Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319

XInolanIX

Hello,

User:XInolanIX is an SPA account focused on "Juan Branco" page, which had reached a consensual form before his interventions started a month ago. The page, has been systematically attacked by him and a similar account for a few weeks, in a very subtle but efficient way. Basic biographical elements, coming from primary legitimate sources (Reuters, AP, The Guardian) are deleted when favorable. On the other hand, negative informations, often from French sources (therefore difficult to verify in EN wikipedia) are systematically added in a distorted way.

To be more specific: the contributor deletes without justification basic academic information, as the holding of a PhD title or university affiliations (La Sorbonne); the contributor, transforms a senior research fellow emloyment position to a "junior research fellow" (the former is a title Branco held, not a subjective qualification anyone can comment on, as the sources clearly indicate); erases public positions held at the International Criminal Court and the Foreign affairs ministry, which are publicly sourced, and so forth.

Whatever happened in the history of this page does not justify the obfuscation of verified, sourced elements, the use of speculative wording, including suggestions of criminal behaviour that have never been investigated or been qualified as such in the public space, and so forth.

Many examples can be taken, but the apperantly most insignificant are revealing, for example the use of "populist" in order to qualify "La France Insoumise", the systematically negative presentation of his political engagement, as with the quote of a "colister" of Branco's 2017 candidacy: legislative candidates in France have no "colisters". Those elements are sparsed in a widespread manner. It is difficult to presume good faith when seeing them accumulated, although I do presume that most editors, which do not master French and have not seen French version or have direct access to the French sources, do not perceive it. The individual concerned by this article has been at the heart of a huge polemic, and important attacks both from some media (heavily quoted) and individuals, which have tried to hinder his reputation, have come along. This has clearly affected this page, whatever, once again, the considerations that could be made regarding the previous versions. Having proceeded to the deletion of all informations coming from previous sources - albeit not contradicted since - does not seem to me to be compatible with wikipedia standards. I'll go more into details. The current version has therefore been rendered lacunary on essential points that necessarily affect the objectivity of the page.

This is a serious attack at someone's reputation. Wikipedia is not a place to revenge on or play with other's life. This SPA account is clearly behaving this way, whilst pretending to be neutral and avoid "manipulations" and "adding of hagiographic content", which is unpresent in all the modifications he has systematically reverted, and by doing so he's exposing Wikipedia's integrity.

I therefore suggest banning this contributor, and related IPs, from participating to this page, and if necessary, reverting the page to last version before his appearance, as well as the intervention of an administrator to withdraw from this last version any hagiographic element he could encounter. The French page being relatively equilibrated, a French-speaking adminsitrator would be welcome.

For more details, I suggest to go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Branco#Revision_2

Elahadji (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Elahadji (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This user seems to be the subject of the article himself. His habit of using Wikipedia as a PR-tool and to threaten and denigrate perceived enemies has been well documented by the press as can be seen in the article and it's French version (i.e.: he once wrote a threatening letter to the employer of another Wikipedian claiming to be a "Wikipedia administrator"). XInolanIX (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The opener of this thread (Elahdji) is a SPA that is currently suspected to be a sockpuppet of Brancojuan, and, at least, three other accounts and two IPs (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brancojuan). His agressive behaviour could be the subject of an ANI, but this seems not useful if the SPI will result in a ban. D.Lazard (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There's also some recent edits related to this matter on Gabriel Attal's article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request: Hungarian Spectrum

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

---

This article: Hungarian Spectrum must be deleted: self promotion, soap boxing, political activism. The creator of the page Stevan Harnad used and uses repeatedly the WP to spread his political views - just take a look at his editing history:

He edits his own wp article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stevan_Harnad&action=history

He spreads political opinions as facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_68#Constitution_of_Hungary

etc.

It is just another attempt. Hungarian Spectrum is a closed facebook-group, the main contributor has ZERO scientific output.

Speedy deletion tag already placed, but I guess that Harnad will remove it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.163.158 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the speedy deletion tag. Your reason, "self promotion and soapboxing", is in line with WP:G11, but I really don't see the content of the article as "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". I have no comment on the notability of the subject (which is not a valid speedy deletion reason anyway), or on your apparent claim of conflict of interest. If you think the article should be deleted, please use WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

More than the half of the whole article consists of a quote from George Soros about his vilification in Hungary, and his appraisal (philantropist etc. - he has his own wp article, no need to repeat it here!), and his views on Viktor Orbán. It is clearly soapboxing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.163.158 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Then nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there is some confusion here, but AFAICT, the article is about this blog https://hungarianspectrum.org/ . It seems to just be a blog hosted as a normal website. It's not a closed Facebook group. Maybe there is a closed Facebook associated with the blog but if there is, that's not what the article is mostly about. In fact the article never seems to have mentioned the closed Facebook group AFAICT. The blog seems to mostly about politics and stuff, so I'm not entirely sure why anyone would expect people associated with it to have scientific output anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion should be closed as being in the wrong venue. The place to discuss article deletion is WP:AFD, as Boing! said Zebedee said. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

   Done See WP:Articles for deletion/Hungarian Spectrum. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

COI editing, and now outing

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

---

I would like for someone else to have a word with User:Wallstny, not just in light of their singleminded use of Wikipedia to plug an investment banker, Daniel Alpert, but also because of this note. I'm about to delete that and I have nothing kind to say to this person, so it's best if I stay away from them. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, Promotional Spa account + Harassment that triggered an oversighting = Not here block. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 02:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Moneytrees, I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

BLP and illness

From another grumpy person, even without April Fools vandalism I'm seeing an increasing number of edits claiming people are sick or dead from the pandemic virus. I've blocked or strongly warned several editors for unsourced rumors and general BLP violations.This will only get worse, and April Fools won't help. Rather than an escalating series of warnings, unsourced or poorly sourced rumors of living persons' health status need a sharp warning out of the gate, followed up with protection or blocks if not heeded. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Over the past two weeks, I've already had to revert about a half dozen incidents of vandalism, saying different celebrities (usually ones I haven't heard of) had died of COVID-19. You're right, this will probably increase on April 1st. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A very stern warning or an instablock should always be on the table for someone who intentionally adds false death info, whether it's coronavirus-related or not. Death hoaxes have always been a problem, and it's something I've never had any tolerance for. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly the thing that should not be tolerated. Pissing on other users' good faith, if unfunny, attempts at humor that adhere to WP:FOOLS is just backwards. EvergreenFir' (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If I see someone pull that one, they're getting blocked. That situation is not something to create hoaxes about. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Filter with edit notice

@Acroterion, Liz, Bongwarrior, and Seraphimblade:

Would it be possible to whip up an edit filter for COVID, corona, Wuhan, Chinese virus, and other variations that prompts an edit notice warning of zero tolerance for "April Fools" on the topic and perhaps a chastisement tell folks this isn't a laughing matter? Might curb the problem. And might be useful to keep active beyond today. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment that Suffusion of Yellow made two tracking filters 1040 and 1041 for COVID that perhaps could be used. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I would not support that. That's a heavily edited topic right now and it would catch way too many editors who have no ill intent at all. Newer editors might be frightened off by such a warning and think they've done something wrong. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Just monitoring those existing filters might help. I've found two bad edits made in the past hour. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think any such filter should ignore April Fools, which will pass, and just provide a note on the essential need to provide reliable sourcing and to demand respect for BLPs. There are, unfortunately, plenty of genuine reasons to make such edits. We need to be vigilant and to monitor the sometimes-ghoulish race to announce sickness and deaths. Acroterion (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really adept on edit filters so I can't address that question. As someone who checks edits on COVID-19 articles, I don't think we have to worry about the top coronavirus articles as they are on a lot of Watchlists and vandalism will be caught pretty soon. Some of the lesser watched articles might be vulnerable but even countries with few cases have some editors keeping tabs on them and vandalism will be eventually reverted.

I think the greater concern are April 1st edits that cross the line into malicious vandalism and have to be rev-deleted. I think admins should be contacted directly in those cases unless it becomes a more wide-spread problem and needs more attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at edit filter 1040, where it's fairly easy to pick out possible BLP edits from the subject entry, and found a couple, some good-faith, others vandalism. For now, such a manual scan seems doable. It seems like a version of 1040 that only picks out articles tagged as BLPs could work - most biographies are coded as such on their talkpages. My concern is less about today and more about the weeks ahead, where we might need to remind some editors that we're not running a contest to see who can report someone's sickness or death the soonest, or without sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, Acroterion. I need to remember to check the edit filter logs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Liz, Acroterion, and EvergreenFir: See filter 1047 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: many thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful. One byproduct is that it's highlighting a lot of defamation and BLP vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

2 help requests: Same theme: Possibly COVID-19 or Lockdown related

Hello, on 30 March 2020, on my watchlist I found this edit (there was one more edit on its talk page). The message in Hindi, says, "My father is very sick, could you please help......" Of course this edit non-constructive, however currently like many other country there is 2020 coronavirus lockdown in India.

Today, I saw a similar edit on Mann Ki Baat, and article on a radio program by the Indian PM. The anonymous editor, in the edit, says in Hindi, "Dear PM, we are around 50 people, came from Kolkata to Mumbai, and now we are struck... ... ... we have nothing, and starving. Please help"

I don't think we have anything to do, but I am feeling a bit disturbed. I sent a message on the first editor's talk page asking them to contact local authority for support. Anything else that could be done? Kind regards. --Titodutta (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've requested Oversight on the first and sent an email to WP:EMERGENCY on both. I am not sure if that is exactly within the scope of the latter but I figure this falls under "better safe than sorry".

If my understanding is correct, the big lockdown in India has left a lot of people (migrating workers) stranded without economic resources; some of them might now ask for help in places where one normally doesn't see such requests. Unfortunately I don't know the optimal solution either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, some people are in trouble. Note, both the posts had more information, such as phone number, area name. I did not translate those part in the message above. I monitor only a few pages. Most possibly there are some more such edits. So far, I posted on their talk page asking to contact local police etc. If it sounds good, I can add a Government website help page on how to get help. Kind regards. --Titodutta (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would hope that the people who man WP:EMERGENCY know who to contact in such circumstances, and that anyone seeing such a request would, at least, refer it to them. Whether you do anything more is a personal matter, which uncovers a philosophical dilemma. Should I help my neighbour who can't go out and needs some shopping, or should I help someone on the other side of the world who has a greater need? There's no optimum solution here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Can any one please delete the Local copies of the files that I transferred to commons?

thanks--Hippymoose17 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What local files? El_C 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: check my contributions on Commons. Including all the files that were originally uploaded by User:Guiding light and User:McChizzle I transferred all of them to commons--Hippymoose17 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Phew!

I just transfered an entire category to commons! So can you do a favor and delete the redundant images please? Thanks--Hippymoose17 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Thank you for your help with that backlog. No immediate admin action is needed though. Sometime soon, an automated program will tag the files as being exact duplicates of files on Commons, which will put them into a queue, and admins will review then review them individually for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I am fed up with edit-warring against consensus in Eastern European articles

I was reverting disruptive editing for about ten years. I was by far the most active and often the only admin willing to look at topics related to Russian-Ukrainian, Russian-Belarusian, Tatar, Estonian etc issues. Sorry I can not do it anymore. It is too much for me. Formally, I was broken by this series of edits. The consensus to use Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) has been well established, but these driveby editors just do not care. They come, change the spelling, and disappear. This is not just about Belarusian spelling, it is about pretty much every Russian, Ukrainian, or Belarusian topic where any issues can appear - and they always appear (Kiev/Kyiv being the most notorious example, where for the first time in my life I encountered an admin who refused to accept a RfC outcome). Some of these users stay a bit longer to accuse me in being a Russian government propagandist, a Ukrainian government propagandist, a Russian hater, a Ukrainian hater, a jerk, an asshole, a retard, a moron and so on. This happens on a daily basis. I reverted this particular edit, but I am sure by the end of the day I will be reverted back, with the user claiming that the marginal publication in English he found beats the general consensus on Romanization. I managed to get a couple of these guys to the Arbitration enforcement and get them topic-banned. Each time I had to spend half a day of my life to find the diffs. I can not do it for every disruptive editor with more than 20 edits, otherwise I will only be doing this. More often, they appear out of nowhere and turn out to be socks, after I have wasted enormous amount of time thinking they are new editors. I blocked hundreds of them, one (a pro-Rissian one, for the record) still continues to harass me using IPs. I do not feel that dealing with all this shit is why I came to Wikipedia. Somebody else will have to do it.

This is not really a request for help or a call to action, though it would be useful if more people would have eyes on the thousands of articles in the topic. I just felt I need to express this before taking hundreds of these articles off my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(As I anticipated, my edits were reverted with an edit summary "Reverting Russian nationalist edit" by a user with 52 edits who has not yet posted in this thread [1]--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC))

I took care of that. Reverted and EC protected for 2 months. El_C 07:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Are these articles covered by DS? We could, for a start, semi protect the lot of em and see what difference it makes. ——SN54129 09:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure, we have discretionary sanctions. However, (i) I probably should not be the person mass-protecting such articles since pretty much everyone, after learning that my mothertongue is Russian, assumes I am involved (never mind that I am a Dutch citizen and live in the Netherlands, and have been to Russia once in the last five years - I have been to Canada or Portugal more often during this period) and (ii) I am generally not sure whether the community would like the idea of indefinite full protection of thousands of articles. The most problematic one, such as Kiev, have been semi-protected for ages.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, you just can't trust those Dutch-Canadian-Portuguese editors to understand the Ukrainian language... :-) It doesn't have to be full protection, it sounds like pending changes or extended confirmed protection might help? Do you have a list of the Most problematic articles somewhere? Also, if it's the same edit being made on a number of articles, is edit filter a possibility? It's terrible what you're going through, and no one editor (or group of editors even) should have to manually police so many articles from the same disruption day after day. It's not a sustainable model for building an encyclopedia. We should look at implementing a solution that won't cause us to lose editors to frustration. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) You are not losing me as an editor, I am around, editing and performing admin tasks, not yet planning to retire. However, indeed, this area just became too poisinous. I do not have a list of problematic articles, I do have a list of sub-areal where editing against consensus occurs on a regular basis, but collecting the diffs to prove it on the level of AE or even ANI is just too much. For example, the above example refers to a group of editors promoting an alternative Belarusian alphabet against consensus. This alphabet has some status in Belarus, and this is why they are not prepared to negotiate, they just come, move/ edit and disappear, they are typically active in one of the two Belarusian Wikipedias. Right now I have discovered an attack at Barysaŭski trakt (one user moved the article without consensus, another onbe, belonging to the same group, opened a RM,. and they will make sure that the name would stick).However, collecting all this would probably occupy me full-time, and I do not feel I am here for this. The sky probably is not going to fall on the eath if these nationalists rename all Belarusian-related articles, it 's that just this has nothing to do with the Wikipedia policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, just found this from a week ago, involving the same user.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, I think I speak for many admins when I say, I think you should be able to do as you see fit as an uninvolved admin, including but not limited to using the DS, liberally, if need be. If you feel it's time to escalate — escalate. We don't have enough admins reviewing this key topic area, during these times, especially. So, you have my support. El_C 11:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for support.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, I echo El C's support. I respect the idea that if a minority see you as involved it makes it harder for you to act as an admin in a conflict area but that doesn't mean you are involved or have acted inappropriately. We're all volunteers so if you want to take a break you should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. I am afraid I really need a break from this activity at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: it's incredibly hard to edit in this area, and I agree with your specific wording: it can be so "poisonous" that I don't know how people like you keep it up. But your work is deeply appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The results of this consensus: English Wikipedia vs. Reality --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody apart from you expressed an opinion there as to how we should transliterate, so it is certainly not a consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў means is that the result of the consensus on Belarusian transliteration on en.wp is that we use names for the Minsk Metro stations that are at variance with the Latin-script transliterations that will be actually encountered in the stations. Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is what was meant by the original post at the Village Pump, but what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў said above is that that position had consensus created there, when in fact nodody else expressed an opinion either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, that is not the interpretation my mind leapt to when I read his comment here (I interpreted "consensus" to mean the 2006 one, so pointing to the an exposé of how the results of this consensus create an absurd-seeming situation), although I can see how it could come about due to its terseness. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That wasn't my initial interpretation, but you are probably right. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

When was the "consensus" adopted? Where can I read the discussion? --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For the first time, as far as I know, here in 2006, and has been confirmed multiple times afterwards.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Just another interesting detail for community of English Wikipedia is that one of the biggest supporters of Russian system here was User:Kuban kazak using the symbol of Russian Nazi. I believe there are circumstantial evidence to assume a connection to this topic and keep it in mind during considerations of all this situation. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Do you want to say that I am related to the Russian web brigades?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just show that the users who oppose the Belarusian naming system and support the Russian system for Belarus are somehow connected to Russia. It will be unwise for the community of English Wikipedia not to consider a possibility of Russian state involvement in its editing by some tricky means. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a very serious accusation, and you need to provide evidence or withdraw it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The obviously false (fake) statements by User:Ymblanter like Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population of Belarus looks very close to disinformation campaigns to promote <...> pro-Russian propaganda. And I hope that it is hard to deny Russian nationalistic views of User:Kuban kazak, who took the most active part in so-called consensus (that is actually a messed discussion which became obsolete after issuing Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script) referred by User:Ymblanter. It look like the community of English Wikipedia feels OK with discrimination Belarusians by one particular administrator, who just use the uncertainty of current messed situation instead of trying fix it according to the latest updates. And I don't see a big difference if he acts voluntary in such way or not. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

But the official Instruction was approved only in 2007... --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I had minimized my participation in English Wikipedia long time ago, because the current situation with the names of Belarusian places here is completely insane. The inactive state of Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus proves that I'm not the only one with such opinion. Чаховіч Уладзіслаў has provided quite enough evidence to show the whole absurdity of the Russian fairytale naming in here. So the long-term discrimination of Belarusians in English Wikipedia is a big stain of shame that is hard to wash away. All who support this situation are part of this discrimination and finally leave such "great" legacy. Think about it carefully. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Well, you guys have just zero respect for our policies and consensus-driven processes. You just know the TRUTH and do not care about anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's false accusation as for now there is no policy or consensus Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic): "This proposal has become dormant through lack of discussion by the community". --Red Winged Duck (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody claimed it is a policy. However, it was added 14 years ago followed a discussion, and was kept there without being challenged since. This is a de-facto consensus, even if your group does not accept it. You would need to open a new RfC, announce it properly, and get consensus to introduce Lacinka. What is happening now is a guerilla war, not a process to establish consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter obviously should take a break from editing topics related to Eastern European articles as "a group of editors promoting an alternative Belarusian alphabet against consensus", "another one, belonging to the same group" and same statements are not neutral and looks like conspiracy theory rather than efforts on making Wikipedia better. All of his statements clearly show that rules need to be reviewed to reflect current situation of naming conventions in all eastern european states (at first Ukraine, Belarus mentioned here) rather than ones invented in soviet times not taking in account national language traditions. Simple example: Serbian language has both latin & cyrillic version and Wikipedia using national latin version not any way of transliteration. For obvious reasons people from Belarus and Ukraine are more intrested in topics related to these countries so calling them "some groups" does not meet Wikipedia standarts on neutrality and politeness. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree. Instead, I think some topic bans should be considered. Please apply to whomever is disrupting the project, Ymblanter. El_C 15:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  I am afraid at this point it would be considered at least by a significant minority as actions of involved admin who wants to get an advantage. Never mind I do not care what transliteration is used, I am just trying to enforce consensus and keep the policies homogeneous. The last thing I need at the moment is an ArbCom case against me for violation of ADMINACCT.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I wish I could assure you, Ymblanter. Your uninvolved admin status in this matter has not been disputed by any admin or established outside editor. I don't think an Arbitration case is likely, or if it is filed, it is unlikely to be accepted by the Committee. El_C 15:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note canvassing on the Belarusian Wikipedia [2]--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just canvassing, but battlegrounding: "Come help in the fight against transliteration from 1979 on the English Wikipedia". Unfortunately, Belarussian is so far removed from my own languages that I had to resort to google translate. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on that, I think a year-long topic ban to the culprit (under DS) would be appropriate, unless anyone has any objections. Clearly unacceptable behaviour. Number 57 15:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Number 57, +1 Guy (help!) 20:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Belarusian is one of a few languages (I believe along with Serbian/Croatian) where the users could not agree on the spelling and two Wikipedias had to be created. The same group of people who could not even agree with their compatriots on which spelling of Belarusian to use is consistently pushing one particular version of romanization here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Another one important detail was skipped. The situation with two versions of Belarusian language was created artificially by Russia. So it's not about agreement between Belarusians, it's about classic divide et impera. Moreover, there is no discussion about Belarusian Latin names between Belarusian users, the official Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script (not patriotic Belarusian Latin alphabet) is accepted by the users of both Belarusian projects as a consensus for now. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Is there a consensus? The relevant page you mention is tagged as a dormant policy proposal that never went into effect. If this is the case, and there is no enforceable guidance elsewhere, that would seem to be a massive problem for a language in which there are numerous different ways to Romanize it, and the only guidance is an unofficial stale policy proposal that says to use the British/American system rather than the official Belarusian one, which seems like it would be understandably controversial to begin with. Yes we can and should sanction editors, but shouldn't we also examine the context of why this is happening and what can be done about it? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  It is a de-facto consensus which was followed by the majority of users who were willing to discuss anything for 14 years. I am not against a new discussion (see though Masem's comment below) but it has not even started.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  May be a comment I left a few days ago about a similar but completely unrelated case (no relation to anything Belarusian whatever) could be also useful to understand a general landscape of this editing area.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• At the larger problem 1) it seems odd that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) is not yet a guideline, and that should be reviewed and reassessed. and 2) as en.wiki (not ru.wiki or uk.wiki or whatever), that we're likely going to favor the Romanization spelling of odd character sets like Cyrillic as we already do with things like Japanese and Chinese to make it easier for English readers, accepting that this is not how native Russian/Ukraine/Belarus/etc. would spell it. It's one thing to incorporate the single character accent marks, but its the diacritics that are what make it harder for English readers. But that's my opinion and something to be used to establish point #1 - get that guideline actually to a guideline, at which point it becomes a no-brainer that DS on those users trying to switch to versions away from that guideline are violating. --Masem (t) 15:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, could you please describe a proper way to accept Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) as guideline as it obviously needs new discussion for every language mentioned there and maybe even split by language as it cannot be accepted for all languages at once. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Just follow the process at WP:RFC to lock it down: Add an RFC tag to the talk page, add a simple question, like "Should this document be promoted to a guideline?", and then maybe promote it at WP:CENT, WP:VPP, and if there are relevant wikiprojects in this area (yes, I know, may be tempting fate) , there too. You can explain - after setting up the RFC - that's its been a de facto guideline and you just want to formalize it now, and thus aligning with how we treat other languages (ala Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) , Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), and several other language-specific in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (which, only just doing a quick survey, all support romanization even if we can type out the ISO character). In other words; the current draft/essay for Cyrillic follows the same pattern and thus should be a no-brainer for consistency across WP, and thus should be trivial to keep. Then after 30 days, you'll get a neutral admin to review and close by looking at the arguments (not the !votes) to make the call. I would think that if the situation is as you describe above, you'll have a clear P&G based reason to promote this as a guideline even if the !votes are outweighed by new editors to the discussion that says "But you aren't respecting the culture of X!". --Masem (t) 16:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Does it also apply for new discussion (per Swarm, Double sharp's comments) to create separate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Belarusian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian) etc. or should it follow some other process? --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Red Winged Duck: I think it is best not to bundle the discussion, as the situation will be different for each Cyrillic-script language. Separate pages for each one seem reasonable (indeed, the Ukrainian one seems to be a separate page already). Double sharp (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) I don't know enough on the differences in the languages or any official national guidance as like discussed below, but I would assume that if the Belarusian guidance is different from what the current guidance is for Cyrillic is, then yes, a separate guidance would be reasonable. You'll see we have many per-country level naming conventions, so there's no hard to that, but you still want to establish them as guidelines, ideally using the romanization approach that the other country-specific guidelines use, so that the issue that Ymblanter is fighting against doesn't have to be an issue. --Masem (t) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Judging by what Swarm points out, I think a new discussion on our naming conventions for Belarusian would be a sensible way to get closer to a solution. Since the old consensus seems to be from 2006, the latest iteration of the official Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script is from 2007, and the recommendation that it be adopted as the international transliteration system for Belarusian geographical names dates from 2013, there does seem to be a good case that the old consensus needs to be relooked at due to intervening changes in the situation. Then a discussion can take place and provide a new consensus that should remain valid until the situation shifts again, regardless of what it ends up being. Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be a good idea to discuss this in good faith, but a discussion is not in good faith if there is editing going on in the background that changes things from the current consensus. As an example of this not happening we have User:Чаховіч Уладзіслаў, to whom I suggested discussing the issue here, who started a discussion but when it wasn't replied to in a few days acted as if there was consensus for the changes. This is clearly a contentious issue, so we need to take our time to discuss it properly before implementing any changes. I say all this as one of the few native English speakers with no family connection to Russia or Belarus to have attended a month-long Russian language course in Minsk (in 1978), so I'm sure anyone from either "side" who treats this as a battleground will characterise me as an enemy. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we clearly need an agreement from all parties that changes away from the current guideline's recommendations should not be made before or while the RFC is in process, and that the eventual results of the RFC once it is closed will be respected. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• This is just to emphasize that the scope of the problem is much broader than a handful of Belarusian nationalists disrupting our project. And now I really start unwatching articles, I will only keep my own creations on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  If anybody would ever need my experience / subject knowledge / institutional memory in the area I will be happyto help, but I will not be patrolling the articles anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that the spelling of that city's name is something that people should be sanctioned over if they refuse to follow consensus. There have been many rename discussions which have all concluded with the spelling remaining "Kiev". The irony here is that people claim that "Kiev" is a transliterated Russian spelling. It is not: that would be "Kiyev". "Kiev" is the English spelling. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  "a handful of Belarusian nationalists disrupting our project" - nice example of this sysop "neutrality". --Red Winged Duck (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  If the shoe fits... El_C 09:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter just undid my correction claiming that Russian-language version of Kyiv name ("Киев") has to be placed along with Ukrainian-language version on the reason that Russian is spoken by significant part of the city population. If you follow this logic and want to be truly unbiased (as Ymblanter pretends here) you have to correct respectively articles about other cities with similar cases. To name specifically, Riga or Tallinn, where Russian is a language of significant part of the city population (in case of Riga not less than in Kyiv). Articles of these cities do not contain mentioning of the Russian names of the city. So, either you follow same rules to all similar cases or you recognize that you have "special rules" for Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroserhi (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  WP:NCGN (which is a guideline) is very clear on the subject: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages – i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons. A suggestion that in otder to implement a guideline I should go through every page and implement it at every page I find to be honest ridiculous. Adding Russian name to Riga is certain to cause a reaction from another group of nationalists, and the whole purpose of this thread is that I can not stand this on a dily basis anymore. However, I already removed Kiev from my wtchlist, you can start edit-warring, I will not notice it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have upgraded the protection for Kiev to extended confirmed, indefinitely (Arbitration enforcement). El_C 10:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for this one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I do not argue with guidelines (though I may disagree with some of them), but I just draw attention to Wikipedia double standards. In your response you prove to have biased attitude to specific nations. Additionally, your irresponsible branding of everyone, who disagree with your vision, as "nationalists", confirms your political motivation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroserhi (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  May I please draw your attention to the fact that the Russian name was already in the article, and actually quite for some time. This is a situation different from Riga. If you imply that I am actually, in violation of WP:NPOV, push pro-Russian POV into the articles (and you would not be the first one, there is at least one more user implying the same in this very topic), this is plain bullshit. I had plenty of pro-Russian users claiming I am on the Ukrainian government payroll, for example, for not letting them to replace annexation of Crimea with voluntary accession of Crimea. The whole point is that what I was doing was to implement the policies. I do not care whether policies at this point favor pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, pro-Belarusian, or pro-Reptilian view. They just need to be respected. Unfortunately there are just too many people around who stop caring about policies if they are not aligned with what they want to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

An RFC has been started by User:W at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Problem with transliteration of Belarusian geographical names. Double sharp (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly about the issue (despite many attempts of the users above to imply the opposite) and would be fine with any result of the RfC, however, I feel obliged to note that the discussion so far has been dominated by users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia (in particular, the starter has less than 50 edits total).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Welcome to the party. As you know, we've been dealing with these exact same problems (and much more) around Poland TAs - the sourcing, the reversals, the name calling, the accusations... you name it, we had it. You've seen a tiny bit of it on AE just the other week, didn't you? Well, that's how it looks from inside. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This might not be entirely connected to the problem, but Rolando 1208 (talk · contribs) has been going around in Belarusian pages and removing Russian names. For example, at Belarusian People's Republic. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably not connected. There is a lot of quite diverse disruption ongoing in all these articles for quite a long time. And even if one manages to reason and talk to one user and to convince them to stop disruption (like the above example may show), another one soon will be back doing exactly the same things. May be indeed blank ec protection of these articles on a random version could be a partial solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is happening regularly (eg. just last week) with German place names on Polish articles, and admins know about it. François Robere (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thing is - I and the rest aren't admins - we can't deal with using the same tools you guys and gals have, it's ever more more frustrating because of that. François Robere (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a new problem (WP:GDANZIG anyone?). We have WP:NCGN, created to deal with this issue. People who consistently ignore it need to be warned and if they ignore this, well, that's where admins can come in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NCGN is great but it does not determine for example whether the article's title should be Stoŭbcy, Stowbtsy, or Stolbtsy. For Ukrinian names, at some point, consensus was found - that, with a very few exceptions, the localities do not have established names and have to be Romanized, but, apart from Kiev/Kyiv issue we have a bunch of other things - for example, if a Ukrainian government renames a locality is exercises no control over, should the article be moved? I used to revert these moves back (now I unwatched all these articles), but the user would disappear and a new would come in half a year and move the article again. Without even trying to discuss anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would just mass move-protect all articles on geographic places that are on the receiving end of nationalist language fights. WP won't come to a screeching halt if that's done, and it forces discussion in order to change the page name. I have a real favoritism towards coming down hard on nationalist battleground behavior as it makes the project a worse place and chases away good contributors. The supply of Internet users who are only interested in coming here to import ethnonationalist feuds is unfortunately much greater than that of good contributors, and we want the project to be welcoming to the latter, not the former. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible single-purpose account/marketing account to sell a baseball card

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

---

I'd like for an admin to take a look at user:Generalinfosports's contributions. It appears to me based on their editing history that they might be a single-purpose account trying to promote a specific baseball card that happens to be for sale on eBay. This FfD discussion is what made me look into their editing history, and this edit to Baseball (see both the change and the edit summary) and this draft article are why I am posting here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Premature: new users should be given ample time to develop accounts and webpages and not automatically banned when others with seniority get quickly emotional, especially considering the substantial information/contributions (this draft article and deep educational discussion regarding this FfD which is being contributed to wikipedia.org for free. Please read this FfD as it contains substantial legal facts, legal discussion and analysis which has thus far sustained its ground in leaving the image posted (the Ffd is really the "sum and substance" here not User:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy thoughts of "likely" or unproven allegations.

Please reference User:Ckruschke at this edit deleting 1 space character and claiming vandalism which was not reverted by any of the 5 users involved: User:Ckruschke User:Philip_Trueman User:Jordan_1972 User:Salavat User:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy), To note, User:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy is the only user who claims to list his/her other listed wikipedia accounts (it is not yet known if User:Ckruschke User:Philip_Trueman User:Jordan_1972 User:Salavat are the same, connected or related; however, it is known that this is my only wikipedia.org account).

If there is a deadline for finishing this draft article kindly please advise. The image is necessary for the article unless as this FfD says, a different image is replaced from the source or zoomed in on.

Remove Thread Move to remove thread and wait till draft gets approved or submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalinfosports (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this response seem a bit WP:PRECOCIOUS to anyone else? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The edit here (linked in original post) and the draft article, with phrases like As the value of the "SIDE B" error card rose above $50,000 online, more buyers and sellers became interested in the card, Based on all the facts and the card's sheer limited print, some card collectors value the Hank Aaron "SIDE B" at $50,000 upwards of the $400,000 depending on the card's condition, and the timing with the eBay listing (which also uses some of the same description), does suggest that this may be a bit of promotion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

     Reply: The information is from the eCommerce link. In a non-biased fashong, "eCommerce" substitutes for saying the name "eBay" name. The original poster at the eCommerce link says "could reach the $100,000 to $400,000 range" (last checked April 3, 2020) .

• Comment As the editor who initiated the FfD (which seems to have started the whole thing), I can tell you that I have no particular interest one way or the other in the image or draft article. I simply found the image listed in the Category:Wikipedia_orphaned_files category and was unsure of the licensing and copyright issues. I know the card itself has licensing rules which are separate and apart from the licensing of the photograph of the card. Further to comments above, this account is the only active one I have (I walked away from a prior account looking for a clean start - it has not edited since 2007). If there is anything I can do or add to this noticeboard action, please feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks. Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

    Reply: Thanks for listing past account info to clarify Conflicts of Interests partially. The image is attached to the  draft article . Not sure if it still clarifies as being "orphaned" . If  this FfD discussion is based on the reason of being "orphaned" and it is no longer "orphaned", we should probably Remove Thread 

• I would have thought that this is a very easy decision, and am a bit surprised that it hasn't been taken yet. The editor in question is obviously here to promote an eBay auction rather than to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Just because Hank Aaron might not be a favorite player, or an individual don't like the HANK AARON SIDE B card, is not grounds for taking down the image and HANK AARON SIDE B in my opinion.

Recommendation: have a "SAVE AS DRAFT OPTION" (or sandbox redirec) on the create a listing page for new posters/creators

Recommendation: have a clear small picture/emblem of who are moderators/admin are (higher level wiki people) b/c I dont know who this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nil_Einne who posted on my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Generalinfosports warning (or indirectly threatening if not authorized) to post my name. "Admin COrps" under User:Nil_Einne is not very specific. Is this a legitimate "warning" cause this fsb board does not appear to be closed yet

'Question'Bold text: how do we determine user ranking/moderators/admins? 'Question'Bold text: how will i know if this fsb is closed? not sure if its "time sensitive" cause I have to get back to my real job as opposed to typing this free information

• Comment - can anyone decipher anything here? If all this gibberish was added by the reported editor, isn't it clear that the WP:CIR issues alone are great enough for a block? John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption at AfD

Yesterday, I came across several sockpuppet accounts disrupting AfD proceedings, either by making nonsense votes, closing the discussion as delete and placing G6 tags on the articles, or other problematic edits. Pages affected include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally TV, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tampa, Colorado, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDonate (Pakistan), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sheriff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pauline Wilson. I hoped that it was just April Fool's shenanigans but it seems like they're back at it again today. More eyes on AfD would be appreciated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you’re getting at here. A check on the edit histories shows something that happens at AFD all the time. In cases where the discussions were closed, the consensus was clearly delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.240.207 (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Termination of IBAN

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

---

As listed at WP:EDRC, I am currently under an IBAN originally established almost two years ago and extended more than 18 months ago. I think that it is clear that the IBAN has served its purpose. I have scrupulously avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended and seen little editing by the other editor in question in articles on my watchlist, which has made it that much less likely that any issue would arise in the future. I think that the time is past to end the IBAN and ask community support for its termination. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've notified the other editor with whom Alansohn is ibanned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppoose- As the editor who Alansohn is banned from interacting with, I believe the ban serves a purpose and is the only thing keeping Alansohn from causing further disruption. Alan is arrogant, even now he refuses to recognize it was his poor behavior that led to the restriction and the request is misleading for several reasons. Yes it is true that the original iban was put in place roughly two years ago, but it was to only last 6 months. It was extended indefinitely with unanimous support just one month before it was set to expire because Alansohn blatantly violated it. And to show that the issue is still ongoing, just five months ago Alan accused me of stalking him. Nothing has changed.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• The last "infraction" on Alansohn's part was 18 months ago (the question on Swarm's page Rusf10 links to does not count as a violation). But based on Rusf10's unnecessary personalized attack (to which Alansohn cannot reply), the unsubstantiated claim that "the request is misleading for several reasons" (followed by a simple rewording of the info presented in the request), and the likelihood that Rusf10 *was* stalking Alansohn's edits back in September, it seems the issue is still ongoing. I'd think a better idea would be to convert this to an indef 2-way iban. Following the edits of someone who is ibanned from you is not on, and it doesn't matter to me that it happened 6 months ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Just for the record (as sometimes people take comments from admins here as guidance), while I'm decidedly not saying that this is what's going on here, there are legitimate reasons for checking the edits of someone who's i-banned from you; keeping an eye on what they're editing so you don't edit the same page and put them in an awkward position where they disagree with you but can't discuss it would be an obvious example. That does not mean it's OK to follow people around for the purposes of annoying them or to send an "I'm watching you" signal. ‑ Iridescent 23:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Also, for the record, I was not saying that AlanSohn violated his IBAN again when he complained about me several months ago. Rather, I was using it as an example of why he is misleading everyone when he says that it is "less likely that any issue would arise in the future."--Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Assuming you meant Rusf10's comments in this thread, I don't think it's accurate to say Alansohn cannot reply. The iban specifically says it is subject to the usual exceptions WP:BANEX, which of course includes appealing a ban. If someone is trying to appeal an iban, and one of the other parties replies, it's accepted that the the person appealing can reply back. (And of course, if the other party is also subject to the iban, them replying to an appeal of the iban is not an iban violation. In fact most commonly people want to hear what they have to say.) This doesn't mean it's a good idea, while it may not be an iban violation, most commonly it doesn't help the appeal. This is especially the case when people ibanned start to engage in length back and forths during an appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I generally think Wikipedia’s tendency to take a sanction working at preventing disruption as proof that we should stop it from working at preventing disruption to be counterintuitive. People don’t usually start getting along by not talking to each other for 18 months. I see no reason any lifting the IBAN would be beneficial, especially with the other interested party opposed. Oppose from me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni:, I am not sure if you have seen Alansohn's comment below regarding the onerous steps he has taken over 18 months, but I felt he was sincere. That comment, in addition to Rusf10's initial reply to this appeal, suggests to me that if the interaction ban should remain, it should at least be converted to a 2-way restriction so that both editors are treated evenly to prevent any disruption. Would you support that conversion an alternative? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I have. I still oppose lifting a sanction that's working, especially when the other party opposes lifting the sanction. Also, no, I don't support expanding it. People are allowed to comment opposing someone being allowed to interact with them again. That's not an issue. If anything, I'm more convinced by Alansohn's reply that this should stay in place. An IBAN is simple: don't reply to or post on the talk page of someone who you are banned from interacting with. It's extremely simple. Their comment reads disingenuous and like it's designed to get sympathy for a sanction that's not a big deal. That's not a good sign. This should not be lifted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I think what you've said is fair except for the way in which you've described the iBan as 'extremely simple'; this is not just about talk page edits as the content of the other party's opposition demonstrates. Merely opposing the appeal is reasonable, but that is not the issue I am referring to. (1) Rusf10 made this edit ("Edit") a few hours after Alansohn edited the article (which you can see in that diff) - if the iBan was mutual, I don't think the Edit would have occurred. (2) Rusf10's first reply to this appeal brought attention to the Edit; "evidence of the ongoing issue" consists of this query about Edits to the admin who imposed the sanction. There was a pattern which might reasonably raise concerns of wikihounding by the other party. Whether or not that was the other party's intention, the talk page query and the Edit would not exist if the restriction was mutual. To the extent there is disruption, it is not sufficiently prevented through a 1 way restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
        • IBANs are really simple. You don't reply to another person. You don't revert them. You don't post on their talk page or comment about them. There's absolutely nothing about editing the same pages in there, except the revert rule. Neither of the edits you point out would have been banned under a two-way IBAN, so I don't see how that's the solution here, unless you're proposing a more extreme IBAN that prohibits editing the same page. We've tried those before. They don't work precisely because they're too complex. I'm not neccesarily opposed to making it 2-way for simplicities sake, but I'm not overtly in favour of it either. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Floquenbeam whole-heartedly. Oppose lifting sanction, but convert to 2-way I-ban. That, hopefully, will sort out the entire problem. Black Kite (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Alansohn: Why do you need to interact w/ Rusf10? Are you simply trying to have a black mark removed from your name? If so, what guarantees can you give that you will not have any reason to be dragged back here for even stricter sanctions against you? Status quo may be your in your best interests. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Good question by Bison X. While TB is accurate that an IBAN working doesn't/can't show the issue is being resolved, that does set up sanctions with no generally viable way to show they should end. I want to hear Alansohn's extended reasoning, before I give a support/oppose/2-way thought. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - To be honest, if the other user doesn't want the interaction ban to be removed, then it probably shouldn't. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• See below. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and convert to 2-way per Floq and TB, and I also agree that Bison X's question is a good one. Waggie (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Convert to two-way IBAN per Floq and others. Miniapolis 22:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Waggie and Miniapolis:Why are you supporting a 2 way IBAN when the current ban is working? What have I done to deserve this? Alan has been falsely accusing me of stalking him for years. I already defended myself against his false allegation when it was brought to my attention here. Alan believes that he has WP:OWNERSHIP of all New Jersey-related wikipedia pages and that's the core of the problem. Putting me under an IBAN would give him an advantage because of the sheer amount of pages he has edited in that topic area. He could simply claim he edited the article first (which in almost all cases he has) and then go to the noticeboard and claim that I'm stalking him like he has done countless times in the past. I encourage you to read the ANI discussion that imposed the IBAN and understand it was Alansohn's repeated false allegations and personal attacks that brought on the IBAN in the first place.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning? I'm sorry, but there is non-trivial evidence in the previous ANI discussions that, to paraphrase Icarosaurvus in the first discussion, leaves neither of you smelling like roses. Alansohn is clearly a sore spot for you (as you are for them) and is continuing to be so. An IBAN doesn't prevent you from editing the same articles, provided there isn't interaction (ie: you're not editing their content, reverting their edits, a insufficient amount of time has passed between edits, etc.). Simply having edited the article at some distant point in the past doesn't give them ownership of the article. That's my understanding of consensus regarding IBANs (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Waggie (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is you don't agree with the previous consensus, so now you want to overturn it despite the fact that nothing has happened since then to warrant a two-way extension. If we're trying to overturn a previous consensus then I think its only appropriate to notify everyone who was involved in the two discussions that imposed and extended the IBAN. @SarekOfVulcan, Reyk, TonyBallioni, Jbhunley, Power~enwiki, Nyttend, Icarosaurvus, Gatoclass, Swarm, Dennis Brown, Calton, Nil Einne, Spartaz, Beyond My Ken, Softlavender, Jacona, Only in death, Robert McClenon, Lugnuts, Davey2010, Abequinn14, John from Idegon, JzG, Byteflush, and Jayron32:--Rusf10 (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Floquenbeam, Iridescent, Nil Einne, Black Kite, Bison X, Nosebagbear, Miniapolis, Foxnpichu, Waggie and all those who have participated in this thread. Eighteen months ago, in this edit, User:Swarm extended the IBAN with the other editor indefinitely. Since then, to avoid any further blocks, I have scrupulously avoided any potential interaction of any kind. I have checked the edit history of every single article I edit, both before and after each and every edit, to make sure that I am not inadvertently violating the terms of the IBAN. For every single one of the more than ten thousand edits in the past eighteen months, I have had to obsessively monitor to make certain that the IBAN is not violated. I have demonstrated over those 18 months and ten thousand edits that I have no interest in interacting with the other editor.

My goal here is to end the time wasted in double-checking, triple-checking or quadruple-checking every single edit out of fear that there might be an inadvertent violation. I have *ZERO* interest in beginning interaction after the IBAN is ended. I have *ZERO* interest in seeing this turned into a two-way IBAN.

The extension of the IBAN came with an offer of reconsideration of the provisions after six months. I have complied for six months, then another six months and then a third period of six months. In these nearly eighteen months there have been *ZERO* violations; there have been no potential violations If anyone has any evidence of any violations, please bring them forward. But in the absence of any evidence violations I ask for a good faith elimination of the terms of the IBAN to save me from the anxiety and wasted time of dealing with the risk of blocks of increasing length. That's all I'm asking for. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, also oppose conversion to 2-way, i.e. leave as is - There is no indication that a change is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, is there any evidence that you can provide that the standard offer of reconsideration after six months should not be available? What would you need to see to satisfy you that the IBAN should be ended, particularly as eighteen months have elapsed? Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not BMK, but I'll reply: first, the standard offer only applies to blocks. Second, the standard offer is the single most self-destructive essay on Wikipedia, followed closely by WP:ROPE, and any reasoning based on them rather than how this would actually improve Wikipedia is flawed reasoning. You haven't actually showed how removing this would improve Wikipedia. Until you do that, it shouldn't be lifted. At this point, I'm fairly convinced you won't be able to show it since I can't find a good argument for it improving Wikipedia, even under the most sympathetic of circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Huh. I could be persuaded that lifting the ban is OK, since it can be rapidly reimposed if Alansohn resumes the problematic behaviour. If it remains in place, then it should be two-way. Guy (help!) 09:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• 1st choice remove, 2nd, 2-way. I do get the reasoning made against removing IBANs and such, however they are a sanction and they do hinder the editor - and so unless an alternate, viable, route to measuring when IBANs should cease can be offered by the opposers, then I'm inclined to back its removal. Please insert the usual threats about rope and all that jazz. In the event that a majority for that opinion can't be gathered, then a change to 2-way is preferable. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting IBAN if both editors will promise to leave each other alone. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting per Nosebagbear. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 15:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Not a fan of one way bans, nor two way bans, although rarely they are helpful. It's been long enough to test the waters, and blocks can be used if either party harasses the other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose leave things as they are. If Rusf10 has not been interacting with Alanson to this point and is not causing disruption then it is against policy to place an IBAN 'just to be fair'. As I remember the thread that placed the IBAN on Alansohn only it was because he did not accept that he was contributing to the disruption. If there is some indication that some degree of CLUE has been gained ie understanding why the earlier behavior patterns were disruptive, I can be persuaded to reconsider my opinion. Jbh ^Talk 15:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Note: I was pinged to this thread by Rusf10 above. Ping me on reply. I am not checking in here regularly but I have email notification for pings turned on.
• In light of Alansohn's recent comment, I will change to Support. I don't think the editors ignoring each other is necessary (they may have to at some point), just to not continue what caused the IBAN to be implemented in the first place. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal or convert to 2-way interaction ban per Nosebagbear, Goodday and Dennis Brown. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose simple removal. My comment when the ban was imposed was a recommendation that Arbitration Enforcement fashion a remedy if the community was unable to reach consensus on a remedy, but the community imposed a one-way interaction ban. I see no reason to remove the remedy. My long-term observation has been that User:Alansohn has a long-term pattern of ownership of articles about New Jersey including politicians in New Jersey. An alternative to an interaction ban would be a topic-ban, and I am sure that Alansohn would find a topic-ban more problematic than the current interaction ban. No opinion on whether to make the IBAN two-way, but in the absence of evidence that a two-way ban is needed, it can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and oppose extending to Rusf. Nobody who has supported the latter has bothered to show any diffs or what the extension should prevent, therefore widening is purely punitive. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• From the discussion that extended it to indefinite: "Rusf10 will be, of course, expected to not engage in any behavior that could be construed as "baiting" and is strongly encouraged to continue to avoid any interaction with Alansohn unless absolutely necessary." - diffs linked by Ncmvocalist are examples of why this shouldn't be one-way. Probably better to remove the restriction now; if disruptive behavior resumes, it will lead to reinstatement of the restriction, or a block. Peter James (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That definitely sounds the most fair. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and convert to 2-way per Floq - Given Rus's PA/comment above I see no reason why that should be allowed to continue, Perfect example of how to shoot yourself in the foot. –Davey2010^Talk 18:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting per the other supporters, oppose 2-way as moving in the wrong direction. Two years is too long. Partial sanctions should always be a temporary measure; they can address acute problems but not chronic ones. There is no such thing as an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia, an asset to the project, a net positive as long as they are subject to an IBAN, but if you remove the IBAN, then–poof!–they suddenly become disruptive and a net negative. No matter what the disruption is, every case of disruption comes down to this: either an editor can control themselves, or they can't. Either they modulate their behavior to conform to community norms, or they don't. If Alansohn has abided by an IBAN for 18 months, it's enough to convince me that they are in the former category and not the latter. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting as first choice. Alansohn seems to have complied reasonably well for a long time and their comments make lead me to believe they understand the problems they caused, and will do their best to avoid them. And they have a point that an iban does place a burden an editor especially when they often edit the same areas. If Alansohn doesn't take sufficient care after the lifting, I feel that some sanction can be reimposed. support 2 way as second choice. The comments by Rusf10 here do give enough concern that I feel a 2 way is justified if the iban is to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This IBAN is still serving its purpose well, and one side doesn't want it lifted. Rusf10 proved very well that there is solid reason for it to exist. Furthermore, an IBAN is barely a sanction. It's just intended to prevent real sanctions from being necessary. Having said that, I'd also be fine with conversion to a two-way IBAN. Ames86 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Ames86, no evidence of any kind has been offered by any editor of any issue whatsoever that "there is a solid reason for it to exist". The IBAN forces me to obsessively and needlessly monitor every single edit -- before, during and after each edit -- to ensure that there is no inadvertent contact with the other editor, as any such inadvertent edit would place me at risk of imposition of additional "real sanctions". The offer made by User:Swarm in August 2019 here in extending this IBAN indefinitely made an offer of reconsideration in six months. In the meantime, 18 months have passed with zero interactions on my part. How many months would provide evidence to you (and to any other doubters) that the time to end the IBAN has been reached? If 10,000 edits in 18 months with no issues whatsoever is not enough to provide evidence that the IBAN should be lifted, than what will be necessary to convince you that it's no longer needed? Alansohn (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• I would support lifting the 1-way, with the condition that any future disputes would swiftly result in the appropriate sanction: either a block or blocks, a reinstatement of the 1-way, or a new 2-way. Can an uninvolved editor judge the consensus and close this now? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting the IBAN. We can always reapply later if needed. --Darth Mike^(talk) 13:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Restored from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318 since the consensus in this discussion should be assessed. Cunard (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser

There's a bunch of requests here, including mine, which has been there for almost a month. This needs admin attention. Invalid^OS_talk 12:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting speedy close of disruptive AfD

User:TenPoundHammer just nominated Peppermint Park (TV series) for deletion for a third time in less than 4 months, after the last two AfDs both ended with "no consensus" and a recommendation from the closer (User:Sandstein) to "let some time pass" before the next one (IMO a problematic statement for an unbiased closer in itself).

Had I not participated in the second AfD, I would have WP:NAC-closed this one myself immediately as it is blatantly disruptive. But doing so now would be improper, so I'm asking an uninvolved admin (or experienced editor) to do it instead. Modernponderer (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Modernponderer: @Barkeep49: So how much is "some time" anyway? I was not given a set time. I thought three months would be fine. This seems needelessly pedantic and bureaucratic. @Sandstein: only said "Some time" and did not specify how much. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, 3 months from the 2nd AfD would have been May 3 not April 3. In my speedy close of the third nomination I wrote In this case I would suggest 6 months from the close of the second nomination as a minimum time. Hopefully that gives you a sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Limitation of partial block

The range 47.15.128.0/17 (contribs | filter log) is currently the subject of a partial block until mid-June. However the partial block is already at the maximum number of specified articles (10) and the vandalism is spreading out wider - their current favourite page is Forbes. The range is a wide one but I can't see a solution other than to extend the block to include all of article space which may have an undue effect on other editors. It's that or back to whack-a-mole with each IP address. Nthep (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Block extended to cover mainspace. Nthep (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

An interesting extension to partial blocks might be anonymous matching on user agent. Envision being able to say, "Block 47.15.128.0/17, but only if the user agent matches (perhaps fuzzy matches) the one used to do this specific edit". The actual agent string wouldn't need to be disclosed publicly, just stored in some lookaside table keyed by ipblocks.ipb_id, which wouldn't be visible to anybody. I'd be a lot happier about blocking a /17 if it could be narrowed down in this way. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: if phab:T100070 gets traction that suggestion could possibly be integrated, feel free to leave comments on the ticket. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Checkusers have been begging for useragent blocks for years. With Google deprecating useragents in Chrome it's unlikely to get much dev attention at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

creating articles

Hi please look here, There is no mention of template or category creation here But according to this reference, I am forbidden from both In this talk, However, I can't do anything And I want a little exemption So that I can have some activity. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Come on. It's been just a little over three months since you were unblocked. You are doing ok, but it's much, much too soon to lift your restrictions. --Yamla (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Does his ban include creating pages in his user subpage? It may be an idea to allow (and encourage) it (and later, he may use {{subst:submit}} to request a review) as a first step.--GZWDer (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The ban includes anything that would show up as "created page" here. It was incredibly difficult to communicate with M.k.m2003 over the scope of the topic ban and I oppose complicating it in any way. However, your approach may be viable, if it comes with a time-based restriction on {{subst:submit}}. Again, though, I think this is complicating matters and I think we shouldn't do this at this time. --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

At least look at my templates for example:Template:Castles in Austria, Template:Castles in Portugal, Template:Sasanian castles And ..., Please look here, I am not allowed to create categories And I have such a problem:500 edits were restored And no one helped me, My efforts were right but sabotage was announced!!!, I can be helpful even if I don't know your language M.k.m2003 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Advertising

Tanisha priyadarshini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi admin

can someone please edit the talk page or remove that message from talkpage as he/she is advertising on talkpage and i am sure this is not allowed on Wikipedia. User:Tanisha priyadarshini

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've left a message for the editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to oversight team (II)

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 18:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to oversight team (II)

User:Belledoll

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents § User:Belledoll

 – Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88

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

---

• Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Black Kite blocked Hijiri88 indefintely for "Personal attacks after warnings, plus self-requested indefblock". Since self-requested blocks are normally lifted on the request of the user, there is a tension here. I think we need a collective view of how long the NPA block is, and therefore what block length should be imposed if the self-requested indef is lifted. My view is that it should be at least 3 months. Guy (help!) 08:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Normally it is 24-72 hours if the editor made those attacks likely because of pressure. This is how I see admins usually do. Also, Hijiri88 is mostly a polite editor and has made a lot of effort to help grow this project. Three much is just too much. Also, starting a discussion now while the editor is blocked looks more like gravdancing. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That is indeed often the case for "first offences", but any recidivism becomes increasingly influential in the decision-‐making process. ——SN54129 10:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• No strong opinion on the lenght, except that it shouldn't be a self-block. Hijiri88 already had a formal warning about insulting behavior from Cullen328 from March 26. To rehash: the personal attacks were strong, he called editors a bunch of filthy, repulsive degenerates who have no place describing themselves as Wikipedians and listed people who had let him down.[6] He also told people to fuck off logged-out [7]. --Pudeo (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• As blocking admin, I would simply suggest that if/when Hijiri88 is to submit an unblock request, it should be discussed here. I don't think you can say "this block is 1 week for the PAs and the rest is self-requested". The personal attacks were strong, although Hijiri's take is that they were deliberate to speed up someone blocking him. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Yeah, the issue is that this is Hijiri88, who is by way of being a frequent flier. Guy (help!) 10:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Is there a WP precedent for this multiple sentences type of block? E.g. some kind of this editor is blocked for 1 week for edit warring, for 3 months for personal attacks, and indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE; all blocks will run concurrently. It seems formally justified but a bit over-the-top for a non-criminal proceeding. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yes; we do this kind of "indefinite block for x with a minimum of y due to z" and "discussion of the other issues is suspended unless and until an appeal against the indef block is lodged" thing all the time. Indeed, there's an example of the latter at Arbcom as we speak. ‑ Iridescent 11:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I would point to this [[8]] posted after the block (but now removed), which they even acknowledged here [[9]] "could" be seen as a PA (as well as saying they will continue to "defend themselves"). And which implies after their block they were still watching what some users were doing (and there is an implication that once unblocked they will post this screed again). Their latest post [[10]] claims such gems as "(the thread had been inactive for weeks, so it was hardly a coincidence)", in fact it had been reopened by Hijiri88 themselves [[11]] and at no time is there more than a 4 day gap (or not even 1 week) between any one post.As well as continued accusations of grave Dancing (based on the above falsehood), in fact they posted everyday after their "retirement" until their block (once in breach of an IBAN). So they continue to play the victim card, even though if they had not re-opened that ANI this would have been over with a couple of weeks ago, without them being blocked or "having" to retire (or anyone "grave dancing"). Moreover they continue to comment on their talk page about issues unrelated to their block, on the grounds its not a real block.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit sad to see this. Although this self-destruct has seemed inevitable for a while now, I always had some sympathy for Hijiri. When it comes to arguments about article work, he was right 98% of the time. And he absolutely did get ganged up on by people who thought it was terrifically funny to poke and poke and poke him until he exploded. Reyk _YO! 13:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that it would be improper to take any action with respect to this block in the absence of an appeal by Hijiri88. Our practice is to review sanctions only on the request of the sanctioned editor. I agree that any unblock request should be subject to review by an administrator as with any involuntary block. Sandstein 14:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  I would normally be agreeing with you Sandstein regarding third party appeals. Except that's not what this is. The initial question was whether this was a community block already. My take on Black Kite's reply is that it was and so should not be reviewed by any administrator without community consensus to unblock. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is this [[12]] "Gotta preface this: I consider my present block to be a self-block, and therefore consider myself to be free to continue to use my talk page as I see fit" accompanied by [[13]] "request for my block log to be amended to make this a purely self-requested block". The question is is this interpretation correct. Or is this in fact a substantive block, and if so how long for?.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. And I take Black Kite's response I would simply suggest that if/when Hijiri88 is to submit an unblock request, it should be discussed here. to mean that the interpretation is not correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Then someone should tell him before he digs himself an even deeper hole. Because it will be very hard to justify an unblock if he continues to (in effect) ignore it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, just so. Guy (help!) 18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, I think Hijiri88 needs to step away from the talk page - if they're going to be watching and contributing, then they should have the self-block removed and appeal the PA block in the normal way. Otherwise, they need to stop using their talk page for non-unblock-related things, as is normal for blocked editors. They can't have it both ways (blocked but still contributing from the sidelines via talk page). creffett (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's opinion: this is not a self-block per se. This is a block because the user intentionally violated WP:NPA in order to be blocked. That's the equivalent of arguing that shoplifting from a convenience store in order to be arrested so you can spend a cold winter night in jail is "self-imposed" and they can be released whenever they ask.

That said, this does not appear to be a community imposed block, so a simple unblock request would be all he needs. Though at this point, he's unlikely to find an admin willing to do so until he backs off and leaves the site alone for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not a community block. There was no discussion with a consensus to indefblock. However, neither, as a number of people have agreed above, is it entirely a self-block, as Hijiri purposefully violated NPA a number of times which would have been blockworthy (though not indefinite) on their own. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Well given this I think this thread should be shutdown then as Sandstein indicated (and apologies from me to him about this). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• It should just be treated like any other preventative indef. I see no reason to complicate things by trying to interpret it as a "temporary preventative block within an indefinite voluntary block". The blocking admin seems to have clarified that there is no such intent. Perhaps the lack of an expiry was partially motivated by the blocked user's own request, but I don't see how that means that the user should be automatically unblocked after some arbitrary period of "time served". WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY seems relevant. An indef is not some draconian measure that we must rectify, it merely requires the user to request an unblock, which I note is not some unreasonable "game" but rather straightforward. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

creating articles

Hi please look here, There is no mention of template or category creation here But according to this reference, I am forbidden from both In this talk, However, I can't do anything And I want a little exemption So that I can have some activity. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Come on. It's been just a little over three months since you were unblocked. You are doing ok, but it's much, much too soon to lift your restrictions. --Yamla (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Does his ban include creating pages in his user subpage? It may be an idea to allow (and encourage) it (and later, he may use {{subst:submit}} to request a review) as a first step.--GZWDer (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The ban includes anything that would show up as "created page" here. It was incredibly difficult to communicate with M.k.m2003 over the scope of the topic ban and I oppose complicating it in any way. However, your approach may be viable, if it comes with a time-based restriction on {{subst:submit}}. Again, though, I think this is complicating matters and I think we shouldn't do this at this time. --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

At least look at my templates for example:Template:Castles in Austria, Template:Castles in Portugal, Template:Sasanian castles And ..., Please look here, I am not allowed to create categories And I have such a problem:500 edits were restored And no one helped me, My efforts were right but sabotage was announced!!!, I can be helpful even if I don't know your language M.k.m2003 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"China virus"

There has been four weeks of discussion at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Repeated addition of "China Virus" about additions of "China virus" to the article text. The discussion appears to have exhausted itself, but is dragging on. An uninvolved closer's reading of the discussion, whether or not that involves initiation of a subsequent RfC, would be appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 02:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, that is an insanely long conversation. However it gets closed, it very badly needs to be closed so that editors can move on to other issues where their energy would be better spent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

fabricated file from ArabEditor11786

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

---

hi muslim population according to country (2018 est) this file is fabricated so why should we trust it? the editor: ArabEditor11786 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:CD09:C800:8CD4:56E9:B5B8:572D (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Backlog at speedy F8 categories

Hello. There is a backlog of over a week for the speedy deletion categories Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. If an administrator could address these, it would be very helpful, as they are clogging up another backlog that I am currently working on. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to retrieve revision-deleted copy of public domain image

Hello. I need an admin to retrieve the revision deleted larger version of File:Bolivarian_Technical_Military_Academy_logo.png from English Wikipedia and upload it to the file of the same name on Commons. Many thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Uploaded to Commons and CSD F8'ed the local copy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:AIPS

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

---

Dear Friends, I've created the page Draft:AIPS in english, which is about "The Association Internationale de la Presse Sportive (AIPS)" The page is still looks as a draft only. How and when it will be published as an article in english Wikipedia ? Regards, --AgentBarsam (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

AgentBarsam, I have submitted the draft on your behalf. However, I can tell you it is unlikely to be accepted. You need references to secondary sources. I would read WP:FIRST as it will give you some great advice on how to write your first article (including improving your reference which isn't wrong but isn't what we hope for). If you have more questions like this the tea house is designed as a place where newer editors can go for advice and help. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To quote the header: This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,266 pending submissions waiting for review.. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User talk:2804:18:5026:998B:2:2:E673:EDFE

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

---

I can't remember, but isn't there some speedy tag for people who copy content like this? Govvy (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, but technically you can tag it with G12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Zzuuzz killed it, cheers know. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Another close review please

There is a clear consensus to endorse the close.

Cunard (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Yesterday, I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that he feels my close was mistaken. Your comments are invited: should I self-revert?—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• No. This is always the problem with a non-binary question and the editor on your talk page is arguing that two of the options should be regarded in the same light. The mistake they're making there is that whilst people voting for Option 1 clearly don't want Option 2, that doesn't mean they necessarily agree with Option 3. The RfC should have been "Should this be mentioned at all?" followed by a discussion and possibly a second RfC on the amount of coverage if the answer had been positive. I don't think anyone would have closed that as anything but No Consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: What you're saying about Options 1 and 3 is just not reasonable. Options 1 and 3 are both for inclusion, except that Option 3 proposes a more concise text. Many people who voted for Option 1 said that Option 3 was their second choice, and several people who voted for Option 3 said that Option 1 was their second choice. A spectrum of options were offered, from no inclusion (Option 2) to one sentence (Option 3) to two sentences (Option 1). Inclusion clearly had a large majority, with the only question being how concise that inclusion will be.

That's the quantitative argument, which obviously supports inclusion. There's also the qualitative argument about the strength of the rationale for each vote. Take a look at the comments accusing unnamed groups (either the signers of the petition, or the journalists covering the petition, or unnamed others on the internet supposedly promoting the petition) "Assange cultists" and "useful idiots," comparing the signers of the petition (including the long-time #2 figure in German politics, Sigmar Gabriel) to Eddie the Eagle, etc. I don't think there's any comparison between the arguments made for inclusion (coverage in virtually every important German-language news outlet, and the high-profile list of signers) and those made against (which were truly bizarre, in my humble opinion). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: before I looked at your talk page, I took a gander at the !votes. Option 1 had 13 supporters, Option 2 had 13 supporters, and Option 3 had 9 supporters as "first choices". When looking at the "second choices", 5 users indicated Option 3 (5 of whom chose Option 1 first, 1 of whom chose Option 2 first) and one indicated Option 2 (chose Option 3 first). Overall, I'd say there was more support for inclusion than not (23 showed some support for inclusion compared to 14 who showed support for exclusion). I would say rough consensus was more toward include.

When looking at the rationale and quality of the !votes, it seems that the issue of (UN)DUE is foremost, though the "include" side did show coverage by German sources. The exclude side, though, had a handful of dismissive comments not based in policy.

All together, I'd weakly lean toward rough consensus for include with Option 3 as the compromise just by looking at the RfC comments. But I do not think your overall assessment on your user talk was way off and I would give your German fluency some weight in your decision. If someone else assesses that "include" was the consensus, then consider self-revert. But I am neither confident nor convinced enough in my own assessment to suggest you overturn. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And with Black Kite's comments, I would say keep as is. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would also have closed as "no consensus, maintain status quo". I agree with Black Kite that the RFC was malformed amd should have been a straightforward "should this be mentioned at all?" with subsequent discussion if there was consensus to mention it, but as a closer you can only work with what you're given. ‑ Iridescent 07:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: The RfC originally presented only two options (Option 1 for inclusion of the two sentences, Option 2 for no inclusion). Option 3 was later added as an alternative, shorter inclusion. Inclusion clearly had a large numerical majority, with the question being how concisely to phrase the text. Launching yet another RfC to determine whether to include, when the first RfC clearly returned a large majority for inclusion, would be a waste of everyone's time, in my opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse the close, do not revert. Possibly, more explanation could have been given. A casual, poor, reading can give the impression that Option 3 the compromise option was a good compromise. The problem with that is the strong arguments for Option 2 (do not mention) citing NOTNEWS or UNDUE (which I read as alluding to NOTNEWS). The challenge is that the letter was a flash in the pan, brief coverage, and with time a flash of news coverage becomes primary source material, completely undermining the proponents argument that the letter writing was independently notable. You wrote “the article should not be changed for the time being”. Until when? I think the answer that could have been written, which I might have written, is “until new sources, later published, non-contemporaneous with the event, are found”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall, SmokeyJoe, Iridescent, EvergreenFir, and Thucydides411: The close, which by all indications from S Marshall was well-intentioned, nevertheless overturned RfC consensus: 18 RfC respondents favored inclusion of some kind as their first choice, while only 12 respondents favored exclusion as their first choice. German media still consider the intervention by prominent German political and media figures to be a significant part of the "history" of the Assange case [14][15]. And in terms of the quality of the arguments in the RfC, people who argue for inclusion reference sources, whereas arguments for exclusion tend towards bizarre insinuations of a pro-Assange conspiracy... somewhere. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Valid close - The close was clearly correct. There was no consensus for inclusion. The close indicated you evaluated the weight of arguments and comments. Need it be said that on Wikipedia we don't evaluate consensus by majority vote? Also, Darouet, to avoid the appearance of Canvassing, I suggest that any group pinging should include all participants in the RfC, or at least a note on the article talk page informing all of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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

COI and Sockpuppetry of User:CollegeMeltdown

I got suspicious about the edits of this user and decided to do some research. A quick Google search with the user's username revealed (first Google search result) that there is a blog of exactly the same title (i.e. College Meltdown) dealing with exactly the same topics this user is editing on. Behind the blog is an activist who has been campaigning and ranting against private schools and for-profit education in general for years. The more one googles and researches the blog and its owner, the more it becomes evident that there is an obvious conflict of interest. Further research revealed that user CollegeMeltdown has already edited on Wikipedia on the exactly same topics in the past under his real name and was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing (see here: [[16]]). Needless to say: A clear case of conflict of interest, sockpuppetry and block evasion as per WP:COI, WP:SOCK and WP:BE. 194.230.155.111 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Please open a case at WP:SPI. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: The alleged sockmaster hasn't edited since 2015 so I don't think an SPI will be helpful.

"Editor edits in their topics of interest" isn't the same as a conflict-of-interest. But an editor that is evading a block is usually a pretty clear problem. @CollegeMeltdown: Can you please comment on this allegation? (I don't think the unregistered editor who lodged the initial complaint notified you of this thread as he or she should have done; this ping should draw your attention to it.) ElKevbo (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@El Kevbo, I don't think my work is a conflict of interest, just a keen interest in higher education. By the way, I am getting repeated anonymous phone calls (5 today) and emails telling me not to write on Wikipedia. Information from my user page was also deleted recently (probably April 4, 2020). How can I reach out to @RoySmith @ElKevbo:CollegeMeltdown (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, RoySmith is me. You can learn pretty much everything about me that's relevant from my user page. I'm an admin, who has done some work in the sockpuppet investigation area. My suggestion to open a case at SPI is straight-forward. There was a suggestion of sockpuppetry here. The correct forum for investigating such things is WP:SPI.

It it quite disturbing that you are getting anonymous phone calls about your edits on wikipedia. I have no idea who is doing that, but to whoever it is, please know that such behavior is absolutely not tolerated and must stop immediately. As for deletions from your user page, that's not me. You can see every edit to your user page by viewing the revision history. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith, I have gotten used to anonymous threats, but it does make life more difficult. How can I reach out to you?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, The best way to reach me is to leave me a message on my talk page. If you have something that you feel can't be said on-wiki, you can sometimes email a user by going to their user page, and clicking on the "Email this user" link in the left-hand toolbar. The process is described at Wikipedia:Emailing users. Note that not all users have set their accounts up to allow email. I have, but I strongly prefer to communicate on-wiki, and reserve the right to not respond to any email sent to me, if for no other reason that doing so publicly exposes my own email address.

I should add that I've already alerted the arbitration committee to the off-wiki harrassment you're getting, so you may possibly be contacted by them for more information. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @RoySmith, I continue to get threatening calls and texts, now with personal information.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Harassment, on or off Wikipedia, is unaccaptable and I hope that administrators and the foundation are able to help you; I've been on the receiving end and it really sucks. And if the unregistered editor who opened this discussion is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor then that account should also be blocked.

With all of that said, the issues raised in the original complaint appear to be legitimate and should be addressed. There is a blog that shares the name of a current Wikipedia editor, that editor edits in the exact same area that the blog focuses on, and the author of that blog was previously blocked from editing Wikipedia. So it is reasonable to ask, @CollegeMeltdown:: Do you have a connection to that blog or the banned editor? ElKevbo (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting at this point that the OP is almost definitely an IP sock of sock of Supervisor635, rather notable for their alleged harassment and off-wiki activities. I've blocked it as such. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, the harassment issue aside, the question about COI that ElKevbo raises needs to be answered. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: I am not convinced that there is a COI issue but there is a legitimate question about sockpuppetry or block evasion. ElKevbo (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Keir Starmer

Could an Admin please protect Keir Starmer. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain why protection is needed? From looking at the article history, few edits seem to be being reverted, especially for an article on someone who's currently in the news (by the way, WP:RFPP usually leads to quick responses from admins). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I see three bad edits today. I would have probably semi-protect for three days if responding to a RFPP request, but I do not have a strong opinion on this, and I know many admins are less lenient on protection than I am.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

While there doesn't seem to be much vandalism their (and indeed less than you would expect) there is quite a lot of good faith mucking around with infoboxes and the short description - some of which is breaking things or conflicting with each other. Semi protection may help to slow this down. Certainly more eyes on the article would help.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, exactly my thoughts. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you El C. JMHamo (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C Noting for the record that this was also posted to RFPP at 10:02 where it was declined 4 minutes later at 10:06 by @HJ Mitchell. -FASTILY 22:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Fastily. HJ Mitchell, feel free to lift the protection if you think that's due. I have no objection and am happy to deffer to you. El_C 23:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to protect Keir Starmer. With a face like that he can protect himself. Hey there... do you come here often? François Robere (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally published a draft page in main space

Resolved

Hi, I managed to publish Vickers Light Dragon in mainspace rather than User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/Vickers Light Dragon by leaving out the all-important / . I get a message that I can't move it because of a double-namespace prefix, although no explanation is provided. Sorry. Thank you. >MinorProphet (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@MinorProphet: That one displays because you had User in the fill in field and User in the drop down. I've moved the page for you. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: Many thanks for your help. MinorProphet (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Can a sysop please help delete corrupt versions of

File:Toronto from John street roundhouse.JPG? I was exporting it to Commons but failed. I think the two corrupt versions are blocking it. Thanks!--Roy17 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

User Res Iudicata is keep revrting my edits eventhough I have adviced this user to keep WP:DR policy. Also this user has added several inccorect information on the article and deleted well sourced items due to original research. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

I think this user at least be warned about these beahaviors to prevent futher demage on WP articles. Thank you for reading. Jeff6045 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I warned both users 3RR restrictions. Both users may be blocked if edit warring continues.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Blatantly abusive newbie editor

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

---

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

Three abuses in the contribs page itself, and more on his talk page. His user page says, "I'm your dad", for whatever that is worth. Please read the riot act to him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Riot act - in the form of an indef block - duly read. This and this are beyond the pale. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Failed login attempts

I'm getting notifications about repeated attempts to log into my account from a new device over the past couple of hours. I'm confident my password is strong but it's probably worth being on the lookout for any accounts going rogue if whomever is behind this finds a way in. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chris: I'll keep an eye on your contributions, but if you somehow get locked out, I'm emailing you my mobile number in case you don't already have it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was mainly meaning to keep an eye out for any other accounts in case it's not just me that they're trying. The Jytdog arb case is the only vaguely controversial thing I think I've been involved with of late, so if it is targetted it's most likely related to that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeing the same thing, also (peripherally) involved with that case. Qwirkle (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'm also seeing the same thing (6 failed attempts, according to the notice) and am also involved with that case. I'd appreciate it if my account could also be kept on watch for strange behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens every now and then. There's not really any way to tell if you're being targeted specifically or if it's random. As usual, the advice for anyone who doesn't want their account compromised is to to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, and for admins to consider enabling two-factor authentication. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly good advice to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, but I'd never advise anyone to use the 2FA currently in use on Wikipedia. Considering that "Some 314 mobile phones are stolen on London's streets every day, according to the Metropolitan Police", the sheer hassle of recovering your Wikipedia account following the loss an authenticator must outweigh the extra effort required to have a really strong password. As mine is presently over 30 characters in length, it would take rather longer than the heat death of the universe to crack it by brute force using current technology. Of course that's just my opinion on 2FA. YMMV. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I know at least one person who was an active admin until he lost his phone and decided he couldn't be bothered to go through the hoops needed to recover his account, so I wonder if our 2FA-required policy is truly a net positive; how many other admins suddenly went inactive because they lost their authenticator and didn't want to go to the trouble of recovering the account? rdfox 76 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff. Even with stuff like Humble Bundle, Ubisoft etc I'd never consider not backuping up 2FA stuff no matter if it's easier to recover. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

2FA is one of those areas where Wikipedia just feels really behind the curve compared to the rest of the tech world (captchas being another). Every other tech website implemented 2FA years ago for all users, whereas here it seems to exist only in beta form and only for a small subset of users. Sdkb (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. SMS-based 2FA is also something nice, but I doubt that will ever be enabled here. On that note, I feel these hijack attempts are random. I have a folder of those emails, and so far I've collected 154 of those. I have no idea why... Rehman 07:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: "Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff" – possibly because that means you have to secure the backup at least as strongly as its contents. Otherwise anybody who can hack the backup can "recover" your 2FA information in the same way you can. Turtles all the way down. --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this merits more complete investigation, given that the three editors reporting issues here have been in varying degrees involved in the Jytdog ArbCom case. I'd suggest outreach to determine if others in the case are experiencing similar failed login attempts, as a start. Jusdafax (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In the past there have been massive attacks by automated systems attempting to log in to hundreds (thousands?) of accounts. Speculation was that someone had one of the large password dumps from hacked websites, and was trying those passwords against accounts here. All I can find at the moment is from May 2018. I thought there was a very large attack last year. The bottom line is that log in attempts can be ignored provided you are not using a password that has been been used at any other website (because those websites get hacked and the passwords leaked). See WP:SECURITY. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have also participated in the Jytdog workshop and I've got 4 emails about repeated login attempts. The last notification had 12 failed attempts so there might be a brute-force attack.--Pudeo (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just had a notification about 15 failed attempts. They only seem to be occurring in the evening and early morning UTC. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've also been involved in the case, and have been getting 50+ failed login attempts each day in recent days. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 21:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Same here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Egads! My account as well, and it's been going on for a while now as evidenced in this discussion. If they can hack into my account, maybe they'll share the password with me because the one I used is so complex, I forgot it myself. (j/k about password) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I (and others) got them during the Kudpung arbcase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_SandyGeorgia SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I've been getting the same thing. Hundreds of failed attempts each day. I can venture a guess as to who it is, based on previous M.O., but I'm not interested in giving the guy his jollies by mentioning him. ♟♙ (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Although of course it's theoretically possible that specific editors are being targetted, it's far more likely that crackers are simply working their way through the entire list of Wikipedia user names. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

...and yet so far, all, or all but one, do seem to be describing connected behavior. That’s a rather large trout in the milkcan. Qwirkle (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve had the same thing happen to me (3 in two days, starting yesterday) and that was when I weighted in on the workshop components (and was attacked for one of my comments over on the talkpage). So add me to the metoo list for these. And I’m a very small fish in this pond, compared to Voceditenore, Coretheapple, Thryduulf... Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I experienced several attempts during Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung but, after changing my password to something more complicated, none in the Jytdog one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC).

I had more of them this morning. Incels gonna incel, I guess. ♟♙ (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if its coincidental or otherwise, but I've had no notifications since the workshop phase closed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The same here. I’m discounting “coincidence” almost completely at this point; the only question what end was behind it: JDism, anti-JDism (AKA “the Morty Factor”) or just general hooliganism. Qwirkle (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin here: I'm pretty active and report a lot of linkspammers and other COI profiteers (i.e. focused activity on getting numbskulls blocked). And I've never had this happen. But I've never contributed anything to any discussion of an Arb. Com. proceeding. In the event I ever feel an Arb. Com. thing mandates that I prairie-dog myself in this regard, I'll keep a record. Wishing all of you non-infectious fortitude from my universe... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-wide database problems

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

---

I know this isn't really AN material, but wanted to spread the word. If you're getting weird errors when editing a page, see T249565. I'm sure the devs are in full panic mode by now and don't need to be distracted with more tickets and emails reporting the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Indeed, "full panic mode" sounds pretty right. The issue is under control, but there will likely be interwiki issues for a bit while the database table is being rebuilt DannyS712 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is mostly being discussed at WP:VPT#Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Boris Johnson missing interwikies

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T249565

Can someone have a look at the interwikies for boris Johnson. And maybe the Wikidata item as well? Breg Pmt (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a technical issue ongoing at the moment which is affecting inter-wiki links. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Section merged. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Unblock appeal user:Zenkaino lovelive

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

---

We have received this unblock request at UTRS for this user under the Standard Offer. Bringing here for discussion.

"'I'm Zenkaino lovelive. I'm blocked on enwiki since April 2019 and I'd like to take the Standard Offer to request unblocking. This was my first block. I've learned that using two accounts is not acceptable. I'm sorry for making this mistake, and I do not intend to use multiple accounts User:ABOChannel again. See: [22]. 6 months ago I've stopped editing enwiki, and I've made many useful edits in manuwiki. I evaded block by using 3 IPs (*************), and the last day is 6 Oct 2019. 6 months later, now, I understand, what sockpuppetry and block evasion are, and I'll follow the rules and use only one account in any article, discussion, and votes. Even, I won't edit by using IP anymore. Plus, I won't lie anymore about my evasion. I'd like to use the account "Zenkaino lovelive". Could you please unblock me? Thank you for your consideration. Also, please restore my talk page access."

I will restore TPA so they can respond here. If someone could please add that to their watch list and copy and paste responses.

Pinging Bbb23 as theblocking CU. 5 albert square (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please read the extensive discussion on user talk:Zenkaino lovelive . --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  ...a part of which has now been deleted by the appellant. Special:PermanentLink/937465766. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is too early for my liking, and the clear misunderstanding about the "6 months" doesn't cast a good light on the appellant. If my personal, non-policy-based opinion is asked for here, revoke TPA and do not restore until 2021, even when begged for via e-mail. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the user's repeated disruptive use of sockpuppets, and their repeated lying about it. And yes it is a CU block. ST47 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per talk page concerns. user was advised that the earliest they would be eligible for SO would be June of this year. That edit was removed somehow. No idea if there has been recent socking. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Concur w/ ToBeFree on revoke TPA till 2021 and adding "or via UTRS". --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  And per Nosebagbear --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Being told to wait six months is for a reason. It shows you are willing to listen to the community and administrators and act appropriately. The fact that the user was socking as late as January, which I did see on the user talk page, means it's too soon for me to think the user has true sincerity with this request. I would tell the user to wait the whole six months, show you can do it without socking, and in the next appeal apologize for the recent socking on top of everything, and explain why it was wrong. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• That only mentioned they were socking at some point. It doesn't mention when they last socked. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Let's go ahead with it. The user has insisted that they have not socked in six months, and has shown a willingness to follow the rules. Besides, everybody has to remember that CheckUser is not perfect and makes mistakes. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  The user has shown a willingness to insist on the wording of essays while misreading them – and then complaining about the same wording when noticing that it is unexpectedly against their favor. I don't want to see them applying the same gaming behavior to editing policies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Opposed. There's a question of when they last evaded their block. I note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#Meta_email_use_by_blocked_sockmaster shows problematic behaviour in January, 2020. They've previously been told they should not request an unblock prior to June 7, 2020. And given that they attempted to mislead us back in December and have apparently been bothersome on IRC, I suggest we reset the timer again. No unblock request prior to 9 October, 2020. --Yamla (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Clearly more of a disruptive presence to this site than not. I also note the CU remark made by SlitherioFan2016; suffice it to say that I'm with Yamla, in that the user should not request an unblock prior to June, at the very earliest. And I might still back Yamla in his longer proposal, too. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: So far this editor is a classic example of WP:DISRUPT, specializing in WP:ICANTHEARYOU. They need to at the very least sit tight until June, and maybe October. AND if they persist in being disruptive on the various avenues for off-wiki communications by hounding admins on IRC or spamming UTRS folks then, again, the block should be extended. Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else but after pinging multiple editors to their talk page within a fairly short amount of time while offering no new evidence, reasons, or coherent thoughts, I am inclined to think it might be time to revoke the editor's TPA and extend the block. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - even if, for the sake of argument, it was six months since their last socking incident, then I'd still be inclined to oppose this appeal. This editor gives every sign that additional problems would be caused, with a distinct dislike of following a process, and denying responsibility for their actions. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Unban request by User:Alexiulian25

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

---

This user is requesting a reversal of the community ban imposed here. A previous review in April 2017 was not officially closed but showed a very clear consensus to retain the ban. Alexjulian25 has requested that his appeal be posted to an administrative noticeboard via UTRS, and so I am posting their last unblock appeal below:

I'm really sorry for what I did and I can make you sure I'll not do it again. I understand what I was ban for and I will make more productive contributions instead. I intend to contribute at the encyclopedia because I really like to do it. I want to improve Romanian football and create usefull articles as I did before. Also I want to ask an administrator to copy my appeal to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard where it can be addressed by the community.

I assume my mistakes and I hope you can understand me.

Thank you!

A CU check shows Alexjulian25 as the only user on his current IP. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose unblocking this account. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose My usual - I don't see a clear explanation that they understand what they did wrong, and after looking at the discussion which led to a CBAN, there's a lot to account for (primarily the edit-warring, PAs, and socking). creffett (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Yep, creffet is absolutely right - particularly the PAs and socking. They aren't inherently hostile to the encyclopedia, but their previous editing was both somewhere between rude and hostile to other editors and not contributory to a better wikipedia. I'm usually pretty rope-happy on this timescale, but too many weighty aspects not considered. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• After looking at the previous record (I wasn't familiar before I saw this appeal), the ban discussion, the UTRS tickets and the user's talk page, I'm not confident that the user has the ability to return and be a competent and helpful member of the community. I don't question a degree of sincerity in their requests, but as I look at the language of the requests, I see desire to come back but I don't see a full understanding and acceptance of why they were banned to begin with. I find the overwhelming number of requests underwhelming in their content. Because of that, I would Oppose unbanning at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above - I did want to support however I'm not seeing any understanding from this user. their block log as well as the various things listed at the last unblock also put me off support unblocking and I fear if unblocked they'd gradually return to the behaviour that got them indeffed in the first place. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Let's do it. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, and we can't remain angry at any mistakes they have made forever. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Disclosure: I supported Alexiulian25's ban 4 years ago. There is no demonstration of understanding what they did, no attempt to address each issue that led to their ban. Furthermore, unless they have significantly improved their command of English in the last 4 years, there is a high chance that history will just repeat itself. Blackmane (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

I am fed up with edit-warring against consensus in Eastern European articles

I was reverting disruptive editing for about ten years. I was by far the most active and often the only admin willing to look at topics related to Russian-Ukrainian, Russian-Belarusian, Tatar, Estonian etc issues. Sorry I can not do it anymore. It is too much for me. Formally, I was broken by this series of edits. The consensus to use Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) has been well established, but these driveby editors just do not care. They come, change the spelling, and disappear. This is not just about Belarusian spelling, it is about pretty much every Russian, Ukrainian, or Belarusian topic where any issues can appear - and they always appear (Kiev/Kyiv being the most notorious example, where for the first time in my life I encountered an admin who refused to accept a RfC outcome). Some of these users stay a bit longer to accuse me in being a Russian government propagandist, a Ukrainian government propagandist, a Russian hater, a Ukrainian hater, a jerk, an asshole, a retard, a moron and so on. This happens on a daily basis. I reverted this particular edit, but I am sure by the end of the day I will be reverted back, with the user claiming that the marginal publication in English he found beats the general consensus on Romanization. I managed to get a couple of these guys to the Arbitration enforcement and get them topic-banned. Each time I had to spend half a day of my life to find the diffs. I can not do it for every disruptive editor with more than 20 edits, otherwise I will only be doing this. More often, they appear out of nowhere and turn out to be socks, after I have wasted enormous amount of time thinking they are new editors. I blocked hundreds of them, one (a pro-Rissian one, for the record) still continues to harass me using IPs. I do not feel that dealing with all this shit is why I came to Wikipedia. Somebody else will have to do it.

This is not really a request for help or a call to action, though it would be useful if more people would have eyes on the thousands of articles in the topic. I just felt I need to express this before taking hundreds of these articles off my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(As I anticipated, my edits were reverted with an edit summary "Reverting Russian nationalist edit" by a user with 52 edits who has not yet posted in this thread [23]--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC))

I took care of that. Reverted and EC protected for 2 months. El_C 07:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

For me, just to avoid being referred to as Russian imperialist editor - disruption from another side, [24] a clarification "Ukrainian source" is added to the material sourced to the Japan Times. (This one was an IP, so just a revert has done the job).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Are these articles covered by DS? We could, for a start, semi protect the lot of em and see what difference it makes. ——SN54129 09:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure, we have discretionary sanctions. However, (i) I probably should not be the person mass-protecting such articles since pretty much everyone, after learning that my mothertongue is Russian, assumes I am involved (never mind that I am a Dutch citizen and live in the Netherlands, and have been to Russia once in the last five years - I have been to Canada or Portugal more often during this period) and (ii) I am generally not sure whether the community would like the idea of indefinite full protection of thousands of articles. The most problematic one, such as Kiev, have been semi-protected for ages.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, you just can't trust those Dutch-Canadian-Portuguese editors to understand the Ukrainian language... :-) It doesn't have to be full protection, it sounds like pending changes or extended confirmed protection might help? Do you have a list of the Most problematic articles somewhere? Also, if it's the same edit being made on a number of articles, is edit filter a possibility? It's terrible what you're going through, and no one editor (or group of editors even) should have to manually police so many articles from the same disruption day after day. It's not a sustainable model for building an encyclopedia. We should look at implementing a solution that won't cause us to lose editors to frustration. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) You are not losing me as an editor, I am around, editing and performing admin tasks, not yet planning to retire. However, indeed, this area just became too poisinous. I do not have a list of problematic articles, I do have a list of sub-areal where editing against consensus occurs on a regular basis, but collecting the diffs to prove it on the level of AE or even ANI is just too much. For example, the above example refers to a group of editors promoting an alternative Belarusian alphabet against consensus. This alphabet has some status in Belarus, and this is why they are not prepared to negotiate, they just come, move/ edit and disappear, they are typically active in one of the two Belarusian Wikipedias. Right now I have discovered an attack at Barysaŭski trakt (one user moved the article without consensus, another onbe, belonging to the same group, opened a RM,. and they will make sure that the name would stick).However, collecting all this would probably occupy me full-time, and I do not feel I am here for this. The sky probably is not going to fall on the eath if these nationalists rename all Belarusian-related articles, it 's that just this has nothing to do with the Wikipedia policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, just found this from a week ago, involving the same user.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, I think I speak for many admins when I say, I think you should be able to do as you see fit as an uninvolved admin, including but not limited to using the DS, liberally, if need be. If you feel it's time to escalate — escalate. We don't have enough admins reviewing this key topic area, during these times, especially. So, you have my support. El_C 11:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for support.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, I echo El C's support. I respect the idea that if a minority see you as involved it makes it harder for you to act as an admin in a conflict area but that doesn't mean you are involved or have acted inappropriately. We're all volunteers so if you want to take a break you should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. I am afraid I really need a break from this activity at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: it's incredibly hard to edit in this area, and I agree with your specific wording: it can be so "poisonous" that I don't know how people like you keep it up. But your work is deeply appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The results of this consensus: English Wikipedia vs. Reality --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody apart from you expressed an opinion there as to how we should transliterate, so it is certainly not a consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў means is that the result of the consensus on Belarusian transliteration on en.wp is that we use names for the Minsk Metro stations that are at variance with the Latin-script transliterations that will be actually encountered in the stations. Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is what was meant by the original post at the Village Pump, but what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў said above is that that position had consensus created there, when in fact nodody else expressed an opinion either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, that is not the interpretation my mind leapt to when I read his comment here (I interpreted "consensus" to mean the 2006 one, so pointing to the an exposé of how the results of this consensus create an absurd-seeming situation), although I can see how it could come about due to its terseness. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That wasn't my initial interpretation, but you are probably right. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

When was the "consensus" adopted? Where can I read the discussion? --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For the first time, as far as I know, here in 2006, and has been confirmed multiple times afterwards.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Just another interesting detail for community of English Wikipedia is that one of the biggest supporters of Russian system here was User:Kuban kazak using the symbol of Russian Nazi. I believe there are circumstantial evidence to assume a connection to this topic and keep it in mind during considerations of all this situation. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Do you want to say that I am related to the Russian web brigades?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just show that the users who oppose the Belarusian naming system and support the Russian system for Belarus are somehow connected to Russia. It will be unwise for the community of English Wikipedia not to consider a possibility of Russian state involvement in its editing by some tricky means. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a very serious accusation, and you need to provide evidence or withdraw it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The obviously false (fake) statements by User:Ymblanter like Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population of Belarus looks very close to disinformation campaigns to promote <...> pro-Russian propaganda. And I hope that it is hard to deny Russian nationalistic views of User:Kuban kazak, who took the most active part in so-called consensus (that is actually a messed discussion which became obsolete after issuing Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script) referred by User:Ymblanter. It look like the community of English Wikipedia feels OK with discrimination Belarusians by one particular administrator, who just use the uncertainty of current messed situation instead of trying fix it according to the latest updates. And I don't see a big difference if he acts voluntary in such way or not. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

But the official Instruction was approved only in 2007... --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I had minimized my participation in English Wikipedia long time ago, because the current situation with the names of Belarusian places here is completely insane. The inactive state of Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus proves that I'm not the only one with such opinion. Чаховіч Уладзіслаў has provided quite enough evidence to show the whole absurdity of the Russian fairytale naming in here. So the long-term discrimination of Belarusians in English Wikipedia is a big stain of shame that is hard to wash away. All who support this situation are part of this discrimination and finally leave such "great" legacy. Think about it carefully. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Well, you guys have just zero respect for our policies and consensus-driven processes. You just know the TRUTH and do not care about anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's false accusation as for now there is no policy or consensus Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic): "This proposal has become dormant through lack of discussion by the community". --Red Winged Duck (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody claimed it is a policy. However, it was added 14 years ago followed a discussion, and was kept there without being challenged since. This is a de-facto consensus, even if your group does not accept it. You would need to open a new RfC, announce it properly, and get consensus to introduce Lacinka. What is happening now is a guerilla war, not a process to establish consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter obviously should take a break from editing topics related to Eastern European articles as "a group of editors promoting an alternative Belarusian alphabet against consensus", "another one, belonging to the same group" and same statements are not neutral and looks like conspiracy theory rather than efforts on making Wikipedia better. All of his statements clearly show that rules need to be reviewed to reflect current situation of naming conventions in all eastern european states (at first Ukraine, Belarus mentioned here) rather than ones invented in soviet times not taking in account national language traditions. Simple example: Serbian language has both latin & cyrillic version and Wikipedia using national latin version not any way of transliteration. For obvious reasons people from Belarus and Ukraine are more intrested in topics related to these countries so calling them "some groups" does not meet Wikipedia standarts on neutrality and politeness. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree. Instead, I think some topic bans should be considered. Please apply to whomever is disrupting the project, Ymblanter. El_C 15:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  I am afraid at this point it would be considered at least by a significant minority as actions of involved admin who wants to get an advantage. Never mind I do not care what transliteration is used, I am just trying to enforce consensus and keep the policies homogeneous. The last thing I need at the moment is an ArbCom case against me for violation of ADMINACCT.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I wish I could assure you, Ymblanter. Your uninvolved admin status in this matter has not been disputed by any admin or established outside editor. I don't think an Arbitration case is likely, or if it is filed, it is unlikely to be accepted by the Committee. El_C 15:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note canvassing on the Belarusian Wikipedia [25]--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just canvassing, but battlegrounding: "Come help in the fight against transliteration from 1979 on the English Wikipedia". Unfortunately, Belarussian is so far removed from my own languages that I had to resort to google translate. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on that, I think a year-long topic ban to the culprit (under DS) would be appropriate, unless anyone has any objections. Clearly unacceptable behaviour. Number 57 15:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Number 57, +1 Guy (help!) 20:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Belarusian is one of a few languages (I believe along with Serbian/Croatian) where the users could not agree on the spelling and two Wikipedias had to be created. The same group of people who could not even agree with their compatriots on which spelling of Belarusian to use is consistently pushing one particular version of romanization here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Another one important detail was skipped. The situation with two versions of Belarusian language was created artificially by Russia. So it's not about agreement between Belarusians, it's about classic divide et impera. Moreover, there is no discussion about Belarusian Latin names between Belarusian users, the official Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script (not patriotic Belarusian Latin alphabet) is accepted by the users of both Belarusian projects as a consensus for now. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Is there a consensus? The relevant page you mention is tagged as a dormant policy proposal that never went into effect. If this is the case, and there is no enforceable guidance elsewhere, that would seem to be a massive problem for a language in which there are numerous different ways to Romanize it, and the only guidance is an unofficial stale policy proposal that says to use the British/American system rather than the official Belarusian one, which seems like it would be understandably controversial to begin with. Yes we can and should sanction editors, but shouldn't we also examine the context of why this is happening and what can be done about it? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  It is a de-facto consensus which was followed by the majority of users who were willing to discuss anything for 14 years. I am not against a new discussion (see though Masem's comment below) but it has not even started.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  May be a comment I left a few days ago about a similar but completely unrelated case (no relation to anything Belarusian whatever) could be also useful to understand a general landscape of this editing area.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• At the larger problem 1) it seems odd that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) is not yet a guideline, and that should be reviewed and reassessed. and 2) as en.wiki (not ru.wiki or uk.wiki or whatever), that we're likely going to favor the Romanization spelling of odd character sets like Cyrillic as we already do with things like Japanese and Chinese to make it easier for English readers, accepting that this is not how native Russian/Ukraine/Belarus/etc. would spell it. It's one thing to incorporate the single character accent marks, but its the diacritics that are what make it harder for English readers. But that's my opinion and something to be used to establish point #1 - get that guideline actually to a guideline, at which point it becomes a no-brainer that DS on those users trying to switch to versions away from that guideline are violating. --Masem (t) 15:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, could you please describe a proper way to accept Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) as guideline as it obviously needs new discussion for every language mentioned there and maybe even split by language as it cannot be accepted for all languages at once. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Just follow the process at WP:RFC to lock it down: Add an RFC tag to the talk page, add a simple question, like "Should this document be promoted to a guideline?", and then maybe promote it at WP:CENT, WP:VPP, and if there are relevant wikiprojects in this area (yes, I know, may be tempting fate) , there too. You can explain - after setting up the RFC - that's its been a de facto guideline and you just want to formalize it now, and thus aligning with how we treat other languages (ala Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) , Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), and several other language-specific in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (which, only just doing a quick survey, all support romanization even if we can type out the ISO character). In other words; the current draft/essay for Cyrillic follows the same pattern and thus should be a no-brainer for consistency across WP, and thus should be trivial to keep. Then after 30 days, you'll get a neutral admin to review and close by looking at the arguments (not the !votes) to make the call. I would think that if the situation is as you describe above, you'll have a clear P&G based reason to promote this as a guideline even if the !votes are outweighed by new editors to the discussion that says "But you aren't respecting the culture of X!". --Masem (t) 16:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Does it also apply for new discussion (per Swarm, Double sharp's comments) to create separate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Belarusian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian) etc. or should it follow some other process? --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Red Winged Duck: I think it is best not to bundle the discussion, as the situation will be different for each Cyrillic-script language. Separate pages for each one seem reasonable (indeed, the Ukrainian one seems to be a separate page already). Double sharp (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) I don't know enough on the differences in the languages or any official national guidance as like discussed below, but I would assume that if the Belarusian guidance is different from what the current guidance is for Cyrillic is, then yes, a separate guidance would be reasonable. You'll see we have many per-country level naming conventions, so there's no hard to that, but you still want to establish them as guidelines, ideally using the romanization approach that the other country-specific guidelines use, so that the issue that Ymblanter is fighting against doesn't have to be an issue. --Masem (t) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Judging by what Swarm points out, I think a new discussion on our naming conventions for Belarusian would be a sensible way to get closer to a solution. Since the old consensus seems to be from 2006, the latest iteration of the official Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script is from 2007, and the recommendation that it be adopted as the international transliteration system for Belarusian geographical names dates from 2013, there does seem to be a good case that the old consensus needs to be relooked at due to intervening changes in the situation. Then a discussion can take place and provide a new consensus that should remain valid until the situation shifts again, regardless of what it ends up being. Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be a good idea to discuss this in good faith, but a discussion is not in good faith if there is editing going on in the background that changes things from the current consensus. As an example of this not happening we have User:Чаховіч Уладзіслаў, to whom I suggested discussing the issue here, who started a discussion but when it wasn't replied to in a few days acted as if there was consensus for the changes. This is clearly a contentious issue, so we need to take our time to discuss it properly before implementing any changes. I say all this as one of the few native English speakers with no family connection to Russia or Belarus to have attended a month-long Russian language course in Minsk (in 1978), so I'm sure anyone from either "side" who treats this as a battleground will characterise me as an enemy. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we clearly need an agreement from all parties that changes away from the current guideline's recommendations should not be made before or while the RFC is in process, and that the eventual results of the RFC once it is closed will be respected. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• This is just to emphasize that the scope of the problem is much broader than a handful of Belarusian nationalists disrupting our project. And now I really start unwatching articles, I will only keep my own creations on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  If anybody would ever need my experience / subject knowledge / institutional memory in the area I will be happyto help, but I will not be patrolling the articles anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that the spelling of that city's name is something that people should be sanctioned over if they refuse to follow consensus. There have been many rename discussions which have all concluded with the spelling remaining "Kiev". The irony here is that people claim that "Kiev" is a transliterated Russian spelling. It is not: that would be "Kiyev". "Kiev" is the English spelling. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  "a handful of Belarusian nationalists disrupting our project" - nice example of this sysop "neutrality". --Red Winged Duck (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  If the shoe fits... El_C 09:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter just undid my correction claiming that Russian-language version of Kyiv name ("Киев") has to be placed along with Ukrainian-language version on the reason that Russian is spoken by significant part of the city population. If you follow this logic and want to be truly unbiased (as Ymblanter pretends here) you have to correct respectively articles about other cities with similar cases. To name specifically, Riga or Tallinn, where Russian is a language of significant part of the city population (in case of Riga not less than in Kyiv). Articles of these cities do not contain mentioning of the Russian names of the city. So, either you follow same rules to all similar cases or you recognize that you have "special rules" for Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroserhi (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  WP:NCGN (which is a guideline) is very clear on the subject: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages – i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons. A suggestion that in otder to implement a guideline I should go through every page and implement it at every page I find to be honest ridiculous. Adding Russian name to Riga is certain to cause a reaction from another group of nationalists, and the whole purpose of this thread is that I can not stand this on a dily basis anymore. However, I already removed Kiev from my wtchlist, you can start edit-warring, I will not notice it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have upgraded the protection for Kiev to extended confirmed, indefinitely (Arbitration enforcement). El_C 10:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for this one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I do not argue with guidelines (though I may disagree with some of them), but I just draw attention to Wikipedia double standards. In your response you prove to have biased attitude to specific nations. Additionally, your irresponsible branding of everyone, who disagree with your vision, as "nationalists", confirms your political motivation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroserhi (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  May I please draw your attention to the fact that the Russian name was already in the article, and actually quite for some time. This is a situation different from Riga. If you imply that I am actually, in violation of WP:NPOV, push pro-Russian POV into the articles (and you would not be the first one, there is at least one more user implying the same in this very topic), this is plain bullshit. I had plenty of pro-Russian users claiming I am on the Ukrainian government payroll, for example, for not letting them to replace annexation of Crimea with voluntary accession of Crimea. The whole point is that what I was doing was to implement the policies. I do not care whether policies at this point favor pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, pro-Belarusian, or pro-Reptilian view. They just need to be respected. Unfortunately there are just too many people around who stop caring about policies if they are not aligned with what they want to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

An RFC has been started by User:W at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Problem with transliteration of Belarusian geographical names. Double sharp (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly about the issue (despite many attempts of the users above to imply the opposite) and would be fine with any result of the RfC, however, I feel obliged to note that the discussion so far has been dominated by users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia (in particular, the starter has less than 50 edits total).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Welcome to the party. As you know, we've been dealing with these exact same problems (and much more) around Poland TAs - the sourcing, the reversals, the name calling, the accusations... you name it, we had it. You've seen a tiny bit of it on AE just the other week, didn't you? Well, that's how it looks from inside. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This might not be entirely connected to the problem, but Rolando 1208 (talk · contribs) has been going around in Belarusian pages and removing Russian names. For example, at Belarusian People's Republic. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably not connected. There is a lot of quite diverse disruption ongoing in all these articles for quite a long time. And even if one manages to reason and talk to one user and to convince them to stop disruption (like the above example may show), another one soon will be back doing exactly the same things. May be indeed blank ec protection of these articles on a random version could be a partial solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is happening regularly (eg. just last week) with German place names on Polish articles, and admins know about it. François Robere (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thing is - I and the rest aren't admins - we can't deal with it using the same tools you guys and gals have, it's ever more more frustrating because of that. François Robere (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a new problem (WP:GDANZIG anyone?). We have WP:NCGN, created to deal with this issue. People who consistently ignore it need to be warned and if they ignore this, well, that's where admins can come in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NCGN is great but it does not determine for example whether the article's title should be Stoŭbcy, Stowbtsy, or Stolbtsy. For Ukrinian names, at some point, consensus was found - that, with a very few exceptions, the localities do not have established names and have to be Romanized, but, apart from Kiev/Kyiv issue we have a bunch of other things - for example, if a Ukrainian government renames a locality is exercises no control over, should the article be moved? I used to revert these moves back (now I unwatched all these articles), but the user would disappear and a new would come in half a year and move the article again. Without even trying to discuss anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would just mass move-protect all articles on geographic places that are on the receiving end of nationalist language fights. WP won't come to a screeching halt if that's done, and it forces discussion in order to change the page name. I have a real favoritism towards coming down hard on nationalist battleground behavior as it makes the project a worse place and chases away good contributors. The supply of Internet users who are only interested in coming here to import ethnonationalist feuds is unfortunately much greater than that of good contributors, and we want the project to be welcoming to the latter, not the former. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Unable to Edit Talk:Main Page ?

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

---

Hi, I am trying to start a discussion on Talk:Main Page, but I can't seem to find any place to add a section (is that because it is split up?) or edit the page? Thanks. 2601:181:C381:6C80:8803:458B:250C:70F8 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The page is currently protected from editing by users who are not autoconfirmed due to disruption. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's semi-protected I'm afraid; usually we have a sub page for unregistered comments in that situation. ——SN54129 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Move request

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

---

Please move the following uncontroversial move. The article passes WP:GNG and doesn't need disambiguation. NetSol Technologies (company) → NetSol Technologies. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Help please!

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

---

Can you please delete the files in this category? Thank you--Hippymoose17 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Remember to WP:NUKE!--Hippymoose17 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is going to nuke that category. Each image needs to be individually checked. This is not high-priority work. Please be patient. Someone will get to it.— Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Will you do it? :)--Hippymoose17 14:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No.— Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Why? Won't someone else do it? Maybe @Magog the Ogre:?--Hippymoose17 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dude, this is a lot of effort you're asking other people to do, and is not high-priority. Continually pinging people and pestering them (I see you're doing it on a couple of talk pages, too) is beginning to get annoying. And please, don't reply by asking me to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Promotion

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

---

Have blocked this account

User:Despinahernandez who is also User:67.69.228.6 and is trying to promote their alcohol gel.

There initial upload to Commons was a copyright image used to promote this product. Any thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I knew there was something fishy going on, but if the account is a spam-only account, maybe report at m:SR/G#L? Aasim 02:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

What's your question? {{uw-spamblock}} is absolutely appropriate here. Are you simply wondering what to do at other projects, like Awesome Aasim is thinking? Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Nyttend Because I also edit the article on hand sanitizer were they are causing problems. I am requesting a review as some might claim I am involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I missed that. I've just glaced at the user's edits, and agree with your decision. If anyone complains, tell him that I'm in agreement and am willing to unblock and reblock if he really wants to be bureaucratic about it. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Nyttend :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

I have blocked User:Greg McGroarty

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

---

All of there edits recently appear to be simply to promote themselves.[26]

Any thoughts? They were warned before the block. Happy for anyone to unblock if they think this person can contribute positively. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this block. Obviously an appropriate unblock request could be considered but good block in my book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Looks like good action all around. El_C 17:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thirded, Good block. –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorse the block. Clear-cut promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

ListeriaBot blocked an urgent resolution is needed.

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

---

Hoi, user:ListeriaBot is an essential tool for the management of projects and information on many Wikipedias including the English Wikipedia. It is used in projects like Women in Red, Covid-19 personal projects like I have on my user page. Because of a copyright dispute where an image is free to use on Commons and not free to use on English Wikipedia (really..) this bot has been blocked.

A few points to consider:

• English Wikipedia has the privilege to have its own pictures. The point is that it does not want to comply with the stricter Commons rules. The blocking admin should know this and enforce Commons as an alternative to take the route of least resistance.
• The point of Listeria is that it makes timely changes to information. Consequently there is no room for long deliberations.
• Please guys this is egg on English Wikipedia's face this is how we all lose.

Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: A more substantial discussion of the issue (with the actual background) is at User talk:Magnus Manske. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

[Copying over my comment from Magnus' user page here]: It's not that "English Wikipedia has the privilege to have its own pictures"; the problem is that (many of) those pictures that English Wikipedia has locally are non-free pictures and as such may not be mechanically copied into all sorts of lists by a bot, because that violates our non-free content policy. The other, technical, problem is that in the cases at hand, a (supposedly free) image on Commons and a (non-free) local file were accidentally stored under the same filename, and the bot was mistaking the one for the other. Frankly, I'm not sure whether we should expect of the bot that whenever it's taking a reference to a (supposedly free) Commons file it should first double-check whether that file reference might be shadowed by a non-free local file before inserting it into articles. But, well, I do suppose it would be possible for it to do that. Inserting images, anywhere on the project, is a highly risky operation for a bot to do, so if it's going to have that functionality it had better be written with an abundance of safety checks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

When you are done congratulating yourselves for doing a good job, you again feed the resentment for the WMF using Wikipedia as the brand we should be known by. When we analyse the situation, when English Wikipedia has a better picture than Wikidata knows from Commons based on license information at Commons, it is none of English Wikipedia's business. When the English Wikipedia picture is used on English Wikipedia and another picture on another Wikipedia, it is still none of English Wikipedia's business. So consider what is happening and appreciate why Wikipedia is not what we all are, certainly not want to be. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Good block, and JJMC89 should be congratulated for acting so promptly, not criticised. Whatever the good intentions of its author, if a bot is not only violating policy but making edits that are real-world illegal, we have no alternative but to block it and keep it blocked until the error is fixed. ‑ Iridescent 07:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A solution would be to block fileuploads with filenames already on commons. Any shadowing files can be renamed with a suffix like unfree or local. -- Agathoclea (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In my experience it usually goes the other way—that is, we have a locally-hosted fair use headshot called File:Minor Celebrity.jpg, someone later takes their own photo and uploads it to Commons under the same File:Minor Celebrity.jpg name, but it's of such poor quality we decide to keep using the original non-free image. To prevent this happening at the server end would mean that every image on Commons and every future upload to Commons would need to be cross-checked against the file database of every single WMF project since a fair-use file of the same name could potentially exist at any of them; it wouldn't be a trivial task. ‑ Iridescent 07:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: It is not possible to upload a local file over a Commons file unless you are an admin which have the reupload-shared permission. Situations such as these usually occur when the Commons file is uploaded later, as Iridescent states. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 to what GerardM said. This is a bot that auto-generates and auto-updates wikitext based on a Wikidata SPARQL query. If you look at the contributions for Listeria bot and scroll back over 7 days, you get some idea of the vast range of different Wikipedia projects and workflows that interrupting this bot is affecting, because they rely on this bot to regularly update their status pages, including to identify missing articles, and article-topics with missing or substandard images -- including the Coronavirus project, and the Women in Red project as just two examples.

It seems that there isn't a simple fix, to specify in wikitext that the Commons image should be displayed rather than an en-wiki image of the same name. For example the usual 'c:' prefix doesn't help: c:File:Image.jpg just gives a link rather than displaying the file.

Some kind of way forward is urgently needed here, because this bot is mission-critical to the work of a lot of projects. Jheald (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Iridescent is correct that in general the Wikipedia file is uploaded first, then the Commons file. There's a few ways we can address this situation:

1) If you try to upload a file locally that has the same name as one on Commons, a warning is displayed, but there's no technical prohibition in place. Perhaps we might want to restrict uploading local files that have the same name as files already on Commons to only administrators, as there's very few productive reasons to do this. The main downside to this is that it'd require some mechanism for non-administrators to request such an upload, which would add yet another file-related backlog to the pile, and very few admins seem interested in working in that namespace.

2) For cases where the image was uploaded locally first, then something else with the same name was added to Commons, User:GreenC bot tags such files with {{Shadows Commons}}. It runs weekly. Those files then appear at Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. Someone (almost always @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, who I'm pining because their insight might be valuable here) then either moves the local file to a new name, nominates the local file for deletion, or nominates the Commons file for deletion. Since the latter two of those three options take a minimum of a week, it can mean that shadow files can linger for a while.

3) If the upload wizard can figure out that there's a file on Commons with the same name during upload and GreenC bot can detect the issue when it does its weekly runs, then I would think ListeriaBot should be able to detect such conflicts using one of the same mechanisms those tools use. Whether it's worth it from a resources perspective to do so is not something I'm capable of answering. However, if Magnus is willing to add such a check into ListeriaBot (and then not touch any such files), it would open the path to that bot being unlocked.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Listeriabot really just generates wikitext, based on the output of a SPARQL query. But it generates wikitext for a lot of pages, on a lot of wikis, with a lot of rows, and a lot of potential images. Checking each and every image to see whether it had a shadow would add a huge overhead, both in terms of coding and in terms of resource-use. A better way forward would be to think whether there is any way in wikitext to specify that the Commons image should be displayed rather than any local one. Or alternatively, for us to get sharper at resolving and removing these shadow image conflicts, perhaps accepting that pages might show the occasional wrong image temporarily, while the name conflict has not been resolved. Jheald (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Or as a shorter-term fix, just have the bot stop adding the "image" column to its lists unless and until the issue is resolved. If the purpose is just to generate lists of redlinks, then it will serve its purpose just as well without the images - the article creators can always just search Commons to see if we have an appropriate image. ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Building on that, perhaps the bot can - instead of displaying the image - instead post the text "Yes" as a link to the image on Commons. Aside from eliminating the chances that the bot would display non-free images, this will also reduce page load times and condense the lists down in vertical size. That way article creators can still see that there is an image, and are only one click away from actually getting to it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 to Squirrel Conspiracy's suggestion of just replacing the image insertions with colon'ed links to the Commons file. This is clearly the cleanest and simplest solution. Bots need to be responsible for what they edit. Even without the issue of local shadowing files: given the amount of copyvios on Commons, it is simply not a responsible assumption that just because a file is on Commons (and linked to from Wikidata) it will be ok to use. No human editor should ever insert an image on Wikipedia – any image, anywhere – without first personally reviewing its description page and ascertaining that its license and copyright statement is at least plausible. Since bots can't do that, no bot should ever be allowed to insert an image. Simple as that. Wiki text links to image files are fine, actual image insertions are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe the most straightforward short-term solution for files which aren't the same (image and licence) on Commons as on enWikipedia and are misleading the bots is to rename the enwiki file under WP:FNC#9. Or at least, I do interpret the existence of WP:FNC#9 as indicating that there is a consensus on enwiki that we don't want files to have names that collide with these of Commons files (and in my experience, in cases where they do the enwiki file is seldom under the best name it could have). Oftentimes a rename on Commons or the deletion of one or the other file or both are more appropriate but a rename works in the interim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Well the bot appears to be running off a wikidata query, so its not surprising its working off bad data. I have a number of issues with that bot approval, but leaving that aside, reading the bot creator's blog it appears the purpose is to drive editing on wikidata. This should be sent back to BAG to get some actual consensus on a)what problem this is solving for ENWP, b)why this is the best solution, c)how to prevent problems so you dont have to go off-project to resolve them. Anything that requires you to edit another project in order to fix it is fundamentally broken. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Only in death: And what a bot approval that was! It basically consists of Magnus Manske being repeatedly told not to break the rules, them repeatedly doing so, Magioladitis approving the bot despite commenting as he does that the bot had been breaking the rules! And only having approved it does he invite more eyes to the discussion—where the bot's rule-breaking is mentioned once more—and to cap it all, Magnus states bluntly that I am not here for rules. Bizarre. ——SN54129 12:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the lists I maintain on English Wikipedia is not to drive edits on Wikidata. This is obvious because the same Listeria lists exists on many Wikipedias (interwiki links "prove" this. It is a tool to bring the information on Wikipedias together. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If you had read my comment, I said the purpose of the bot's creator. Not your purpose. Which I dont really care about since if its not in article-space, its largely irrelevant to our readers. But to put it simply, if a bot is running on ENWP, it needs to abide by ENWP's policies. Which include those relating to non-free content outside article-space. If it doesnt, it gets blocked and doesnt run until its fixed/altered to abide by ENWP's policies. And let me make this clear, if you as a user are using a bot in order to make lists outside article space in full knowledge that it can violate the non-free content policy, you, as the user creating them, are responsible for any subsequent infringments and risk being blocked yourself as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a Listeria list running in main space. It is part of the Corona information project. You are really shallow when you think you can fathom the reasons of Magnus for his Listeria project. Have you read what he had to say about quality and Wikipedia lists?? I bet you have not and should. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That isn't in mainspace? ‑ Iridescent 10:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This needs urgent action not a discussion about edge cases

It is simple. When an image with a local name exists, it is shown in preference for the file at Commons. That is the real issue. There is a procedure for dealing with that so it should not be a big issue. In this case there is a local image with a different license to the Commons image. The English picture is only shown on English Wikipedia so it is NOT an issue of copyright; the image is legal on English Wikipedia.

In the same way, on a Wikipedia an item that has a local article is shown differently from the ones that you call "red links", the difference is stark because by linking to items there is an inherent disambiguation and associated improvement of quality. An improvement of quality because they may link to articles on other projects and there likely is a wealth of other information including the one that implicitly establishes the link in the query used by ListeriaBot. As a consequence we have images associated with items and they are more enticing for people to start writing than just a red link.

The upshot of this fracas is that English Wikipedia for the wrong reasons blocks essential infrastructure. Essential because it allows us to share the sum of knowledge available to us.

Please do the right thing for the right reasons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No, we're not going to do that. Fair use images are never going to be appropriate anywhere other than article space, and until the bot is reconfigured to prevent that occurring in future, any admin who unblocked it would be immediately desysopped for abuse. ‑ Iridescent 09:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for hiding behind rules and regulations that have not been enforced in years. Thank you for not touching the logic of the argument and thereby demonstrating your agreement to the essence of my argument. This is a non-issue. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not hiding behind Wikipedia rules and regulations, it's the law - the kind that comes with hefty legal bills, and sometimes even police and handcuffs. It is illegal to show non-free images in places where sufficient justification in law is not provided. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And what gives you the idea that this hasn't been enforced in years? I regularly see non-free content deleted from non-article space, and editors blocked when they persist in making such edits after they are warned, and have done so since I started editing Wikipedia well over a decade ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is one of the most vigorously enforced polices on ENWP. Your comment about it not being enforced in years is a bare-faced lie. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

On closer inspection

On looking further into the history here, there are previous discussions going back years at User talk:ListeriaBot/Archive 1#Adding non-free images, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#ListeriaBot adding non-free images to Wikipedia namespace page, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 158#Listeria bot and non-free images, User talk:Magnus Manske/Archive 6#Non-free images being added by Lysteria bot and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 159#Lysteria bot and shadowing. This is clearly not a one-off blip or some kind of extreme edge case that's unlikely ever to happen again, but a disruptive bot whose operator is ignoring all concerns; keep it blocked unless and until it's remedied to prevent this ever happening again. ‑ Iridescent 10:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Definitely, yes, a bot that leaves Wikipedia in a lawbreaking situation absolutely has to be stopped, and kept stopped until it's fixed so that it can't do that again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is it that people claim that bots have the right to make edits that wouldn't be allowed for human editors? Some people seem to have the relationship between bots and humans the wrong way round. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

On closer inspection.. well the offending pictures that are shown that are not on English Wikipedia, they are on Commons. All it takes is for offending pictures to be marked as copyright violations at Commons. This "offending" picture has been removed by Maarten Dammers..

Remember that Commons is strict in enforcing copyright and is pro-active doing so. Again, on closer inspection this is an overreaction. It shows a lack of reason imho. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to comment that the responsibility for cleaning up these cases probably lies with the user/WikiProject/etc. who has created a list using the bot, rather than with the bot operator who is just providing the tool. I'm not sure they've always been alerted to the issue? Also, the relatively few images in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons seems to indicate that this issue should not happen that often, so this seems like an overreaction in general. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: The reason why there aren't that many images in that category is because some users such as me periodically clear the category out. I can tell you that it fills up at a high rate, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked

Just to note that I've unblocked the bot, per [27]. I'm hesitant to close this discussion, though, but I'd suggest AN isn't the place to have a wider discussion about this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What changes have been made to the Bot that would prevent this from re-occuring? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mike Peel: per Iridescent's suggestion above, has the bot been reconfigured to prevent this occurring again? ——SN54129 12:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear that changes are needed to the bot, see other people's comments above - but again, I suggest this isn't the place to have that discussion. In this case, the specific issue that led to the block has been resolved, and the bot's newer edits all look fine, unless there are other live cases that need to be urgently addressed? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

So you unblocked a bot that has a history of making edits against policy, that has not had any changes to it, that impacts on one of our policies with legal repurcussions, despite the fact a discussion was ongoing? You are not fit to be an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If this were the incidents board, I'd agree; but as information and issues of interest to administrators go, I'd say a rogue bot and its formative processes qualify in spades. And probably better here than a walled garden with fewer eyes. ——SN54129 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a walled garden. Mike Peel is right, the issue at hand has been resolved. If any action is needed, act on the user who caused the bad edit. Nemo 13:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk pages are certainly not. Unfortunately experience dictates that individual project ages often are. ——SN54129 13:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I intend to reinstate the block, given the clear consensus in the discussion here that the bot's configuration is problematic. Please take note. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You would be wheel warring, and there most definitely isn't any clear consensus that the bot is an issue as opposed to, say, problems with files named the same between here and commons. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please don't, I can't see any consensus for that here, particularly given that most regular users of the bot probably aren't aware of this discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There is not any such "clear consensus" here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this bot is operating outside of its approval and has done so since before that approval (it was running before it was approved). I have therefore, according to WP:BOTPOL asked for a re-examination of this bot's approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Re-examination_of_ListeriaBot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: not a hill worth dying on, bro; Barkeep's suggestion is an excellent one, so maybe wait until the reassessment has taken place? @Barkeep. Yeah, I waxed lyrical about the original approval "discussion" above. ——SN54129 14:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that I, User:Barkeep49, proposed this. While I am often called Barkeep, I do regret that the tastefully named Barkeep recieves notifications meant for me so often. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

So many Barkeeps! El_C 14:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

How may keeps does one bar need!  :) Apologies, Barkeep49 ——SN54129 14:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that the bot is clearly operating outside the criteria of its BRFA, the reassessment at BOTS should result in that permission being withdrawn until it is fixed. On that basis, whilst I actually agree that it should be blocked and that Mike Peel's unblock was a poor idea, the outcome is likely to be the same without any unnecessary drama. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I also note that the bot has previously operated without permission, and the creator's answer to that was I am not here for rules. I am not here for paperwork. I am here to improve the encyclopedia. Sorry if you are not. [28] Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I for one do not see that the bot should have been unblocked without addressing the concerns raised above. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I too disagree with the bot being unblocked, This issue might of been resolved however others haven't and given the repeated problems with it IMHO it should've stayed blocked until either issues were resolved and or Magnus acknowledges the disruption caused and states clear it won't happen again. –Davey2010^Talk 15:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Copying my comment from the other discussion If there are issues with the bot, a complete block makes the most sense until we can ascertain what needs to be fixed. Note I don’t think it’d be considered wheel warring because a consensus is emerging that it was a bad unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps until it passes a proper approval? That shouldn't take long, as I'm sure BAG could expedite it without impinging on the quality of review. ——SN54129 15:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Reverting an admin action (especially one as egregious as this) is not wheel warring. Reinstating such an action after it has been reverted is. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  I’m not sure what action you’re referencing in that sentence, but restoring an original admin action when there is consensus the reversion of such action was incorrect is not wheel warring. There is a fairly clear consensus here that this was a bad unblock and a good block and that the block should not have been lifted. It would not be wheel warring for an administrator to implement that consensus by blocking the bot again. An admin can’t overrule the community by the second mover advantage. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  As it stands, I think that any reblocking would be purely punative and unconstructive, unless someone can provide evidence that the edits since my unblock are problematic. However, admin actions rely on consensus, and I wouldn't unblock again in that situation. Mike Peel (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Mike Peel: Noted. It’s a bot so I don’t really think it can be punitive. The issue is that there’s no evidence anything has been fixed, which is our traditional standard for unblocking bots. If I’m reading you right, you would be fine with another administrator re-blocking if they read the current consensus that way while also noting that you disagree with that position. If that’s the case, I’d be fine reimplementing the block as my involvement in this has just been commenting that I think there’s already a consensus here. I’m also fine waiting for a few more comments, but I don’t think that would change much. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  It may not be punitive, but it would breach WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Someone should be taking responsibility for the bot's edits - and appropriate action should be taken if the bot re-adds files that are in breach of our non-free file policy - if a normal editor like myself were to continue to edit in breach of this policy, then they would expect to pick up a topic ban or a block. Is someone willing to accept being blocked if the bot breaches policy (which, since it doesn't seem to have been fixed, is quite likely)?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Reblock discussion

So, reading the above and the bot noticeboard discussion, and the RfC linked below, I think there is consensus that the bot is operating outside of policy in multiple ways and also a consensus that it should have remained blocked as the problems have not been solved and that there is really no easy solution to it. WP:WHEEL does not prohibit a second reversal by an uninvolved administrator after discussion. We've had the discussions, in my view there is a consensus on the policy (bot should not be editing mainspace or placing non-free images in user space), the outcome (the bot should stop editing in a way that violates policy, and we should be sure that it will continue to do that), and that there is no easy way to solve the problems presented here.

I consider myself uninvolved, because while I commented above, it was not as a party to the dispute but rather as an uninvolved administrator commenting generally on policy and my reading of the entire discussion. As this would be reinstating a block that has already been reversed, I want to be extra cautious and post this here: I intend to reblock the bot within the next hour or so unless other uninvolved administrators or the community think my doing so would be in violation of WHEEL. My reading of the policy is that we have already had the discussion it requires before reinstating an administrative action, but I would not want do so lightly. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I am uninvolved as well, and procedurally I would prefer to wait for 24h, which is a usual time period before any consensus could be established. I do not think there is emergency here. (Not that I think anything would change in 24h).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Closing?

Could we please stop this and close the thread? It is clear that reblocking the bot would mean wheel-warring, the flag evaluation request has been filed, and whoever feels they want to go to ArbCom can to go to ArbCom anyway. Keeping it open further would not achieve anything but will just unnecessarily increase drama.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If there is community consensus here to block the bot implementing such a block would not be wheel warring. I am uneasy about community blocking this bot given the positive work I know it does for projects like WiR. Hence my re-examination request. However, I personally would not oppose community consensus to block the bot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I count at least six admins (plus JJMC who originally blocked it) and four other established editors saying it should be blocked, with only a couple of people opposed (bar the operator, who doeesn't appear to understand the issue anyway). I suggest this is kept open for a while for any consensus to become (even) clearer. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is just a matter of time until a couple of very influential Wikiprojects would figure out that they can vote in this discussion, but, well, if people want more drama let them have more drama.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And if people from those Wikiprojects were "voting" purely on the basis that blocking the bot would cause operational problems for them, I think we know how to evaluate that. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Re-examination_of_ListeriaBot now - that seems a logical way to go. Please do just close this discussion (again), it's not productive. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn’t object to it being closed now, but the current consensus is to overturn the unblock; said as someone who doesn’t really care about bots or Wikidata either way and is pretty neutral on those things. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Solving the shadowing problem

I think the basic issue here is that we have non-free media files that can shadow freely-licensed media from Commons, and this generically causes problems when trying to include a freely-licensed file here using the same filename as a non-free file. Fixing this would also resolve the issue with Listeria, without requiring changes to the way that bot operates. I've started an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Requiring_non-free_content_to_indicate_that_in_their_filenames, input there would be appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Whilst it would be nice for NF files to be more easily identifiable, it is already very easy for a bot to identify them, which leads us back to fixing ListeriaBot again. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: It wouldn't be efficient, though - the bot would have to check through *every* file to make sure that it doesn't include a specific template (which may be some way down the transclusion chain), and it would have to do so *every* time it updates the page. Meanwhile, we could just move the file once, and that would solve it. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'll reiterate my (and Squirrel Conspiracy's) suggestion from above: The whole issue could be solved in a much simpler way if the bot was made to simply not insert the images but only link to them. That would (a) solve the shadowing issue because the links could point unambiguously to Commons, (b) solve the larger issue of potentially bad (copyvio) Commons files being inserted without human review, (c) remove all problems of efficiency and bandwidth, and (d) have no negative effect whatsoever on the function of the data presentation in the pages that use the bot. None of these tables, as far as I've seen, rely on the visual presence of the actual image to fulfill their purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is progressing in a direction that does belong here. It seems this may need to be a discussion of the appropriate flag this particular bot operator must possess. Non response to community concerns is certainly a valid reason for that discussion. You MUST make the bot operate in a community approved fashion. The community doesn't need to change to accommodate your bot. What's hard to understand? Your utility in coding your bot is NOT a factor. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Also after Listeriabot we would need to fix X-bot, Y-bot, and Z-Bot as well as the brains of 1000 editors ... Na, way better to fix the filename. That makes it absolutely clear that it is non-free. Another option were to have a "force commons option that bypasses the local filespace. But I think the real problem, that "we" want the problem to exist. Agathoclea (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Agathoclea, and? A wholesale revision to Wikipedia practice to fix a trivially fixable problem with a bot doesn't seem like a great idea. Guy (help!) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  I see it as a systemic problem, the situation with the bot just a symptom. Agathoclea (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  "The whole issue could be solved in a much simpler way if the bot was made to simply not insert the images " The images are needed, and used, by people checking sets of articles produced by the bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Why would they need to see the image inside that list (As opposed to having just a bluelink to its description page)? What kind of "checking" of articles are you speaking of? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Why do we need nonfree images? Agathoclea (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  To illustrate articles?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Why do we need rhetorical questions? If you have a pertinent point to make, can you just make it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Template :Infobox outbreak

Resolved

Hello admins, or any template editor! I have made an edit request at Template talk:Infobox outbreak#Edit Request – 12 April 2020. The "website" parameter is broken. This is an IAR post, because I think the sooner it fixed the better, as the websites in our infoboxes for COVID articles by countries are likely to be more up-to-date and reliable than many of our articles they are currently linked from. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Resignation of member, AGK

Last month, I accepted a position on the Wikimedia Foundation ombudsman commission, a body that assists in resolving complaints across all Wikimedia Foundation projects about the privacy, checkuser, and oversight policies. I feel sure that the other members have sufficient experience, diversity of style, and time to carry on without my input. Rather than sitting on both bodies, I am today resigning as a member of the Arbitration Committee. AGK ■ 16:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Resignation of member, AGK

NOTHERE user

Hi. User:GiacomoValenti is clearly WP:NOTHERE after being approached by several users on his talk page. He refuses to adhere. I think action is now necessary. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Could possibly have made a new account User:Gennaro "Jerry" Di Gregorio. Also both accounts may not meet the username requirements. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

iPhone SE (2020) non-admin closure

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

---

@GeoffreyT2000: performed a non-admin closure of this discussion. I would like a neutral administrator to review the decision, and perform the deletions if needed. My reading of the consensus was to draftify IPhone SE (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and delete IPhone 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In both circumstances, the resultant redirects (as well as the redirects listed in the AFD) should be deleted, not retargetted per WP:CSD#G8 as they are unlikely to be a title a user would input (and the current target is not ideal as it simply takes the victim to IPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to be unduly bureaucratic but I think one uses Wikipedia:Deletion review for reviewing AFD closes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: You should first discuss the close with the user in question on their talk page. If you cannot agree on the matter, you can indeed use WP:DRV to request a formal review. --MrClog (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and MrClog: DRV is one venue, however per WP:NACD: Closures may only be reopened [...] by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; [...] (emphasis added). I'll also add, from WP:NACD, that two of the reasons NOT to perform a non-admin closure are Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins (I believe this qualifies) and Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement (even assuming the two draftify's stand, the redirects should have been deleted per WP:CSD#G8 and only an administrator can delete pages). Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 11:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: A DRV would be needed to first overturn the close (if discussion with the closer does not simply result in them undoing their close). If deletion is required, an admin will do so. Admins look at other noticeboards too you know! — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: A DRV would be needed to first overturn the close... that's not what WP:NACD says. It lists DRV as one possible venue. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Locke Cole: non-admin new page reviewers draftify pages all the time, and nominate the redirect per G8. I don't think said rule bars non-admins from draftifying articles. Regardless, I do believe it is appropriate for you to discuss a close with the closer first, before filing a request here, as to prevent any unnecessary drama. --MrClog (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: I'm good with the outcome here, thank you for your concern. There is no drama on my end. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm actually going to reverse my close, since technically an uninvolved admin can revert a NAC without it formally going through the DRV process. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• For what it’s worth, getting an administrator to overturn a bad NAC unilaterally is almost always a better option than DRV, so the process complaints really aren’t an issue. I wouldn’t overturn because we’d normally just refund them to draft anyway if someone asked since these are obviously going to be notable in a few months, but yeah, there’s no need for a DRV over a NAC. Just bug an admin on their talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: My initial idea was to contact an admin directly, but I didn't want to be seen as cherry-picking my favorite admin to get the result I wanted. That being said, while I think the draft of iPhone 12 is going to be completely different once the page is moved to article-space at some point in the distant future (and it's highly unlikely any source presently used will remain), I don't object to it being in draft-space. Honestly the major concern to me was all the redirects that were also up for deletion being left (and presumably the two redirects created when the two pages were draftified). If an admin could nuke the redirects, I think that would close this discussion and the DRV discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

1. Jytdog (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Page move fix

I was trying to move Red Three (espionage) to Red Three, as it's an unnecessary disambiguation. But I accidentally moved it to Red Three (esp - slip of my finger on mobile. I've reverted that move, but it won't let me move the article to Red Three over the redirect. Please can an admin action this for me? There's no need for the disambiguation in the name, as Red Three redirects to Red Three (espionage) anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. In the future you can make requests like this at WP:RMT — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Stale MfD nominations

Hi, I discovered in the Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion that there are a large number of stale tags for closed MfD discussions, including 5 nominations that were not properly completed and three that were listed as a result of an improper substitution or transclusion. One of these was an MfD from 2017. Why can't we get a bot to do this automatically? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have also found a redirect (Whatisthematrix) with a stale RfD tag. (Someone please check CfD for me.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Qian Wang Amy sandboxes don't qualify for G4, because they're not restorations of the deleted article in articlespace. If the sandboxes had been deleted at MfD then reposted they would qualify for G4. Otherwise, being deleted at AfD would automatically make sandbox or userspace draft versions of articles subject to deletion, which isn't customarily the case as far as I know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've done through the rest of the cat and cleared any that should have been deleted (a couple were my closures, not sure what happened - I use XfDcloser, possibly it had a hiccup). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There are also stale or incomplete TfD's nominated for merging, such as {{ACT Greens/meta/color}}. My Internet connection is clogged up, and I need to go to bed, so could someone go through the rest of CAT:XFD for me? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Chloe Bennet

Can someone else deal with the article, I am finding the current editor on that highly disruptive. Govvy (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Govvy: see your talk page. --I Mertex I (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Can someone delete

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

---

• Draft:Liam Flynn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) It appears to be created as a test but it looks like vandalism to me. I tagged it for speedy deletion with Huggle, but no admin has gotten to deleting the page or declining the deletion. Huggle also somehow courtesy blanked the page as well. :) Aasim 07:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• [29] Aasim 07:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Good day/night! :) Aasim 09:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser

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

---

Needs attention from admins. My request, currently the oldest request on the list, has been there for well over a month. Invalid^OS_talk 15:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you really sure you want that request reviewed? Using AWB to "get rid of weasel words and puffery" sounds like a recipe for a fast track to an indefinite block. ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Thanks for the warning there. I thought I'd be able to do something like that, but after some thought, I definitely think that doing those tasks with AWB would cause many more problems than what it's worth. I'd probably want to have a discussion regarding words to watch rather than removing them with AWB, to establish consensus on what to do with them. Anyways, yes, I will read and abide by the AWB terms of use, and I understand the consequences of stepping outside of those terms. Invalid^OS_talk 14:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser) Invalid^OS_talk 14:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Creation request

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

---

It would make sense to have a redirect from )))(((] to Triple parentheses#Response analogously to ((())). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

For future reference, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories (WP:AFC/R) exists for requests of this nature. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: As far as I know, that page is not for creation of pages in the blacklist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Resolved

 – Discussion closed, and full protection dropped to semi-protection. Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Could uninvolved admins please weigh in regarding closure of the ongoing RFC at the Joe Biden page, as well as the indefinitely continued full page protection? Thanks in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Which one? There are two open RFCs, and I'm guessing you're referring to a third that has hit 30 days? Primefac (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Also, just as a note, WP:ANRFC is the place to put "please close RFC" requests

I think Mr Ernie means the second one—Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?—where it looks like there is support for early closure due to changing circumstances (i.e. new coverage in mainstream U.S. sources). Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There should be no indefinite full protection on a Wikipedia article. I have never seen a case like this. The admin who protected the page should unprotect.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I would advise against removing the full protection. The underlying situation has developed during the course of the RfC. Given those new facts and the tone of the discussion during the RfC, the edit warring can be expected to resume within minutes if there's not time to hash out any new article text on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the need for full protection. It aides in WP:STONEWALLING - inadvertently or otherwise - and should be removed, be it for the appearance of POV pushing, stonewalling, or noncompliance with what achieving WP:CONSENSUS dictates. The PP was about a controversial single addition to the article which has now become a case of whitewashing/stonewalling inclusion when taking into consideration WP:DUE based on the RS that have published and support inclusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I posted a request for close at WP:ANRFC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note from protecting admin This was an arbitration enforcement action logged here. I explained the decision and where to appeal it two weeks ago in this edit. Per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:ONUS the only condition for unprotection is consensus for the inclusion or exclusion of the content. As explained in the enforcement log, the indefinite protection is a technical matter so that the page---originally indefinitely semi-protected---does not lapse into unprotection. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• So, Wugapodes, the procedure would be to find specific consensus text on the talk page and then request to have it added to the article? If so, I think this is a constructive way forward. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see it as even less restrictive than that. The problem was edit warring over saying something or saying nothing, so just a rough consensus on whether to include or not is sufficient. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Please help initiate a team close with uninvolved administrators.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe Thryduulf offered to (help) close. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I did offer to help with closing this, and that offer still stands. Given the subject matter and the contentiousness of the discussion I think a team closure would be best. I got a notification that Mz7 has sent me an email that (based on the subject line) is regarding this, but I haven't had opportunity to read it yet. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'd be willing to pitch into the close here, and I've sent Thryduulf an email with some of my initial thoughts. Mz7 (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, feel free to use the Trump and Kavanaugh articles as guidelines in what Wikipedia allows for inclusion because I assume you don't want the world to think Wikipedia is biased. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf and Mz7: Thanks both. Do you happen to have an estimate for when to expect a closure? Reading through the most recent comments at the RfC, I think the page can be unprotected soon, but if your closure is imminent I'd rather the closure and unprotection be coordinated. If you think it will be more than a day or two, I'd prefer unprotecting sooner rather than later. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to take a look until tomorrow UK time, so realistically you're looking at 12 hours at an absolute minimum assuming we get a third volunteer between now and then. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, This needs closure by the first Admin that sees it. NYT and WaPo have published this, as well as NBC, MSNBC, and pretty much all the other major players. There are ZERO concerns of DUE that can be raised. At this point we are running headlong into WP:NOTCENSORED being the argument for inclusion. We don't want to appear politically biased and I fear that any further delay on reporting this will make us appear so. I don't think this needs multiple admin closure any more as any close is so clear cut as to be uncontroversial. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere I think Thryduulf may be away until tomorrow. I've posted on Mz7's talk page about an interim solution. I'm hoping to get this resolved quickly but deliberately; the last thing I want is hasty decisions leading to more problems. I expect to unprotect the page by 1:30 UTC. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Wugapodes and others, I have gone ahead and closed the discussion by myself. I've personally apologized to Thryduulf on his talk page, but I agree with the assessment that this close is not as controversial as it might have been several days ago. Wugapodes, I hope this helps resolve the protection issue you were talking to me about. Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've lowered protection back down to semi and will keep an eye on the page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There is still no sign of consensus on any article text. Some editors feel strongly that this is a valid credible complaint and that it was suppressed for political reasons. Other editors feel that the complaint is dubious, uncorroborated, or flawed in various ways. The edit war will resume if article text is not agreed before protection is lifted. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The specific wording can be handled by normal editorial processes. As Atsme and others have pointed out, the harms of keeping it fully protected are quickly beginning to outweigh the benefits. I doubt autoconfirmed editors will continue an edit ar after the RfC, and even if edit warring continues after lowering protection it would be better addressed by blocks at this point. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a frog in this race, so I'll butt out. But there is and was nothing resembling a normal editing process among the assembled editors at that article over the past several weeks. Thanks for your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

New Covid-19 stay at home edits and editors?

Are there updated stats comparing edits and additional editors since before and after the Covid-19 lockdowns have gone into effect? Listen to Wikipedia (listen.hatnote.com) seems to be humming along at a brisk pace, and you'd think editing would be a boredom-relief for those who've not edited or lightly edited before. Yet the short-term edits I've noticed at visual arts pages seems to echo my long-term surprise that hundreds, if not thousands, of art professors, students, historians, museum personnel, artists, and those who just like art do not edit Wikipedia. The excuse I've heard from friends ("how much money do they pay?" "What, it's all volunteer? Gotta eat, man.") about not being interested in working for free would seem to go out the window with self-isolation. It's a perfect opportunity for an art historian or professor to create new pages or edit the existing collections. But are they and, if not, why not? Bottom line, maybe a banner calling for experts, professors, and other professionals who are voluntarily (or otherwise) trapped in residences to consider creating or editing Wikipedia articles within their chosen fields of endeavor would add some professional edits from those who are being paid to sit around and watch the latest season of Curb. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

As an anecdotal evidence, I have now less time for Wikipedia, not more time. I am definitely more busy than in usual circumstances.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Both the active editor count and the daily number of edits are virtually unchanged. As Ymblanter correctly says, for many (perhaps most) of us the current situation means less spare time, not more. ‑ Iridescent 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Little increase in editing activity, but I see a year-on-year increase of (very roughly) about 50 million page views, or 15%, here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If you break that rise down, that increase appears to occur solely on Mobile Web, without any corresponding significant increase from either Desktop or Mobile App. I'd be prepared to bet a reasonable sum that it's an artefact of a software bug, since if it were down to more people staying at home and surfing the net we'd expect a drop in mobile views and a spike from desktop. ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know; I would expect the opposite. A lot of desktop traffic probably comes from people at work, school, or in libraries. I know a lot of people who still don't have desktop computers at home, and when I'm at home, even though I do have a desktop computer, I find myself more likely to use my mobile device for most things.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Some people have more time... Some have less. Even having more people with more time doesn't promote more people to be interested in this project. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

rather, I think that for many people the effect of the restrictions--and the implications for the general state of the world in the next year or so--is so discouraging that they tend not to want to do anything active at all, but just passive media consumption. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a librarian with faculty status, I've been telecommuting since the end of last month, and I have a good deal less free time than normal. Can't speak for others, but I know part of the issue is that I've been getting more evening-and-weekend emails from students and faculty than normal, probably because the students aren't spending evenings/weekends with friends like normal, and because they're working with the distractions of family all day, respectively. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. So much of the world is actually busier, I wouldn't have thought that. This one surprises me, overall-site edits and editors: "virtually unchanged", "little increase in activity". That seems a ripe research subject for sociology or psychology students working on the topic of Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio on Central Talent Booking

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

---

Can we get someone to revdel some copyvio on Central Talent Booking. The edits containing copyvio were done by User:Clareb2020 and were taken from here. Thanks. Tknifton (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done, looks like I accidentaly done this before Canterbury Tail got to the revdel.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter. Tknifton (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Changes to CheckUser team

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

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 18:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove some of my user rights

Hey, I haven't been very active here in the last year or so and not at all in the last 6 months; it started because I became very busy with real life, but then I wasn't really motivated to get back to editing here. Could I have my new page reviewer and pending changes reviewer rights revoked, just so they're not lying on an inactive account for no reason? Autopatrolled I don't care about either, but I would prefer to have rollback just in case I happen to find a vandal edit while reading the wiki. Thanks to all, --SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 03:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512 Can I just doff my hat at this point? Your review of my article Tugnet Ice House, congratulating me on a decent effort and encouraging a trip to DYK, was a formative moment for me. I hope that you get the time and inclination to return to reviewing at some point - you're one of the good guys. I'll miss you while you're gone. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected undisclosed paid editing / single-purpose account editing at Kayvan Khalatbari

Unusual use of external links prompted me to look into the article history of Kayvan Khalatbari. What I found were the following accounts:

• Kaydubco (talk · contribs · logs)
• Caitlinmckennie (talk · contribs · logs)
• Mgt33139 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Catarina 210 (talk · contribs · logs)
• Timmitown (talk · contribs · logs)
• HilaryConstable (talk · contribs · logs)

All of these accounts have either only edited that article or a substantial majority of their edits have only been to that article. Kaydubco is the exception; it has also edited a few other articles, but at least one of them, Sexpot Comedy, is closely associated with Kayvan Khalatbari.

I suspect that this is a collection of undisclosed paid editing accounts, possibly all sockpuppets of one another. However, with the exception of HilaryConstable, all of them are extremely old.

Is anything here an issue? If so, is it actionable? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Squirrel Conspiracy, I think it likely they're all throw-away accounts of the same sockfarm. Certainly, the edit comment on this edit makes it pretty clear this is paid PR work. But, given that most of them are inactive, I'm not sure there's much point in blocking them, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Holy moly that article needs more pruning than I can handle right now. What a bunch of vanispam. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I just received an email from Mgt33139 stating that they are not a paid editor and are not connected to the other accounts. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

My account is independent from the previous editors and Kayvan Khalatbari. I have submitted a "Paid Editor Disclosure" to the talk page. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do to resolve this issue. HilaryConstable (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the goal is prevention

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

---

This edit by a trusted administrator just happened and it broke through PP at Joe Biden. If an editor cannot make such an edit (bypass PP), is it acceptable for an involved admin to do so? I am here asking for clarity in an effort to avoid fit from hitting the shan. On the surface, it appears to be inappropriate but I will gladly stand corrected if that is not the case - provided it is based on WP policy. Thank you in advance...^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems like an obvious non-controversial fact (Sanders publicly endorsing Biden) that no one can question, and of sufficient import to be added that its reasonably for even an involved editor to add. It would be similar to, say, adding to a fully-protected BLP that the person had died, or the like. If the addition included any quotes or other details, that might have been over the edge. --Masem (t) 22:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I see the spirit of WP:PREFER as saying that it's generally better for involved administrators to not edit through protection. I doubt inclusion of an endorsement by Biden's last competitor would be controversial and would have been an edit request eventually, so while the optics aren't ideal, it feels like a WP:NOTBURO situation. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I am the guilty one. I identified my edit as going through full protection, as I always do. I felt it was important, headline news - Sanders' endorsement of Biden - that I believed needed to be in the article. Maybe I should have posted at the talk page first to ask consensus before adding it? If that's what people want I can revert until there is consensus -- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC) P.S. I hadn't really thought of myself as involved but I see that I have made a few edits to the article and made some comments at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you are "guilty" then self-revert. I disagree with your incomplete addition. You should have added that Sanders endorsement was to unite the party.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You'd rather have no info and quibble about inclusion of Sanders' motive than actually have it in there? WP:IAR. This edit was a clear benefit to the encyclopedia, not done with any malice or ill-intent, and worded in a way that is NPOV, clear, and accurate. Removing it would be a disservice and pointless in the long run. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I added the plain fact. No motives, no quotes, no analysis. That can come later when the article is re-opened to editing. Or people can read the reference source. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your incomplete addition is making Brine Sanders look bad it mentions that indorsement without mentioning the reason. I don't think Bernie Sanders would want to endorse someone who is accused of sexual assault. You should build a consensus in the talk page instead of using your admin powers wrongly by editing fully protected page.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Known for his salty language, is that Brine Sanders. EEng 01:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

To me, it seems like the sort of thing that obviously should be in the article, to the point that seeking consensus first would just be perfunctory. But I haven't been following that article much until today, so if this would potentially be controversial, then consensus should have been sought first. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I agree 100% and I don't see how MelanieM is not involved as an admin in American Politics. If a page is protected, then an edit needs an edit request. Her actions are a violation of her admin capabilities to bypass normal editing restrictions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think an allegation of rape that is making world news is much more obvious to include in the article than Bernie's expected endorsement.  In this context it does feel inappropriate to make almost any edit to the article.  It is a plain fact that Tara Reid has made an allegation of sexual assault against Joe Biden.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a question related to BLP policy. A factual statement that Sanders backed Biden has zero BLP implications, and thus only needs an RS to back it, it's also extreme DUE given the election. The statement that some person has accused Biden of sexual assault immediately requires us to take caution under BLP to see how the media will take the charges. If they give them weight and validate elements, then there might be reason to include, but per BLP, we don't include, on first mention, such accusations unless it becomes UNDUE not to include. --Masem (t) 23:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that the arguments here do not make sense to me. But I have reverted my edit and posted a place for discussion at the talk page. And I apologize for assuming that this would be obviously uncontroversial. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Please remove this edit from Nikki Stringfield

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

---

Please delete [30] --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why that would require a WP:REVDEL. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, I believe it's because the editor that Jax reverted posted a date of birth that wasn't sourced, which may fall under oversight policy criterion #1. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a case where a date of birth was considered sensitive enough to require REVDEL. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is a sign that the oversight process is working as it should… Oversighting personal information that isn't in the public domain isn't particularly unusual, and there have certainly been times when dates of birth have come under that. ‑ Iridescent 20:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, the kids in my class would, if they were reading this, shout out gleefully "Roasted!", while pretending they knew that already. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hah! I meant, in the time I've been here and watching the boards, I hadn't seen an oversight request simply for a DoB. Other personal information (addresses, maiden names, etc.), yes, but not that. If admins feel it's worth oversighting, then I learned something new. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That's because OS requests shouldn't be posted at this board. As to the second part of your comment, we generally don't OS DOBs unless they're minors. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's better to be too cautious with personal information; oversighters can undelete the revision if it's not within the policy, but it's much harder to limit damage if administrators are slow to revdelete. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, the information is verifiable by the subject herself. Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've undeleted the revision with reference to where the information is verifiable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Technical update

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

---

Hi guys. It's Jeff from the Wikimedia Foundation. I've conducted some technical maintenance updates on the Wikicommons server, as well as some general tweaks to the processing system of both Wikipedia and a few other sister projects. There are no issues to report. I don't have anything else to report other than that.

All the best, Jeff. --Garland J P (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh - if you are really from WMF you should have an official WMF account. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And be listed on the WMF staff list. ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

While it’s good to have suspicion, he states on his user page he’s a contractor - maybe a little AGF would be useful here as a *reminder* to have the WMF list him. This is a notice admins should be keen to get - that maintenance was performed with no issues - but the two responses so far are looking for reasons to doubt or criticize the user posting... 52.119.101.25 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've notified the WMF to see if there was a mixup somewhere. I am fairly certain that even contractors normally employ WMF accounts - we've had some problems in the past with employees that used the same account for WMF stuff and personal stuff - and that rote maintenance would not be announced here (Phabricator is the place, as well as the various mass messages). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This sounds odd, to say the least. Why would someone create an account seemingly with the sole purpose a) of telling us to not contact me about editing concerns, and b) make an announcement here of something that doesn't need to be announced here? ——SN54129 11:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Just did some checking - he DOES have an account on meta-wiki but no userpage, and his user group permissions are set at user over here. As the old song goes "It makes me wonder...." Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

...all their accounts created at 09:46 this morning  :) ——SN54129 12:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Guys. I'm actually just a troll. I am not a Wikimedia 'contract technician'. I'm just a really bored troll because of the coronavirus lockdown, and I think I am losing my mind. I have done nothing to the 'Wikicommons server'. Please forgive me and block my account. I am sorry for wasting your time. Regards, Jeff the fake technician. --Garland J P (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Non-free image revdel

I've replaced one non-free image with another, at File:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.jpg. Please can someone delete the past revisions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Silentmiaow

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

---

2601:643:C180:4CE0:C0E4:6111:64FA:461A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I revert vandalism and watch potentially disruptive individuals through the filter logs, but I've never seen an IP attempt to add a {{Deceased Wikipedian}} tag onto an editors user page. In this case, the IP was trying to add it on Silentmiaow's user page who has not edited since January 2009. Does anyone have any confirmation whether if this is true or not? Jerm (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Silentmiaow disclosed her identity as (or at least claimed to be) Amanda Baggs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. If you claim to be someone, and if the someone is confirmed to have passed away, it's reasonable to place {{Deceased Wikipedian}} on your userpage, and reasonable to treat the account as compromised if it resumes editing. Probably you told the truth, and if you were lying before, loss of editing access to your account is the consequence. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I found additional verification on their twitter page at [31], so I've protected their userpage and placed the template in accordance with WP:RIP. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Appealing Topic Ban on Sports Articles

Revisiting a long term case that was related to my disruptive editing on NHL Players Statistics back in the 2018-19 season since I like to have my topic ban appealed because I understand that when it was first issued, it was to educate me in what reliable source means when I update NHL Teams and why other editors want the correct procedure. When I first started to update statistics within NHL Team articles, I assumed the information I get comes from the recap games they played.

Courtesy collapse. ——SN54129 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Was their any other way around the topic ban? Answer: Their was no other way. The topic ban was the only way for me to realize what reliable source means even though I was interested in other areas besides sports prior before the topic ban. You say hockey is the only thing I contribute. I asked the same question what my most interest was. NHL Hockey was indeed the most topic I contribute. The other areas you asked what I made positive contributions outside of hockey articles were transportation, 9/11, Nazi Germany but you would have to see me from the IP address I was in before I had an account. Also keep in mind that the information recognize where it got to from the start had to come from my edits from when I first started editing hockey articles back in June 2015. It will not work when I look back from where I first edit back in April 2018 since I was already contributing Wikipedia on June 2015. Even though the recap game stats are just as reliable as the official team stat website. I should know that I still should check the official team stat source to make sure my information is correct based on Goaltenders GAA Average, some examples of my corrections to stats based from official team stats and recap game sources are listed below: (Correcting Steve Mason’s stats) April 2018 (For Connor Hellebuyck’s penalty minutes, I was able to obtain this literally after looking from the game recap stats.) (Blake Wheeler and Connor Hellebuyck’s stats were incorrect after I was suspicious whether Connor Hellebuyck had an assist. I found this one was incorrect after I checked the most recent Winnipeg Jets scoring on the boxscore to see who had goals and assists listed and I caught it but at the same time was able to catch Black Wheeler’s stats incorrect since his total assist was 32 listed on who had goals and assists on the boxscore.) December 7, 2018 (Forgetting to add in Jacob Markstrom’s assist. I found this mistake after I double check my work by looking it from the recap game on Edmonton Oilers vs Vancouver Canucks game since Jacob Markstorm had the total number of assists listed from who scored and had assists) (James Neal’s stats were inaccurate. I found this was a mistake after realizing that the stats for goals and assists equal to the total amount of points. I would use the official stats records along with the Wikipedia stats and the recap game stats to correct the mistake.) (Oliver Kylington’s Plus Minus rating is 1, not 2 since the rating for the game he played was -1. But I could not just say it like that. For me to correct this one, I had to use previous edits, official team stat sources, and the recap game stats to increase the chance to become accurate. Not just one source.) Connor McDavid’s stats did not matched to the source on the recap for assists. I found this was wrong after I found from the recap game that his total listed from who got goals and assist total showed he had 51 assists, not 50. I would use the official team stat source together to correct the mistake.) (Patrick Marleau's assist on stats did not matched to the source on regular season stat website. I found this was wrong after I found from the recap game that his total listed from who got goals and assist total showed he had 16 assists, not 15. I would use the official team stat source together to correct the mistake.) (Manage to catch the time on ice for goaltenders stats wrong after the game recap stats revaluated shortly after the game was finalized) (Sam Bennet’s Penalty Minutes was wrong. I manage to catch this one after updating the team leader’s stats) Note that these corrections had to come for specific reasons: 1. This had to come with a lot of experience of editing hockey stats in previous years 2. The sources from the game statistics and previous edits on achieved areas were the reason to why I was able to correct a few areas of incorrect stats 3. The corrections I made during the 2018-19 season did not just happen even when I use the sources from the game stats and previous edits on Wikipedia that were reliable. If I continued to use those sources, I had to make sure I added in the accurate information by not rushing. This relates to my experience. 4. This comes on other editor’s part of editing since I notice some of my information I added was incorrect prior before, I somehow manage to catch some of my mistakes since I was told to use the official nhl stat source which I eventually did so in some cases. But for at least one correction I made, it had to take at least 4 websites to correct Oliver Klington’s Plus Minus rating including previous edits by me and Yowashi, recap game stats, and the official team stats page since I was using game statistics and previous stats on Wikipedia as my primary source of editing in the first place, otherwise, it would have been incorrect later on since the official team stat source was not updated at the time and I used the recap game statistics as my primary source. Some edits that I will provide that I could have been told back in April 2017 (I was never aware that the statistics scale should be arranged from most points to least) (I thought that adding in the stats from recap game statistics were allowed until I realized during the 2018-19 season I should be using the NHL.com statistics to update from their since it is more accurate and reliable) (Vancouver Canucks stats (October 2017) These edits look like I did not know the stats should be arranged from most points to least. Compared to the NHL 2018-19 season. Here are some examples where I used the official team stat source to get information that is from these edits (Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source) (Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source) Note that the official team stats source does not provide the full list since some players get traded unless I go to NHL.com source to see the full list. In previous years since the 2016-17 NHL season when I had been updating the stats, I did not know I should obtain the NHL.com source since it was the most reliable until 2018-19 NHL season. Anywhere else that said I did not know about the most NHL reliable source till the 2018-19 NHL season?] Here are other examples of when I should use the NHL.com website to check that the information I added from the game only stats from recap games is corrected to what is reported on NHL.com. It is best to wait for at least a day after the game concludes because some of the information get revaluate overnight. That site that I was told of is actually way more accurate than it is on game only stats recap (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs) (Edmonton Oilers December 23, 2018) (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs stats) (Montreal Canadiens December 26, 2018) (Toronto Maple Leafs December 26, 2018) (Oilers Goaltender stats January 9, 2019) When I update NHL Statistics Teams. The sources I use to update teams for every game are listed below Recap Games that I can add from the game on to the statistics on Wikipedia. Adding in the information from game stats recap means it must be added carefully. It also contains the boxscore in who had the total number of goals and assists if I checked it. It is still recommended to use the official team stat source to make sure the information I added in is correct according to the NHL Team official stats. This source I used was what I thought was reliable since when I obtain this literally since the 2016-17 season. When I update for every game, I use the recent game the team has played recent to add on the previous stats on Wikipedia. Previous differences in edits on Wikipedia. This is useful to make sure that the information I get from the game recap statistics and official team stat source are accurate. I since had this during the 2018-19 season. NHL official team stat source for information that I can check to make sure I information is matched to the official source when I was first told of it. This can be useful to check my information to make sure my information does not have any mistakes combined together with the game statistics recap. Another thing I found surprising about some information I added that was incorrect was because I thought that the last time the information that was updated by another editor was correct but realized the NHL.com team website sometimes re-evaluates its stats overnight and plus I used the game stats from recap to add in to the page thinking it was correct but realize it was not from previous edits. Here are some examples where sometimes the NHL.COM official website sometimes revaluate its stats from these edits: (January 11, 2019 Winnipeg Jets vs Detroit Red Wings (Ben Chariot games played should have been added) (For Edmonton Oilers stats for Colby Cave, he never had penalty minutes and his rating plus minus is -3 . He did not had penalty minutes when he played against Minnesota Wilds. (February 7, 2019) (For Edmonton Oilers vs San Jose Sharks (Feburary 9, 2019) I thought that the information I was adding from the recap game was literally. But what I was not aware was that the stats from NHL.com revaluate overnight.) (March 7, 2019 Mike Smith’s saves total should have been 920 since he had 26 saves.) For Ottawa Senators update stats are the examples where I discovered some of the information from NHL.com (I at first thought I obtain these numbers literally since I thought that the last time someone else updated the stats were correct so I add in the numbers from the game they were playing but I realize some of the information from NHL.com get revaluate) (January 13, 2019) At first, I thought updating NHL player statistics in articles were allowed every game as soon as a game concludes by adding in the information from the recap game they played on to the current stats although it is still recommended through the following recommendations I had been told of Updating the stats from recap games must mean I have to add in them in a orderly way meaning I must added the stats from their going from the top row of the list to the bottom (left to right when adding the numbers) I would need to use previous stats on Wikipedia to make sure the stats are correct Sometimes, I may miss some information from their which I should have added it in, so its recommended that I should still use the NHL.com team stats that has the full accurate information. If I use the NHL.com team stats, its recommended to wait at least a day after the game is finalized because some of the information tends to get revaluate overnight. When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me. When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me. You also asked why I was not able to discuss probably about the issue on nhl players stats on the ANI discussion a year ago? Its because I had been assuming for a long time that the stats I updated when I really started doing this since the 2016-17 NHL season was verdiable even when I corrected some of my own mistakes, I would have thought already the information was not original research. I also learned that to avoid making more inaccurate information, I should be getting the official team stat source to make sure the information is accurate. If this ban is lifted, should I still discuss the issue of what sources should be used for the purpose to update NHL Hockey Team stats at Wiki Ice Hockey Project? NicholasHui (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• All things being equal, NicholasHui, in the world of Tban appeals—or any other—brevity is your friend  :) ——SN54129 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No one is going to read all of this (which you just deleted in a subsequent edit). Consider shortening your appeal to a more concise summary. See WP:NICETRY.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Please simplify to 1) what you did wrong before and 2) what you will do to correct it. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment on redaction @NicholasHui: You really should have followed WP:REDACT on your deletion, or just started a new request, since now it makes everyone's response look out of context.—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

1. What I did wrong before was I thought I add in the information properly but editors disagree because they believe I was adding it in my own knowledge

2. What I will do to correct it is to use most reliable source whenever I update NHL Hockey player stats articles or other articles in different topics NicholasHui (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are some examples that I will show you that I did before

(Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

(Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

These sources I used didn't provide me a full list of stats on nhl teams because they trade away their players. In previous years when I updated the stats since the 2016-17 NHL season, I thought updating the stats was only adding all the stats from recap only games stats from each game the team played without knowing I could have just simply refer it to NHL.com stats NicholasHui (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Maple Leafs game 2 2018 playoffs stats For this edit here, some of my information did not matched to the official source because I thought that is the way NHL updates its stats.

for the Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 regular season stats here, the information I put in was not all correct because at the time, I disregarded reliable sources, its later fixed by another editor here. NicholasHui (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Keep in mind that even without an account I used, it still counts as my editing regardless whether I edited while logged out.)

I'll let other decide, concerning your topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I was notified of this discussion by NicholasHui on my userpage, who I think took an overly broad view of the notification requirement. I was part of the discussions that implemented the TBan. For y'alls convenience: here is The ANI that ended in a TBan, whose wording included Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR. The TBan was an alternative to an indeff at the time, and seen as a last chance. I currently have no opinion on lifting the topic ban. I do have some questions however about NicholasHui's logged out editing. Nicholas, have you made any logged out edits in the last year? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying I made edits while logged out last year? I used edit while logging out when making edits to my archieve page on my Userpage most recent. Another thing interesting was that I had the same habits before back a long time ago before I even used this account when I was editing NHL 2018 playoffs while under the IP address 24.84.228.210 by editing the NHL stats by not most points to least and using only recap game stats. You think its odd that 24.84.228.210 is inactive when I started using an account to continue edit player stats on NHL Canadian teams that time but it clearly had been me editing NHL 2018 playoffs stats before. When I got topic banned from editing Hockey Articles, their was no point for me editing under IP accounts to edit NHL Hockey stats that I was banned from unless you think their was something different about my edit logout habbit NicholasHui (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

According to those 2 IP accounts, you were commenting on the very topic you were barred from. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have zero interest in being involved with the final decision on NicholasHui's topic ban. To comment on NicholasHui's usage of IP accounts, I have noticed multiple Vancouver based IP's interact with my account over the last several months that I could tell that they were used by him. Yowashi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I was too obsessed in looking at your contributions. My apologies. Its just that my mind has been too fixated with your editing. Should have known better next time. (Noting that I previously was not in a habit like this before although I was around on NHL Hockey articles since June 2015, I only started to become fixated with certain contributions since 2019 because over time, I would have been more interested to know how users communicate on my talkpage.) NicholasHui (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Any other comments to say about my appeal? NicholasHui (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would have to say, with your behavior here alone, I have no confidence whatsoever that you would not return to your old ways. You seem to just make a mess of things that others have to clean up. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to make a mess of things that others had to clean up. Its just that when I updated NHL player stats, I did not realized that using recap game only stats was not the most reliable source. NicholasHui (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: I would suggest that you withdraw this nomination and perhaps try again after some time when 1) you can succinctly explain what you did wrong before and why the community should no longer be concerned 2) have stopped editing while logged out, which only raises more questions (right or wrong). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: 1) Why the community should no longer be concerned about my topic ban on Sports stats articles is because I finally understood that I should have established consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey because editors could not agree with the content on player stats. Prior before the dispute when I wondered was I doing the stats hockey update properly? I expect myself to figure out whether or not I done it properly. Even though I realized my own mistake once I was notified by the editors who watched me do it. I corrected. Unfortunately, they disagreed still.

2) I have been editing while logged out with stuff with my userpage archive. The problem is that my mind in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions. I just couldn't help it.

3) I will agree that even though my appeal is accepted, I will try to follow the community's advise that I should try to establish consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey.

4) I am here to make productive contributions understanding that I should cite the sources especially if I add in a lot of details of events or other topics in articles and I will try to stay calm if others disagree with what I edit. Does that sound fair? NicholasHui (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you chose to edit logged out? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It was because for one good reason was that I was editing my User archive page. NicholasHui (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would you need to edit your own archive page, logged out? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

To save some flooded information on my user account contributions. Also, you know hockey is really not my only thing I edit on, take a look on my user page of why I have those IP accounts listed on my userpage NicholasHui (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

NOTICE. The editor in question has breached his topic ban and made an edit at 2016–17 Winnipeg Jets season. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just was a bit too impatient. My mind gave off. NicholasHui (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctantly oppose lifting or easing of topic ban. NicholasHui is well-intentioned but unfortunately, in their eagerness and impatience to edit NHL related articles, they cannot abide with the accepted consensus, editing-conditions and collaborative norms. In the most recent instance this is demonstrated by their editing while logged out because "in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions", and violating the very topic-ban they are appealing while the appeal is being discussed because they got "a bit too impatient." Given the recent and past behavior, which has led to protracted discussions (see this and this in addition to their talkpage) and greatly taxed the time and good-faith of other editors active in the area, I cannot see the lifting of the topic-ban to be in interest of the project.

PS: I have been previously involved with the user as an admin in issuing a block and executing the (community-imposed) topic ban; see the linked discussions for details. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Another thing I should note is some asked before why I have all the IP accounts on my user page? The answer is that I cared what my own editing history was. I could tell it was me that edit those articles before. (Am I wrong?) NicholasHui (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban: Violating the topic ban while logged out and then violating the topic ban recently while the appeal is being discussed demonstrate a failure to abide by community consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MarkH21: I understand its failure to abide by consensus because I have gone through previous mistakes many times through (understanding past mistakes) since June 2015 when I started to edit Wikipedia on NHL Hockey assuming that this one was simple but it was not. NicholasHui (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Wish this request would get more attention. It's not doing NicholasHui any good, being kept in suspense. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The logged out editing, and urge to get back to editing without an understanding of wrongdoing, rubs me the wrong way. I see no good reason to lift it at this time, and several good reasons to leave it in place. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Grudging oppose due to the TBAN violations. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I should note is that from ANI, prior before being topic banned from sports stats articles, they say, "If you wish to discuss the issue of when player statistics should be updated and what sources can be used for the purpose, you should do so at WT:HOCKEY and establish consensus that is compliant with wikipedia's content policies." There are a few reasons why I did not established consensus at WT:HOCKEY prior before being topic banned:

1. I believed that establishing consensus at WT:HOCKEY probably would have resulted in me being banned from editing sports articles anyways

2. I at first assumed that the problem was easy fix and it was not a big deal.

I also must say that it will be hard for me to agree with the abided consensus norm at this point given that I had been editing NHL Hockey Articles in the last few years since June 2015 to March 2019. NicholasHui (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that proposing something at WT:HOCKEY would have resulted in you being banned from editing sports articles, simply for making a proposal? Furthermore, are you now saying that you will find it personally disappointing that consensus will prevent you from editing sports articles, or are you saying that you are going to ignore consensus and edit sports articles in the future even if you are banned from doing so by consensus? — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MarkH21: I say that establishing consensus at WT:HOCKEY probably would have resulted in me being banned from editing sports articles anyways because other editors would not have agreed with the editing content, furthermore after being topic banned from sports stats articles a year ago, it was still hard at first to adapt to the surrounding change, like I felt my brain was going really downhill because editing NHL Hockey was a long term goal (its not short term editing I done) I had been doing since June 2015. NicholasHui (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

File:180px-Ivan-Kozhedub2.jpg

Hi! This file was copied to vi.wikipedia (vi:Tập tin:Ivan-Kozhedub.jpg) where it still is. I wanted to check the source but now the file is deleted as F8 NowCommons. Could someone check what file name on Commons is supposed to be? --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If its not too much trouble perhaps you could undelete File:Jakūn gūsa.png so I can copy that to Commons (it is used in vi.wikipedia: vi:Tập tin:Jakūn gūsa.png). --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The summary was indicated as "German Wikipedia", and I know the uploader and would not expect of him a deep understanding of copyright policies, even less 15 years ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see, this is not the question you asked. The name was File:Kozhedub.jpg.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73:, I restored the other file. Please let me knw after you have performed the transfer, I will delete it. I am not willing to transfer it to Commons myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you. I copied the file to Commons Now. --MGA73 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I now deleted the file.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by Ms4263nyu

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

---

Ms4263nyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I can't ask the blocking administrator for input, and this is a checkuser block as well... {{checkuser needed}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unless there is new evidence for sockpuppetry, I support an unblock. The user has contributed constructively; their article Lilie Chouliaraki was been accepted via AFC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• I’m typically not a fan of unblocks before 6 months, but I see no additional accounts and no definitive IP socking, so I agree to an unblock as a CU, but only if there’s community consensus for it here. Personally I’m neutral. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding six months, I usually agree, and have recently opposed an unblock appeal for this reason. This especially applies if someone is told to wait for six months and fails to do so. In this specific case, the closest the user has received to this is a link to WP:GAB, which contains the advice "Refrain from making any edits, using any account or anonymously, for a significant period of time (e.g. six months), in English Wikipedia." This might not be sufficient to justify concerns about the number of months waited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, from what I can tell it wasn’t that egregious. Hence my saying the community can decide how to handle it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Old editor - haven't edited under an account for over 6 years - but this very edit I'm making would possibly be considered "abusive". Unless there is evidence that this person was logging in/out to appear as two separate users, **a mistake does not make it abusive**, even if that mistake was made multiple times. If this user remains blocked, not only will it discourage IP editors to return to contributing, but it will discourage new editors from registering altogether given they could be blocked simply for forgetting to log in once or twice as "abusive". Absurd how WP has taken this stance both towards prolific editors (wrt arbcom rulings and "warnings" recently) and newer editors - there won't be any left if everyone keeps all this up. 52.119.101.25 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not relevant to this unblock, but if you’re going to be actively contributing to project space, yes, you should log in, especially as you don’t have a static IP (from looking at the public range contributions and the fact you said you’re on mobile.) I’m not blocking because you’re clearly here in good faith and not intending to be abusive, but a big part of the reason we strongly encourage people to register if they want to contribute to internal discussion is that it’s extremely difficult for many people to track dynamic IP contributions and the way we remember people is typically by names not numbers. So yes, mistakes happen. I never block on good faith mistakes. If you’re going to consistently comment on the internal workings of the English Wikipedia at dramah boards, however, you really should have an account. This from the guy with an “I support IP editing” userbox. Anyway, thank you for your contributions, but just a bit of background as to why we don’t particularly like logged out editing in project space. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow. You assume mobile means “on a mobile network. This is the first edit I’ve made from a mobile network - the others were my static home IP. Tons of anti-AGF - the entire Provo m which can makes me not want to come back. Congrats TonyBalloni?l, you’ve proved my point. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s not anti-AGF to interpret it as mobile internet. I’m not familiar with your ISP, so I read it in a natural way to me. There also seems to be a post from you, in good faith, a few months ago on a different IP (assuming there’s only one person on your range who edits AN anonymously.) I explicitly said you’re here in good faith. I just explained why policy favors those who have accounts editing project space with them. It’s easier for people to recognize. Anyway, as I said, not particularly relevant to this unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would you think this person was editing from a mobile network? Check the WHOIS; the first IP belongs to SYNERGY BROADBAND, while someone using a mobile network would have an IP belonging to a mobile provider, such as AT&T Mobility LLC for the second IP. Nyttend (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I did, which is how I got the range to look at contribs for, but it’s not an ISP I’m familiar with and I read this as saying they were on a mobile network rather than device. There are a lot of random ISPs that offer a variety of services, so I didn’t see any contradiction. My home ISP currently also provides my mobile service, so it’s not that big a stretch if someone says so and it’s an unfamiliar ISP. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Literally anyone else would assume what Tony did. Just because you decided to WHOIS and figure out does not mean everyone else is stupid to read it like a normal sentence. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock. A review of the edits reflects that Ms4263nyu's first edits from an IP were to expand comments that were already signed under her username. It seems likely that this was an inadvertent error by an inexperienced editor and not intended to mislead anyone. This makes it easier to accept that the only other edit by the IP, on the same AFD two days later, was a product of the same error. I recognize that the blocking admin is not here now to explain why he blocked. However, based on what I can see, a reminder or warning to avoid editing the same discussion from both a registered account and an IP would have been sufficient. Escalating immediately to an indefinite block was draconian, excessive, and disproportionate to the usual block length for a first offense of even intentional socking, which I do not believe this was. And even if one did agree the block was warranted, the four months of "time served" is a sufficient sanction. (Note that although I am a checkuser, I have not used any CU tools in reviewing and commenting on this appeal.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock - Per NYB, it's realistic to believe that they were simply editing in good faith while logged out, with no intention of socking. It does seem that someone trying to maliciously sock in order to vote stack would not try to simply log out and vote from an IP that they had already been editing their own signed comments from. They explained that it was simply an error on their part but I'm not even sure if you could call it that as the user would have had no way of knowing that what they did was wrong, as there were no attempts to communicate with them whatsoever. What's worse, they explained the mistake at the time of the block but went completely ignored. As current CU evidence yields no concerns of socking, I think it's safe to AGF here and unblock with apologies. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as a premature WP:SO request, and as they have failed to disclose their use of alternate accounts in an attempt to influence an AfD. ST47 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @ST47: I am sorry but I do not understand the basis for your position. The editor acknowledged the logged-out editing at the time of the block back in December. Moreover, no one ever told him or her that waiting for six months for the "standard offer" was required—nor should it be. (It bears mention again that WP:SO is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, and in any event it applies only to community-endorsed blocks or bans, not to ordinary unblock reviews.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Newyorkbrad: I'm particularly interested in the account Special:Contributions/Biancalu123, which showed up to support Ms4263nyu's AfD and hasn't edited since. Evidently it wasn't necessary for them to use socks in order to get that article deleted, since the AfD garnered some legitimate support. However, their choice not to disclose that other account - whether it be sock or meat - seems dishonest. ST47 (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @ST47: Thanks for the quick reply and helpful explanation. I invite Ms4263nyu to respond to this comment, on his or her talkpage. I see that the block notice from December referred only to logged-out editing as opposed to socking through another registered account, but since Biancalu123's first edit took place after the block, that doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I don't know if you CU'd Biancalu123 but it looks like it would be stale. Interestingly, however, the second of Biancalu123's two edits was to delete his or her "delete" vote and comment on the AfD. If Biancalu123 was the same editor as Ms4263nyu, then I would still support an unblock for four months of time served, though less emphatically than before, and with a one-account restriction going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock Current indef block serves no preventative purpose, and per WP:NOTBURO I see no reason to be a stickler for 6 months in this instance. TonyBallioni performed a CU that found no evidence of socking since, and the user's actions that led to the CU block can easily be considered good faith mistakes better handled through warnings as NYB and Swarm mention above. I have absolutely no reservations about unblocking. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock - per the GF reasoning coupled with not seeing how our indef block (or waiting another couple of months) appreciably protects the encyclopedia or the community. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock - this honestly does read to me as a good-faith screwup rather than bad-faith use of logged-out editing, and per TonyBallioni the CU log looks clean, so in the name of AGF I'm willing to extend some rope. No issue with it being 4 months per ToBeFree's comment, NOTBURO, etc. I'd strongly recommend that Ms4263nyu read WP:LOGOUT, but I'm willing to support unblocking. creffett (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The user is continuing to evade their block at this time. Clearly they have not learned that logging out in order to evade a block is sockpuppetry. @TonyBallioni: does your statement overriding the checkuser block still stand? ST47 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  ST47, are you referring to the self-reverted comments to this page? Then please be specific, because I have seen these and my opinion remains the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  ST47, I suppose my view is that this was only related to the appeal, was self-reverted, and was open, so I don’t see it really as being private information from a CU block perspective. To me, it’s a question for the community on that specific point unless there’s something else going on. I think it might be worth pinging previous participants if you think it changes their view. Like I said, I don’t think it’s a privacy policy violation since they admit it’s them in the edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  I still support unblocking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Per TonyBallioni's suggestion, ping @Nyttend, QEDK, Swarm, and Creffett:; notifying Talk:2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:B0 User talk:2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:B0 and Talk:52.119.101.25 User talk:52.119.101.25. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  My support is definitely weakened, but I am willing to assume good faith here (that the editor thought that they were expected to reply here - supported by the fact that they did identify themselves as the blocked editor) Ms4263nyu: stop editing while logged-out. That is what got you blocked in the first place. If you feel that you need to respond to something or provide a comment post it to your talk page and someone will copy it here if needed (but please, do that only if it's really important or if you are directly asked a question). If you continue editing while your main account is blocked, then you're rapidly going to run out of good faith from the people supporting your unblock. creffett (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  +1 Ms4263nyu isn't trying to be deceptive, they're just making some blunders that are obvious to us but may not be obvious to a casual editor. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  (Sorry Wugapodes, I forgot to ping you – and messed up the IP pings above.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ping Nosebagbear as well, I keep mixing their name up with Newyorkbrad who had already commented. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  IPs can’t be pinged. P-K3 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  If the IP edits were solely on this page, I might be less inclined in the judgement of the editor, but not concerned that they would cynically and willfully choose to evade the community judgement. I could of course be wrong, but I don't think that to the degree, yet, to overturn my !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock per everyone above - Their reasoning on their talkpage seems plausible, Also as noted above the IP at the AFD was expanding on his comments [logged out] and not !voting or trying to be deceitful,

Inregards to them using an IP here - I'm in agreement with Wugapodes this seems more like an editor making accidental blunders than someone actually trying to be deceitful,

All in all as per AGF I support unblocking although it should be emphasised to them that they should stop editing logged out otherwise they're going to find themselves back where they started. –Davey2010^Talk 14:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock – not every instance of logged out editing is "abusive". I'm not convinced this was a good block in the first place. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. Another chance seems fine, even though the request can be seen as a bit early TonyBallioni, I think there is consensus for unblocking, so please feel free to go ahead. El_C 15:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User made legal threats and Personal attacks on Wikipedia

Good day, I am Gharouni an admin in Persian Wikipedia (fawiki). As an admin I have recently blocked @Behrouz asbahi sis: in fawiki due to WP:DE and WP:PA for three days. Before that he abused a user and started to canvassing due to deletion of an article for WP:Notability. I tried to solve the problem and explained to this user and the other user of wikipedia policies etc. However, after this user was blocked for 3 days the user made a legal threat against me here that ended up to the useer's account was blocked for one month by another fawiki admin due to WP:NLT. I noticed today this user was trying to complaint against fawiki admins and users in an enwiki's admin talk page. And then calling fawiki admins dictators here. And here Wikipedia talk:Contact us. The user's English does not make sense sometimes seeing mentioned edits. However, the user has published an article in English here, I am trying to check citations due to doubt in breach of copyright or copying from source. I appreciate it if you kindly review my complaints and review the mentioned article. Gharouni ^Talk 00:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, this manager Gharouni does not tolerate the review of an article published by me, and at the request of the review by the managers of the English Wikipedia, he is somehow suppressing and exercising his dictatorship in the English Wikipedia. This is a major problem, and Wikipedia executives need to provide oversight. It's not my problem or my article. This is a fundamental problem, and it is far from being the main goal of Wikipedia. Behrouz asbahi sis (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Attacking other editors as you've done here is never acceptable, and bringing complaints from another project here is even worse. If you come back from this block and persist in such disruptive behaviour, your next block is likely to be indefinite. Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Notification of global ban proposal who were active on this wiki

English: This is a notification of global ban discussion against PlavorSeol, persuant to the global ban policy.

You are getting notified because they have edited on this wiki/blocked on this wiki.

한국어: 이 안내는 전역 추방 정책의 규정에 따라 PlavorSeol 사용자에 대한 전역 추방 논의를 알리기 위한 안내입니다.

이 사용자가 이 위키에서 활동한 전력이 있거나, 차단된 바가 있기 때문에 이 안내를 받게 됩니다.

— regards, Revi delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of community general sanctions on Units in the United Kingdom

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

---

The community authorised community general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the context of the United Kingdom in November 2014. Since these sanctions have been imposed, no sanctions have been recorded in the log and no notifications of the sanctions have been logged since October 2018 (there were only 4 notifications logged in 2018, none in 2017 and 1 in 2016).

It appears that these community-authorised general (discretionary) sanctions are no longer necessary in this topic area, so I propose that the community ends the authorisation of general sanctions for this topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• For your consideration, a currently occurring MOS discussion. --Izno (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Covered by the MOS AC/DS there, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Of course—I left a DS alert for a couple editors—but I think it indicates conflict that might spill out onto other pages. (I have no particular interest for/against the proposal, but I did think it was amusingly timely.) --Izno (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support 18 months without a logged notification is a good sign the community doesn’t utilize these anymore. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - even if the MOS discussion spills a bit, I don't think there's any indication of problems in the field to the scale that conventional methods could be considered to be insufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I can't imagine that disruptive editing was being held in check just because of the fear of the GS, and if there have been no enforcement actions and very few notifications I'd be inclined to call it an unnecessary GS. If removing the sanctions leads to a sudden wave of disruption by the feared Customary Cabal and the formidable Metric Mafia (waiting in the shadows to strike until this very moment), well, we can re-authorize them. creffett (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Per the comments on timeliness of this - if people really do think that the MOS discussion will spill out and would be better controlled by the UK measurements sanctions than the MOS sanctions, then I'm fine with tabling this discussion until the MOS discussion is finished. creffett (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Creffett says that "I can't imagine that disruptive editing was being held in check just because of the fear of the GS". So far, that's precisely what's happened.

The biggest problem this is trying to address is a couple of editors who just go from article to article to article, flipping the units over and over and over and over, deliberately against the advice of MOSNUM for no better reason than a strong preference for one set of units. Those editors have gone through articles literally by the thousand, attempting to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI as a means of changing MOSNUM. This damages Wikipedia because it means that our presentation is inconsistent. It is disruptive behaviour in and of itself, and the fallout creates further disruption.

This problem has been going on for well over a decade with these editors, and they are still active. And these general sanctions are the only reason why it isn't still happening now. Take the general sanctions away, the problems will come back.

Bear in mind we have in the past seen entire topic areas held hostage to editors insisting every three weeks that consensus might have changed and that we need to rediscuss units again from scratch. Kahastok talk 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok, I believe I understand what you're saying, and I'm clearly not as familiar as you are with the history behind this, but two concerns with what you've said. First, if it is only a small number of editors causing the problem, then GS is a rather large hammer - I feel that community-authorized topic bans would be a better approach than full-on sanctions. Second, I don't think that "that's precisely what happened" is necessarily the right conclusion to draw from the evidence Callanecc presented - if a GS topic area is an ongoing problem, I would expect at least an occasional notification to be issued (not to mention a sanction or two), and we haven't had one since 2018. I feel that "it's not a problem that requires GS" is a simpler explanation for the data than "everyone involved is lying low."

Now, I could see those two statements ("it's just a few editors" and "they're held in check by GS"), taken together, being a reasonable explanation (suggesting that there's a small group of editors who both care about the issue and are familiar with the sanctions). However, that would imply that the group of problem editors are fairly static; I would generally expect GS to be necessary if there were a steady stream of new people joining the contentious area and the community felt that administrators needed the freedom to act quickly on issues in those areas. Compare, for example, DS/AP2 or GS/COVID-19, both of which have steady streams of new editors who want to write about those topics. If that's true, I think the problem could reasonably be handled with targeted community sanctions against a few problem editors rather than full GS. creffett (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The worst of the flippers.

-EEng

I've been calling for community sanctions on the worst of the flippers for over a decade now.

Part of the problem is that the issue is seen as minor because it's not something most people care about. So whenever you go to one of the admin boards, admins just tell you that it's not important. Even when the disruption it's causing is extreme. Even where you have editors deliberately breaking the MOS on an industrial scale. And the flippers take it as licence to carry on flipping. You want to enact community sanctions against the worst offenders, that's fine - if you actually do it. But past experience suggests that that's unlikely no matter how disruptive they are. Kahastok talk 19:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now as untimely. The MOS discussion Izno linked to above started with an insulting and dismissive assertion and has continued to attract heated discussion. I cannot believe that this will not spill over and sanctions may be called for in the near future. If the stable situation that Callanecc refers continues to prevail in two weeks or so, then it may be worth it to release sanctions. At this time when there are so many people cooped up and arguing about minutiae here has become a definite trend, however, I would suggest that it would be more cautious to allow at least that discussion to resolve before releasing the sanctions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I recognise that my response there was poor, which is why I saw no benefit in responding further. However, if you check previous discussions on this topic, you will see that some variant of this is generally where it ends up, almost no matter what I do. You may appreciate that being repeatedly told I am some kind of monster because of a minor difference of opinion becomes tiresome. Kahastok talk 19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I'm perfectly happy to toll my !vote for a month, so long as everyone is repinged when the discussion is reheld. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't realise that we had any sanctions in place about this, and am very disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, that people argue about such things. I'm a 62-year-old Englishman, know my height in both feet and inches and centimetres, if I knew my weight would know it in both kilograms and stones and pounds (but would have to work it out to get that American weight in pounds only, which is never used here), and, like every driver in this country, buy fuel for my car by the litre but measure its fuel consumption in miles per gallon (which is not the same as an American gallon). Let's just get on with writing an encyclopedia rather than worry about such trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is all very well until readers start asking why all the distances that they think of in miles are now given in kilometres, why a Munro is now defined as a Scottish mountain taller than 914.4 metres instead of 3000 feet, why Wikipedia is now giving the motorway speed limit as 112.65 kilometres an hour instead of 70 miles per hour. And the answer is because a single editor with a strong POV spent a year doing nothing but flip them all.

Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for promoting a POV, on this or anything else. Kahastok talk 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean my post to be justifying a lifting of sanctions, if that's what it takes to avoid disruption, but merely an expression that I wish people would get on with more important things rather than disrupt Wikipedia in such a way. The UK has a strange hybrid system where some things are measured in imperial units, some in metric and some in both, but it somehow works and I wish people would just recognise that. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Kahastok, and believe that without it the problem that it is keeping at bay will reappear. There is at least one editor who previously did the flipping, and who is still actively searching out the use of non-metric units, and replacing them with metric units - but only in non-UK-related articles - in UK-related articles they are mostly adding 'convert' templates and keeping imperial as primary. If this deterrent was removed, I am sure their old behaviour would start again. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I generally hate the whole idea of general sanctions, but I agree with Kahastok on this particular issue. This is a topic that most people don't consider important but attracts a small but steady stream of obsessives (both pro-metric and pro-imperial) demanding we follow whichever they consider the One True Path. It's not a matter of just a couple of editors who can be individually sanctioned, but of a constantly-replenished stream of new editors who in each case genuinely believe they're Righting Great Wrongs and thus can't be dissuaded by discussion, and it's been an ongoing issue for well over a decade, now exaggerated by sparring between pro- and anti-Europeans who each see the other's measurement system as some kind of embodiment of evil. ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I watch areas involving units and the disruption was beyond belief. IMHO the only reason there is quiet now is that the principal participants know they or any socks who take up the cause will be indeffed fairly quickly. The problem with removal is that getting sanctions reinstated would require an enormous amount of disruption because people who don't follow the area will argue that those involved should just discuss whether someone is 5 ft 10 in or 1.78 m or 178 cm. That sounds plausible until you meet the typical Righting Great Wrongs warrior who won't stop until they have fixed every page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I remember the issues this behaviour caused and I think the topic will always be a potential problem unless sanctions are in place due to the type of people Iridescent mentions. Number 57 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not needed now, but perhaps in the future it will come in handy. I don't see the use of disabling sanctions on the topic just to say it's no longer on our books. It doesn't cost anything to have it in reserve. El_C 00:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Even from the cheap seats, I remember all too well this 5000 meter donnybrook that was 16404.2 feet too long . . . let's, not go back. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal to remove DS in this case reminds me of a story I was told be an official in an Australian embassy when I was visiting with the Navy. Apparently there was an intersection in the capital city that was notorious for accidents. So the local authorities built huge signs over the intersection saying "Dangerous Intersection Slow Down" (in the local language). The accident rate dropped dramatically after the sign was put up so much so that the local authority decided the sign wasn't needed any longer and took it down. Guess what happened next? - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Iridescent and others. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Voluntary IBAN: Elizium23 / Contaldo80

• Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For too long, I have been fighting over Catholic topics with this editor, Contaldo80. I have been rude and I have edit-warred and I have failed to assume good faith. I go to confession to a priest and tell him how angry Wikipedia makes me, because of Contaldo80. It's not his fault. I have a tendency to be a hothead and this relationship brings out the worst in my personality. I want out. I volunteer for an interaction ban on any articles edited by Contaldo80. It will last 6 months with an option of renewal before the expiration date. Contaldo does not need to volunteer for a 2-way IBAN, that is totally optional and not something I am requesting here. I am requesting that I be held to my word by sanctions if I violate the boundaries. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be offering myself for a voluntary ban. Having not edited wikipedia for a while (because of a number of unpleasant interactions with other editors) I was taken aback by your quite confrontational approach on Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. I think your suggestion that you step back from editing is a prudent one as you've made a very personal attack on me above - about going to confession and complaining to your priest specifically about me. I'll leave to administrators to make a judgement as to whether this falls into personal harassment and should therefore result in a formal block or censure. It's disturbing to say the least.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. I was complaining to a priest in Confession (which is about the penitent's sins and not others) about how angry I became on Wikipedia, not about anything you did. Not a personal attack. The reverse. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I find it weird and unsettling that you have gone to a priest to tell him how angry I specifically make you feel because of my editing. I really don't think this is acceptable. I actually feel harassed. I'd like an administrator to exercise judgement as to whether this is acceptable behaviour? Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And as someone who watched your recent inappropriate actions against Elizium at Talk:Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#Today's_edits_reverted, I think it weird and inappropriate that you are calling for this. You should own up to the problems of your own behavior, not act like you're violated by someone having a reaction to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nat - you evidently have a problem with me. I've been respectful and polite but honestly I think you're starting to get a bit carried away. Following me to this discussion to chip in your two cents is probably over-reach for a non-administrator. Can I respectfully ask you to please back-off. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

So you come to my Talk page as part of your campaign against Elizium and specifically tell me to come see this thread, but then want to squelch me from responding? No. No, you have not been "respectful and polite", you've been attacking Elizium over their taking care of your bad edits while you've been going around boasting about how great you've been in this matter. Your complaining about me having "followed" you to a thread you told me to come see is another example of you inventing a way for you to be a victim rather than taking responsibilities for your own actions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I drew attention to his comments so that you would see that he had become personally abusive and your interventions were not helping to calm that (nor are they still). Discussing me before a priest (a third party) because of my edits is a violation of my personal privacy. I still think this frankly a disgraceful thing to say - and a way to intimidate me.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussing me before a priest (a third party) because of my edits is a violation of my personal privacy. No, it is absolutely not, and that's an absurd claim. Grandpallama (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way Iban as requested. (Non-administrator comment) --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 05:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Any such one-way IBAN would be a travesty of justice. At Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church it is Contaldo80 who has been inserting names in contravention of WP:BLP and making personal attacks, and Elizium23 who has been removing the names, in accordance with that policy, and not making personal attacks. Such behaviour has continued above in this very thread. If any sanctions are taken they should be against Contaldo80, not Elizium23. Much as we might admire Elizium23's "turn the other cheek" attitude that shouldn't get in the way of our seeing who is in the wrong here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please cite the personal attach I make. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Naming a specific person as gay in a Wikipedia article is a tricky issue, especially if we don't already have an article on that person which specifiies their sexual orientation. WP:ETHNICRACECAT says "a person may also not be described or categorized as LGBTQ on the basis of allegations or rumours that have not been confirmed by the subject's own self-identification." In my opinion, this complaint against User:Contaldo80 might be closed if they will agree not to add any more names of individuals to Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church without getting a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have made no complaint at all against Contaldo80. If there are complaints against him, they belong to other editors and not me. This thread was opened as a request for administrators to enforce a one-way IBAN against me. That is my only purpose of opening this thread. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but to be clear I wasn't the one that added names in the first place. I just restored the initial edit until Elizium clarified why he had cited WP:BLP. It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated. If I want to I can just restore the names in the article and attach a source to a mainstream media showing that these priests have publicly come out as gay - this would not violate WP:BLP. The reason why I eventually supported the removal of the text was because a closer look at the article showed that it could not be established that the priests cited came out as gay because of a statement made by Pope Francis. That was the problem. This doesn't resolve the issue, however, that another editor has admitted that they personally discuss me edits with a priest and the feelings of rage this creates in him. This is intimidating me and I don't think this is acceptable. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated." That's false. You were the only one who claimed it was unclear, and frankly, with the length of experience you have on this site, it's hard to believe that you didn't understand why the unsourced claim that certain priests had announced themselves to be gay would be a BLP problem. But even if we accept that you're that ignorant of BLP, why, if there was even a question in your mind that there might be a BLP problem, you would re-add the material? When you're wasting people's time with such actions, it should not come as a surprise to you that they have an emotional reaction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't presume to tell me Nat what is "false". Elizium should have indicated where the material had violated BLP - that would have been the respectful thing to do with other editors. The claim that these men are gay is not controversial as they have spoken publicly about being gay (https://novenanews.com/gay-amsterdam-netherlands-priest-valkering-wins-vatican-appeal-dismissal/) Maybe you'd like to be an administrator Nat - who knows maybe you'd make a good one - but you're not one. You weren't even engaged in editing the page under discussion. I have no idea why you think we need your ongoing "insights". I for one am starting to feel harassed and intimidated by you - is that your intention? In the same way that elizium spoke to his priest about me and how "angry" I made him? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't presume to tell me Nat what is "false". - Why not? I can certainly understand why you might not want your false claims pointed out. I see no reason why not pointing them out would do any good for anyone but you, and this is a public discussion where you're making false claims. You weren't even engaged in editing the page under discussion. Actually, I've been editing that page since 2013, making me one of the top 10 editors of the page. I for one am starting to feel harassed and intimidated by you I honestly don't care. My job here is not to nurture your feelings. If it upsets you that someone is pointing out the falsity of what you say, you could, I suppose, not say false things. I happen to think that correcting misinformation is a good thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"I honestly don't care."" Nice guy. You haven't pointed out anything false. You've failed to establish "false claims". You weren't involved in edits specifically related to the disputed material. You've done nothing but have a long rant at me. But oddly have no comments to make about an editor talking about me to his priest. In many countries gay men are actively harassed and persecuted by Catholics - a pattern that has occurred over centuries. It is not acceptable for an editor to tell me that they told their priest that I made them angry. And I think it's pretty poor play for you to continue to pile in on me on the back of this. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Limits to administrator discretion: GS vs AC/DS

WP:AC/DS places certain limitations on administrator discretion in areas where ARBCOM has authorized discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia:General sanctions theoreticaly documents the rules for all discretionary sanctions regimes, including those authorized by the community. However, I am unable to find the restrictions that apply by default to a community-authorized DS regime. Common sense suggests they should be the same as those of ARBCOM-DS, but I cannot find this documented anywhere. I'd appreciate any clarity anyone can lend, and if this just makes it clear that we need to revamp our documentation, so be it. Courtesy ping to @El C and Sandstein:, with whom I was just discussing this (this isn't about them, so not sending a notice.) Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned here, my take is that this is a procedural anomaly that ACDS are subject to, but GS are not. I cannot really explain it otherwise. El_C 17:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if one should merge the GS and AC/DS systems together so that we don't need two parallel frameworks, but I take that would require forcing Arbcom to discharge some of their authority over the DS system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• As a new editor, I jumped into a bunch of DS areas (because those are the most interesting ones, relating to politics, international relations, history, etc.), and man is it confusing as alllll heck. I would love for the community to make some (relatively minor) changes to make this scheme work better and be easier-to-understand for new editors (and probably experienced editors also), such as:
  1. Combine GS and DS into one "thing" instead of two
  2. Rename that one thing. "Sanction" is one of the worst possible words we could have chosen for this, because (in wonderful English style) to "sanction" can mean to either "allow" or to "punish". It's a word that has two opposite meanings. Also, an editor can be sanctioned, but to "sanction a page" or "put a page under sanctions" doesn't make sense grammatically. Are we "allowing" the page, or are we "punishing" the page? Neither; it's editors who are sanctioned. So rename it to Special Restrictions. That makes sense: a page is under "special restrictions", when it's restricted in a way that pages normally are not. Special restrictions are what GS and DS actually are.
  3. There should continue to be two ways of placing pages under Special Restrictions: the community can do it (a la GS), or Arbcom can do it (a la DS).
  4. The notification requirements should be adjusted to require one user talk page warning before imposing a sanction. Edit notices are great, but not everyone sees them. Talk page banners are great, but not everyone sees them. Mobile users in particular won't see either, but even desktop users can miss them sometimes due to banner blindness. Notifying an editor with a DS notice is OK, but people will forget, either that they received the notice (could be up to a year ago), or they'll forget that a particular page is within a particular topic area. The solution is simple: first time an editor breaks a Special Restriction, an admin posts a formal warning on their talk page ("Page:X is under the 1RR special restriction"). Second time, the editor can be sanctioned (page blocked, banned, whatever). Allow exceptions for egregious or emergency cases. This will ensure that nobody who doesn't know a page is under 1RR will get blocked for breaking 1RR (or whatever the restriction may be), while also ensuring that everybody who violates 1RR or some other Special Restriction is informed of the Special Restriction status in a no-excuses way. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

     I...I have no snarky reply to this. Wholehearted support for the concept. Room to improve bullet 4, since DS is a lot more than just the imposition of 1RR, but I absolutely agree with unifying the GS and DS systems (and renaming them). creffett (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

     Certainly seems a legitimate set of ideas by @Levivich:. 4 probably would want to be clarified - perhaps first time breaking a special restriction within a category (e.g. post 1932 US politics), which would avoid disputes about people bouncing around on various related pages, action only to be taken on edits made after that warning (egregious aside). Obviously the arbs would probably have to sign off, but I can't see any reason they'd complain if the community wanted to change the name. Nosebagbear (talk)

     There are a couple of minor aspects: CS appeals are purely to AN, not to AE - and I wouldn't want this to change. Additionally, one minor community vs (prior) ARBCOM snitfit was about whether DS allows for the deletion of pages. The community firmly refuted it (and so CS doesn't allow deletion without a normal process), ARBCOM either disagreed or equivocated. Indeed, a couple of failed arbcom amendments were bought on the issue, I think. If that was to be aligned, it might be worth asking the new arbcom their views on that facet. Nosebagbear (talk)

• In terms of the original query, the same restrictions probably make sense (not that anyone has broken any rules, just we should unify to align with DS regs, at least in this aspect). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Are we talking about general sanctions vs discretionary sanctions, or arbcom DS/GS vs community authorised DS/GS? Because AFAIK there are arbcom general sanctions which aren't discretionary sanctions. E.g. the 1RR and 500/30 for ARBPIA. Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: My original question was about limits to discretion in the two different discretionary sanctions regimes. ARBCOM general sanctions are far more specific, and the question is less applicable there. So far, no one seems to know of explicit, en.wiki-wide documentation on limits to admin discretion for community-authorized discretionary sanctions. I'm going to ping another couple of policy wonks here: @Calannecc and Xaosflux: any thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: you too. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: sorry, but this is an area I usually steer clear of. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: I don't blame you. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Vanamonde93, general sanctions are typically authorized as "standard discretionary sanctions" and modeled after the ArbCom ones. If there are additional sanctions beyond standard DS, they're also typically modeled after ArbCom topic sanctions. There are some differences (how notifications are done is de facto left up to the whim of the closing admin as an example), but generally the rules are the same and you just replace the phrase "Arbitration Committee" with "Community at AN" in WP:AC/DS and remove any reference to WP:AE.
  In short, WP:AC/DS is still the controlling procedure for the most part, you just replace arb functions with community functions. That's how I've always interpreted it, because AC/DS are the definition of standard DS. Also fixing ping to Callanecc TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  What Tony said. It is generally up to the closing admin to determine the exact wording of the community authorised sanctions per the consensus model, generally though it is modelled directly on ArbCom's discretionary sanctions system.

  I disagree with others above that merging the ArbCom and community discretionary sanctions system would mean ArbCom giving some of the authority - it would actually mean the community giving up their authority. For example, ArbCom would oversee the whole thing, including when the community decides to impose DS, and community and ArbCom DS would both by enforced at AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni and Callanecc: That makes sense to me. However, am I correct in my understanding that in the absence of specific wording in the closure, this is not codified? I'm looking through the various GS-authorizing discussions, and the wording is...variable. See here, or here, or here. I don't think this is an academic question. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  No it's not codified anywhere. Discretionary sanctions|This and this are currently as close as it gets. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  So we're bound to the DS formulation if it's in the closing statement, and otherwise only to the extent we choose to be...I don't think I can be bothered to fix that loophole, but this is perhaps something for us to collectively keep in mind when future DS are authorized. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Two of those are fairly old in wiki-terms, but at least for the British measurements ones, it looks pretty similar. As to the ones you proposed in 2019, while you didn’t use the phrase standard discretionary sanctions in your proposal, it’s fairly clear at least to me that’s what you were describing, just authorized by the community and not by ArbCom.

  I guess my view is roughly that as WP:AC/DS documents standard discretionary sanctions, when community general sanctions are authorized, they follow those rules for the most part unless explicitly stated otherwise. en.wiki tends to go off a common law type of approach to policy, despite our legion of policies, guidelines, and essays.

  This is especially true for administrative actions since the four main policies on it (WP:ADMIN, WP:BLOCK, WP:PROTECT, and WP:DELETE) are fairly ambiguous and leave a lot to judgement. My view is that since AC/DS establishes a generally followed standard even for community GS, people are normally thinking of it when they’re voting to authorize them, and admins typically use them the same way, unless there’s a consensus that you can deviate from them, you shouldn’t.

  I think you could probably add a sentence like While not limited by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines, community authorized general sanctions ordinarily follow the procedures of standard discretionary sanctions authorized by the arbitration committee, but with the community handling all appeals at the Administrators Noticeboard. Deviation or additions to these standards typically require consensus in the discussion authorizing them unless purely clerical in nature. without much controversy to document this. If it’s objected to, you could have an RfC, but I think that sentence is the unspoken consensus of behavioural norms. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, I was bold and added the above because I think it fits with the de facto understanding and no one here appeared to disagree. If it gets reverted we can have a formal support/oppose straw poll here or at VPP, I suppose, but I think this is a good candidate for "update documentation to match how we normally do stuff without an RfC." TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  Good addition, Tony. El_C 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Much appreciated; I was intending to do it when I logged back on. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  El C, shouldn't such a change to that page be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions not here? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  Well, right now the conversation is here, so it's best to keep it un-split. But later on, sure. El_C 03:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

IPv6 block oddness

Looking at 2607:FB90:2840:F19C:58E9:3552:CAC8:CAA5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I see two edits at Talk:List of concentration and internment camps (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) which are block evasion by TruePatriot1776. The contributions for the IP show only one edit, though there are clearly two on the talk page. 2607:fb90::/32 is blocked locally for a year and also globally locked. So no edits should have been possible from that IP. This looks weird, what am I missing? Guy (help!) 10:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The older edit was made by 2607:fb90:4a34:9254:58e9:3552:cac8:caa5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Curiously the two IPs have the same pre- and suffix, the difference being in the third and fourth group. The local block was imposed after the edits, the global one even later. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Copy vio

Can an admin please take a look at the copy vio tag pasted on Skateboard that has been there for almost three weeks. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I am also seeing a few entries at Category:Requested RD1 redactions that have been there for a few weeks as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

On Skateboard, the supposed source https://www.slideshare.net/ramprasad338/power-skate-board is not a match for the removed content Diff of Skateboard. So I did not do the revision deletion. Have you got a source that matches the removed material? If not, the revision deletion request should be removed.— Diannaa (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, I think the request can be removed. It looks like the copyvio detector saw content on that source that was most likely copied from Wikipedia. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay that's it for now. The backlog of cases has been cleared.— Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

LuK3, I removed it. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Dmitri Smirnov, RIP

Sadly User:Dmitrismirnov has died ([32]). Please protect his user page and put in place other measures, as described at wP:RIP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sad news indeed. I've protected his user page. Additional verification is available at [33]. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Really sad. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Is sand biotic

Sand could be both biotic and abiotic because biotic is remains of dead organisms and sand includes stuff that's been decomposed for millions of years. It could also be abiotic because sand isn't a living organism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 𝕃𝕦𝕥𝕫𝕦𝕩 (talk • contribs)

That is not a question that administrators can answer (at least not in their capacity as administrators). The place to ask would be Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. See also Biotic material. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And, 𝕃𝕦𝕥𝕫𝕦𝕩, please change your user name to be something in the script used by your native language, or at least some human language, not these unicode characters. I tried to leave you a message on your talk page but was prevented from doing so, presumably because you were using these strange characters. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sheeat, sorry Phil B., I just went and created it! Yes, this stylized font is very pretty, but hardly conducive to communication. ——SN54129 18:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Links work fine for me. EEng 18:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to work OK now, but when the talk page didn't exist I was prevented from creating it. I don't remember the exact error message that I got, but it was about illegal characters. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Did it say something about the title being blacklisted? That's what I get now if I try to create User:𝕃𝕦𝕥𝕫𝕦𝕩. Maybe Lutzux is a naughty word in Sumerian? EEng 21:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't match anything in the Basic Multilingual Plane, thus is not allowed by the filter, and why they probably need to change their name, as this is probably going to break other things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User has been notified. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File discussion needing prompt close

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

---

Please could somebody close this discussion, as the affected article is due to be on DYK in a couple of days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Review of RfC close by User:Cunard

I listed this close review at WP:ANRFC. The close review was reviewed by Primefac, who wrote:

{{Not done}}, officially, though I do note the closure of the RFC appears to be endorsed. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Wondering if I could request a review of the close of this RfC by User:Cunard here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_Article_readability.

Supposedly it looks a specific version of the lead of that article into place. I am not even sure what the RfC was proposing with the dif provided being the fixing of a pipe link.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like the two "versions" he was referring to side by side are seen here. It's easy to compare two "versions" as a single diff, so I'm confused as to why he would present them as separate diffs in which you could not actually see the specific changes, nor expect your average RfC respondent to figure it out. Setting that aside, the line of questioning itself seems to be in violation of RfC guidelines. RfC questions must be "brief" and "neutral". "Version 1 or version 2?" is a brief and neutral question. However that's not how the decision was posed. Instead, users could choose between version 1 by simply taking the position statement that it "is preferable" to version 2. On the contrary, the only way to prefer version 2 was to agree with the a specific, predefined argument written out by the OP, who favored version 1. In other words, your choices were to choose the OP's preferred version or be pigeonholed into making a specific argument written by the OP. There was no option presented to choose version 2 in any other way. This seems like a gamey tactic, whether it was intentional or not. So, given the confusing way the diffs were presented, in addition to the non-neutral way the question was presented, I would move to strike the reading of consensus in favor of version 1 from the close. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Doc, it's surprising that you didn't see what the RfC was proposing, because you are the person who asked for it. Specifically: I boldly made a series of changes to the lead, after which the article looked like this. You rejected the majority of the changes and, when challenged, you suggest I try a RfC. I begin the RfC you asked for on the same day, and Cunard closed it 41 days later. You have subsequently claimed that you thought I'd begun a full RfC about a pipe link, but it's hard to reconcile that with the sequence of events. Swarm's allegation that I was gaming the system is ludicrous.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In terms of closing the questions as presented, there is unanimous consensus in favour of statement 1 and against statement 3. Statement 2 was also unequivocally supported but less strongly. I would have said there was no consensus regarding statement 4 but I can see why the closer did find consensus for it. As for presentation of the diffs and understanding of the questions, the only person commenting who seems to have had any issues was Doc James, who failed to explain his issues in a manner that anyone else seems to have understood. I agree the RfC was not brilliantly worded (and was also not brilliantly attended) although it was possible for editors to oppose both statements 3 and 4 if they preferred version 2. I don't see a need to rip this up and start again, but rather use it as a starting point for a better discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  +1 -qedk (t 愛 c) 18:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: I did not claim that you "gamed the system", I highlighted an obvious, straightforward procedural failure in your wording of the RfC, in violation of the RfC rules, and said that it appeared to be a gamey tactic, whether or not it was intended to be. Rather than becoming defensive, a good faith user should presumably understand the concern of gamey or non-neutral RfCs in a discretionary sanctions area, and acknowledge the problem and pledge that it will not happen again. The concern is rather straightforward, as I explained, and why you would go straight to attacking it is confusing. Regardless, I think it's something that you should take seriously. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  You did say This seems like a gamey tactic... any editor would assume you're trying to implicate them if you say it like that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly. The RfC was perfectly neutrally-worded; only one participant had any trouble following it; and I categorically reject the allegation that any "tactic" was employed.—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• I found a clear consensus for position #4 to reinstate the article version #1 referenced in the RfC. Here are what RfC participants said about position #4:
  1. S Marshall wrote, "Support positions 1, 2 and 4."
  2. EllenCT wrote, "I've already stated I prefer the newer revision of position 4."
  3. Jd4x4 wrote, "I've voiced my opinion for Version 1 in the RfC but the entire reason I involved myself here is because the 'stable' version was painful to read" and "To clarify my position, I agree with Position 1 at the time the RfC was raised, disagree with Position 3, and currently agree with Position 4 should it be decided to revert the lead from what it currently is."
  4. Darwin Naz wrote, "I am opposing position 4, primarily for the Nicotine part in Article 1's lede. This is an encyclopedia and not an editorial or an essay written to persuade readers against smoking."
  5. Yrwefilledwithbugs wrote, "I think I like 4 also, but it's because I believe it has more info which isn't a bad thing; it just needs to be consolidated and/or broken apart some. It's a massive amount of info though which is really difficult to get through"
  I gave significantly reduced weight to the comment by Yrwefilledwithbugs since the account was created on 12 March 2020 and participated in the RfC on the same day. Out of the remaining four editors, three supported position 4 and one opposed it. These editors provided reasonable arguments for their positions. Regarding article version #1, editors liked its readability (S Marshall and Jd4x4), its use of more recent MEDRS sources (EllenCT), and its discussion of nicotine being highly addictive (Jd4x4). Darwin Naz, the only opposer of article version #1, raised a reasonable point about the nicotine part that this is not "an essay written to persuade readers against smoking". Despite this valid concern about article version #1 possibly needing revisions, there was a clear consensus among the RfC participants that article version #1 was a significant improvement over article version #2 (the version of the article when the RfC was created). I therefore closed the RfC as reinstate article version #1. I also noted in the close that more improvements can and should be made to the article. I agree with Thryduulf that "I don't see a need to rip this up and start again, but rather use it as a starting point for a better discussion."

  One editor, Doc James, did not understand to the RfC statement. He was confused about the links to the article versions. S Marshall explained the links to him, after which Doc James did not respond to the explanation. From reading the other RfC participants statements, it was clear that the RfC statement did allow them to explain which article version they preferred. Position 4 said "Article version #1 is preferable to article version #2." Article version #2 was the version of the article when the RfC began. If editors had preferred the status quo of article version #2, they could have opposed position 4 which means no change to the article. The RfC opening statement presented a list of statements and asking editors if they agreed or disagreed with them. The RfC statement could have been phrased more clearly as a yes–no question but that is not required and does not invalidate the RfC. RfC participants could have added more position statements if they felt the existing statements would have inaccurately framed their arguments. RfC participants have done that numerous times in past RfCs. No one did that in this RfC. I see no gaming or even appearance of gaming in the RfC statement.

  Cunard (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• I did find the RfC a bit hard to wrap my head around--I think it tried to do too many things at once. But once I got there, it made sense and it looks like the participants (all?) got there. I'd probably have called "4" no consensus, but I think Cunard's reading is also reasonable and maybe better actually. endorse close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  Just let it be. --qedk (t 愛 c)

---

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

Account recovery for non-existing email

I've registered on Wikipedia long time ago, and I've forgotten the password. Since then, provider of email address I've used during account creation discontinued the email service - I can't use password reset option. The email address no longer exists. Is there any option to recover the account? Or is my login (which I use anywhere else on the Internet) just unavailable forever? If it helps, said email address was bound to my personal data and I think I would be able to provide some proof that I was the owner of that account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a311:8044:b380:c244:dfa3:d599:18e3 (talk • contribs)

I am afraid it is lost. I have heard that some accounts have been recovered though if the owners could have confirmed the identity, so that it would be useful to wait for more knowledgeable people than me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless you were an extremely prolific editor or an administrator this is very unlikely to go anywhere - however you can just register a new account and take up where you left off. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Create a new account and label it as a continuation of your old one, perhaps using {{User previous account}}. Labeling the accounts will help prevent misunderstandings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

So even though I can provide proof that account is linked to my real life identity, my best option is to register create a new one (e.g. oldAccount2)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A311:8044:B380:34A3:2874:A973:9858 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not that we won't give access because we don't believe it's you, it's just that passwords cannot be retrieved from the server. Jimbo himself could forget his password and not have email enabled and he would be required to open up a new account. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Understandable, but damn it's frustrating. Every half a year or so I get an urge to contirbute, but original account was registered on and old email in 2010. Wikipedia must have been single account that I forgot to migrate. I assume changing email associated with an account is not an option either (especially for user with no contirbutions)? If so, I guess it was worth a shot and the discussion can be closed. Thank you for your help. 2A02:A311:8044:B380:34A3:2874:A973:9858 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's the inaccessible account that has no contributions, then there's some hope once you've made some contributions and become established. —Cryptic 14:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if it does have contributions, it may be possible to usurp it. That's where proof of identity comes in; if you can prove that you owned the old account, then we can move it away confident that we aren't changing the attribution on some random person's account, even if the account itself is unrecoverable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced material being added after level 4 warning by IP user

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

---

User:74.70.104.93 has been repeatedly warned for adding unsourced material, including up to a level 4 warning, and yet has continued to do so. Their edit history is pretty much without exception full of unsourced edits. I didn't think WP:AIV was suitable for this - although I could be wrong in thinking that - as it's not "vandalism" per se, but it needs addressing given that they have been told a block without warning is imminent. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: That's garden variety date change vandalism, and violations of the biographies of living persons policy to boot, and massive nontrival unexplained changes are nearly always DE anyway. I reverted their current edits. In the future just report this to WP:AIV once they violate past final warning. Also for for reporting more complex cases requiring administrator intervention ANI is usually preferable to AN. (Non-administrator comment) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D: I wasn't sure that it met the standard for WP:VD because it's not completely clear to me that the behaviour is designed to defeat the purpose of the project - it may simply be original research, and there are a few edits which seem to be genuine attempts at doing something good. Thanks for the note about ANI vs AN though - I'll freely admit I'm not fully clear on the difference. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: No worries this is not always easy to identify, if it were just restricted to quibbles over dates active that would be one thing, although you could still report if they made mass-changes against consensus, but knowingly changing birthdates and places of birth to incorrect values when the reference is provided is a transparent attempt to defeat Wikipedia's purpose, AGF is not a suicide pact. As for attempts at doing something good, it is necessary to weigh the benefit vs harm to the project, as well as the degree to which a problematic user is willing to listen to criticism. This is further complicated by the fact that many IP addresses are shared, but if the bad outweighs the good a block is usually the best course of action to maintain the integrity of the project, hope this helps. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

HTTP => HTTPS in Template:MathWorld

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

---

Hi, y'all. Sorry to bother, but I couldn't find an appropriate forum to raise this issue. I posted a note at Template talk:MathWorld, but seeing as the template hasn't been substantively edited in two and a half years, I thought I'd try to raise a flag in a more trafficked place.

Currently the template points to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/. This should be upgraded to use SSL: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/. This is a security issue. In this day and age, unencrypted and unauthenticated connections should not be used if at all possible.

On a side note, I noticed that Wikipedia:Contact us doesn't include a section on contacting Wikipedia about security issues. While I realize that the SSL issue here isn't earth shattering, IMHO Wikipedia should have a dedicated channel for reporting security issues with Wikipedia's site (in general). Many other organizations have specific points of contact for security.

My two cents, 64.246.159.246 (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe it's a good idea to make a systematic review of all templates. Check whether external sites are being sent via HTTP vs HTTPS. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

IP 64, if you had tried to edit the template, it would have provided you a page that said you could not edit it due to the protection, and provided a link to request an edit on the talk page from there, which would have put it in a queue for processing. I'll take care of fixing it now. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Security issues with the software (not the case here) can be reported at phabricator.wikimedia.org. Information for developers is linked in the footer, labelled "Developers". I'm afraid a more prominent "security issue" report link would cause people to create phabricator tasks for http links in templates. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Beetstra/Spam-whitelist

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

---

I am working on the Timeline of asexual history article and came upon a book that I can not find a URL link to. No matter how hard I try, can't find one. Obviously, I can't go out and get a copy at my local library, so after a request on Twitter, a user in the Ace community uploaded it to docdroid.net. I wasn't aware of the website, nor aware it was on our blacklist. Anyway, it is, of course, blocked. But, this is the only copy available online with the chapter I need to link. Now, I am clearly not trying to violate copyright, I am trying to link to that particular chapter, but let's not get off topic.

I took it to the Spam-blacklist board were it was defered to the Spam-whitelist board. This is where it gets interesting. After posting there, Beetstra replied with this snarky post included was this link.

Now that link shows you were the book is available at local libraries. Libraries that have been ordered closed, because they are deemed non-essential by local and state governments due to a global pandemic. Beetstra also said "people can find it in their nearest library". My reply was shocked, yes, and snarky as well.

But to that he replies not that he royally screwed up, no. He doubles down, saying yes, I know, it makes it utterly inconvenient that you have to actually go outside (which, I also know, is now also not possible). DUH!!!

I made a point in my reply of saying "I can find no information regarding "Association Press" outside of the YMCA (which I doubt is the same), so I am having trouble believing that the copyright is still in effect for a company I can't even tell even exists." To which he replies "that copyright is with the writers, and up to 50-100 years after they die." This is true...if it is renewed. Since I can find no evidence of this Association Press (and clearly Beetstra took no time to look between his snark) I am having trouble finding that a copyright actually exists.

Unfortunately, I am brought back to my previous statement, I am clearly not trying to violated copyright (nor was that Ace community member) in linking that particular chapter, I am trying to show the reader that the chapter does indeed exist (when no other source (ie: Google Books, Springer, JSTOR, among others) where the reader can view the cited and quoted portions.

I believe that Beetstra did not take the time to view my arguement and given the current climate of the world (ie: global pandemic), his answers were very poorly worded, thought out, crude, and to the everyday editor/reader could actually get them killed by making them "find [the book] in their nearest library", which is the last place officials want us at right now.

I ask that my request be reviewed and Beetstra's behavior also be reviewed. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:11 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I have informed Beetstra of this discussion via ping, as well as here and here to cover all bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:15 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, please correct me if I am wrong: Are you currently spreading a link violation across noticeboards? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't spread a link violation, because it would be caught by the blacklist. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:42 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Ah, sorry. Neutralhomer, we seem to disagree about what a "link" is. Your plaintext... "link", I'd say... seems to be problematic to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've mixed up "(hyper)link" and "URL". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I followed directions. I've messaged you regarding this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:58 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

It relieves me that the instructions mix up URL and "link" too. Well. You did not knowingly link to a copyright violation, so it was probably acceptable. That is, until now, when you became aware of the issue. I can't restore what I consider to be contributing to copyright infringement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: and @ToBeFree (mobile): If it is indeed LINKVIO to put a URL/link there, as instructed by the pages own instructions, that should definitely be changed posthaste. Else that will continue to happen for other editors. I'll leave that up to you or another editor to take care of. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:38 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Copyright renewals largely became irrelevant after the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. Since it was published after 1964, this book still has copyright protection, at least in the US. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer Copyright is valid for 50-100 years (copyright term - " In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years."). This book is only 43 year old, which very likely means that the copyright is still valid, and that is all that WP:COPYLINK asks me: "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." .. I reasonably expect that the copyright is still valid. I was, and still am, shocked that you ask me to whitelist a link on a site that is full of copyright violations (and that was why it was blacklisted) on something that is very likely a copyright violation. And that while the reference is perfectly valid without a direct link to the material. And that is shown by your 2 hour link extensive search: if this material was in the public domain, you would be able to find online copies without problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regardless of the merits of this in general (and I’d suggest that linking to this is, in fact a bad idea), the concept that anything which is out of copyright is easily available online is ludicrous. Qwirkle (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, I agree, but it becomes quite a bit more likely that you will find pieces. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: you explained that Docroid.net is spam blacklisted because it hosts copyright violations. This is odd because the Meta Externals links policy does not even mention copyright. WP:SPAM or WP:BLACKLIST do not recognize possible copyright violations as spam either. The blacklist seems arbitrary, as for instance, the videosharing website Liveleak is blacklisted because it hosts copyrighted. Well, so does Youtube and Twitter. So exactly on what policy basis these additions are done? --Pudeo (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to reply and Dirk beat me to it. This reference is 100% in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines without a link. Is online verification preferable? Yes. But it's not always possible and it is not required in order to source material. No whitelisting needed especially for something with COPYVIO implications. Broader discussions about the blacklist policy probably belong somewhere else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, there is no such "policy", but there is meta:Copyright, which discourages "Providing external links to material in violation of its copyright". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, there is a difference between sites that contain the odd copyright violation left and right (youtube has some material in violation of copyright, but by far most of it is not; liveleak has some copyright violating material, but much material is not in violation of copyright). However, for docdroid.net it was reported as "This is pretty much all copyright violating uploaded papers and "leaked" sources." by one editor (user:Natureium), and blacklisted by another (user:JzG) with "Yup. Systematic WP:LINKVIO". If a site is in far majority copyright violations like likely the material that Neutralhomer wanted to link to then it is safer for Wikipedia to disallow linking to the whole site, and whitelist the specific material that is of use and can be shown not to be hosted in violation of copyright. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra:: Again, if a copyright exists. I can find no evidence of this Association Press. From 1977?! Kinda hard to do in a pandemic and the closest copy to me in about 110 miles away. Is this, indeed a copyrighted book or was it independently published without copyright? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:47 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

(edit conflict) x4: Neutralhomer, the "snarky post" was both helpful and correct. Per WP:LINKVIO, you may not link from Wikipedia to any page that you know or suspect to be a copyright violation, which is certainly the case here. Moreover, there's no need to do so; you need only to cite the book with proper bibliographic details including ISBN (if it has one, otherwise OCLC), and the page numbers for the material you are referring to. Our article on Copyright law of the United States may be worth a glance, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Neutralhomer: If you write a text, you own the copyright unless you explicitly give it away. If you write a letter you own the copyright of that text. If you write a book you own the copyright of that text. Unless you explicitly sign away those rights (which some companies you work for ask you to do, whereupon the company owns the copyright) or you explicitly release the material in the public domain (like here on Wikipedia, still what you write needs to be attributed to you) you own the copyright. You here explicitly say that you cannot check whether that copyright is expired, and therefore we fall back to the default in copyright term (50-70 years after the writer dies) and reasonably assume that the copyright is still valid, and hence WP:COPYVIO/WP:COPYLINK applies: do not link to that material if you reasonably expect that the copyright is valid. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers:: So linking someone local libraries and telling them to "can find it in their nearest library" saying it's "utterly inconvenient that you have to actually go outside" during a pandemic is appropriate behavior for an admin? Also, what copyright? There is no proof of a copyright. <I wrote this, it's copyright. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:04 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@Beetstra:: I linked to it on Spam-whitelist because that's what the directions (in the big green box) right beside "IMPORTANT" say to do. I followed directions. Can't call "LINKVIO" when the directions are right there on the page. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:02 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

As others have pointed out, there is absolutely no need to link to an online scan of the book content, and all that is required is to furnish the full bibliographic details. The book is available at 11 libraries within a relatively short drive of where I live in Northern California. Yes, libraries are closed at the moment but they will reopen sometime fairly soon, and online used book sellers are still operating for someone who really wants to read a physical copy. Well over 1000 books have been published since 1888 under the "Association Press" moniker but I do not know if that represents one company or several companies using the same name. The pandemic is irrelevant to the fundamental point: we simply do not link to websites that exist to host copyright violations. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Cullen, my old "friend". Still stuck on the copyright that may exist. Where? Show the copyright. There is no proof that one exists. You yourself just said you don't know if that's one company or many. Someone could be piggybacking on that copyright.

Yes, the pandemic is relevant, because Beetstra tone deaf answers (ie: go to a library) show that he isn't up to making that determination. NorCal, from what I hear, isn't opening anything up "fairly soon" either. Not here in Virginia. They will remain closed until June 10 and probably after too. This is two fold. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:58 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I confidently predict that libraries will reopen before the WP:DEADLINE. Guy (help!) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Not in Virginia they won't. :) At least not until June 10. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:40 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, as an uninvolved editor with an interest in copyright: the burden of proof here is on you. Just like how we can't accept text copied from a website even if that website doesn't have a copyright notice (unless that website is explicitly licensed in a compatible way), it is not okay for us to be linking to a possible copyvio because "it might not be copyrighted." Per MrOllie's comment above and the copyright office's page on this, works copyrighted from '64 to '77 automatically were renewed, so unless you have records indicating that it was not copyrighted or that unusual circumstances apply, we need to err on the side of caution. Please, just do a {{Cite book}}, it is not vital to the article that we provide this link. creffett (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett:: So we can't accept it isn't copyrighted, but we can accept is? You see where I have probably with that. I'm just to take someone at their word "yeah, it's copyright", but you can't take me at my word "but what if it isn't?". See the problem here?

I've already done a cite book. That's not the problem. I like to have PROOF of what I am citing. I am citing quotes too. Since someone can't actively go out and see this for themselves, it's good to have an actual book link on hand.

I'm still would like someone look at Beetstra tone deaf responses, but I don't think that's gonna happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:18 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Yes, that's exactly right. When in doubt, we always assume copyright. In the absence of further info either way, that is by far the most likely. Plus is the safe assumption. It is always the burden of the person claiming there is no copyright to prove that claim. I've also looked at Beetstra's comments, and they are at most 5% more snarky than needed. Not gold standard, but certainly not a reason for bringing this to ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, Beetstra is Dutch. His English is excellent but word choices may seem idosyncratic or blunt at times. He also spot-on: you bear the onus of proving that the link does not violate copyright, something your comments above would indicate that you may not have fully appreciated. Guy (help!) 17:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:: I'm American, my English is also excllent, my word choices are also blunt (I'm Autistic). Not sure how any of that (above) was needed to be brought up, but OK. Why are we stack on top of comments? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Copyright 1977 (it's in field 260 – I hope the link works, otherwise you'll have to take my word for it). Yes, I know it wasn't necessary, copyright should have been assumed anyway, but I already had the library catalogue open in another tab. --bonadea contributions talk 17:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So we can't accept it isn't copyrighted, but we can accept is? You see where I have probably with that. I'm just to take someone at their word "yeah, it's copyright", but you can't take me at my word "but what if it isn't?". See the problem here?

(edit conflict)By law in the United States, any published work is copyrighted unless the author specifically designates it otherwise. The author may choose to register the copyright, which provides additional legal protections, but it is not required. Therefore, the onus is on us to prove a work is not copyrighted, rather than the other way around.

Beetstra's comments were unnecessarily dismissive, but they may have just assumed you knew this fact about copyright status, and that led to the misunderstanding. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)That "automatically copyrighted" thing started in 1978, so it wasn't true in 1977 when this book came out; many things landed in the public domain by either not having their copyright registered or not having it properly marked on the work. However, this book did have its copyright registered, as you can find record of in the appropriate copyright catalog. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Added: This book is so absolutely impossible to find that... four used copies are available through Amazon right now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Find online. I'm not saying to buy, I'm saying in academic form (ie: Google Books, JSTOR). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia does not require that references be online. The idea that "in academic form" requires an online version suggests that academic studies did not exist prior to the Internet. My pointing out that physical copies are available is in response to various "but the libraries are closed" comments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Because I quote the document multiple times on the page, it helps the reader to see the document "in hand". Also, after the Pauley Perrette/Asexuality/User:NedFausa madness, I'm not taking any chances when it comes to anyone coming in any removing anything saying "oh, this can't be cited" or something similiar. I'm covering all my bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:44 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

If you are “covering your bases” with the online equivalent of extensive scholarly notes, you really shouldn't be doing that in the article, any more than we should be uploading extensive photocopies of copyrighted material to be used in the article. If this belongs at all, and I’m not at all convinced it does, it belongs on the talk page, not the article. Qwirkle (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: First, I didn't upload it. Second, if it keeps users from mass deleting things from multiple articles, I'll add scholarly notes everytime. Plus, it's a timeline, so scholarly notes are actually a good thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Generic “you.” When writing an article or a book in real, non-online life, a researcher might conceivably copy the whole of a copyrighted work by hand or xerox at a library, toddle home with it, and use it, quite legitimately, to create a new work. But if he copied that whole work whole as an appendix, or added it as a running footnote, or what have you, his house might become the disputed property of his lawyers and the original copyright holder’s. A bluelink out to a dodgy source is pretty much the online equivalent of this. We are putting someone else’s work in ours, without their agreement, and without compensating them, right in the article. That is not the equivalent, so to speak, of a manila folder of clippings, scrawled notes, and photocopies. Someone might make the case that the talk page is. (It ain’t gonna be me, though.) Qwirkle (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite confused as to why there's any controversy or disagreement over this. It's a copyrighted book, and we can cite it, but we can't link to a illegal copy of the book. It's entirely irrelevant how hard it is to get it; U.S. copyright law hasn't changed in lieu of the coronavirus. Vermont (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: Tell that to The Internet Archive. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

There's been a few articles recently about whether what they're doing is legal. It is all quite uncertain; the only thing I can be sure of is that the WMF doesn't want to get involved in anything like it. If the copyright owner of that book sends a DMCA, it would be taken down, and we don't want to get to that point. Vermont (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that the IA position is bolstered by a large number of associated libraries who have physical copies which can not currently circulate. Except for current bestsellers, the number of copies physically held by libraries often covers the online access. Very different thing here. Qwirkle (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: I am so very aware of the physical copies, I even mentioned them to begin with. I am talking about a linkable, readable online copy. There isn't one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• This can be closed, right? Content question asked and answered, behavior evaluated and determined not to be a problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: Yeah, go ahead. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

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

!!!!!!!

I'm trying to make an article for Billie Eilish's intro "!!!!!!!" because it charted on the Canadian Hot 100 at number 79 but says only administrators can edit. What can be done about this? DarklyShadows (talk)

The article Billie Eilish is semi-protected but I'm not sure if this is what you mean. Which article do you want to edit?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume it's !!!!!!!, which is covered by the title blacklist. I've redirected it to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go. Have at it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, "!!!!!!!" is the opening track of the album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? "!!!!!!!", is a short intro in which Eilish slurps saliva from her Invisalign aligners and announces that "this is the album," before she and her brother descend into laughter. You learn something new every day.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If I ever become a famous singer, I'm going to make a song titled "music'); DROP TABLE ALBUMS;--". creffett (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to call my album Special:UserLogout just to annoy every webdev in the world. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I already created an album, and named it <!--, but no one can find it to listen to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Gives new meaning to a "hidden track" creffett (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You all are a bunch of nerds. Natureium (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Ah, little Bobby Tables. Guy (help!) 14:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Talking Seattle Grunge Blues" redux.— Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with some moves

• See in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=950645337 , the section "Moves needing help from someone with oversight". I tried to obey the first move, and it refused "took more than 3 seconds, ran out of time", and it asked me to move the page and its talk page and all its subpages one at a time. So, as a start, I moved Wikipedia:Introduction by itself, and it worked, Then I moved Wikipedia talk:Introduction by itself and it refused "ran out of time" and system fault, several times. So, to restore to the starting setup, I tried to move Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) back to Wikipedia:Introduction by itself, and it refused "ran out of time" and system fault, several times. So, to make the page and its subpages work, I copied the current edit of Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) back to Wikipedia:Introduction by itself. It looks like it needs someone with oversight to obey these moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you're asking about oversight. But if you're getting database errors, you might need help from a system administrator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• The original requested moves were:

  • - - - - - - - - - - - -

  • Wikipedia:Introduction (currently a redirect to Help:Introduction) → Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) – per Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction. Requester Sdkb also requested original target point to Help:Introduction. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Tutorial (currently a redirect to Help:Introduction) → Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical) – per Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction. Requester Sdkb also requested original target point to Help:Introduction. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I asked about oversight because some of the involved pages had over 3000 edits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard, oversighters don't have any special rights except hiding and un-hiding edits. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Martin Urbanec: Any chance that you might be able to lend a helping hand with these page moves (that is, in your capacity as a sysadmin)? Or would a Phabricator ticket be the preferred way to go? OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @OhKayeSierra: I can surely help. Do you want me to try to move Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) and Wikipedia:Tutorial to Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical), right? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Introduction appears to be already moved through... --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Martin Urbanec: Yes. It seems that Wikipedia:Introduction was moved without any issues, which only leaves Wikipedia:Tutorial to Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical). Anthony Appleyard, Does that sound about right? OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• @OhKayeSierra, Martin Urbanec, and Rotideypoc41352: See Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Implementation for a history of what has happened. What needs doing is:
  • 1. To restore the status quo ante and bring everything back together that should be together, move Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) back to Wikipedia:Introduction by itself, and not any talk pages or subpages with it :: it has at least 15000 edits :: no wonder that trying to move it causes snags and system faults.
    2. Move Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) and all its subpages, if the system lets you do it. Wikipedia's difficulty in handling pages with a very long edit history (say over 5000 edits) has been a nuisance to me for a long time.
  • Or, directly move all of Wikipedia:Introduction's subpages and talk pages etc to be subpages and talk pages etc of Wikipedia:Introduction (historical), but do not move Wikipedia:Introduction itself. For a list of the subpages, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Introduction/&namespace=4 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Introduction/&namespace=5. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Making things even worse, Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) was moved to User:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup...page got locked up in the middle of moves...would have been nice if those involved had read the talk page or at least replied to inquiries.--Moxy 🍁 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Introduction page move

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T250551

Hi, we need some help closing this discussion because the system keeps throwing database errors in our faces whenever we try to move some pages. Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial are supposed to redirect to Help:Introduction.

Here's how it currently looks:

• Wikipedia:Introduction is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) (blame me for forgetting to remove the "Wikipedia:") - needs to be at Wikipedia:Introduction (historical).
• All of the original revisions to Wikipedia:Introduction are located at User:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical). These need to be histmerged with Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical).
• Everything else is at the same place as it always was.

How do we get around these database errors and resolve this? Anyone else wanna take a shot at moving the pages in one attempt? Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point I think we should ask meta:System administrators to handle this request. I tried moving Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) which only has a handful of revisions, but even that raised a database error. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I got it as far as Wikipedia:WIntroduction (historical) through intermediary steps (and lots of leftover redirects) but it keeps throwing errors after that. I've filed a Phab task. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision history sitting at User:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical).--Moxy 🍁 11:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just now tried to move Wikipedia:WIntroduction (historical) to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical), since the extra "W" obviously doesn't belong long-term, but even doing that produces a quick database error. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

However this gets resolved, please leave a redirect upon your page move. Yesterday, I undid about two dozen page redirects that were broken and in danger of being deleted. If you leave a redirect with your page move, than those original redirects can get corrected by one of our helpful bots. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point. There's no long-term reason to retain the intermediate redirects, like WP:WIntroduction, so I would be inclined to move without redirect, but I wouldn't have thought of the redirect-fixing bots. Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) consolidated similar discussions. Related discussions (as of this comment) for reference: meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Moving some pages on the English Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Moves needing help from a steward, and Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Implementation. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Not being an enwiki admin, but I was asked to help to handle this. Seems to be where it is supposed to be now. Lmk if I missed sth, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of topic ban

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

---

To an uninvolved administrator, I was a prolific editor of COVID-19 as the outbreak progressed. There was rapidly developing sources around the mode of transmission. You can see that I originally created and developed the transmission section and worked for many weeks on its improvement and readability. It became controversial around the world "exhale" in the sources, leading to a prolonged RFC around the wording, which resulted in a new consensus advocated by myself. Prior to this there was what I would have termed an edit war between doc james and myself, because we were repetitively changing content. We mostly worked together, and would always come to agreement eventually, but sometimes without the necessary discussion because it wasn't being discussed well at the time. I was told that I was threatening an edit war, but in fact all I was doing was notifying that a protracted arguable edit war was in progress. I then considered resigning due to wikistress.
I returned because the technical words "airborne" and "respiratory droplets" were still being misunderstood by editors and the general reader.
When further edits were immediately reverted by Doc, I was aiming to get a forced block when I did an intentional edit war which led to the topic ban and a 72 hour block. I didn't know how to get a block on request. Because I was not well at the time, I requested a 2 week block over email and on my talk page which was granted and now expired.
Doc James and I achieved further consensus over email and this stands in the article. I apologise for my actions and recognize that this was a "spectacularly bad idea" as per User:Bradv. Doc James supports me returning and awarded me a barnstar. Would appreciate anyone reconsidering the topic ban. Please see my talk for further info. --Almaty (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Almaty. I am an administrator whose previous involvement with the main coronavirus articles has been minor, so I don't think I am involved, but if anyone disagrees I will step aside. I knew nothing about this particular dispute until now. I am very concerned about you saying that you were "aiming to get a forced block when I did an intentional edit war which led to the topic ban and a 72 hour block". That indicates to me a very recent inability to deal with the stress of editing highly important articles about current life-or-death matters. That is perfectly understandable, but if you want to resume editing in that topic area, I think you need to do a better job of explaining how we can be reassured that your editing will not be similarly disruptive going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I can explain that. I am a doctor, and I was working far too hard simultaneously on wikipedia, and the edit war occured at 4:30am in Australia. I am no longer doing that and I needed to sleep, which is why I wanted the block. I went about it the wrong way. I now have familiarised myself with all the recommendations around wikibreaks and how to get a block wikicoded. As I state on my talk page, I no longer have the opinion that any of the COVID-19 articles require bold edits, and as you would note from my edit history, I did many bold edits which were stressful. I will not be doing so again. --Almaty (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Also please note that during the edit war my only comments were "many people disagree" and "there is no time" on Doc James' talk page. I think it is relatively clear from this, considering I know to a limited extent many wikipedia policies, that I was aiming to get a block. I also asked for the ban, but what I really wanted was an enforced wikibreak. (I didn't understand the difference between blocks, bans, topic bans and wikibreaks, properly at the time). I didn't know how to go about it at the time, and now I do. Having said that, I think this unlikely to occur in the future due to the amount of consensus that has been achieved around the mode of transmission, both prior to and during my much enjoyed (and if i may say so deserved) wikibreak. Thanks User:Cullen328 --Almaty (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Almaty, which I appreciate. I am going to wait for other editors to comment before coming to any conclusions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Ping User:Doc James (if he has time to comment, he already has done so on my talk) and User:FeydHuxtable who as my "wikiotter" both support me returning. --Almaty (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

After reading recent posts on your talk page, Almaty, I am reassured that you have been a long time positive contributor and have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. I cannot possibly understand the stress that frontline health care workers like you are experiencing. I hope that we can come to an agreement that allows your topic ban to be lifted. Be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I hadn't been aware of I'd forgotten about* this issue until today, but having examined it (including Almaty's talk page), I'm happy to supporting lifting the topic ban. I can only imagine what the stress is like for front-line workers, and I thank you Almaty for your efforts (and everyone else working to halt this thing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(*Memory of a goldfish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

• Unsure - the firmly positive comments by Doc James on Almaty's talk page factor very highly in ending a TBAN way earlier than I would normally support, but obviously everything that @Bradv: said at the time was accurate (indeed, I'd probably have used somewhat stauncher language) - I see he was pinged on the talk page but hasn't yet commented further - I'd be interested in hearing his viewpoints before making my final position. (Addendum): in line with being preventative, a major concern is that which has already been somewhat discussed above about whether Almaty will fall afoul of the same issues again. He (?) clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment. @Almaty:, could you cover that? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with some hesitation. You need to learn to back away and go outside some and smell the roses a bit, mow the law, anything that isn't work or Covid related. With Doc James's blessing, as well as your own clearly stated understanding of the problem, I'm willing to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I strongly support mowing the law...oh, wait, that isn't what you meant. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support I was aware of this dispute at the time and it seemed specifically focused on mode of transmission of COVID-19 which is a subject that, as far as I know, has been resolved. It was pretty heated and involved threats of "going to the media" which give me pause. But I support this if Doc James does (and I'd like to hear from him). Almaty has made a lot of contributions in this area and if the dispute was singularly focused on this one disagreement which has been resolved, I think he should be able to return. Just be aware, Almaty, in the future, any threat to go to some public venue about an editing disagreement on Wikipedia will not be resolved in your favor. Remove yourself from a dispute if you reach this level of stress in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Am happy to see User:Almaty return to editing the topic area. How to appropriately cover the spread of COVID is definitely complicated and not something that only we have struggled with. Reassurances that they will take a break when needed are sufficient. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment A couple of weeks seems very short compared to most topic bans. I'm concerned that issue seemed stress related (and there's nothing wrong with that!). But what has been done to reduce that stress? I hoped to see some examples of the user editing fruitfully in other areas, or on other Wiki's, but since the block, I don't see much other mainspace activity. My inclination is to think that if it is stressful to edit in this area, then don't edit in this area. (now off to hit the whiskey, so I can sleep properly ... ). Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Lol. In all honesty, the whisky you refer to may have been a factor. As it has been for many doctors on the front line - tough times! No whisky for me going forward --Almaty (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment. The heat of the moment was when I was medically unwell, terrified about the pandemic reaching Australia soon (luckily it hasn't, the lucky country) and trying to do the best I could for wikipedia. But then I realised it was very late at night, with work tomorrow, and all my edits were being reverted, i was stressed for numerous reasons, and starting to become medically unwell. A consensus of them now stand. But the last edit war leading to the topic ban really wasn't about a content dispute from my end, it was intentionally getting the block due to wikistress as I said. Still, a "spectacularly bad idea". A better idea would have just been to go for a walk. (I had been self isolating myself too). Thats higher than our rules here. --Almaty (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per my discussions with Almaty on their talk page, Doc James' support, and the comments here, it's clear this topic ban is no longer necessary. I will go ahead and lift it. – bradv🍁 15:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

MOS:COLOR

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

---

Do people really not give a shit about MOS:COLOR? I can not read or see the heading of this template, Template:USM Alger, so I stripped out the colours so I can see and read it. However I got reverted twice over, so I ask at WT:FOOTBALL#Template:USM Alger for some help, yet the response I got was... well, lacking, and from two admins one giving of examples of templates when, some that violate some that don't and the other admin GS decides to tag my talk page for edit-warring when I clearly was not edit warring. So really, for someone like myself who can't read text on certain backgrounds, is it really fair of the response I got? Does anyone care for the MOS:COLOR policy? Govvy (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, I think you're right, but overreacting. In the WT:FOOTBALL thread you linked to, most of the editors agreed with you, so I don't know why you think no one cares about MOS:COLOR. I also agree with you: we need readable templates; we don't need templates that match team colors. But I'm not sure why this is at AN: what is it you want an administrator to do? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think most would agree with you that there are ACCESS/COLOR issues on these sorts of templates, but I think fixing one template in a series is the main issue for those reverting you. The linked FOOTBALL discussion might get the footy templates updated, but I think it will take a wider VPP/similar discussion (hopefully not an RFC) to get folks to realize that we need to change all of these sports-related colour-coded navboxes. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: firstly you need to notify editors when you mention them here (lucky I came across this in my watchlist), and FWIW you WERE edit warring as "an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" (which is exactly what happened!); my warning was therefore entirely valid. You then ran off to WT:FOOTBALL to whine, and when it didn't go fully your way you there then came here... GiantSnowman 20:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

GS, please look again, I was not edit warring, and you're an admin, you should have this noticeboard on your watchlist, no need to ping you, and I ask that you should apologies to me, also, I was posting here for more clarification towards MOS:COLOR, I've been wondering for a while if the policy needs a bit of an overhaul and wanted some opinions from other admins. Also GS, I don't want to be rude, but you're poor at this admin job at times, tagging me, without assuming good faith, pfft, I could say so much more but that would be going right off the topic for which I want to discuss. Govvy (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, except you were clearly edit warring, GS correctly warned both of you, you are required to notify editors, it is ludicrous to assume all admins must monitor ANi at all times, you're pointlessly casting aspersions, you're engaging in hyperbole, and your careless attitude about all this is detracting from the correctness of your actual point. By your actions, you are harming your cause. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not edit-war, please, I did an edit so I could see the text, then I reverted back to that twice, not three, only two, that's not a case of 3RR, nope, if you feel that's a breach of 3RR ban me then, but if you admins can't assume any good faith, and continue with this pointless exercise of avoiding the first detail, what's the point of being an admin when you want to void the first detail and simple ignore the first detail and continue on this pattern of calling someone a thief for trying to stop a thief. Such bad policing, Govvy (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between edit warring and 3RR? This is explained in WP:EW, and I think even in the template you removed (in bold!) from your talk page. You did not violate 3RR. You did edit war. So did the other person doing the reverting. GS gave a standard warning to you both. It's fascinating how many people demand others assume good faith, while in the same sentence refusing to do the same. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is the definition of edit war, from the relevant policy: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. It continues: There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). ... The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Floquenbeam is correct and you should absorb their message. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, rip on the colourblind dyslexic guy who can't read a that template with red and black, still can't read that template heading. I was trying to fix something I can't read or see, I still don't understand how that counts as an edit-war, it makes no sense why you call that an edit-war. Dam admins and their tags, lack of etiquette in some parts of wiki, now if you people don't mind, I've had enough, going to watch something on TV. Govvy (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an edit war because you kept reverting after being reverted. You do not need to violate WP:3RR to edit war. I'm sympathetic to your plight re: the template being unreadable, and hopefully that gets resolved soon. But this was an edit war.

Further, you are still required to notify the involved parties. The fact one of them is an admin does not mean you can skip that step.

Hope you found something good to watch on TV, and again, I hope the template issue gets resolved to be legible soon. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the edit war, Govvy is correct; it is nonsensical that usch templates should violate ACCESS purely because an owning editor wants pretty colours. I have normal vision and that template is difficult to read even for me. As I've just mentioned at WT:FOOTBALL, if there are others then they should simply be changed as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have suggested a compromise that meets WP:ACCESS but retains the team colours at WT:FOOTBALL. Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite, nice work, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Goodness, that template is atrocious. We're not a 1998 Geocities fansite. As well as being literally unreadable for people with certain forms of colourblindness, it is ugly as hell. Reyk _YO! 09:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion by @Black Kite: is, in my view, entirely sensible and accords with established practice at other templates (as I have said at WT:FOOTBALL. @Govvy: I hope you've had chance to calm down and reflect on your conduct last night. Numerous editors tried to help and explain to you and you were dismissive of most, and just plain rude to me. GiantSnowman 11:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Omg, reflect on my conduct? What about your conduct? I ask for help and you slap my talk page with some template because I asked for help. I've edited wikipedia for years and I have no respect for you what so ever, you are the worse kind of admin there is, you shouldn't be an admin, leave me alone. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue has been resolved and this can be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Salted article re-creation?

I was about to create a redirect to stub Abryanz from Brian Ahumuza, his real name, but found that the latter title had been salted byUser:RHaworth, who is not at present an admin, after repeated re-creation. Could an admin have a look perhaps, to see whether this article looks better than its predecessors? And if so, please unsalt so we can have a redirect? Thanks. PamD 17:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Has the article creator ever been advised of WP:PAID? ([34]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, I'm suspicious that this is creation under another name to evade the salting. Note that we also have a draft at Draft:Brian Ahumuza. creffett (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If the salting admin is unwilling (or unable) to unSALT, the next step is probably to ask for a discussion at WP:DRV, or possibly WP:RFPP, though the latter is generally unsuitable in my opinion, but that opinion isn't universal, apparently. WilyD 17:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RFPP is the place (there is a section for unprotections). --Izno (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• All the padded "awards" (none are notable) definitely make it look like paid spam, as does the quality of many of the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Brian Ahumuza was previously created by a blocked sock (more than one in fact); one of the other articles created by the same editor was previously created by a different blocked sock (but that was G4 anyway, so I've deleted it). I wouldn't be surprised if they actually came from the same sockfarm. Probably a bit pointless sending it AfC as all the socks were blocked longer ago than CU can stretch. Since it didn't go through AfC anyway, I would either drop it back to draft (which is what was done last time it was created) as it's better than the one there already, or alternatively go with WP:DUCK, and block and nuke per G5. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for spamming and quarantined the articles in draft space. I think the sockpuppetry question is somewhat academic - I won't take any further action on this, but will not object to others doing so. MER-C 18:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move by article subject?

User:Ivanchukvasyl is claiming to be chess Grandmaster Vassily Ivanchuk and has requested a move of the article to his preferred spelling, Vasyl Ivanchuk. There is some discussion at the RM as to whether he is the real Ivanchuk. What is the correct procedure here? Does the account need to be blocked as a possible impersonator? P-K3 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There's an email address buried in one the bottom paragraphs of Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This was at WP:UAA (Special:PermanentLink/951789227, Special:Diff/951789295). I wouldn't object to an {{uw-ublock-famous}}. Ping Justlettersandnumbers. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think my only contribution there was to ask if there's any reason to doubt that it's really him. If there is reasonable doubt then, yes, he should be asked to verify his identity; I'm not convinced that a block is the best way to make that request, but if that's the consensus then so be it. Since we're here, am I the only one to find at least one comment in the move discussion unacceptably close to PA/harassment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to "probably a liar" I would say that's certainly a less diplomatic way of saying, "possibly an impersonator" and could be construed as a personal attack. User:ToBeFree, thanks for that background, and for informing the editor of this discussion as I forgot to. It could well be him, and he isn't being disruptive as after his one edit to the article was reverted he started the talk page discussion.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll invite Quale to the discussion as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The person reached out to verify the identity, see ticket:2020042110008891. I'll keep you posted. --MrClog (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• We should assume good faith, but not accept unverified claims. That means that we should not accuse anyone of being an impersonator but we should point anyone making such claims to OTRS so they can be verified. Why couldn't the people commenting in the move discussion simply wait for that to be done rather than accuse this editor of impersonation? Of course the subject's wishes, if this is verified to be the subject, are not final in article naming, but there was no need for such accusations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Such accusations should not have been raised. There is some use of Vasyl in sources, but it is far outnumbered by Vassily, in the past year 142 for Vassily vs. 3 for Vasyl.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Pawnkingthree, ToBeFree, Justlettersandnumbers, Bob not snob, and LuK3: The user's identity has been verified. Those with access to OTRS can independently verify this by looking at ticket:2020042110008891. --MrClog (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

rangeblock needed

See User talk:24.244.23.23. This person has been doing this for years, (disruptive edits related to climate infoboxes on cities in northern North America, it's a very specific and therefore easy to spot pattern) but until recently seemed to stay on one IP. Now they are moving around, but they are all Shaw Communications IPs in Victoria, B.C.. If someone could formulate a rangeblock that'd be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you’re looking at Special:Contributions/24.244.23.23/18. If you want to block I’d make it anon-only and allow for account creations. I didn’t see any accounts on it, just logged out disruption. I’ll leave to you if you think it’s worth blocking the range. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks Tony. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Bureaucrat activity

I have opened an RfC at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Bureaucrat_activity. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Self-requested closure review: RfC on race and intelligence

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

---

I closed the recent RfC on race and intelligence (diff and permalink. This has been challenged on the grounds that the close required three admins; I shouldn't have discounted new accounts that are SPAs; and that because I wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS I am involved in regards to the matter of race and intelligence, and that as such closing is a matter of administrator misconduct. I have reproduced my close below for easy reading:

First: I discounted opinions from new editors who have not been active on the English Wikipedia outside of this topic. I believe that was within my discretion and is relatively normal for administrators and other experienced editors to do.

As to the discussion between established Wikipedia users, there was a lot of text but two of the most salient lines of discussion were whether or not being a minority position within academia corresponds with being fringe, and on a more procedural note, the scope of this RfC and the broadness of what it was defining.

In closing we are supposed to be guided by the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My understanding of what this means is that we look to the policies and guidelines for principles to define how we act, and we trust our editors who are familiar with them to reach their conclusions based on that. In this case, the relevant princple from WP:FRINGE is this: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. and it is in light of that guideline that I read the RfC.

Having read the positions of this RfC twice, I find the following points:

• There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above.
• There is no consensus right now in this discussion on the question of how to discuss non-genetic research, theories, and conclusions surrounding race and intelligence.

Taking some liberty as a closer, if people want to drill down on the last point, I would suggest an RfC with multiple sectioned proposals that are specific.

To address the three concerns raised:

1. I shouldn't have discounted votes of users who are SPAs. This is fairly routine and WP:Discard states: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. We rely on the policy judgements of experienced Wikipedians when closing discussions, not accounts that are unfamiliar with our broader policies and guidelines.
2. A three admin close was required: a three admin close is never required, and is usually a bad idea because it ends up being one person defending it when people get mad and challenge it. I have been on this project a while, am familiar with most of our policies and guidelines, the history behind them, and how they are applied, and I've been an sysop for three years. I think I'm qualified under policy to close.
3. I'm involved because I wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS: the involved theory doesn't work here because first, that's the main part of the essay I wrote and it is about blocking holocaust deniers and and people who put Nazi imagery on their user page and the like, not about blocking users for debating sourcing. I also wrote WP:CRYRACIST which makes the point that using accusations of racism against people on topics that are debate, such as race and intelligence, is a personal attack and will not be tolerated as a way to stifle debate. I did not write WP:RACISTBELIEFS and my additions to that essay are to my knowledge solely about administrative actions to actual neo-Nazis and not to call people racist to stifle talk page discussions.

I'm fine letting the community review my close. I expected someone would bring it here since it was very heated, so I'm opening it up to community review. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Anything that has gotten this much traction at Arb and everywhere else should have been closed by three people. Not necessarily admin, but three very experienced editors. That says nothing of the closing rationale, which I haven't poured over, but as a matter of procedure, closing it unilaterally was bound to cause problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree to disagree. I think three people would have caused more, in addition to likely causing the RfC to be prolonged for a significant length of time because no one wants to touch it. I've been involved in panel closes before, they don't add much and I think we've become over-reliant on them recently, which is why I don't mind doing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Tony, thanks for taking this on. It is really very much appreciated. And you're right - your word, or any admin's word, stands on their own. As far as I know all admins are equipped for a job like this. It all depends if they mind doing a job like this. Maybe brand new Admins would not be ready - this I don't know. I just assume any Admin who is willing to close an RFC is probably equipped to do so. And there are very sharp non-admins who could also do this. (copied my comment from Toni's talk page).

Hey, maybe that is what you should call your talk page - Toni's talk page - and then in parenthesis you can add (fah-get about it!) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think any RfC closed by an experienced admin adheres to policy. Now, it's one thing to ignore an emerging panel and then closing unilaterally, anyway, as was the case recently. But seeing as no such panel was likely to form any time soon, the closure seems like an appropriate action to me. Having written WP:BLOCKNAZIS does not make TonyBallioni involved, in my view. El_C 01:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• There was a rough consensus that a 3 admin panel was required to close this RfC, see this archived discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_29#Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence. Why did Tony not consider this? My other concern was did Tony just skim over the RfC because he made no attempt to summarise the core arguments. The RfC included a 2020 survey of experts published in Intelligence (journal) that found that only 16 percent of experts regarded I.Q. gaps between races to be fully explained by environmental factors, with 43 percent saying mostly genetics and 40 percent saying mostly environmental factors explain the gap. TonyBallioni has now stated that the the minority academic viewpoint is the majority viewpoint and the majority academic viewpoint is the fringe viewpoint. If Tony is going to do the close then at least consider the arguments alongside WP policies in his close.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• (I !voted "yes" in the RFC.) This was a long discussion and thanks again to Tony for diving into it. I think it was a good close. I strongly disagree with the notion that this RFC either "required" or "had consensus for" a panel close. We don't require panel closes for difficult RFCs; there are difficult RFCs every day; we don't have the resources for it; there's always a backlog at ANRFC; and finally, if it's not important enough to list at WP:CENT then it's not important enough to take up the time of multiple closers. I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that an editor is involved or biased because they edited an essay about Nazis or racism. If the title of the essay was WP:NOHEREDITARIANS, then it might be a different story. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I do think TonyBallioni is involved as he commented on the talk page of the No Nazis here saying: racist POV pushers will be blocked, but quickly blocking someone for being a nazi is somehow on a different level than your standard race and intelligence POV pusher (or insert other racist POV pusher here). This sounds a lot like he is saying Neo Nazis are worse than the type of editors who have the “wrong” POV on race and intelligence (like the ones who voted no in the RfC he has closed) but both should be blocked. I do not know how much more involved or even COI you can get that this comment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see how any of that makes TonyBallioni involved — and I, myself, am uninvolved with regards to this subject. El_C 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem to make Tonyballoni involved. Also, it seems to be an attempt to impugn Toni as an Admin to claim that he is involved more than once. Toni's track record about being policy minded should suffice and override any concern that he has BIAS. I really don't see a consensus for a three admin panel in that discussion. I see a bunch of participants and I see ancillary conversations about a discussion at RSN. I see claims of WP:BIAS that will automatically occur if only one admin closes. I see what appears to be an IP contacting some admins on their talk page about closing the RFC. I also see some editors essentially delineating requirements for the closing admin. I know what I would call this type of behavior - but I'm not going to say it here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni is involved because he has edited in the topic area and has articulated a clear POV, ignored a rough consensus that a 3 admin close was required and did, in my eyes, a substandard close that did not address the sources, arguments against policies. The close actually shows no proof he did anything more than skim read the RfC. I am not saying that is what he did but the close gives no evidence one way or the other. It is not a high quality close which is what this topic area really requires.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Editing the topic area does not make one involved with respect to this singular topic of dispute. The close does not need to address the sources, "show proof," or anything of the sort. It is supposed to evaluate the consensus (or lack thereof). Also, you continuing to imply that they "skim read" the discussion is an unwarranted aspersion. A panel close was not required — you repeating that it did does not make it so. El_C 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think Tony has ever edited Race (human categorization), Intelligence, Race and intelligence, or History of the race and intelligence controversy, so I'm not sure that he's even edited the topic area at all. Diffs? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) See my response to the IP user whose claims you are repeating. I am one of the few administrators still willing to be involved in the race and intelligence topic area. I have blocked people in it before, and yes, there are racist POV pushers who show up there and they are blocked. It's not a surprise that as one of the more active administrators in policy areas, that I've written my views on what policy requires in one of the areas I am active. If you look at the actual conversation being cited, I am arguing that we should not lump people together with nazis and block them.
  One of the criticisms I have made of that essay is that people are too quick to discount the views of others as racist and use accusations of racism to stifle discussion. I wrote WP:CRYRACIST in response to that. The idea that someone should be blocked for having a good faith disagreement on sourcing is something that I've actively argued against both in writing and in my decisions at AE, and yes, I've blocked people for calling other people racists without good cause. There are many valid criticisms of me, but I'm pretty evenhanded and consistent on this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Then why did you not address the core point of dispute in your close that the RfC question had this year already been asked in a survey of experts in a reliable source (which came to the opposite conclusion of your close)? How are we meant to implement the RfC without you addressing the source and declaring the source to be acceptable or not? Are you saying only reliable sources that agree with your close are reliable? There were lots of reliable sources that dispute your close and you ignored all the evidence in your close which is deeply unfair to the editors who spent many hours and all they asked in return was a fair weighing of the arguments. Your close was not a normal close, it looks like a duff close quickly put together, with no analysis of several core points of dispute against policy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I explained that in my close: policy guides us on principle and we trust the participants of the RfC who are versed in policy and how to apply it and sourcing requirements on Wikipedia to come to a conclusion. The underlying question was one of what met WP:FRINGE's definition. You argued strongly for one position. Some others agreed with you, but many others didn't, and also gave their views on the sourcing and what the scientific consensus was. Ultimately, the other side had consensus on the genetic question. People can and do disagree in good faith, and it isn't the job of the closer to decide who is right. It is not the job of the closer to evaluate the reliable sourcing. It is the job of the participants in the discussion. On the whole, they disagreed with your analysis.
  Anyway, I've responded to the concerns here in a manner that I think is in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT, and I've already written quite a lot, so I think it's best that I step back and let the community review. I'd suggest you do the same. The discussion was so intense and no one wanted to respond or close because of the length and the response to every argument. Let's try not to repeat that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• This was not a normal RfC, but the close was appropriate. You cannot dictate the terms by which it is closed, Literaturegeek. That is not a recipe for a successful WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I just want to be assured that a WP:SUPERVOTE has not occurred like what happened only two months ago in the AfD (where a duff close was written that did not address the arguments against policy) in this topic area that a 3 admin panel (appointed by a deletion review) overturned it from delete to keep. So there is history for my concerns.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is no indication that a SUPERVOTE has taken place here. As an uninvolved observer that is my assessment. Hopefully, that reassures you. El_C 03:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I read that RfC from top to bottom and numerically the yes side won by a small margin but most yes voters argued from an original personal opinion, they produced no survey of experts that the no side produced, the no voters had two surveys that supported their view. I can’t help but think if you had weighed the strength of the arguments in your close they would not support your close and I would like a 3 admin panel close to ensure a fair close which was a consensus you also did not pay attention to before taking on this role. If you gave a strong high quality close I would better be able to accept it. Anyway it is what it is.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've already expressed my opinions on this matter here, so instead of repeating myself I'd like to call attention to TonyBallioni's comment, "I expected someone would bring it here since it was very heated". This is similar to Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD, in which he stated, "There is, however a lot of heat, and its seems pointless enacting the consensus until the inevitable DRV." In Spartaz's case, the community strongly objected to the discussion being closed in a manner that the closer knew full well would generate additional drama instead of a resolution.

After this had previously happened just two months ago, how could TonyBallioni possibly have thought it was a good idea to do the same thing? Like Spartaz, he clearly knew that his closure was going to be disputed and generate additional drama, but chose to go ahead anyway, even with the benefit of hindsight looking at the fallout that resulted when Spartaz did this. Whether or not TonyBallioni is truly biased or not is somewhat beside the point - if he knew from the start that he was going to be accused of bias, he should have withdrawn as a potential closer and let someone else handle the task, just as SilkTork previously withdrew for the same reason.

So now we're back in the same situation we were in two months ago with the AFD. And I think the outcome that's needed is the same outcome that eventually happened last time: for the discussion to be re-closed by an admin (or preferably, team of admins) who trust themselves, and are trusted by the community, to assess all of the arguments presented in the RFC, and to close it in a manner that won't be suspected of imposing their own personal opinion(s) on a community discussion. 2600:1004:B103:626E:68A2:83EC:91F:A19 (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 the two situations are not the same, that discussion had a {{closing}} on it, and the logistics of the team close were in the works. There was no evidence that any specific admin was even considering volunteering to be part of a team close in this case. Any admin that closed this in a way that certain participating editors didn't like was going to be accused of bias, that's more or less inevitable in contentious cases like this. There is no credible evidence of involvement or other reason to suspect lack of suitability as a closer.Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Tony's close accurately reflects those !votes that were based on substantive analysis of the sources. Those that are seeing his closure as challenging the notion that intelligence has a hereditary component have either not understood the closing statement, or have not understood the contemporary sources present there. I see no reason why a three-person panel would do any better here, and I see no evidence that the need for such was established beforehand. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I just don't see the consensus that he came to. By my count it is some 24 Yes votes to 20 no votes (discounting 3 in-between, who supported some of the RfC's statements but not all and discounting some 8 SPA accounts). By and large most of the 'Yes' voters cited almost nothing to support their assessment, instead seemingly relying on gut feeling. The close does not address the source currently under discussion at RSN (about which a large amount of the RfC was spent discussing and which most directly answers the RfC's main question). This in particular should have been discussed in the close. This should have been a clear No consensus close, but somehow Toni saw it as a "yes". I'm not really sure why. I think that it was pretty clear that everyone asked for a three admin close beforehand, though I notice now that the "yes" !voters are perfectly happy with a single admin close in their favour... hypocrites. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Insertcleverphrasehere, that last part is inaccurate and uncalled-for. Both "yes" and "no" !voters were on both sides of the panel-close issue. I was a yes voter who was always against requiring a panel close. This was discussed at WP:ANRFC and in the RFC thread. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, then I wasn't referring to you. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Insertcleverphrasehere, really, hypocrites? It is unwise to engage in personal attacks on the Administrators' noticeboard, to say the least. You can take that as a formal {{uw-npa4}} warning, by the way. El_C 03:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  El C, I made this more clear at User_talk:Insertcleverphrasehere#Change. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  If you want to go the number route, "weighing of opinions by established editors familiar with policies and guidelines" gets you somewhere around 25-17/18 with several more nuanced comments that don't easily fall into a group. Nose counting is hard which is why it's never done on it's own. That's around 58%, which isn't so overwhelming it automatically passes by our general numeric standards, but is well within the range where it could pass. The arguments from the "in-betweens" seemed to acknowledge a scientific consensus while also arguing for nuance. That nuance can occur on talk pages still, and the Wikipedia definition found in FRINGE is explicitly stated as broad. Given the rough consensus that you have a scientific consensus one way where the opposite position is far outside the mainstream, and that the policy is intended as broad, I think we have the level of support needed to make a close in a content RfC that isn't trying to establish a new policy or guideline but rather implement an existing one. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, That depends what you consider as the group that it is fringe to. Your close does not make this clear. Are we saying it is fringe amongst intelligence researchers? That simply isn't true and isn't backed up in the sources that we have. Are we saying that it is fringe when compared to all psychologists and other scientists that just happen to want to weigh in despite no qualifications or background in the subject? In that case, perhaps it is fringe, but then, in that case you need to define the entire field of intelligence research as fringe. Can you please clarify your close? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  I was using the definition cited by WP:FRINGE in my close, which is intentionally broad. It is up to the participants in the discussion, not the closer, to determine how broadly they want to define the field they are looking at. The participants in the discussion as a whole determined that the scientific consensus had established that this was fringe, and many on the "no" side even recognized it as a minority view, meaning even those opposing it did not find the analysis of sources cited claiming it to be a majority viewpoint to be convincing. The question was whether or not it was minority enough to be considered fringe. The general agreement of that discussion was, yes, as a part of the overall academic and scientific consensus, it was indeed minority enough to be fringe. I hope that clarifies. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, It does. Thank you. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, The quote you took from FRINGE says, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Amongst intelligence researchers there simply isn't such a preponderance of the view that genetics plays no role. in fact, all evidence (cited in the RfC) indicates that the opposite is true; that it is a common and widespread opinion amongst intelligence researchers that genetics likely play some role. Now if you want to say it is fringe because all of the other scientists in academia generally don't hold that opinion, fine, but don't take a quote from FRINGE that says "in its particular field" to justify it. It seems like your close is saying that "Amongst academics who study intelligence, this is a fringe view", when that simply could not be further from the truth. FRINGE clearly states that we should be looking for the views from the field, not from all of academia in general, which includes a lot of people who simply don't know what they are talking about but simply want to not be seen as "un-PC" and make uninformed comments. I can understand your close, but I'm dissatisfied by the way you wrote it up, as it leads to a misleading interpretation. I, as well as others, would be happier if you made it more clear how broadly you are interpreting "its particular field", with regards to the close, and clarified your closing statement. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding the claims that Tony violated ADMINACCOUNT because the close required three admins; [he] shouldn't have discounted new accounts that are SPAs; and that because [he] wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS, I do not find support in the listed discussions or relevant policies and guidelines. I'll leave the analysis of the RFC-proper to those uninvolved others who have already commented. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Izno, Nobody has stated Tony should have included SPAs, that is just silly. I am afraid that TonyBallioni seems to be misrepresenting the comment on another board. The IP editor never mentioned he should not have discounted SPAs, the IP editor just mentioned SPAs in the context that the close appeared to be based on a numerical count rather than an analysis of the strength of the arguments. Tony should strike that anyone is arguing for SPAs to be included in his analysis and he should add to his first post the core concern here to his above first post and that is that there is a concern he did not weigh the strength of the arguments in his close, otherwise this community review is tainted by reducing the quality of those disputing his close. I would ask Tony to strike and reword his above message to fix what appears to be a misrepresentation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's tweaking verbiage to get to the point that everyone's argument should be equal, which isn't what WP:NHC says, nor is the concept that numbers are completely irrelevant what that says either. The idea is what does the bulk of informed, established editors who are aware of the policies and issues at hand agree on, and the closer doesn't decide who is right, which appears to be what you're going for. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Not sure if you are implying, by your “going for” wording, that I am pushing for a biased outcome to the RfC review. I consistently wrote, long before you did the close, that I wanted a 3 admin panel to guard against a biased close WP:SUPERVOTE that this topic area has recent history of. I hope I did not misinterpret your ”going for” comment. You don’t have to reply. You are correct that numbers are not irrelevant (they are important) but the quality of the arguments against policy carry the most weight.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The vote from Sinuthius is a good example of why I think there is a problem with your approach. Sinuthius was tagged as a SPA, but he also quoted a source that directly addresses hereditarianism's level of support in academia (the Areo Magazine article), and no one else in the RFC had previously mentioned this source. Two non-SPAs who subsequently voted "no", Jweiss11 and Tickle Me, said "per Sinuthius" in their votes. But you seem to be saying that since Sinuthius was a SPA, this source mattered less than it would have mattered if the person who originally posted it had been someone else.

The reason Jweiss11 and Tickle Me said "per Sinuthius", instead of citing this source directly, might have just been because Sinuthius voted before they did, and they did not want to repeat what he had already said. It isn't reasonable to discount certain sources based on who originally posted them, especially when later comments from others are indirectly referring to those sources. 2600:1004:B10C:92A0:FD9F:20BD:FBCF:9414 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Looking through the discussion, I think Tony's close accurately assesses the rough consensus there. Writing an essay on a barely-related topic doesn't make someone involved. Nothing there makes me think a panel closure is required and honestly I doubt you could find 3 people who would touch this in a reasonable time frame anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse As a long-time WP:FT/N regular I have been observing this gnarly RfC while choosing not to get involved. I do not think the arguments that TonyBallioni is involved have merit (and ironically, seem to come exclusively from involved participants in the RfC). Fair close, and TonyBallioni is to be commended for grasping this nettle. Good admin'ing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse This was a good close. Closers are not supposed to decide the issue for themselves as some of the above commenters that seek to re-litigate the issue appear to believe, but to assess where the rough consensus of the participants is.

1. The concerns of the first point seem to be based on the mistaken premise that it was incorrect/abnormal for a close to assign minimal weight to the !votes of SPAs, but it isn't at all, in fact that's the way we usually do things. Further, the relevance isn't particularly high in any case as the arguments presented were for the most part considered anyway as essentially everything stated by the SPAs was also repeated by others.
2. The second point of concern appears overwrought. Would it be nice to have panel closes on all contentious RFCs, absolutely. Is it necessary, no, and there is nothing in policy to suggest otherwise. Maybe if the logistics of a panel were in the works and volunteers had stepped up it would be different, but there was no evidence for that here. Doing a proper close is time consuming. Anyone who's glanced at the backlogs recently knows that we lack sufficient experienced closers to handle the volume our processes demand. Honestly, kudos is in order for stepping up and sorting through that mess of a discussion to reach a well-reasoned close.
3. The third point is grasping at straws. I agree wholeheartedly that involved should be construed broadly, and that it is important whether using tools, closing contentious discussions, or taking similar actions to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but the connection that objectors are drawing between edits to those essays and this close is so oblique that if a similar standard were universally applied no one would be able to close anything. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Even without evaluating WP:INVOLVED, the optics are not good when the OP of that RfC first dissuades SilkTork from closing it, then there is a discussion about a three-admin close but TonyBallioni goes ahead and closes it before that. TonyBallioni has a history of administrative actions in the topic area, atleast dealing with Captain Occam, who primarily was a "race and intelligence" editor. ANI had an unblock request for Captain Occam in January 2020, in which I thought TonyBallioni's comment constituted a personal attack. TonyBallioni stated that the appealing user is a pseudoscientific racist without presenting any diffs. If he's resorting such attacks when discussing his administrative actions in the topic area, then it's also likely that he has strong feelings about it, fulfilling WP:INVOLVED to the letter as well. --Pudeo (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Briefly adding: I don't think TonyBallioni shouldn't do administrative actions in the topic area, but closing the RfC like this was a poor idea especially from him, after SilkTork had backed off and three admins were discussed. RfCs/AfDs are always a farce when closure becomes playing musical chairs. Fundamental changes to a topic area that has had discretionary sanctions for 10 years shouldn't happen like this. Overturn to no consensus would be an acceptable result, which would still allow classifying specific authors as fringe case-by-case. --Pudeo (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus per Insertcleverphrasehere. If anything, putting aside the optics and inevitable controversy in this, the points made by those in opposition seem slightly stronger than those in support, as they were more evidenced and contained details of reputable publications and authors expounding the theory. Nobody is arguing that the theory is a majority one or that it should be promoted in Wikipedia's voice, and I don't personally think there's any link between race and intelligence, based on my understanding of the science. But I wouldn't have closed the RFC this way myself because the case that it is an outright WP:FRINGE theory rather than a minority theory was not conclusively made in the discussion, and many eminent Wikipedians argued otherwise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• TB was perfectly entitled to do a single admin close. The only required exceptions are spectacularly rare, where the wider community has decided beforehand it will be required. Their actions re SPAs were also reasonable. I'm not really aware enough of their actions in the field to make a judgement on involved. Fringe is indeed broad (some might say overly so), but I'm not sure whether this falls into it or just about makes it into being a minority opinion (not one that I share, to note). Certainly one side were making much better arguments, so I think at worst it would be NC, and might well be suitable either way. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear - Given that consensus is determined by the strength of arguments, if one side were making much better arguments, then shouldn't the RfC have closed with consensus in their favour? A no consensus close makes no sense where one side has the weight of arguments heavily on their side – although you haven't articulated which side had that advantage. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:, was about to say you were taking my paragraph out of context until, thanks to your note, I realised I that I forgot the fairly fundamental addition of "better arguments on average". If no removals were occurring, then the weight of justified !votes would lean to the current close position. I haven't, however, reviewed how that holds up after SPAs are removed (in effect, to avoid double removing them), so that's why I went for a fairly ambiguous position. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear by the sounds of things I think you should consider reading the RfC from start to finish and discount the SPAs who are clearly marked (one or two were disputed but you can read that as well there) and then make a decision of no consensus or decide if you feel that the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ side carried the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close as the backbone of the argument against the close—WP:INVOLVED and the SPAs—completely miss the point of what has been argued. Also endorse per Nosebagbear (Certainly one side were making much better arguments, which is, all things being equal, the sole arbiter of consensus at those discussions. Not per Nosebagbear's other suggestion that at worst it would be NC, and might well be suitable either way, however, which would be, in the colloquial, a cop out in the face of consensus. After all, AfD closers are not in the business of making the majority happy. Or anyone, for that matter—as this discussion indicates  :) FWIW, very few editors from the AfD itself seem to be overly concerned by the close, although not that the concerns raised are of course lessened by that—more of an observation. ——SN54129 13:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

SN54129, are you sure that you're correctly understanding Nosebagbear's statement that "one side were making much better arguments"? The comment immediately before his, from Amakuru, made the point that "the points made by those in opposition seem slightly stronger than those in support, as they were more evidenced and contained details of reputable publications and authors expounding the theory". When Nosebagbear said that one side was making better arguments, he might have been referring to Amakuru's preceding statement that the "no" votes were generally better justified than the "yes" votes, although Nosebagbear's statement was ambiguous so it could be interpreted either way. 2600:1004:B10F:2086:59A4:D34C:4402:41E8 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My comment was deliberatey nuanced. Please sign in under your original account. ——SN54129 13:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an account, and it isn't possible for me to use one. Can we please not get sidetracked? This discussion is about whether TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC was appropriate. 2600:1004:B10F:2086:59A4:D34C:4402:41E8 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The close probably causes more problems than it solves, it's too vague to provide any guidance for article content and assigns weight to a bunch of biased and opinionated arguments. Also gives a pass to those with poor conduct during the RfC: a great deal of bludgeoning and focus on contributors rather than content. Should never have been closed as either Yes or No, there are prominent and qualified critics who directly address the merit of research in this area and separate the sheep from the goats. Their views are what should help establish content for the article, not some mythical "consensus" of editors. The close is generally what I argued in the RfC, that FRINGE has some application, but it's disappointing in the lack of specific guidance. The expectation that we look to the policies and guidelines for principles to define how we act, and we trust our editors who are familiar with them to reach their conclusions based on that is belied by the RfC itself and unlikely to prove correct. fiveby(zero) 14:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The RFC close seems properly elucidated to me. It undergirded the policy known as WP:FRINGE and the closer described that policy. Saying the closer "assigns weight to a bunch of biased and opinionated arguments" is a huge mischaracterization and is an insult to participants from both sides of the issue, who put a lot of time and effort into this RFC. In fact, that is really a demeaning comment. Also, I didn't notice any poor conduct worth mentioning. Yet the above makes it seem like "poor conduct" was a central attribute of the discussion, with editors back and forth pillorying each other with personal attacks (and the like). This did not happen.

RFCs are created and function, based on support for the question or proposal or lack of support. Each response has its rationale. So, yes, it is binary simply because that is the most effective way to present an issue to the community. This results in an organized discussion based on policy. This is not a "yes" or "no" vote, or a, thumbs up or thumbs down vote. Also, the issue being discussed in the RFC was not about research on sheep. Likewise, no research on goats was taken into consideration.

Lastly, I noticed a good number of editors did state their positions based on policy, apparently meaning they reached their conclusion based on policy. For the record, I was a participant in the RFC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Close seems fine. I'm not involved with this discussion; just commenting because while I agree with most of those endorsing the close here, I want to defend the idea of a panel close in general (this is not an argument to overturn). A panel close isn't because a single admin can't do the job or even because the close would be any better or different at all. The point of a panel close is to cut down on this, and what I'm sure will be several more threads in various venues related to this subject. It's to cut down on relitigating, as well as attempts to attack any particular admin's background. The WP:INVOLVED comments are way off the mark, but regardless of whether Tony is ok fending them off, in a panel close those comments don't go as far because the whole close isn't at one person's feet. In sum: close is fine, but with a hotly contentious, high-participation RfC, panel closes are very useful to cut down on hassles afterwards (for the community and for the closers). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close. An exemplary closure, IMO. Guy (help!) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Agree with Guy above. Good close. The objections raised are dreadful. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • JzG/Guy was involved in the RfC (as was myself and Steve Quinn). Not sure if you are aware of that when referencing him. If you are already, I apologise.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • As are you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

    Literaturegeek, and the outcome was not what I advocated. But it's extremely well reasoned. Guy (help!) 14:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn close per the issues raised by Pudeo and Fiveby above. Regardless of whether the closing party is biased or involved, a contentious RFC like this one should be closed in a manner that will help to resolve conflicts rather than exacerbate them, and this closure does not seem to be reducing conflict. I agree with the arguments that it should have been closed by a panel of three admins. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What policy lays out when a panel close is required? There's a difference between something we'd like and something that is required. If no policy requires a panel close in this instance, the lack of a panel close is not sufficient justification to overturn the close. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Also "if the side that didn't get their way are whining about it, then the close should be overturned" is obviously not a viable principle, either. Also also, people who participated in the RfC (as Ferahgo the Assassin did) should identify themselves so as not to give the misleading impression that they don't have a preferred outcome. (I !voted yes.) --JBL (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but if the RFC had been closed by a panel of three admins who all had no prior involvement in the topic, with a closure summary that addressed all of the major arguments presented there, I'd have accepted the outcome even if it wasn't in my favor. (I voted "no".) I suspect this is true of a lot of the other "no" voters as well. When an admin knows ahead of time that his closure is going to be contested, as TonyBallioni clearly did, it's essential to make the closure as rock-solid as possible in order to avoid the type of situation that's happening now. This is the same point that Dennis Brown was making (who, incidentally, did not participate in the RFC). 2600:1004:B109:A549:E918:2939:512:DF4A (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you the person who spent several days insisting that it was necessary for you personally to select a closing admin to ensure closure was "fair"? Or was that someone else? --JBL (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Panel closes are not panaceas. I team closed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices and got pinged in follow-ups for weeks. I also agree with Dennis that a panel closure would have been better, but in the absence of a requirement that's not a reason to overturn a close. The problems Tony raises with panel closes are reasonable and should not be dismissed out of hand. A three person close at minimum triples the workload of the project since three people need to take time away to read and analyze it, and there's still no guarantee that the closure will not be challenged. The best way to prevent disruption is for people to accept the results of an RfC based on the merits of the closure, not on who or how many people closed it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think people also would not be objecting so much if TonyBallioni's closure had clearly addressed the major arguments presented in the RFC, in particular the source that was being discussed at RSN, which was pivotal to the RFC's outcome. (See the comments by Amakuru and Insertcleverphrasehere). So the problem here really is twofold: it appears to have been a low-effort closure, and as a result of that people are questioning TonyBallioni's impartiality with respect to this decision, which is precisely the type of situation that a three-admin closure hopefully could have avoided. It also would have been very easy to predict this outcome beforehand, because there was a similar result from Spartaz's initial low-effort closure of the AFD. 2600:1004:B109:A549:E918:2939:512:DF4A (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In the above discussion the RfC no-voters' claim that they had good sourcing relies primarily on a "survey" conducted by Heiner Rindermann. This IP-editor is referring to that source, which was discussed at length during the RfC, and then a no-voter initiated a parallel extensive discussion at another forum (WP:RSN). That so-called "survey of experts" was conducted by a strong advocate of theories of genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines who recently (2017) published in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. The survey was published in Intelligence, the mouthpiece of the International Society for Intelligence Research, which actively promotes theories of genetic racial differences in intelligence. Among other things, Rindermann's survey claimed that Richard Lynn has a higher reputation as a scholar than Stephen Jay Gould, which is absurd. This was not a reliable source. (Disclosure: I was the OP for the RfC.) NightHeron (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Rindermann was not the lead author of that 2017 paper and thus it probably wasn’t his decision to publish it there in Mankind Quarterly. Much like if a doctor accepts drug company money for a single research project one time doesn’t make them corrupted by the drug companies in all other areas of their work.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong. Rindermann's coauthor David Becker had a Master of Arts in political science and was Rindermann's Student Assistant, see [35]. Rindermann was the senior author. It obviously wasn't the student assistant who decided to publish the article in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. NightHeron (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2, reply to anon) It is not the job of a closer to weigh the evidence, it is to assess how participants weighed the evidence. If the source brought up by the opposers was so ironclad, it should have persuaded the supporters. It did not. The supporters' views were backed up by policy, specifically the part that Tony quotes: we interpret fringe viewpoints "in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views" (emphasis added). No one in that discussion argued that this was a majority viewpoint, so the opposers were already starting on weak footing. The discussion, as Tony accurately summarized, focused on "whether or not being a minority position within academia corresponds with being fringe", and the conclusion was that editors generally agreed that the genetic theory was "enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above". His line of reasoning is very clear, and I don't see this as being a low-effort close.

It's for this reason I don't find ICPH's rationale convincing, and Tony gave a similar explanation in response. Amakuru's reasoning is more nuanced, but I disagree with their criteria for overturning. Based on my understanding of their comment, Amakuru's rationale relies upon their own interpretation of the evidence's weight rather than how participants weighed the evidence. If the evidence on the "no" side was in fact "slightly stronger" as they claim, we should have had more "no" opinions and certainly we shouldn't have had a "yes" majority because participants would have weighed those comments strongly without us as the closer needing to decide whose evidence was better.

The point of a closure review is not to reargue your case and hope you find a more favorable audience. In review we must be especially careful to stick to how participants weighed the evidence and not substitute our own opinions on who had the stronger argument. Let's call a spade a spade: people are not concerned about whether Tony is INVOLVED because they have a deep concern for the sanctity of the administrative process, people are critiquing Tony because they don't like the outcome and getting it overturned gives them a do-over. Even if I agree that Tony's close was low-effort (I don't) and that he was not impartial (I don't), per WP:NOTBURO I would want some evidence that his close was completely unreasonable before concerning myself of procedural questions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The evidence is the RfC itself, and Wugapodes you will have to read it from top to bottom. I doubt many people here voting endorse close have actually read the RfC from top to bottom. There were many problems with NightHeron’s sources including misinterpreting them, being very old, being discredited by experts in the field, but these issues only were discovered and highlighted towards the end of the RfC which biased some people’s votes and the RfC was bludgeoned severely by NightHeron so that new voters did not read the rebuttals as they were drowned out. Repeated personal attacks of being called a racist no doubt scared some editors from commenting against the RfC for fear of such personal attacks. I read the RfC from top to bottom and most of the yes voters relied purely on original research when voting yes for fringe whereas no voters clearly had reliable sources on their side. But sadly the RfC is so long no one will read it and realise how badly TonyBallioni handled it and people who never read the RfC will just endorse the close and that is that, There were actually no sources that said it was a fringe theory, just original research and misinterpretations of an old source, but you need to read the RfC and weigh the arguments to see that. This is what I thought after reading the RfC: the yes voters have mostly only original research to stand on for fringe label and their arguments have been refuted with sources and the only way the RfC can go in their favour is if a SUPERVOTE occurs and for that reason I advocated for a 3 admin close to guard against a supervote scenario. I expected the close to treat the genetic contribution as a significant minority viewpoint to be governed by WEIGHT not FRINGE as fringe means we are compelled to pseudo scientifically misrepresent the WEIGHT in reliable sources and label major academic views as fringe.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I had read it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not the job of a closer to weigh the evidence, it is to assess how participants weighed the evidence. If the source brought up by the opposers was so ironclad, it should have persuaded the supporters. It did not. Something that clearly happened in this RFC is that the discussion became so long, people were voting without having read the existing discussion or examining the evidence that others had presented. This happened somewhat among both the "yes" and "no" voters, but it especially happened among the "yes" voters. Around half of the "yes" votes are only one or two sentences, without citing any sources or commenting on any of the sources that were cited by others. Ironically, some of the single-purpose accounts whose votes were thrown out, such as AndewNguyen and Sinuthius, showed far more evidence of having read the entire discussion than many of the "yes" voters did.

When this type of situation happens, it's essential for the closing admin to closely examine which side is presenting the stronger arguments. To do otherwise is to create a situation where bludgeoning to drown out the opposition is an effective tactic, as it seems to have been in this case. 2600:1004:B109:A549:E918:2939:512:DF4A (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Literaturegeek's sources are literally the first reply to the post and stated in bold. If editors would need to be completely incompetent to miss that. I don't buy it. I'm also not going to speculate about who may or may not have participated. Perhaps the discussion was being watched by right-wing trolls who would dox editors who commented "yes", and so some editors didn't participate? If I were to apply that reasoning, you would rightly call for my head, so I decline to speculate on what the people who didn't comment on the RfC were thinking about. The proper way to handle bludgeoning is seeking administrator intervention during the RfC, not using it as a post hoc reason to speculate about what might have happened. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes NightHeron posted those sources on the 16th of March and I only replied to her message on the 11th of April after several no voters raised issues but got drowned out by bludgeon. Almost everyone had voted by the 11th of April. I thought about getting admin help for bludgeoning and personal attacks but figured it would be seen as me trying to sway the outcome of the RfC via GAME and also because I prefer to resolve drama through diplomacy rather than utilising admins.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes I bolded the text 34 minutes before TonyBallioni did the close so you are misinterpreting the situation, I know it is a confusing large RfC so not criticising you. So yeah, my replies below NightHeron had little to no impact on the RfC voting because it was all done towards the end.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, I've spent more of my life reading that discussion than I care to; hell, at this point I could close the discussion. These arguments are straw-grasping nonsense, and every minute I've spent on this I regret. I don't think you understand how double edged these arguments are, and that to accept them in the way you want would mean ignoring how they apply to your side of the argument. You claim the yes !voters were bludgeoning; so then what do you make of this thread? You were afraid that seeking help for bludgeoning would be seen as trying to game the process, yet we should not take bludgeoning of this discussion as gaming the process? Should the closer of this discussion give extra weight to endorse not votes because they may have been scared off by this long thread, or downweight overturn !votes because they maybe didn't read this whole thread? How is it that sources brought up by "no" !voters were both unanalyzed and generated threads and threads of discussion? Even after nearly a month of discussion, your summary generated plenty of discussion and the comments that came after it such as Littleolive Oil's clearly show that they had read the prior discussion. Either the sources were ignored or they generated a lot of discussion. It is patently absurd to say that !voters came to the page, read absolutely nothing, and posted a !vote. It goes against WP:AGF and it goes against common sense. If an editor goes to that page, sees the forest fire and comes to the conclusion that there's no consensus on whether the sources you bring up are reliable, they can still come to a valid, informed, and reasonable conclusion on whether the opinion falls within the definition of WP:FRINGE without doing a point by point refutation of the sources. The opposition is not for a lack of understanding. I have heard you and understand your points. I do not find them convincing. Please stop throwing spaghetti at the wall; it is not sticking. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course I knew it would have been controversial. Any close would have been, and in my opinion a group close likely would have caused more disruption as it was also all but certain to have been contested in a closure review and you'd have three people having to defend something that one person largely wrote then the others helped adapt (which is how most team written documents work.) I also don't believe that this wouldn't have ended up at a closure review with a panel based on the reactions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The AfD where race and intelligence was nominated for deletion for the 4th time resulted in a super vote being cast by a closing admin, it caused enormous drama with the deletion review recommending overturn and reclose by a 3 admin panel. The 3 admin panel came to the exact opposite close to the supervote admin. Given the high emotions on this topic area pretty much every Wikipedian either hates racially offensive material more or pseudoscience more and so this constant battle to misrepresent academic opinion to be politically correct in the article or include potentially offensive views. It is a tough one and requires a high quality close that weighs the arguments in the close not in your head as we don’t know how you weighed them in your head. Once the three admin panel closed it there was zero drama, everybody accepted it because it was a high quality close where you could see the admins weighed the core arguments, determined points of consensus and where there was no consensus used policy to determine the outcome. I am afraid your close did little to none of that. The 3 admin panel close was a close that was accepted and there was zero protest or drama which was why I advocated for it. Compare the quality of the close here: wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those of us who supported the AfD for Race and intelligence did not come here to complain about the DRV closure that ruled against deletion, but that was not because it was a 3-admin panel. Nor was it because the closing statement (which was no longer than TonyBallioni's closing statement for the RfC) carefully considered the arguments. Rather, the DRV closure invoked policy, basically saying that non-neutral or fringe content was not a reason for deletion. We understood the significance of the words in the closing statement that "non-neutral or fringe content can be fixed by editing." This was a road-map. Rather than trying to get the article deleted, what we should do is first get a community consensus that scientific racism is fringe, and then on that basis we could proceed to remove the false balance in that article and some other articles so as to bring them up to Wikipedia standards. That's why I started the RfC. NightHeron (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I can barely wait until this whole RfC close review process is over so I can move on from this toxic and impossible editing area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't wait. You could stop participating now and no-one would think any less (or more) of you. The process will sort itself out, whether or not you continue to participate. --Izno (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn close. I concur with Dennis Brown's point: this discussion got an enormous amount of traction and thoughtful comments on both sides of the question, and to do fairness to all the participants, this close should be re-examined by multiple admins or experienced users. MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and reassess. I would prefer to have a three-admin close with more nuance and detail, and would not preclude TonyB being one of the three. A more in-depth close by another single admin (probably best for acceptance level if it's one who's not an essayist on closely related topics) might work, though. It's not that the close was incorrect in what it said, it simply didn't say anything that needed to be said. In particular, the close ignored the central point of the RfC, which was not an attempt to conclude that the "there is a proven link between race and intelligence" narrative is a fringe position; we already know it is. It was an attempt, rather, to conclude that because that ultimate, synthetic, largely undefinable conclusion is fringe, then any research that purports to show any population differences in cognitive testing, or any potentially genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive, are also fringe research by fringe scientists and must be suppressed. That's just a politicized censorship putsch, and clearly is not actually permissible under policy or pillars. The close did not address this, yet it is the only part of the RfC that really matters.

  That said, I don't think any of the three exact criticisms that TonyB outlines against himself are valid. However, this is essentially a tripartite straw man, since they're transparently silly accusations. The actual concerns with the close are mostly other than those three things, and don't involve administrative malfeasance, but simply a failure to assess the actual consensus direction of the discussion (which is clearly that going from "this one OR conclusion is fringe" to "any scientist is fringe and their work cannot be mentioned if its data can be bent by a racist asshole toward such OR" is fallacious and an invalid conclusion).

  PS: Overturning to "no consensus" is not an option. There very clearly is a consensus, and there literally would have to be one, since most of this is policy basics (which could not be overturned except by an overwhelming consensus to change the policies). That, and doing a "no consensus" on this would just be rubbing salt in a wound open too long already. This has been bouncing around from noticeboard to noticeboard for months, and it has to settle out, so we can get back to work. Doing this article right is important, because if we fuck it up (e.g. by trying to just suppress the topic and all research that touches on it, rather than contextualize it and present the cross-disciplinary scientific consensus that this is mostly to do with socio-cultural factors, and what might not be is statistically meaningless blips), WP basically cedes the entire subject to racist webboards.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The RFC was not asking whether any research that purports to show any population differences in cognitive testing, or any potentially genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive, are also fringe research by fringe scientists and must be suppressed. The RFC asked a single question: "Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?" It's asking whether a claim is fringe, not whether "any research" is fringe. The specific claim is "there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines". It's not about "any population differences in cognitive testing", nor about "genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive", it's about whether WP:FRINGE applies to the claim that there exist (1) genetic differences (2) in intelligence (3) along racial lines, and nothing else. It's very obvious that the RFC question was carefully written to not overreach; unfortunately, some of the arguments in the RFC extended it beyond what it's asking, and then argued against the part that it was never asking about (e.g., arguing that we shouldn't suppress any and all research into intelligence and genetics... well, of course not, no one ever suggested that)... I forget the word for that variety of straw man argumentation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was very obviously not just asking about the narrow statement "[it is known/proven/established/scientific_consensus that] there are genetic differences in intelligence". The entire point, the stated point, the of the RfC was to circumscribe all material, including all the main published summaries of evidence for the hereditarian position, by Jensen, Murray, Lynn, Rushton, Gottfredson et al, as fringe-by-implication due to statements that "agree to some degree" with the narrow point. In fact it would be difficult to find examples of those people stating the narrow position. In print they invariably refer to it as unproven "hypothesis" and "theory" and discuss "evidence" and their opinions on what is more "probable" rather than dogmatic assertions about the state of nature (they also tend to discuss psychometric IQ or 'g', rather than intelligence, and statements like "genetically inferior" are unheard of). So the RfC, even if unanimously supported, would not have any effect on the race-and-intelligence page unless interpreted in the vague broad sense that SMcCandlish correctly calls politicized censorship putsch. This is a perfect, literal example of the motte-and-bailey technique in which a disputed assertion is claimed to be only the narrow, limited, incontestible point (who could possibly disagree with it?) when challenged, but interpreted in very broad terms when it comes to actual intention and application. The fallacy would be even clearer if you, the OP or the closer were to specify what the scientific consensus is, that stands in opposition to whatever the fringe view is supposed to be. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"There are not genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines" is the scientific consensus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave most of this for SMcCandlish to address, but I'd like to address this part: It's very obvious that the RFC question was carefully written to not overreach This is incorrect. It only appears that way because Barkeep49 modified NightHeron's original post to move his subsequent commentary into a separate section, due to the requirement for RFCs to be neutrally worded. This is something that Barkeep49 did at my request, and he explained his reason for doing so here.

Here is NightHeron's RFC question in its original form, before Barkeep49 modified it. Originally NightHeron's RFC question included his commentary that editors (those who would subsequently vote "no") were "promoting white supremacist views" on these articles, so it's very clear that categorizing all pro-hereditarian research as white supremacism is part of what he intended for the RFC to be about. And he continued to make that argument throughout the RFC, despite Barkeep49's modification to his initial post. 2600:1004:B11E:FE8D:F48C:6A63:5D35:30BB (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your response is an example of the "straw man argumentation" I was talking about. You're talking about NightHeron's intentions, whereas what I said was, the RFC question was carefully written to not overreach. The RFC question was Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?, and those sixteen words were, indeed, carefully written to not overreach, regardless of what the author's intentions were. For all I care, NightHeron's intention in posting that RFC was to please their alien overlords or to fulfill an ancient prophesy and thereby ascend to heaven... I don't give a hoot what the author's intentions were, I'm talking about the RFC question. Because of the rearrangement you suggested, we can be sure that RFC !voters were responding to the question, Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint, and not, as Smac suggests, to any question about "any population differences in cognitive testing" or "genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive", and that's true regardless of NightHeron's intentions or subsequent comments in the RFC. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In the RfC as I originally posted it [36], the statement of the RfC is clearly separated from my arguments by a line that reads Yes as OP. The only change that Barkeep49 made was, at the IP-editor's request, to make the part after the RfC statement into a separate section. There was no intent on my part to include the material after "Yes as OP" as part of the statement of the RfC. I didn't think it was confusing for me to give my vote and explain it right after the statement of the RfC, but perhaps I was wrong, in which case Barkeep49's edit solved that problem. For the record, my motive, which I stated in a response above to Literaturegeek, was to get a definitive judgment from the community on the fringe nature of racialist conclusions about genes and intelligence so that editors would be on solid ground when removing false balance from relevant articles, per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Nowhere have I (or any other yes-voters) shown a desire to censor anything or prevent Wikipedia from covering research topics. NightHeron (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Barkeep49 neutralizing modification to the original NightHeron opening came long after most of the responses, which were already by that point polarized and addressing mostly not the base question, but the source suppression idea. And TonyB would have known this, which is why I object to the close not addressing what the majority of the discussion was about, but only the base question. All this does is ensure that we're going to have to have yet another F'ing round of this internecine bickering to re-re-re-hash that part all over again. So, the close as it stands essentially serves no purpose. All it does is tell us that a fringe view is a fringe view, which we already knew.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This is false. The separation into different sections by Barkeep49 took place 1 day and 3 hours after I posted the RfC, at 02:48 on 18 March, see [37]. The RfC lasted 35 days, that is, for 34 days after that edit, and the vast majority of comments were made after Barkeep49's edit. In their desperate efforts to delegitimize the whole RfC along with TonyBallioni's close, opponents of the RfC are making outlandish claims. NightHeron (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• You do realize that a "three-admin close" would just be two admins adding their sigs to the already-existing close? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Then why did TonyBallioni close the RfC before the discussed three-admin close, and why did the OP dissuade SilkTolk from closing it? It's as if closing admins hold discretionary power to sway to the close in some direction... and that's why people are picky who gets to close. --Pudeo (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Uninvolved users do not "sway" a close, they simply close. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close Based on my reading of the discussion, I believe Tony's close to be a fair and reasonable summary of the discussion. If an administrator publicly stating that they are opposed to literal Nazis is enough to make them INVOLVED in a different topic area, we'd have a lot of overturning to do. The argument that a panel of administrators should have closed the RfC also is insufficient for me. There is no policy or guideline that I'm aware of requiring or reccomending panel closes. While I don't think they're quite as unnecessary as Tony does, I agree that a panel close was not required in this case. Panel closes are most useful when there are questions about how existing policy affects the closure and when the RfC is on a complex topic. Neither of those are the case here: while the topic area is controversial, the RfC and the closure apply only to the application of a particular guideline to a particular topic. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this: on a subpage of TonyBallioni's essay titled "Pages often edited by racists", the first article listed is race and intelligence. This list originally was part of the main essay, until it was moved to a subpage. It really seems disingenuous to claim that this essay only is about literal Nazis, and that it has nothing to do with this topic. 2600:1004:B121:24B1:68A8:B461:310A:D948 (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Listen, we understand, you think that someone who doesn't want Nazis editing wikipedia is biased against you. Why you think repeating this over and over again is to your credit is a mystery, but no one is at risk for not having seen then 800 other whinges about it. You lost; that's a shame; get on with your life. --JBL (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarify what you mean by this. I just pointed out that the essay's subpage gives race and intelligence as the #1 example of a page edited by racists, and you summarized this as "someone who doesn't want Nazis editing wikipedia." Are you saying you agree with his implication, that a large portion of the people who edit that article are actual Nazis? 2600:1004:B121:24B1:68A8:B461:310A:D948 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the point that Joel_B._Lewis was making, anon, was that a) TB's close was a good close; b) that the RfC is going to stay closed; and c) that moaning about an essay isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference. Cheers! ——SN54129 14:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Intelligence researchers claim that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than any other ethnic group (Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence), so it would be ironic if actual Nazis were furthering that theory in Wikipedia, given that it is in direct contradiction with the Racial policy of Nazi Germany. --Pudeo (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

For the final time, my contributions to that page were to include language stating that we block the types of people who think the holocaust didn’t exist but it would have been a good idea and who put swastikas and black suns on their user page. I explicitly argued that it was too broad in other ways on the talk page. I think my sole contribution to the “list of racist ideas” was listing genocide. If you want to argue that being opposed to genocide, holocaust deniers, and people using Wikipedia to display nazi swastikas makes me involved, fine, just don’t expect anyone uninvolved to take you seriously. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tony for your time and efforts against neo-Nazis.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a matter of simple fact that this article is frequently edited by racists. This is Wikipedia, you'd be hard pressed to find any admin who likes racists, or pretends they are anything other than what they are. Guy (help!) 14:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse a well-thought-out closure. There's no requirement for "panels". People are just upset with the outcome. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close per IAR. Often a panel close is good for contentious RfCs , but here the RfC seemned so emotive it's doubtful it would have been more calming for the losing side. So a panel might have just tripled the work, and the exposure to a backlash. Tony is to be commended for stepping up and taking it on himself.

A case could be made that No votes were better grounded in scientific sources. So the thing is, very occasionally it's best to resolve matters on practical grounds, rather than the merits of the arguments. It looks like theres been contention on this Race & Intelligence thing for months, tying up the time and energy of valuable editors on both sides. Ideally the dispute would end with true consensus formation, where both sides converge on a common position. But that looks unlikely in this case, perhaps due to partially incompatible moral outlooks. A NC result might see heated contention carry on indefinitely, risking good editors on both sides getting banned or retiring in frustration. So it seems for the best to bring the dispute to a close, at least for a while, by strengthening the hand of one side or another. A close for Yes made sense as that side has a slight majority, and if you have to favour one side in a Nature v Nuture debate, then the fact Nature is more associated with harmful policies also favours a Yes. Having said all this, IMO it's not going to be sustainable for more than a few years to favour Nurture (=~Yes) like this, either on scientific or moral grounds. Mainstream science doesn't care about progressives feelings; exponential progress by AI aided labs is making the Gould position increasingly untenable, even among scientific journalists. Tech & sociological change is making what ones draws in the genetic lottery more important than ever in governing life chances & happiness. The enormous suffering involved here can't be adequately addressed with white lies. But these are issues for a few years down the line. For now, the Yes side have the upper hand. They might want to consider the SMcCandlish point that if they push the Nature = fringe view too strongly, they risk readers not finding the article credible, and having them turn to right wing sources.

PS - Im not suggesting TB closed in favour of Yes due to the tactical/political reasons I outlined above. This is just my opinion as to why it's the right result. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: The closure by Tony was well thought out and showed careful consideration of the arguments. I'll note, I consider most people, regardless of race, to be imbeciles and thus consider myself to be fair and balanced when it comes to issues of race and intelligence. Nick (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Haha! :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. 3 admins are not required and plenty of people have explained the issue with SPA's. A well thought out closure, with reference to the relevant policies/guidelines. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Assyrian tribes page

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

---

Hello,

I am wondering if it is possible to lock up the protection on List of Assyrian tribes and revert it to its previous form. This page had over 60 000 words and has been decimated into a mere sentence by certain users. Assyrian tribes and settlements are closely linked together and many times interchangeable.

Best regards Ashurpedia (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Likely evasion of block by User:CollegeMeltdown

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

---

Several weeks ago, another editor (now blocked) raised questions about User:CollegeMeltdown being a potential sockpuppet or alternate account of blocked editor Dahnshaulis. In an SPI, Bradv couldn't make a connection between the two accounts because the blocked one is stale. However, the names of the two editors make it likely that the two accounts are linked. I don't know if revealing the connection falls afoul of WP:OUTING but the briefest of searches shows an immediate connection with one account being the name of a person and the other account being the name of a blog written by that person. Further, the focus of CollegeMeltdown's edits are the exact same topic of that blog. Further, a previous version of CollegeMeltdown's also makes it clear that he or she is claiming to be Dahn Shaulis.

Despite being directly asked if he or she is connected to the blocked editor, CollegeMeltdown ignored the question and ceased editing for a few weeks until that previous thread was archived. He or she has now resumed editing. The evidence linking these accounts seems to be incredibly obvious and absent a convincing response from CollegeMeltdown I recommend that he or she be blocked indefinitely. ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(@RoySmith and Bradv: You were specifically involved in one or more SPIs for this editor so you might be interested in commenting. ElKevbo (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC))

ElKevbo, the Dahnshaulis account was blocked 5 years ago, and there hasn't been any reports of sockpuppetry since then. At this point we would easily unblock that account upon request, so whether or not this is technically the same person is rather irrelevant. Unless you have evidence of actual disruption or other blockable behaviour by CollegeMeltdown, I don't see anything actionable here. – bradv🍁 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not in line with our current policy as I understand it. If blocked editors are allowed to resume editing using a different account but in the same topical area after several years and without having to link their new account to their old one(s), please edit the policy so this is clear for other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It falls under WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR. Unless you have evidence of recent disruption, I would oppose blocking a good faith contributor over a mistake made five years ago. I'm willing to meatball:ForgiveAndForget and unblock the previous account as no longer needed if that resolves your procedural concerns. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 in avoiding unnecessary processwonkery. ——SN54129 17:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Fun admin script

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T251066

Hi all! Just wrote User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs, which links to Special:Undelete from the error page for deleted revisions. For example, this revision was deleted, but visiting that page with this script running will add a link to Special:Undelete with the appropriate timestamp. Shout-out to L235 for the suggestion. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Admins should install this script immediately – it is one of the most useful scripts I have come across. Major props to Enterprisey for this script! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Second, can confirm it is glorious. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Enterprisey, this is extremely useful for CCI work. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 21:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This should be a MediaWiki core feature; I'd almost say this is a bugfix for a MediaWiki core bug. Phabricator, anyone? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is now tracked in phab:T251066. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request by MustafaO

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

---

Copied from Special:PermanentLink/953308567 at User talk:MustafaO. Request timestamp is 2020-04-26T13:33:02. Paragraph breaks added to match the original formatting of the appeal, and where one seems to have been intended. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Please copy this appeal to WP:AN on my behalf.

I want to make a request to be unblocked. My account was blocked for sockpuppetry in which I misappropriated my privilege as an editor. I made huge mistakes and I fully understand and acknowledge the reasons why I have been blocked. I understand the violations fully and take responsibility. I understand that sockpuppetry is misusing multiple accounts, which was a severe mistake that I committed. One that I truly regret. My intention in this unblock request is to guarantee that something like this would never occur again from me. I've guaranteed steps that I will take that would make sure this never happens again. I would do this by following these firm steps and commitments:

1. I'll be making sure that I do NOT have any other account other than my account and not to make edits from any other account or IP address.

2. Never creating a new account

3. To make useful contributions that enrich the encyclopedia, I will do this by not engaging in anything that would compromise the ideals of Wikipedia.

4. To positively contribute to other Wiki projects.

The admins on Wikipedia do not have to fear any disruptions or violations from me because it will never happen again. I've learnt my lesson the hard way. That I guarantee. If I'm unblocked, the admins will only see that I would be contributing positively. The way in which I want to contribute to Wikipedia is mainly checking and adding references and also improving articles by adding information which are always referenced. This has been my main contribution on Wikipedia since I became an editor. My edits were almost always solely dealing with affairs relating to the Horn of Africa region and if unblocked, my intention is to only edit a few articles relating to the Horn of Africa region that I wish to improve.

I really like Wikipedia, its been a safe space for me for a long time and I enjoy adding new information to articles that I'm interested in. I seriously regret everything that has happened up until now, it was a mistake followed by other mistakes and then here I am today. I promise you will not need to worry about me if I'm unblocked. Wikipedia is a big part of my life.

Thank you so much for looking into my case. MustafaO (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

---

• I'll just point to my decline of their previous appeal... two days ago. An excerpt: "You are not currently ready to be unblocked, and should wait at least six months before making a new appeal." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  (While this is not really relevant, I'll take this unique moment to note that blocking MustafaO and their sockpuppets was the very last administrator action before Bbb23's retirement. That was two weeks ago.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding point 4, I'd like to add that the block does not prevent this, and that WP:SO explicitly recommends this to happen during the waiting period. It's a good idea; it just doesn't require an unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support - I am almost completely on the fence here. There's no question that they created at least one account, they've admitted as such. However, they do tick my unblock boxes of "show us that you understand what you did wrong and how you'll make sure it doesn't happen again," and after reading their talk page, I would be willing to chalk this up to a genuine screwup/misunderstanding; what I've seen definitely sounds more like "confused about the rules" than "intentional disruption." My biggest issue is that it has only been two weeks since the block (and usually I'd prefer to see an SO appeal around the six-month mark). In the spirit of assuming good faith I'd support an unblock, but AGF is pretty much the only reason I'm on this side of the fence. creffett (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  D'oh, I should learn to read. If this is a CU block, then no point in this request. creffett (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• oppose. Even if this were the correct place to appeal a CU block (it’s not), someone who just got caught with 6 new socks in the last month wouldn’t qualify for any sort of standard offer much less a sympathetic unblock. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  CU blocks can be appealed anywhere, like normal blocks, the only precondition is for the blocking CU or another CU to weigh in before any unblock. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: Could you just give us a quick recap on how to lift checkuser blocks. Nick (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae and Nick: Sorry, I forgot to add a {{checkuser needed}} to this request. I'll do so here: {{checkuser needed}}. Instead of copying the appeal myself, I should have used that template on the blocked user's talk page, asking a checkuser to have a look and copy the appeal instead of me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: 24 days is not a helpful measure of "no evidence of socking". It's generally more useful when some time has passed since the last check , so that there is some weight to not socking in the *some amount of time* (not being exact because WP:BEANS) that is checked. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  QEDK, I had recommended six months. I'm not entirely sure if there is a standard procedure for dealing with someone who wants an AN appeal after two days, but I didn't feel like I'm in a position to decline that request. "Checkuser needed" might have been the best approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  If someone wants it, sure, (since anyone can appeal anytime if not specifically restricted from doing so) but I doubt it'll be favourable. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, just too soon. Ignoring ToBeFree's recommendation of waiting six months in favour of waiting two days is not a good look. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC).

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

User:Walidou47

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

---

This user was just blocked for a long history of copy and paste issues by User:Diannaa. They have admitted to switching to this new account immediately after User:Lil heartthief. I have blocked this new account. Happy for others to review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Walidou47. MER-C 16:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorse, blocks like these, especially when journals are involved, are unfortunately nessecary. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 16:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor is also problematic when it comes to the accuracy of the text they are relaying and by not adhering to the WP:Preserve policy. The editor doesn't understand WP:MEDRS and rules as much as they act like they do. I've seen Doc having to revert the editor a lot, and I was planning to report the editor at WP:ANI within the next few days or next month. It takes time to build a well-constructed report that won't just come across as a content dispute or minor issue, and then one has to find the time to report. Anyway, I endorse the block. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Checks out. Thanks for looking out, Doc James. El_C 08:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorse: Nothing wrong with blocking someone who would evade a block. Appreciate it, Doc. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Jhilr account and redirects, likely sock of Alarjar

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

---

Looking at Jhilr (talk · contribs) and how they are being problematic with redirects, this may be Alarjar (talk · contribs), also known as Lepintin (talk · contribs); see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032#User:Lepintin being disruptive with redirects. In any case, the editor is a sock.

Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, who is familiar with handling Alarjar. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. They were already blocked as a sock on two other Wikipedias. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Deceased Wikipedian

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

---

User:Kattenkruid has sadly died (see nl:Overleg gebruiker:Kattenkruid); please protect their (red-linked) user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have protected it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban request

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

---

• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to request a no-fault two-way interaction ban between myself and Sir Joseph as detailed at WP:IBAN. I have voluntarily avoided interaction with him since 2016, and we don't as a rule edit the same pages.

I am hoping that Sir Joseph will agree and that we can then move on without any further drama. If he does not agree I will leave it to him to explain why the interaction is needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't care whether the IBAN is one way or two way, either way I will continue avoiding any interaction. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, maybe if you don't generally edit the same pages why the iban is needed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Our policy at WP:IBAN specifically mentions "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption". It sounds like you are asking me to specify why further interactions with Sir Joseph distress me. This appears to be inconsistent with the words "no-fault". I respectfully decline to say anything bad -- or indeed anything at all -- about Sir Joseph and trigger more of what I experienced in 2016. All I have to say is this: Sir Joseph has chosen to resume interacting with me I do not want to have any interactions with him.

I voluntarily stopped interacting with Sir Joseph in 2016 and hoped that he would stop interacting with me. That didn't work, so I am requesting that the voluntary interaction ban be made official. If you want to dig up the corpse of a four-year-old conflict, go ahead but I will not participate. Everything you need to know is there in the list of blocks and AE actions from 2016. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough on declining to specify. However that does make it harder, at least for me, to weigh the potential positive value to you vs the reluctance of SJ to enter into one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We have not interacted since 2016. Please note that I did not consider his !vote on my RfA an interaction. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on Sir Joseph to convince you that he now has a need to address me directly, talk about me, etc.? Whether or not my IBAN request is granted I will not respond in any way. I just want to be left alone. I don't think that this is an unreasonable request. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Except a standard no-fault two way iBAN doesn't just effect discussions. It impacts which articles each of you could edit. It imposes a burden on each of you. I agree you deserve to be left alone but it's not like an iban is friction-less. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, like Talk:Joe Biden where I edited first and been there since 2016 and edited most recently a few days prior to Guy Macon. So as I said, when a formal IBAN is not needed and will only cause more trouble, why do it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If it will help, I will be happy to make a commitment to bend over backwards to AGF and assume that any technical IBAN violation was a simple mistake if we end up editing the same page. I have already unwatched the Biden article; it was a mistake to get sucked in to anything related to US politics given the editor behavior typical of such articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I don't think it's needed, as he said we generally don't edit the same pages and I don't reply to him. Other than him posting in my TBAN request (which I think was a big "violation" of the unofficial IBAN), he is upset because I posted on the Signpost interview with him, but not about him. I stay away from him because I don't like him and I don't want anything to do with him. I just don't need more bureaucracy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you participated in my TBAN discussion. Did you forget that? I have kept to the unofficial IBAN for years. My first direct reply to Guy Macon was on the Signpost talkpage. I don't recall interacting with him prior to that. That being said, I have no problem with putting this being us and continuing on with our lives. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I expect Guy will not respond to you here in light of his desire to have an iBAN and I would suggest it helpful for you not to talk to him directly but rather the rest of the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'm OK with that. But he's not telling the truth when he says he hasn't interacted with me since our incident in 2016. He participated in an ANI requested to TBAN me six months ago. He also brought me to AN about me archiving threads before three days, he also accused me of being a sockmaster and he hounded me and reverted me. He then yesterday replied to me, and then I replied back to him, the first time I ever replied to him (to the best of my memory) in years. I have no problem with not interacting with him. 1)I just don't need it to be formal. 2)Again, he says he hasn't interacted with me since 2016 and that isn't true.

I have no problem staying away from him, but I don't like when he says he has stayed away from me since 2016 and people will take that at face value and lay all the blame at me and then use that against me in the future. As was said, we never edit the same articles, so no need for an IBAN and more rules and bureaucracy when just staying away is all that is needed, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I see no justification even listed for a community-imposed IBAN. Likewise, given even just the recent history, Guy's claim that he's avoided SJ since 2016 seems pretty clearly less than truthful. Buffs (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

[38][39] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Guy is requesting an IBAN; Sir Joseph says I have no problem with not interacting with him. I just don't need it to be formal. They both seem willing to abide by an IBAN, and if making it formal rather than informal will save the community future headaches, I say we give it to 'em. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, You miss the part where I am not requesting this. The part with making this formal means that both of us can be sanctioned if we mistakenly interact with each other or participate in discussions that some may find to be interactions. Sometimes people read ANI/AN etc and just respond without reading very carefully. Perhaps they should, but that's the reality. We haven't interacted in years, and I haven't interacted even more. As I said, I'm OK leaving things the way they are. There is no need to write things in stone. If he wants to make a one way IBAN so he's more careful, let him do so, after all, he has a past of hounding, reverting, calling me a sockmaster, etc, I don't have a history of following him around. I 'oppose any IBAN when one isn't needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I mean, I'd also be fine with a one way IBAN. I sympathize with your point about an IBAN being warded over you. My general concern is that this bickering is a waste of time, and from this discussion it's quite obvious that the status quo is just going to continue to waste time. Whatever solution you two can mutually agree to, I'm willing to rubber stamp and enforce it as a community sanction whether it be one-way, two-way, or some weird Treaty of Tordesillas. I really just want Guy Macon-related disputes to stop being a thorn in the community's side. No one wins; we all just get angry and stop doing actual work. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Wugapodes - Give it to 'em, Keeping it informal just means potentially more drama, Don't agree with this at all but who cares, Support. –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose making WP:RESTRICT incrementally longer unless an actual explanation (or at least a simple link I can read without playing junior detective) is forthcoming. Maybe Guy isn't willing to explain the background of the dispute in 2016, but I just spent 5 minutes trying to figure it out, couldn't, and I'm not going to spend more of my time trying to find what he's hinting at. If both supported, I'd say "OK, I guess", but not if one of them opposes. I suspect this is unnecessary anyway, as both seem to have rediscovered their reasons for not interacting (whatever they are). If pebble throwing continues, we can make a tailored 1- or 2-way IBAN, or just block for disruption and/or harassment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, on reflection, Sir Joseph's post complaining of the use of the word "unfortunately" in the Guy Macon Signpost piece was a dick move, and I'm not going to reward that. Support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, as I wrote in my edit, that had nothing to do with Guy Macon, but with the first paragraph. It was supposed to be neutrally worded. I continued from 2016 onward to not interact with him, until he commented in my TBAN request and supported my TBAN, when he was supposed to avoid me, and of course I got admins to get him to stop hounding me earlier on and to warn him when he accused me of being a sockmaster, but none of that means that you need a real IBAN since this is now 2020. As I said up above, I don't want any of us to be sanctioned for inadvertently editing in an area where we jointly edit, such as AN/ANI/VP/AFD,RFC, etc. secondly, even if you don't believe me that I wasn't referring to him when I made that edit, being a dick in one edit is not reason for an IBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I feel bad about not being willing to give details from 2006, but, rightly or wrongly, I am convinced that if I say anything to or about Sir Joseph, my words will be brought up again and again on various talk pages for years. If it is the consensus among administrators that the "no-fault" wording of WP:IBAN isn't real and that I have to either give a reason with diffs or the IBAN request will be denied, then go ahead and deny it, because I am not willing to go through that again. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure what is supposed to happen here. Sir Joseph is supposed to be held to sanctions that he doesn't agree with or want, based on a request from a third party who is not willing to provide any reasons as to why those possible sanctions should be applied? And this isn't weird star-chamber behavior? What am I missing here?--Jorm (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jorm, not just that, Guy Macon says above that if he provides proof, his words will be brought up again and again for years, implying that I've done that in the past. I think someone is paranoid, considering that until he interacted with me trying to get me TBANNED six months ago, I haven't had any interaction with him, nor mentioned him in years, to the best of my memory. Yes, I did oppose him for RFA. If anything, this looks like a one way IBAN territory at this point considering that someone seems to have something out for me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  It honestly feels like an attempt to set you up to fail. I would have voted "oppose" but the thing closed before I could. Should anyone else who feels that the RFA failure was not "unfortunate" also be subject to these restrictions?--Jorm (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jorm, yep, and Barkeep below is now making up history claiming I removed good wishes for Guy Macon. The deck is stacked of course. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  What you are missing is that our policy at WP:IBAN says "a no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption". If you disagree with that policy, please go to that page and remove the "no-fault" wording and replace it with language specifying that all contested IBAN requests must contain evidence of fault. Whether you believe me or not, interaction with Sir Joseph distresses me to the point where I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia. I do not say this lightly, but that is how I feel about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  No, I understand that. I'm failing to understand why your stress requires that he be subjected to possible sanctions when you cannot or will not demonstrate why it is needed. You literally just said that this is a "you" problem. Just avoid him. That's voluntary. Keep doing that. Problem solved, and we're not arbitrarily hanging a Sword of Damocles over someone else's head just because you want it so.--Jorm (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)This isn't about opposing him at RfA. It's about incidents like going out of your way to remove good wishes for a longtime editor who experienced cardiac arrest while going through RfA - which is not a joy filled experience in the first place. I would suggest you reflect on what led you to decide to fight that battle rather than attempting to boomerang this. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I suggest you strike that, since I never removed any good wishes at all. And this is why I do not want any IBAN because people will use any formal process to use against me. So you just implied a terrible thing that I supposedly did. Shame on you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Picking a battle with me is a choice you can also make. Personally I wouldn't try to play semantics over whether going out of your way to remove good wishes means that you were doing it actively or merely requesting that Signpost editors/writers do it for you. I don't think it's going to help your cause here but you fight the battles you want. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  That's right, never question an admin, that's how it works here, right? Asking the Signpost to remove a word to make an intro paragraph neutral about an RFA is not removing good wishes that someone is now doing better after suffering a cardiac arrest and implying it is, is terrible. Am I in the Twilight Zone? Someone makes up facts, brings no diffs requests a IBAN claims no interactions but there are and yet I have to have an IBAN because that's how it is in Wikipedia? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  1. I didn't say never to question an admin. 2. I was the first person to ask for diffs. Diffs were subsequently brought. 3. You don't have an iBAN yet. In fact I believe I've expressed more skepticism than support for the idea which is why I suggested picking a battle with me was not going to help your cause. 4. You are not, to the best of my knowledge in the Twilight Zone. 5. You are in a time when this writing holds very true. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, OK, but again, those diffs don't show anything, and as I and Buffs also pointed out, the claim of no interaction FROM Guy Macon since 2016 is not true. You and I know very well that editing restrictions are often used against certain editors and I don't need it used against me, when there has been no evidence to the need for it. Thanks and good night. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I've read this thread and cannot help empathize with all Sir Joseph points and positions. For I feel my experiences w/ Guy Macon are much a mirror the same as SJ's. Specifically after a history of contention, Guy proposed in a community board discussion an informal Iban between us, he said the articles we edit are different, that I edit chess-related articles while he edits articles related to computers and chess-playing computers. I stated on the board that I agreed. Nevertheless, he opened an ANI against me over behavior in a content dispute on a chess topic article (Three-Check Chess) which had also gone to WP:DRN. I have been avoiding any contact with Guy Macon for years and hopefully for the rest of time on WP, however I pointed out to him then that he was violating a previously agreed-to informal Iban. He rationalized the breach. I've instructed Guy Macon more than once to not post to my Talk page, but he has summarily dismissed those requests, even after being advised by an Admin that he should honor such requests and Macon agreeing with the Admin. The recent chess dispute ANI Guy Macon opened against me resulted in an Indef block on me, and during my block Guy Macon subsequently posted numerous times to my Talk again in some sort of unsolicited "here's-what-I-can-do-for-you-now-that-you're-indef-blocked" sympathy invitations to which I did not reply at all but simply removed. (He was already told more than once to not post to my Talk. I had no desire to become his "hobby" or "captive", and, I do not trust him or like him at all.) I have never initiated any contact with him and never referenced him since our informally agreed Iban. But I'm human, and after the ANI and more unsolicited harassment at my Talk after the ANI block, I deliberately commented about him indirectly to another user on Jimbo's Talk, which resulted in a 6-month block of me. There is so much one can take of this user, I had reached my limit.
  This Iban request must be evaluated in the perspective and context of Guy Macon history with users whom he has abused. I'm a recipient just as Sir Joseph is. I've tried to avoid Macon as Sir Joseph has. I am opposed to Ibans same as Sir Joseph. (I had an Iban imposed with an editor whom I now get along fine with, but the Iban itself introduced complexities and inconsistencies and unfairness that is good for nobody, and also resulted in subsequent wasted time of several users on noticeboards after those problems were evident.) And like Sir Joseph, I can attest that what Guy Macon says must be taken with a large grain of rocksalt. And like Sir Joseph, I do not like Guy Macon, I have found his behavior bullying, and grudge-infested. I would like him to stay away from me rather than more of the same from him. But I understand the drawbacks of Ibans and agree they are undesirable for all concerned. Last, I do not trust Guy Macon, even the underlying motive or intent of this Iban request. Sincerely submitted, thanks for your consideration, and good luck Joseph! p.s. I would Oppose this request, but more than one Admin who doesn't like me have used my !votes as springboard to oppose my vote along with adding derogatory remarks. So I don't wish to enable them. But nobody can stop that kind of crap either; there is always risk to posting anything on noticeboard on WP without drawing flak & badgering. --IHTS (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floquenbeam's original comment, which I'm not sure why they struck as it's on point. Since we don't have both parties agreeing to this, and we haven't been told the rationale or given evidence of why this is necessary, it's not fair on the disagreeing party to create a rod for their backs. As already noted above, IBANs create limitations on what parties can do that aren't direct discussions between each other so are not completely free-of-charge.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per the bad-tempered commentary above. Guy (help!) 08:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Question - Guy M., if SJ voluntarily promises to not mention you in any shape, manner, or form without having to impose a horrible, logged iBan, would that work for you? iBans do more harm than good because they end-up being used by the opposition against an editor to gain advantage in a dispute regardless of the parties involved in the iBan. They are an inadvertent gift to the opposition and don't do anything more than what a single promise to you will do without the need for it to be labeled/logged as an iBan. There were times when I wanted an iBan against someone but as it turned out, we became WikiFriends so in retrospect, I was glad that it wasn't imposed. Please reconsider...^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I am completely fine with any kind of custom restrictions that any admin thinks would work. A simple "don't directly respond to a talk page comment by the other editor and don't talk about the other editor" with no other restrictions would be fine with me. I would have zero problems with Sir Joseph reverting any of my edits, reporting me for edit warring, etc. -- he does not strike me as being the kind of person who would do that sort of thing without a good reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Guy - and I say that with the utmost respect and admiration. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Guy has made it clear that, at the very least, he wants a one-way IBAN formally logged. Why is that a problem, or something people are agonizing over? Why does that require SJ's consent? If Guy wants it, then let's log it. But I'm actually in favor of a two-way ban, because I haven't seen a good argument for opposing this, just general concerns that "I don't trust Guy" and "people often try to weaponize IBANs"; if, in fact, you don't edit the same articles, that doesn't help support the position that logging a ban is problematic. Also, people offering to accept a one-way ban undermine those concerns. And also, per Guy. Grandpallama (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Grandpallama, a one-way iban would not have prevented SJ's signpost comments that were the catalyst of this thread. That is, unless you mean a one-way iban against SJ, which is something we absolutely should not impose simply because the other party wants it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  No, they wouldn't have, and I understand that, which is why I lean more toward formalizing a two-way IBAN between two people who are saying they want to stay away from each other. Grandpallama (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unnecessary bureaucracy. I agree the "unfortunately" thing was kind of a dick move (including that single word was more about politeness than neutrality), but this one dust up at the Signpost doesn't justify a formal sanction. "We haven't interacted since 2016" was easy to check and it's not accurate. They've interacted without incident a number of times just in the past year. These two editors don't need a formal sanction to keep them apart and I don't think this thread is the best use of editor time. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't wish to appear insensitive to Guy Macon's frustration, but surely he can understand why some of us are unwilling to support an iban when he can't/won't provide the evidence that shows why the ban is necessary. SJ's signpost comment was ill-considered and unhelpful, but that lone incident is not enough to warrant an iban. I've had my own negative experiences with SJ and I'm inclined to believe that Guy has good reason to avoid SJ, but it simply isn't fair to impose an iban that only one party wants when that party won't provide proof that the ban is necessary. If I may be so bold as to speak frankly, I think Guy is overreacting to the Signpost slight. It was an impolite moment that made SJ look bad. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not worth stressing over. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Honest question: if you disagree with the "no-fault" wording at WP:IBAN and believe that I am required to find fault ("provide proof that the ban is necessary"), shouldn't you be asking that the wording of the policy be changed? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  The wording in question merely indicates that no-fault interaction bans are a possible solution in certain cases. I don't disagree with that. But there's nothing in the policy that guarantees you can procure such a ban simply by requesting it and I don't think a no-fault iban happens to be the right solution in this case. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The burden of showing need has not been met. I don't see any evidence that SJ has done anything in the recent past that would cause them to require an enforceable iban. To pre-suppose the oft-repeated question that GM will now, immediately below this oppose, ask as they have done multiple times above, the idea behind a "no-fault" iban is not the same thing as a "no-reason" iban. A no-fault iban simply means it isn't finding that either person named in the iban is "more correct" than the other person. Even without a finding of fault, a reason is still necessary to enact one, and GMs reasoning provides us no recent disruption or other inciting incident that would merit an iban. --Jayron32 17:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Go ahead and reject the request then, because my experience in 2016 and SJ's responses in this thread have convinced me that if I say anything bad about SJ he will throw it in my face for the next few years. I am going to unwatch this page now. Please post a note on my talk page if anything happens that I should know about. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Origin (Brown novel)

Can some other admins take a look at mess of edits on this article? I just stumbled across this on AIV. The short summary is that it appears that some guy is falsely claiming to be the author of this novel (and other novels by Dan Brown). Looks like an IP makes the change, edit wars with edit summaries about copyright, gets blocked, finds a new IP, rinse and repeat. I would assume some edit filter could be used to stop this nonsense, but that's beyond my knowledge. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

More context here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Just semi-protect the affected articles. It's not spreading outside of a few articles about Dan Brown novels, right? Also, I don't understand why you're using revdel on everything. This is just some random IP who's posting rants, not an LTA vandal who's spreading misinformation about criminal charges in an attempt to destroy someone's reputation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, it looks like Ohnoitsjamie protected all the other articles. I wasn't the one who revdeled everything; only the latest IP on the Origin (Brown novel) article. That was done by other admins, so I followed suit. I guess we can disregard this, but I thought an edit filter would help with the number of IPs being used, the articles affected, and user's unique editing pattern doing it. I guess this isn't the correct line of thought. No worries. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The person behind the IP was essentially using Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST, linking from his various external sites to his rants here; the revdels are an attempt to put an end to that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A14.203.52.66&type=revision&diff=954065149&oldid=954064924 More of that vandals posts here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.124.29 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

CSD-request of CSS-pages

Hi, I wish to have some pages speedy deleted. As they are CSS-pages, I cannot nominate them the usual way, so I am posting here instead. They are:

• User:Hebsen/sandbox/styles.css
• Template:Hebsen/sandbox/styles.css
• Template:Infobox country/styles.css

G7 applies to all of them. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin curiosity) @Hebsen: why can't you nominate them with twinkle, as usual? ——SN54129 17:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. SN, you need to be an IA to edit interface pages, now. Killiondude (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. No, the reason is that you nominate pages for speedy deletion by giving them a template. But for CSS-pages, all content is treated as code, so they don't recognize templates. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Check! Cheers Hebsen, makes sense. And thank you {{u|Killiondude} for assuming I have lived under a rock  ;) ——SN54129 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hm. I could've sworn that non-IA users couldn't edit .css or .js not in their userspace, but see now that it is just a limiter in userspace and MediaWiki namespace. Whoops. Killiondude (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Killiondude: (apologies for ballsing your name up there^^^) yeah, the odd thing is that (as a test) I G7d my own css page, and although it treats the template as code, it still puts it into cat:csd. And the css page was deleted by a non-IA admin. Does that make sense? ——SN54129 08:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that checks out. IIRC: templates do work on JS/CSS pages, but they don't render. So a CSD tag on a JS or CSS page will place it in the correct category and other behind-the-scenes stuff, but will still appear on the rendered page as {{csd-whatever}}. Regular admins can still delete user JS/CSS (for vandalism reasons), but only intadmins can undelete or modify them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Writ Keeper, vey interesting indeed. Thanks for the detail; @Hebsen:, fyi too.

WK, while you're there, now my deleted css page has been deleted, nothnig seems to have changed? (I assume it has, somehow, but nothing has suddenly "broken", if you knaow what I mean.) ——SN54129 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Well, it looks like the CSS rules you have in there are pretty subtle, so you might not have noticed the difference yet. It looks like it only really affected two things: the "you have new messages" box (changing it from blue text on orange to orange text on green) and the maintenance tags on citations (unhiding them). I can restore the page, if you like. While poking through your pages, I also noticed that you have some raw CSS code in your vector.js page relating to the text color of redirects; that's at best not going to do anything, and could mess up other scripts, too. Do you want me to move those into your CSS page, where they can become active? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: very kind of you; yes, if you would. As a dumbass, I know I've occasionally installed scripts and then wondered why they don't do anything. If I've been putting them in the wrong place, that would explain much. ——SN54129 12:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, done, let me know if anything needs adjusting! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:1RR

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

---

@MrX: has performed several reverts ([40] [41] [42]) on the Joe Biden article within 24 hours and claims that he hasn't violated WP:1RR, stating that any number of reverts he makes during a 24-hour period count as one revert. As far as I understand, this interpretation of the rule is completely wrong, and while several edits performing a revert do indeed count as one revert, obviously several edits reverting unrelated pieces of content added by independent users count as several reverts. If his interpretation is correct, would that mean that WP:3RR means I can perform the same revert three times? That sounds quite ridiculous to me. Could someone please clarify the situation here and, if needed, provide MrX with some guidelines on this matter? BeŻet (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

BeZet, you forgot to provide a link to where you claim MrX was "stating that any number of reverts he makes during a 24-hour period count as one revert". Please provide that evidence. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Here. BeŻet (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) April 30 to May 2 is more than 24 hours. Also, the first and second revert you listed were performed back-to-back, so they are counted as one revert. I don't see the issue here. Nihlus 20:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

But those reverts reverted completely separate things added by completely separate users. Wouldn't it be silly to interpret the rule as, you can do more than one revert in 24 hours if you manage to squeeze them in quickly enough without anyone else making an edit in the meantime? BeŻet (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. He could have done them in one single edit or multiple consecutive edits and would have produced the same result, which is why they are considered one revert. Nihlus 20:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So it does matter then. If he reverted two different things 5 hours apart, surely that would be a violation of the rule? BeŻet (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. Please read WP:EW: A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. Nihlus 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Edits

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

---

24.186.98.83 (talk · contribs) is disruptive editing again including multiple reverts. See their contributions. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

DAP388 userpage move request

Greetings. I was wrapping up a few minor edits for an ongoing FA nomination and accidentally logged out of my account User:DAP388. I've had this account for a while (since preteen actually) but never bothered to provide any associated email address, even after a somewhat recent password revision from a security issue. With my password forgotten, it appears I won't be able to retrieve my old account (ugh). Could I have an admin redirect the old account's user and talk pages and any equivalent content to my new account User:DAP389? Thanks in advanced. DAP 💅 16:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@DAP389:  Confirmed I've moved them to your new account and left a redirect behind for convenience. ST47 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone move

Per this discussion, can someone move 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States please? (Along with other move protected pages that need moving)? funplussmart (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Funplussmart,  Done FYI you can request moves to be done at WP:RMTR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:Bot requests#"2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" title changing. --Izno (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Page not found

Hi there, I remember a page named Pakistan International Public School and College Abbottabad to which I had contributions as well. Earlier today when I searched it, I couldn't find it. I searched in my contributions log as well and couldn't find but there were some deleted edits as well which I was unable to open. So I assume the page got deleted. I request admins here to help me finding that article and let me know whether it was deleted and when, why?? Thanks USaamo (talk · contribs) (uSaamo 13:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

@USaamo: I presume you mean Pakistan International Public School and College (I found it in your deleted contributions, which admins can see). It was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan International Public School and College (2nd nomination). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: thanks for letting me know. Also if you could suggest me what to do next, whether I should go for deletion review or create a new article? USaamo (t@lk) 11:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@USaamo:. I think the best thing to do is restore the article to a Draft page for you to work on, assuming you have some reliable sources (which weren't present at the time of deletion). When you've finished updating it, I'd be happy to have a look at it before it's moved back to main space (and maybe Bearian would take a look too?) The important thing is to be sure you have the sources that demonstrate the school satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. So if you want me to check whatever sources you have and give you my opinion, I'd be happy to do so. Anyway, for starters, I've restored the article contents at Draft:Pakistan International Public School and College. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: thanks for it, I'll definitely work on it and will let you know afterwards. 😊 USaamo ^(t@lk) 18:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone delete

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

---

User:Awesome Aasim/test.json - I tried tagging it for speedy deletion per u1 but it is not transcluding for some reason. Aasim 00:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. PS do you remember me? :D Aasim 02:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Voluntary rights removal

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

---

Since I have been inactive for a long time at pending changes, and I do not see that improving in the near future, I would like to request my PCR right to be removed --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Take good care of yourself, Kostas20142. SERIAL^# 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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