of any use anymore, regardless of these policy hypotheticals. El_C 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that's not a biography so there was never any living nor recently deceased person as an article subject. In other words, as neither Michael Brown nor Darren Wilson were the articles subjects, by that token BLP DS was never justified. However I'd suggest that since the subject was the shooting of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson it was a fair call to apply BLP DS. After all to "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace." And in fact for all the nonsense going around at the time of the shooting, BLP concerns were always going to arise more for Darren Wilson than for Michael Brown. That said, many years after the investigations, I agree that there's no point keeping the DS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Death of X means X is the subject, even if it isn't a purely a biographical article. But perhaps you're right... I'm really not sure. El_C 18:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions don't count matters of race, do they? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Depends on which race, and which AC/DS sanction one is looking to enforce. For example, WP:ARBANEG is specifically about race. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions could also affect matter of race in BLPs as well. If someone keeps modifying claims of the race of living persons in contradiction of RS, it IMO (bearing in mind I'm not an admin so never have to make such judgments) may be reasonable to give them a topic ban or something under the DS process where the awareness etc criteria are met. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did SharabSalam call me a "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll"?

Hi, it seems to me that User:SharabSalam might have made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me: diff. Normally, I would not care but because SharabSalam has already been blocked 4 times (and unbclocked twice), and personal attacks were a contributing factor once, perhaps some action is advisable; I want to draw others' attention to it. Also it seems he was to "avoid articles related to slavery" per one of the unblocks but from time to time he edits them: diff (NB he self-reverted this edit, and his other edits related to slavery seem to be reverting obvious vandalism, though I did not delve deep into the history of any slavery-related page). Generally, it makes me think SharabSalam thinks little of the (un)blocks. As for me, even though I found his comment offensive, I do not know what action would be adequate, and if no action is deemed necessary, I am OK with it. (Also not sure if another/longer block would improve his behavior...) I suppose he makes useful contributions but I am just not sure other editors need to put up with this kind of behavior as Wikipedia is not only about content. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam has a tendency to attack-by-implication and then later apologize, so multiple violations are forgiven, until the next round, at least. I, for one, am getting a bit tired of seeing him as either the OP or the subject of multiple admin noticeboard reports. El_C 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you check what this report is about?...--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I did, and I reverted your attack, to boot [8]. Anyway, so not even an apology this time? I'm sorry but that does not inspire confidence. El_C 19:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, where did I call you a Saudi troll? I said the source [9] says that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by pro-Saudi and Trump bots. Also, I was not banned from slavery articles. I said I will avoid them for 6 months which I did and that was last year.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like in the first dif they gave where you said oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use per [10]. How coincidental! PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And where does that says that he is a Saudi troll?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was the "how coincidental" part. PackMecEng (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No that doesnt say that. I was saying that there is no source available that says Jamal was a "Muslim brotherhood sympathizer" except according to the report, from Saudi bots, and that it was a coincidental that it was the same edit that was added by WikiHannibal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, that is not at all what you said, and I for one am rapidly running out of WP:AGF here. You compared WikiHannibal's edits to pro-Trump and pro-Saudi trolls, then adding "how coincidental" in a sarcastic manner in order to imply that WikiHannibal is, in fact, such a troll. creffett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I wasnt implying that. I was implying that WikiHannibal got that from Saudi bots. Something is so innocent and I really didnt mean any personal attack against him.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I have to agree with El_C here. Considering that you were just at AN/I a month ago for personal attacks, and you've gotten plenty of warnings regarding your interactions with other editors, I have a question: why shouldn't you get a temporary block for personal attacks? creffett (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, when did I make a personal attack here? I never made any personal attack. All I said is that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by Saudi trolls "[11]" You cant block me when I havent made any personal attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How dumb do you think we are?--Jorm (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "Saudi Barbaria" belongs on Saudi-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yea. Now all the people who I had dispute with are going to gather in this thread. I have said that in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN thread. Their regime is barbaric and there is no freedom of press, therefore all of their sources should be considered state-owned sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with you calling it a barbaric regime. I'm taking issue with you wanting to edit controversial articles related to that regime when you feel the need to make characterizations like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Saudi regime is a barbaric regime. It is not not just my feeling. Its the consensus of acadmic scholars who are expert on the subject.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Possible boomrange?: Can someone also look at the history page? WikiHannibal made a bold edit, got reverted, he reverted, and again. I thought Wikipedia is about consensus-building not editwarring. When I warned him, he said it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. Clearly making fun of me because I got blocked in the past. This was before that discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  WikiHannibal, SharabSalam is correct here: that was an edit war, you should have gone to the talk page after being reverted rather than re-reverting twice. Please do not do that again. creffett (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:(perplexed frown) For someone who does not mean to make personal attacks, you certainly seem to make a lot of them. Perhaps you could better consider your remarks? Saudi ‘’Barbaria’’? You seem to have difficulties editing in a neutral manner about this subject. Perhaps things would be calmer with a TBAN on such a subject? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question @SharabSalam: Do you still think that "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" as you said here [12]? --Shrike (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, in I/P area? Yes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that person that think "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" and affirms it[13] shouldn't edit IMO about ARBPIA conflict as he can't edit in neutral way but I like to hear more opinions about this matter --Shrike (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, that’s probably better for WP:AE than here. Different discussions, imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To me it seems its just one of symptoms of same problem.The user cannot neurally edit about political issues and contemporary conflicts --Shrike (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from Saudi Arabia

I think a topic ban from Saudi Arabia is in order. This has been ongoing for more than a year on multiple projects. See this diff from meta where he effectively accused Alaa and other non-Saudi editors from ar.wiki who he was in a dispute with of being agents of the Saudi government when several of the editors who he is discussing have known RL identities and they are most certainly not Saudi. I see his finding of pro-Saudi internet trolls around every corner also continues on en.wiki. Therefore, I'm proposing the following:

SharabSalam is topic banned from Saudi Arabia, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. This has been going on in multiple projects for over a year. The English Wikipedia is not the place for a continued dislike of ar.wiki and conspiracy theories and personal attacks on editors for being Saudi-sympathizers and/or agents. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Tony - is this his first t-ban? I'm not seeing a time frame - maybe 3 or 6 mos if his first? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: It is not his first T-Ban. At the moment, SharabSalam is T-Banned from post-1978 Iranian politics as a result of this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I have not called anyone a Saudi agent. Read my comment. I said there are Saudi agents in that Wikipedia. Which is possible since they have agents in Twitter who were spying on Americans [14].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're not helping. This is part of the trend above, you make broad statements with obvious implications. In that thread you'd accused باسم of intentionally undoing every edit you make after you called out people for supporting "Saudi [Barbaria"], the implication being he was one of them. He's also publicly identified as Lebanese, not Saudi. Another example: you made this reply denying accusing anyone, while saying there were agents on ar.wiki and that people only came after they were notified. The implication in clear.

  Anyway, that's all meta, not en.wiki, but it shows you have the habit of making ridiculous insinuations: neither Ala'a or باسم are Saudi, and both are well-respected cross-wiki. They're not trying to drive a Saudi agenda. While that's another project, it's relevant here because it shows that you see pro-Saudi editors on three Wikimedia projects, even when it's pretty obvious the people you are discussing don't have a bias towards the Saudis. They just don't hate them as much as you. You were welcome to edit Saudi topics on en.wiki so long as you followed our guidelines. It seems you can't follow our behavioural guidelines here, just like you couldn't follow the behavioural guidelines on other projects in this topic area. We have a tool to deal with that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  They just don't hate them as much as you. OMG, I hate Saudis?

  Can anyone stop this?? This admin has completely manipulated what I said. I have never said I hate Saudis. That's such an extremely offensive thing to say to me. I said that there are Saudi agents in Arabic Wikipedia. I never said someone is a Saudi agent. For the reverts, you can see here that I and other editors got reverted by باسم without any reason. Yes, literally no reason for the reverts. They dont say why they reverted you. Your manipulation of what I said is completely offensive to me. If you want to block me, block me but dont accuse me that I hate Saudis. I dont and I dont hate Saudis.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Apologies. I was using standard English shorthand for: They just don't have as universally negative views on things involving Saudi Arabia as you do. No one is saying that the Saudi regime is the model of human rights. What we are saying is that you have a history on multiple Wikimedia projects of not being able to act within our behavioural norms on this subject area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do have a negative view of the Saudi regime, not "on things involving Saudi Arabia". Most Yemenis do have a negative view of the Saudi regime. However, I have never made any disruptive, POV edit in Saudi Arabia-related articles. I have always remained neutral in these topics. I have said the word "Saudi Barbaria" once on Wikipedia, and I was talking in the reliable sources noticeboard about the Saudi regime press freedom. They kill journalists as we saw in the Jamal case. My point was that Saudi-based sources are as bad as Saudi-owned sources because of there is no freedom of press. And that was the whole point of what I said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctant support even though I suggested it. I can't see how anyone who calls Saudi Arabia Saudi Barbaria can approach the subject objectivvely. Tony makes some good points. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)'

  Note: I oppose an Islam TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

  I have literally used that word once on Wikipedia and it was in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN and not in the article. Barbaric means cruel. The Saudi regime is a cruel regime in the context of their press freedom. And I was making a point, Saudi-based sources are not free even if they are not owned by the government, therefore, they are not reliable in some cases.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral on the proposed tban on Saudi Arabia, but strongly opposed to a much broader tban covering Islam-related articles, as is being proposed below. A ban on editing anything related to a major religion is a very strong action. If an editor had a tendency to remove content critical of the Catholic Church, claiming it to be poorly sourced, we would not rush to tban such an editor from all Catholicism-related articles. I've tangled with such editors, especially on matters relating to abortion, but I've always been able to rely on consensus of other editors on those content issues and have never believed that those Catholic editors needed to be banned. As a non-Catholic, I believe that Wikipedia should not take punitive action against those Catholic editors (unless an extreme case occurred); and as a non-Muslim, I also believe that Wikipedia should not ban from Islam-related articles an editor who on occasion has objected to what they perceive as anti-Islam content, even if their objections to it sometimes were not well-grounded. Religious tolerance and even-handedness are important here. NightHeron (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per TonyBallioni and El_C above for consistent POV editing and personal attacks. Also, per Debresser below, I believe we should stronger consider a broader topic ban covering Islamic subjects in general. YUEdits (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)​
• Support I am in agreement that this topic ban is not as broad as we probably need here. I would be also fine with "topic ban from anything related to Muslims". Orientls (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I oppose an Islam TBAN. The argument below is that he removed anti-Muslim content sourced to unreliable sources. Are we really going to sanction an Arab editor for removing anti-Muslim speech in a way that doesn’t violate any policy or attack any editor? If I did that I’d be given a barnstar. I think SharabSalam sees Saudi spies around every corner and needs a sanction because of that, but being paranoid about the Saudi government and calling others Saudi trolls, etc. is what’s disruptive. Removing an anti-Muslim hate blog is laudatory. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • He makes hundreds of edits so that is not really surprising, but also see other edits mentioned in the section below. What one should also see is that the existing topic ban on him from Iranian politics (1978 - present) emerged on ANI and this subject involves Islamic politics. Now we are discussing the Saudi Arabia related editing issues which again involves a Islamic country. I don't see how country-specific bans are really going to work anymore, thus it is better to make a broader topic ban. Orientls (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I wouldn’t object to a broader Middle East topic ban, but I’d pretty strongly oppose an Islam one. Like I said, he accused a Lebanese CU of being a pro-Saudi POV pusher and basically said the only Arab steward was a Saudi spy for opposing a local dialect wiki (full disclosure: علاء is probably my closest friend on Wikimedia so I’m still angry about that.) Now he’s doing the same crap on en.wiki that he was doing on meta and ar.wiki: the thing is, removing religionofpeace and synthesis/original research of primary sources from religion articles is almost always a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I have never accused anyone of being a Saudi spy. Also, I have being completely neutral while editing ME articles. I have expanded geographicall articles about Yemen.[15] I have always being helpful in that area. I dont think this is because of the meta wikimedia thing. I think this is because I supported a standard section header in AN/I. I have noticed that since then you started attacking me. It is also clear that you want to become a steward.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • You realize I’m trying to prevent you from being unjustly sanctioned for removing anti-Muslim hate speech, right? As for your attacks on me: I turn down people asking me to run for steward every year because it doesn’t interest me. The odds of my running for steward are approximately zero, and are also not relevant to this discussion. And no, I’m not mad about you supporting standardized section headers. I’ve admitted I’m not particularly happy with you over your attacks on Ala’a, and that’s a bias, but you’re doing the exact same thing on this project, and since I know the history on meta and ar.wiki that is relevant, and others don’t, I’m going to raise it. I have said that I think your actions on this project have become increasingly a net negative over time, and because I am active cross-wiki and am very familiar with ar.wiki and meta, I know your history on those projects, which is applicable here since you’ve shown the same behaviour on multiple projects, and it’s been disruptive on all of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

          WTF are you even talking about? I have never attacked Alaa. You have got to be kidding me. Are you instigating Arab users against me?. That issue happened between me and the whole Arabic Wikipedia system. I have been so nice with Alaa. See my talk page in Arabic Wikipedia!. I have only objected the way they revert edits, all of them. They don't write edit summaries. I don't think you know Arabic Wikipedia. I have never had any issue with you. It all started when I supported a proposal to have a standard AN/I. Before that you were so nice with me. Even in meta Wikimedia.[16] I have been blocked in Arabic Wikipedia because of the username only, nothing about my contributions. I wasn't able to speak English very well when I joined English Wikipedia but I just joined because every edit I make in Arabic Wikipedia is being reverted. Most articles in Arabic Wikipedia don't make any sense, because they are clearly translations and when someone tries to fix that he gets reverted. Months ago, someone emailed me telling me to make a complaint in meta Wikipedia and to provide evidence. I didn't want to do that but now I will, when I have time, make a complaint and provide tons of evidences of non-free Arabic Wikipedia. In any case, you dont seem to be neutral. You have said many mean things to me like saying that other editors dont hate Saudis like I do "They just don't hate them as much as you" and that I am "being paranoid about the Saudi government ". Do think saying someone has a mental health is not offensive? Do you think saying that I hate Saudis is not offensive?. I told you before, if you want to block me, block me, but dont say these mean stuff to me.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Unfortunately, the editor’s strong personal view about the country appears to be impairing their ability to cooperatively and civilly edit in the area. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Saudi Arabia TBAN per the problems here. Weak support for Middle East TBAN given the pattern with Iranian politics. Strong oppose to a ban on Islam or Muslim topics as way too broad. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from the subject of Saudi Arabia. Partly after reading this here, and partly after reading the recent discussion on SharabSalam's talk page with TonyBallioni, I have to conclude that SharabSalam does not appear to be open to considering how he is coming across or to listening when other people try to explain it. The clearest example is right here, in that "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" comment. Even if that wasn't intended as a personal attack likening an editor to a pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll, it's undoubtedly how it comes across. And I see a steadfast refusal to even consider that. In fact, had I seen that comment before the discussion here commenced, I would have blocked for it. My fear is that SharabSalam is heading for an eventual exclusion from this project, which would be unfortunate, and I hope a topic ban here might act as a wake up call and prevent that happening. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as I said at the ANI thread back then, SharabSalam is emotionally invested in the topics they edit on: first Iranian politics, now Saudi Arabia? I have a gut feeling that we're going to end up looking at a t-ban from the entire Middle East. But, per WP:ROPE, this, for the time being. ——Serial ^# 17:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Saudi Arabia TBAN, alternatively support Middle East TBAN (or should that be MENA to make the WMF happy?), oppose Islam TBAN. Echoing SN54129 and Boing!, I'm not filled with confidence that even an ME topic ban will be enough of a wakeup call given that they didn't seem to get the message after the IRANPOL TBAN, but ROPE and all that. I also would like to express my disappointment that SharabSalam has been told by multiple editors how their "pro-Saudi trolls" line sounds and yet hasn't even retracted the comment. creffett (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  How to redact that comment when it is already removed. I didnt intent to call any editor Saudi troll. I said that the content that was added was promoted by Saudi bots according to reliable sources. If I knew that I would have been understood that way, I wouldnt have said it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support The proposed ban and the ban from Middle East as per this comment [[17] --Shrike (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Censoring

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

---

I just had a closer look at this editor, who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template, and found that on many occasions he has removed negative information about Islam on grounds that seem trumped up to me (excuse the pun). Claiming primary source, unreliable source or original research he removed large paragraphs in edits like [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Primary sources is not in itself a reason to remove information, and frankly these claims seem trumped up in order to allow this editor to remove information which he feels is compromising for Islam. By the way, please notice that I am not claiming to have researched the reliability of each and every source and the sourcing of each and every claim he has removed. I am however seeing the bigger picture here, and it looks very suspicious. Since this is a long-term problem, and one that is much harder to recognize than a personal attack, I don't know what should be done, although I for myself have reached the conclusion that this editor should be banned from all Islam-related articles or simply blocked, since the long-term effects of his edit pattern are very detrimental to the project. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You have not researched the reliability of these sources? Like did you see thereligionofpeace? Did you also see that these sources are all primary and all the content is original research?. You just reverted me without seeing whether what I said was wrong or not. For the template, you were editwarring and you got warned for editwarring. The admin at the editwarring noticeboard also warned you. As I said, all of those who I had dispute with are going to gather here lol.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, primary sources are not forbidden, and are actually often used in articles about religion. And no, I don't think that this content is all original research. And again, I am more concerned with the pattern that is emerging from these edits than with the fact that one of these edits was sourced to an advocacy group, which, by the way, is specifically not forbidden by the relevant policy. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But original research is forbidden. You didnt actually look at any of what I said. You, as you said above, assumed that I removed that content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Thats interesting. Why did you assume that and not look at whether what I said was wrong or not?. You have provided many diffs and I have explained my edits in all of them. If you have a content dispute, we can discuss that in another place. You brought this here, why? You said I am removing content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Could you provide any evidence? The diffs are all justified. Can you tell me where I was wrong in each of these diffs and why?. I would appreciate if you provided more insight to the problem that you are accusing me of.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And there is a diff to the Ghassanids, how is that relevant to Islam? Could you tell what is wrong with this edit!! that you added in the diffs??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I think thereligionofpeace.com is a bogus website. I am not certain of that though, as I don't really want to load such a page to review it. I read about it second hand. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, User:Koreangauteng is confirmed sockpuppet of a user who is known for pushing anti-Muslim view and adding original research as you can see the sockpuppet investigation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, at least one of those sites is an anti-muslim hate blog. I'd have made the same edits myself. Guy (help!) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't have the time to check each statement and each source. Blogs are of course bad sources, regardless of their POVs, no doubt. It is the ease with which whole paragraphs with a certain type of general content are removed, that triggers my suspicion, and I think this should be looked into. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

All of what I removed was unreliable. You have not explained how any of what I removed should not have been removed. You are accusing me of "censoring" but you have provided no evidence. You said at the top and at the very beginning of your post "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template", is this the real problem? Is this why you came here. You were editwarring and you got warned by an Admin. You continued to editwar regardless. Clearly you are treating Wikipedia as a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking generally: I don’t see this as relevant to the discussion. Removing anti-Muslim hate blogs and synthesis/original research from religion articles is a good thing. Most religion articles here are filled with it, and an Arab editor removing it is no different than my gutting Catholic articles sourced to early 20th century Protestant polemics: obviously a good thing. If there are specific instances where the sourcing has actually been evaluated, raise it on the article talk page first. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now he is edit warring about it.[25] Please notice that he removed primary sources and The Economist, which is in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as a "generally reliable source". His edit summary was "Rv unreliable sources". This is unacceptable as 1. censoring 2. removal of sourced information without consensus 3. edit warring 4. using inaccurate/misleading edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You forget to mention he was also removing religionofpeace. I’d be much more likely to support a sanction against you for restoring an anti-Muslim hate blog than him for removing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Debresser, The Econimust source supports this only, Some Muslims, however, advocate for LGBT rights.
• This, however, is based on unreliable source(an anti-Muslim hate blog), In the Quran, abominations include idolatry, divination, gambling, and intoxicants; eating blood, dead meat, pig, or an offering made to a false god; homosexuality; and blasphemy. While the Quran does not specify any punishment for committing any abomination, some Hadiths specify the death penalty for committing homosexuality.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is also unrelated to Abomination (Judaism)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that you started your post with "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template" shows that it is the main reason you came here. It is also not recent, its two months ago, in April. You were editwarring, you got warned. You clearly think this is a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

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

TBAN appeal

Back in December, I was topic banned from edits relating to the Knights of Columbus. Over the past six months, I have abided (mostly, with explanations below) by my ban, strived to avoid conflict, and taken steps to avoid the types of incidents that led to the ban. Below is a brief recap of my past half year of activity.

I’ve long been troubled by the systematic WP:BIAS that is inherent in the project and have used this time to partially rectify it. Of the nearly 2,500 edits I’ve made since then, many--if not most--of them have been to further the goals of Women in Red. I’ve made 22 women blue since then, or almost one new article a week on average.

I’ve slipped up twice. The first came from a misunderstanding of what my ban entailed. After Cullen328 pointed it out to me, I reread the ban more closely, apologized, and have abided by it since. The second time was when I edited an article to add a wikilink and a minor detail to a low-interest biography of a Knight. A few hours later, I remembered the ban and self-reverted it.

I’ve also taken steps to avoid the behaviors that led to the ban. During the TBAN discussion, it became clear that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and especially WP:ABOUTSELF than the community at large. On the three (1, 2, and 3) occasions since the ban when a source I used was challenged, I immediately took it to WP:RSN.

When disputes arise, I’ve taken pains to de-escalate the situation and to bring in outside voices. For example, when a dispute arose at Catholic Church and homosexuality with Rosclese (with whom I have clashed numerous times over the years) in February, I left the article alone for three months, even though I thought she was wrong. More recently, when a new dispute arose with her at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, I not only disengaged from the dispute, I took a week off from editing to reflect. I had been working through the article with another user, and we sometimes disagreed. Through the normal give and take, the article got better. It can be difficult to do this with Roscelese, however, and so when she arrived at the article I notified the appropriate Wikiprojects and removed myself.

When a dispute arose with JZG (pinged as a courtesy, even though he does not wish to interact with me) at Stop the Church, I took the issue to ANI. That conversation dried up without a real resolution, and I was left unsure about what I should have done better. In an effort to avoid similar situations, I then turned to Bagumba and Steve Quinn, who were familiar with the particulars, and asked them directly how I could improve my editing in situations like these. I can't remember any other disputes worth mentioning here.

I am now going to ping everyone who was involved in the original discussion so that they can weigh in here, if they like. @Avatar317, Alexbrn, Serial Number 54129, Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, DGG, Nil Einne, Wekeepwhatwekill, Michepman, Darth Mike, Elizium23, TimothyBlue, Isaidnoway, SPECIFICO, Giants2008, Drmies, Sethie, and Literaturegeek: A few of them said they would support a TBAN in order to give the Knights article time to improve and stabilize, which I believe it has. Since I typically don’t spend much time on noticeboards, I was unfamiliar with protocol in situations like these. I made a partial appeal a few days later, asking to be allowed to edit on talk pages. That was denied, but I want to make sure CaptainEek and Jayron32 have a chance to comment as well, should they care to do so, since they took the time to respond to my previous appeal.

Thank you all for your consideration. I'm not perfect, and I am certain I will mess up again, but I'll try to make new mistakes the next time around. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't mind this being lifted--but there were some really serious issues, esp. in regards to sourcing. Obviously SOT will be closely watched if they get back into this territory. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Slugger O'Toole: For the ANI you opened reporting JzG, it was just a month ago, and I closed it w/ no action as I found both of you to have been edit warring, but it had gone stale. How can you assure the community that it's not too soon to lift this unrelated topic ban? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bagumba, I think that incident is an example of why the community should. I only edited the main article after JZG had gone silent on talk for several days. I took his silence to indicate that he agreed with me. I think this happened twice. After the second time I realized that it wasn't working and, rather than continue to edit war, decided I needed outside help. That's when I went to ANI. As mentioned in my initial appeal, after you closed the discussion I was still unsure what I should have done better, and that's why I went to your talk page (and Steve's) to seek further clarification. I don't want to try and deflect the attention from myself, but think it is worth pointing out here that it was JZG who was making the contested effort, not me, and thus should have been him who was trying to seek consensus. I did so anyway rather than edit war. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I was looking for you to say that you were having a dispute, but you realize now that it was wrong to have reported the other party for edit warring, when you were a culprit as well. It's not to say you didn't know to follow WP:DR now. I'm neutral on lifting the TBAN at this time. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, as usual, you admit no fault, and write as if your point of view on the whole thing is ineffable truth. That was the problem on KofC too. And it seems to me extremely likely that lifting the TBAN wiull lead to exactly the same behaviour again because you exhibit a very obvious emotional commitment to a specific view of these topics. Guy (help!) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, In my initial statement, I twice say that I have "taken steps to avoid the behaviors that led to the ban." In case that wasn't clear, it's because I recognize that I was in the wrong. I was at fault. Mea culpa. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Kind of dependant on the answer to Baguma's question, but tending towards a "Support per Drmies". ——Serial ^# 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• This user has demonstrated no understanding of NPOV and Wikipedia sourcing policy. It was not limited to Knights of Columbus. The same issues are evident in SO'T's editing at Harvard Extension School. This user seems to edit articles that are related to his real-life experience or loyalties but these are exavctly the ones he should not be editing. I see no reason to believe SO'T is willing or able to set aside such fundamental and apparently deep-seated deviations from Wikipedia editing policies. Also, without revealing evidence here, for what it's worth, I believe it's likely he socked at least once in violation of his TBAN. If so, he later lied about that at ANI.17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: Per WP:NPA: Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. May I suggest that you either file at WP:SPI and leave notification here, or retract the statement? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  It was my intention to acknowledge that I was stating my personal belief without the evidence that would be required for a formal complaint. Are you suggesting or ordering me, under threat of Admin action? If you are instructing me as an Admin to strike, I will do so. I can email you why I did not and will not make an SPI complaint. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, I'm unfamiliar with the greater dispute here but raising a serious accusation like "socking to avoid a topic ban" without evidence being offered is pretty textbook casting aspersions which has popped up in multiple ArbCom cases as being quite toxic to dispute resolution and has been described as equivalent to a personal attack. I appreciate that you're not trying to solve that complaint formally here, but simply mentioning it offhand is not generally a good thing - my strong suggestion is to raise it properly (via private means if necessary) or strike it and drop it. ~ mazca ^talk 17:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, I can't change what I've done in the past. I can only try to improve going forward. For what it's worth, when you tried to propose a new restriction on my editing a few weeks ago, a propsal closed per WP:SNOW, you used the Harvard Extension School as an example then, too. The problem is that what you cited as a prime example of my problematic behavior happened there seven years ago. I have offered on multiple occasions, both in that ANI discussion and twice on the talk page there that I would be glad to work on the sourcing in that article with you. You haven't responded to any of those requests. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I would be glad to work on the sourcing in that article with you. That sounds like more of the same behavior that got you banned. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support lifting the ban. Per WP:ROPE, and the reasonableness and thoughtfulness of the above statement, I have no problem lifting the formal ban. I do wish to remind Slugger that memories last longer than bans, and that it is likely the amount of patience given for similar behaviors is likely to be much smaller going forward. --Jayron32 13:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Jayron32, Read the talk page archives. Slugger is a textbook civil POV-pusher. He remians "reasonable" and "thoughtful" until all others have died of boredom or thrown themselves from the nearest tall building in despair. I lost count of the number of times we explained what an affiliated source was, and he never exhibited any understanding of it right up to the ban. Guy (help!) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban - As long as he is willing to mend his ways going forward and work collegiality with other editors then I also am comfortable with ending the ban now. Based on his above comments it sounds like Slugger has turned a corner and has what it takes to contribute productively including in the areas that were under contention. I did see some troubling issues WRT that dispute from last month but I think that even despite that he deserves from latitude since everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Michepman (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for KEEPING the ban - Slugger's problem with the KofC article was NOT a mis-understanding of sources, it was (in my opinion) a strong emotional attachment to an organization to which he had previously stated he belong(s)(ed) to, which caused him to do his best to WP:OWN the article, and use the excuses (which he is still doing now) of "not understanding source quality" to support his attempts at making the article into a positive and glowing propaganda piece for the organization. I don't see how this has changed/could change in 6 months.---Avatar317^(talk) 16:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317, how long do you imagine it would take for me to change? Perhaps I should just wait until then. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know a timeframe, but the fact that (as far as I understand) this is an EXTEMELY narrow topic ban: KofC articles ecompasses what 5-10 articles at most? (this isn't a ban from all religious articles, or all politics articles) Aren't there plenty of other articles in the 6M in the English Wikipedia that are interesting enough to you that you can improve rather than needing to come back to this specific and very narrow topic? The fact that you are here asking for this removal in only 6 months makes me feel that you are still very attached to the KofC area; and more attached than would allow for allowing other editors to modify "your" articles.---Avatar317^(talk) 20:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317, As I said, this is largely unfamiliar territory for me. I don't spend much time on any of the ANs, and only edit here when I am directly involved in something. During my first appeal, Jayron32 introduced me to the concept of the WP:SO. The first step says to wait six months. That's what I did. I think I've met the other two criteria as well. I understand it isn't binding, but if you can't give me a solid timeframe or any other metrics towards which I can work, I don't know what my options are. What is it that would convince you I am ready? Also, I think you are under the same misunderstanding about my ban as I originally was. I'm banned from any edit regarding the Knights, even using it as a passing reference in a talk page comment on an unrelated topic (see the first slip up mentioned in my original statement). It's not as narrow as it appears at first glance. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the ban. It took months to get that article into shape, against determined and relentless opposition by Slugger. Diff from his last edit to the current version: [26]. The comparison between the version I first saw and the current is even more stark: [27]. Note the number of affiliated sources removed. You can see the trail here: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Slugger%20O%27Toole/0/Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality - edit summaries like "gain consensus first" can, as we all know, be parsed as "first satisfy me". "Undid revision 930299082 by SPECIFICO (talk) I disagree. This is not undue detail. We can discuss on talk if you like" - but since he never hgave any ground on Talk that was rather pointless (hence the ban, but I repeat myself). I think SPECIFICO bore much of the b runt of this stonewalling.

We're talking here about an editor who had over 900 edits to an article, reverted pretty much any attempt to tone down its promotional content, and on whose removal the article then took at least a couple of months to get neutral, which involved the removal of around half the text and addition of a good bit more that was omitted and less flattering.

This is not the only article where Slugger has obsessively hammered his catholicism into the 'pedia, either. His behaviour is a classic exemplar of MPOV: He is religious, and like so many religious people he knows he is right, therefore everybody else is simply wrong, and that's all there is to it. He is acting in absolute good faith, and that is the problem. As it is, I strongly suspect that his main reason for wanting to edit that articloe right now is the recent debate over how to represent its funding of anti-LGBT causes. ]]Catholic Church and homosexuality]] is his second most-edited article. Guy (help!) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I tried my best to ping everyone who was involved in the initial discussion. If I missed someone, it was inadvertent. Please let me know who it was and I will ping them now, or you can do so yourself. I should note that I made a special point to ping you, someone I knew would !vote to keep the ban in place. Finally, for the umpteenth time, I do not identify as a Catholic or as a member of any other religious organization on here. My edit history will show substantial contributions to Catholic, Protestant, and secular topics. I don't know why you won't respect my request not to be referred to as such. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I posted it at the Talk page, which of course you could not do, so let's not worry about it. Guy (help!) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, You made three edits to this comment after I responded, adding substantially more content. I don't really have anything else to add (aside from being astonished at the tone which grew increasingly hostile with each edit), but in the future could I ask that you could create a new comment to add additional thoughts? It may look as if I am ignoring part of what you had to say. I believe this is best practice. Thanks. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I completely agree with JzG's characterization in his first TWO paragraphs - the KofC article is the only place where I recall having interacted with Slugger, so my opinions reflect only edits on that article.---Avatar317^(talk) 20:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: 5 May 2020 AN/I close by Lourdes: JzG has said he will voluntarily avoid interacting with Slugger from hereon. So much for that then. Easy to dodge tough situations with false promises (there was discussion that the action in the AN/I thread was desysop-worthy!). --Pudeo (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the ban Slugger has shown no evidence that they have made effort to change their behavior and has shown the same behaviors at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS as Knights of Columbus. Slugger has been pushing Catholic sources that scrape by RS into Wikipedia voice and stonewalling on the talk page when called on it. He downgrades content that is critical of the church and stretches positive content well past reasonable paraphrasing.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)