Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive363

Request for intervention concerning User:Aearthrise

Original request for assistance containing examples of insults/communication style and individual difflinks

Hello admins, I'm kindly asking you to intervene in a matter concerning Aearthrise (talk · contribs) and the article Pennsylvania Dutch which I believe is getting out of hand and is harming Wikipedia. In little under two years time, a single user (Aearthrise) has basically claimed sole editorship of the Pennsylvania Dutch-article. If statistics are to be believed, Aearthrise has since become the author of over 50% of the articles content and is responsible for 83% of all edits to the article within a two year timeframe. [1] Now there is of course nothing wrong with a single author being prominent or more involved in an article, but I'm afraid that in this particular case it has resulted in significant damage to Wikipedias reliability, neglect of its principles and a severe lack of respectful communication. In practice Aearthrise adds what he wants, deletes what he wants and does so in a manner which I can only describe as browbeating or just plain bullying. Any attempt to engage in a meaningful discussion concerning the articles content is impossible as all of these discussions follow a basic pattern: a question is asked by another user or Aearthrise himself; which is soon followed by a large amount of green quotes from various websites and Google Books. Any attempt to bring in professional literature with an alternative POV is ignored or waved away and the discussion quickly gets unnecessarily personal and unpleasant. Exploring or questioning the validity or reliability of the green quotes is equally not appreciated. Regardless of arguments made, sources provided or discussed: Aearthrise does what he wants. Currently there are 4 talk page discussions involving Aearthrise, which I've tried to describe and summarize below. I've added diff links and excerpts which (I hope) give a good idea of the problem at hand, but would advise anyone involved to read the talk page itself and check the recent article history to get the complete picture; especially concerning the first one as I feel it illustrates Aearthrises attitude and debating style as no other. In the first talk page discussion involving him, Aearthrise reverts an edit made by @47thPennVols: several times and then posts a comment on the talk page, asking for a source on how ″Dutchman″ can be considered a slur for some Pennsylvania Dutch. The entire discussion can be read here. At one point 47thPennVols, who remains friendly and professional throughout the entire conversation, curiously asks why Aearthrise (a user who claims to be a French Louisianian from New Orleans) has such an intense interest in Pennsylvania Dutch history. To which Aearthrise replies: My grandfather was Dutch, and unfortunately he passed away during the pandemic. I do miss speaking Dutch with him, and I wish I spent more time with him. Developing this article helps me connect with my German heritage. [2] Reacting to this and the issue at hand, 47thPennVols posts a comment which can really only be described as heartfelt, well-meaning and constructive. In this comment she gives her condolences, tries to make a personal connection and goes on to explain why he wants to address the issue raised and explicitly says he wants to reach a workable middle road.[3] It receives a single sentence reply: What is your citation that "Pennsylvania Dutchman" is a derogatory term for the PA Dutch people? [4] — despite the fact that 47thPennVols already gave her citation. To his credit, 47thPennVols stays on topic and expresses her concern with the 5 quotes that Aearthrise previously provided. 47thPennVols explains that the publisher of some of these sources (Stackpole Books) has come under scrutiny on Wikipedia over the years and is not considered to meet Wikipedia quality standards. He also goes on to cite an academic review of one of the sources provided by Aearthrise, which said the source contained ″numerous errors″, ″interpretive and rhetorical overstatements″ and ″needs to be handled with care″.[5] Instead of reflecting on the sources used, Aearthrise doubles down, writing: You are continually waffling and nitpicking, but you have not yet provided ONE source for your claim. I've already provided 5 sources both historic and recent that demonstrate the usage of Dutchman in regards to the Pennsylvania Dutch community. [6] and; You have not proved your claim that Dutchman is a slur in Pennsylvania Dutch community; it is therefore not appropriate to remove the term- this is based on your original research, and not based in reality. I suggest next time you make an unsubstantiated claim, you find the evidence to back it up. Your attempt to remove the term is completely unjustified. [7] 47thPennVols then writes: I'm asking you, respectfully, to stop now. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, I have, in fact, presented you with a source that confirms that the terminology you used in the article has been considered a slur. I have presented that source to you twice. I have also documented that, of the five sources you have used to back up your claim that the term you used was not a slur, two were completely irrelevant because they were published before the period when the slur began to be used against Pennsylvania Germans and the Pennsylvania Dutch community, one of your other three sources contains known factual errors, according to at least one prominent historian, and the other two are considered potentially unreliable as sources by multiple, experienced Wikipedia editors because those sources are produced by companies known for publishing the works of self-published authors that are not considered suitable for scholarly research. It is clear from your insistence on pursuing this dialogue, despite the evidence I have presented, that you are unwilling to consider my sincere perspective. Therefore, we must agree to disagree. And because of that, I am, again, asking you to stop, reflect and then move on to another matter deserving of your attention. I will not be continuing this dialogue with you any longer, but do sincerely wish you all the best with your future research. Kind Regards. [8] Aearthrise responds twice to this, in a manner which speaks for itself: Your "perspective", i.e. original research, is invalid; the only citation you've provided is a weak Dictionary.com entry that is not at all related to the Pennsylvania Dutch. There is nothing to "agree to disagree"- you have not provided sufficient proof for your claim, and your attempts to remove "Pennsylvania Dutchman" from this article are completely unjustified. I shall roll back your last edit. [9] and; You undid my reversion of your post claiming "Ther term "Dutchman" is considered to be a slur by many in the Pennsylvania Dutch community"; either produce reasonable evidence of your claim now, or I shall revert it again. [10] Regrettably but understandably, 47thPennVols gave up his attempts to edit and improve the article. The second talk page discussion involving Aearthrise concerns a long bilingual quote that Aearthrise has added to the article. The quote is very wordy (in fact the quote has a higher word count than the section its in) but the main point of disagreement is that Aearthrise insists that the original Pennsylvania German quote (from a book published in 1903) should use the Fraktur font — which 𝔴𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥 𝔩𝔬𝔬𝔨𝔰 𝔩𝔦𝔨𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰 and is something highly uncommon if not nonexistent on Wikipedia and in professional literature. When @Theodore Christopher: addressed this, a very unpleasant discussion again unfolds, which can be read here in full but contains remarks directed at Theodore Christopher such as: Although I already answered this question in an edit, which you choose to ignore now, I shall entertain the question with this response. [11] You speak on that the usage of Hebrew and Greek are irrelevant to Palatine German- this is another statement without a thought. [12] Your inability to comprehend that is telling of your mindset; you ignore sound arguments and prefer to just waffle and blather. [13] Your words are based in ignorance, coming and from an outsider to Pennsylvania Dutch culture, you who don't even speak the language nor know our cultural traits. [14] As I said in my previous post: "your thoughts are not worth very much. [15] Lastly, your (...) quote is completely incorrect, and it shows you lack knowledge of Pennsylvania Dutch culture or basic understanding of the message. [16] Your arguments and words are all vapid nonsense (...) [17] Theodore Christophers edit were repeatedly reverted by Aearthrise and he (once again, regrettably but understandably) stopped engaging with the article. When I joined this discussion some time later and wrote I fully supported Theodore Christophers changes and argumentation, this too was ignored or waved away and edits reverted multiple times. The third talk page discussion involves a NPOV-dispute concerning the etymology of ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″. There seem to be two main trains of thought: one is that Dutch was used in an older broader meaning, the other that is an anglicization of the Pennsylvania Dutch word for themselves ″deitsch″. Both views have reputable academic publications behind them and are widespread among scholars. Per WP:NPOV, both views should be represented in the article, as they were in the past and are represented on other Wikipedias. Aearthrise opposes this, considering one view to be ″the truth″ [18] and the other nonsense and again and again [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] removed the second view from the article. The pattern described at the beginning again appears: large amounts of quotes are spammed on the talk page. Most are from travel blogs, personal websites or books that are well over a hundred years (1900, 1870) old, followed by insulting or suggestive remarks: This is your problem- you want to operate on ignorance and your emotions rather than from evidence and knowledge, and you've shown that time and time again. Even now, you're showing how your feelings were hurt and trying to use that to win the argument. You have a bruised ego. [24] Your commentary makes you seem like the type who doesn't like learning, nor wants to learn [25] You deleted my responsse here earlier for making a discussion here, but yet, as a hypocrite, you started a discussion here yourself! [26] You are hypocrite and are playing a game to get your way.[27] I came to the same conclusion as 47thPennVols before me in realizing that a discussion with Aearthrise wasn't going to go anywhere, so I made a Request for Comment-request to try and persuade others to voice their opinions on the matter. As I'm writing this, I don't think that RfC is going to be very successful as it immediately got spammed with large amount of green texts and personal remarks which have nothing to do with the purpose or subject of the RfC. At one point, he started adding large amounts of text to comments that had already been replied to [28] and despite explicit requests and warnings not to do this, he continued anyway [29]. In the fourth discussion involving Aearthrise an anonymous IP asked the perfectly normal question if there was a source for the claim that Elon Musk is of Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry, to which Aearthrises replied: It takes a "special" person to ignore the citation that's already present on the article, and a lazy person to not take it upon himself to make quick a google search. [30] and again added a lot of green text from questionable websites. He has my sympathies for losing his Pennsylvania Dutch grandfather, but this has clearly resulted in a case of WP:OWN with regards to this article. Aearthrises behavior has resulted in many unreliable and/or outdated material finding its way into the article, it's been tailored to his personal preference to the point of the fonts used and the talk page and article history clearly show that he is unwilling to accept additional or alternative points of views, even when valid and reliable sources are clearly provided. In addition to the harm being done to the reliability and neutrality of the article, his aggressive, insulting and bullying style of communicating is driving other committed users away from an article which is not very well known or has many involved editors to begin with and is preventing improvements or changes to the article being made. This needs to stop before it gets out of hand even more than it already has. Wikipedias principles on personal attacks, proper use of sources and NPOV need to come out on top and I would therefore kindly ask you to intervene in this matter. Vlaemink (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Original response indicating Vlaemink's attempt to avoid direct argumentation

Vlaemink has continually made poor arguments not based on hard evidence; every single point i've made in our discussion includes evidence. Vlaemink added false information to the article, and also attempted to make an anecdotal argument equal to one that is filled with a plethora of hard evidence. Vlaemink has showed he doesn't want to argue and has deleted my arguments several times on the discussion page; he would rather play a game of ego rather than prove that his information is correct through well-reasoned arguments. All of my edits are based on citations and evidence that are reasonable and well-sourced. Vlaemink here has cherrypicked four arguments, one from 47thPennVols that was completely based on his personal opinion, and which he could not provide evidence for. He tried to talk around the issue instead of providing evidence. The second, from Theodore Christopher whose whole argument was based on treating a specific Fraktur variety of Pennsylvania Dutch language, that was made to be rendered in Fraktur for historic reasons, the same as German language, which I argued was incorrect and should be treated differently, due to the circumstances around this form of language, and that Pennsylvania Dutch language is completely separate to German language. He kept returning to the same point about how we treat standard German without addressing any of the points of contention I gave. The third is Vlaemink's own argument about adding content that, partially was misleading, and another part completely false; I talked to him about how parts of his added content were misleading, but he didn't want to address the argument. The fourth is an anonymous IP who said "The section talking about famous folks of PA Dutch decent says family of Elon Musk. Is this correct? Can this be substantiated with any evidence?", with a source of evidence right next to the word Elon Musk. I produced 4 more quotes in addition to that one, and wrote my response in a way to show the hubris of taking the time to write a whole section on the talk page, but not taking easy steps to view the evidence already provided, which is why I called it lazy. Vlaemink wants to say that I claimed ownership of the article, but that's not true at all. I improved the article's quality and content with cited material. He claims "signficant damage" to Wikipedia, but includes no evidence for this claim other than points of his bruised ego from himself having not made good arguments for his addition of content. He wants to make you believe that this whole article is questionable now on nothing more than his word.

Hello admins, I ask you to intervene in a matter concerning Aearthrise and the article Pennsylvania Dutch, which I believe is harming Wikipedia. I made a previous request which was too long and detailed; it can be found in the above collapsable for specific insults and more difflinks and here is article's talk page.

In under two years, Aearthrise has dominated the Pennsylvania Dutch article, contributing over 50% of its content and making 83% of all edits.[31][32] While single authorship isn't inherently problematic, in this case, it has led to significant damage to Wikipedia's reliability, neglect of its principles, and a lack of respectful communication. Aearthrise adds and deletes content as he pleases, often in a bullying manner. Meaningful discussions about the article’s content are impossible. Attempts to introduce alternative perspectives are ignored, and discussions quickly become personal and unpleasant. Regardless of the arguments or sources provided, Aearthrise does what he wants. Four talk page discussions illustrate these issues.

In the first discussion, Aearthrise reverted edits by @47thPennVols:: and demanded a source on how "Dutchman" can be considered a slur. 47thPennVols provided a citation and raised concerns about Aearthrise’s sources, which were aggressively and unilaterally dismissed. 47thPennVols eventually gave up on editing the article.[33][34][35] [36][37][38][39][40] The second discussion involves a long bilingual quote added by Aearthrise in Fraktur font, highly uncommon on Wikipedia. When @Theodore Christopher:: addressed this, a very unpleasant discussion ensued. Aearthrise made derogatory remarks and repeatedly reverted Christopher’s edits. My support for Christopher’s changes was also ignored.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47] The third discussion is a NPOV-dispute about the etymology of "Dutch" in "Pennsylvania Dutch." Both views should be represented, but Aearthrise opposes one view and repeatedly removes it, despite valid sources. He spams the talk page with quotes from unreliable sources and insults, questioning others’ motives. An RfC was similarly spammed, deterring other participants.[48][49][50] [51][52][53] In the fourth discussion, an anonymous IP asked for a source on Elon Musk’s Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. Aearthrise responded insultingly and added text from questionable websites.[54]

Aearthrise’s behavior has led to unreliable and outdated materials in the article. His aggressive, insulting, and bullying style drives committed users away, preventing improvements. This must stop before it worsens. Wikipedia's principles on personal attacks, proper use of sources, and NPOV must prevail. I kindly ask you to intervene in this matter and hope my description of the problem is now brief enough to be workable. Vlaemink (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm condensing this section because Vlaemink has edited his original post to make it smaller, and is making different claims now.

He claims that 1.my challenging 47thPennVols insulted him, so it scared him away; this is untrue, as I asked for evidence for the opinion he was presenting, but he did not produce anything beyond a weak quote unrelated to the topic.

2. Vlaemink claims I made derogatory remarks and reverted Theodore Christopher comments; none of those links he added shows "derogatory remarks", it's just long-winded debate, and for the reversion, it's because Theodore Christopher completely removed content, which I challenged the removal, and we subsequently discussed it.

3.Vlaemink's problem is not the addition of content (beyond the false content he added), but rather the misleading nature of equating a consensus based on an abundance of hard evidence with an anecdotal folk etymology debunked by experts on the topic.

4. Vlaemink says I insulted the anonymous IP by calling him lazy for asking for evidence, when evidence was already present on the article, attached directly to the information he read; the anonymous IP didn't at all make the post about reliability. Now, on this thread, Valemink is now claiming these are questionable websites. Forbes is a questionable website? I don't think so, and if it is this isn't the place to discuss that, it should be done the article's talk page. Aearthrise (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vlaemink and @Aearthrise these are both quite extensive walls of text. It is far more than I and many other editors or indeed administrators (all of whom, remember, are volunteers contributing in their spare time) will have time to read. I'm sure you both carefully crafted your comments and were aiming for completeness but I'd urge you both to condense your concerns down to the most salient points. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I can condense this whole argument: Vlaemink is mad that because he can't argue with hard evidence, he would rather make an ego-filled post here to administrators about how my words could hurt people's feelings, instead of actually providing well-sourced proof for his arguments. Vlaemink wants an administrator to step in and save him, rather than address the points of discussion. Aearthrise (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This type of combative WP:BATTLEGROUND response doesn't exactly defend yourself well from the complaints above. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that this whole post is about how Vlaemink says my words may hurt other people's feelings, and that he made it here because he wasn't willing to wait for comment on the article's talk page (he already put in a request for comment); his arguments weren't convincing through discussion and evidence, which is why he is taking the route of notifying administrators- his actions show that he's not confident that he can win with his own arguments. Aearthrise (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about ″winning arguments″, it's about finding sources and finding consensus. The fact that I asked for a third opinion, RfC and now have taken to the Administrators Noticeboard is anything but a sign that I do not believe in the validly of my sources and the need for their inclusion.Vlaemink (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about showing what is verifiable and true, and that is "winning arguments"; Wikipedia is all based on evidence. There is no evidence that Dutch is just a corruption beyond that people have said it. The consensus on the origin of Dutch has an abudance of evidence to show why it's correct, and that's the view scholarship accepts. Aearthrise (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian familiar with Wikipedia's principles can tell (and show you) why that is completely false: Wikipedia does not show what is ″true″, it repeats and summarizes what has been written about a particular issue by reliable and valid authors. And if there are multiple views, then multiple views are to be mentioned to provide the reader with the full scope of an article. This an encyclopedia, not a bundle of personal essays. Vlaemink (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That is 2000 words. You'll need to cut that down by like 75 percent at least. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

While this is far too long, I'll just say that from inspection, Vlaemink raises some good points, and Aearthrise needs to adjust their behavior even if they're right (which I don't think is a given). In #4, an IP address asked a harmless question, and Aearthrise was pointlessly rude and insulting, and even made their case seem worse by linking some truly awful sources like random websites with "A brief biography of Elon Musk for young kids" (looks obviously AI generated! Terrible formatting, alien wording! [55]). See WP:BITE, there's no need to be hostile to a standard question, just politely link your source and move on, or ignore it. (And frankly, given Musk's reality distortion field, it wouldn't shock me if it was at least possible that someone just made it up in the past, so there is an interesting question here.) For #2, We absolutely don't do fancy Fraktur fonts because it was contemporary, and I don't think the Miller quote is worth including at all, let alone 4 full paragraphs of it that is extremely partial (I'm sorry, but Eastern Pennsylvania was not the "model of the world" for agriculture, the good professor was deluded, why are we quoting this guy). Aearthrise claims that German nationalism only existed in the "late 19th century" (diff), which is 1000% false to anyone who knows anything about the German question. For #1, I'd argue that one Aearthrise has a point on the merits, but he was still needlessly hostile on the talk page, seeming to invoke ownership rather than finding some compromise, like a footnote discussing the issue from both sides. Similarly, for #3, even if we grant for a moment that Aearthrise is correct (we'd need someone uninvolved to examine the literature), then there's probably an interesting missing section about the "folk etymology", its supporters, and reliable sources on why it's wrong. Instead of just deleting it outright. SnowFire (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I read all of the comments here and Aearthrise, if you can honestly read all of this evidence and blame it all on a "hurt ego", it shows to me that you are taking this too personally and refusing to address the merits of the complaint. Of course no one likes to be criticized but there is some unreasonable and uncivil behavior on your part that you can't wave off with a "hurt ego" comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I addressed the merits of the complaint, but my point of contention was that Vlaemink was misleading people by equating anecdotal evidence with the consensus explanation of "Dutch" by linguists and experts, proven by an abundance of hard evidence. Vlaemink refused to revise the content he wrote, and included false content at the same time. Aearthrise (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You can repeat this time and again, that etymology A consists of ″anecdotal evidence″ and etymology B does not — but it doesn't make it so. It's a debate tactic, it's not based on the sources provided. The talk page contains numerous publications by reputable authors which subscribe to etymology A, and this alone shows that a ″consensus explanation proven by an abundance of hard evidence″ does not exist. One of the authors supporting etymology B even explicitly mentions the fact that etymology A is mainstream among nonscholars and scholars alike. A Wikipedia editor is supposed to report on relevant view from reliable publications, we are not here to create our own preferred version of reality. This is the core issue here. Vlaemink (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You show you don't want to cooperate on this article, because you ignore the points of contention and want to make the claim based on anecdote equal to the one based on heavy evidence, and is the consensus view on the origin of Dutch.

You don't want to acknowledge how equating these arguments is misleading, and that's the whole problem, not whether we include the information at all. Aearthrise (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• @SnowFire: I didn't claim German nationalism only existed in the "late 19th century" as you're claiming from that revert link, but if it is a point of contention, it can be easily discussed and proven or disproven with proper evidence. I didn't revert Vlaemink's revision because of when German nationalism started, it was because he deleted a lot of content, and for his inclusion of false information, that High Dutch was a calque of "Hochdeutsch", false and not substantiated by the sources added, and misleading content which was saying there was confusion by linguists about an anecdotal folk etymology while there is consensus of the historic of use of "Dutch" backed by an abundance of hard evidence. There is no problem with adding a footnote, but Vlaemink did not want to change his position on the way of writing the content, because he wanted to present them as equal arguments.

  You talk about the quotes for Elon Musk, which as I said were all easily found on a quick Google, and you only mention one, being the last quote. The others are Forbes.com, Industrytap.com, etc.

  As for the Fraktur, which you're trying to dismiss in the same way as Theodore (who called it ridiculous), and Vlaemink who called it (ludicrous), i've spoken at length on the discussion page why it should presented in that form, as it is a classical literary variety of Pennsylvania Dutch written specifically in Fraktur as a way to fight against the complete loss of German education in Pennsylvania. The Fraktur wasn't only a circumstance of being written at that time as you want to claim, it was consciously written like that to be an opposition to fight against the "Englisha rule" Pennsylvania Dutch, which was simply the spoken language of the time written in an English way, and part of the reason it was ridiculed.

  For the quote by Daniel Miller itself, it painted very well the feeling of the prejudice faced against the Pennsylvania Dutch community, and that was the point of the paragraph. Your nitpick is on how Dr.Miller showed that emotion towards the prejudice, and are making an argument about his words aimed at uplifting a marginalized people.

  As for invoking ownership, there is no proof for that claim, unless you're basing it on the passion i've shown to make this a quality article. I always want people to challenge content on Wikipedia, but the content should well-sourced, and if there is confusion about content, it can be discussed until a resolution is made, based on the best argument and best evidence. Aearthrise (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside a literal declaration of ownership, there is plenty of clear evidence that you are behaving as if you own this article:

• Over half of the current article content was added by you in less than two years and your edits make up 83% of the total during that period. [56] — and these edits did not come about in a collaborative and constructive way: you are unnecessarily aggressive and insulting.
• Prior to 2022 you did not edit this article. You described yourself as a Louisiana Cajun living in New Orleans, and a professional translator proficient in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, Greek, Italian and Romanian.[57].
• After 2022, you stated that your grandfather was Pennsylvania Dutch and claimed to speak Pennsylvania German.[58] You started to edit the article intensely and at one point even claimed that you yourself were in fact Pennsylvania Dutch, as evidenced by a remark in which you accused a fellow editor of ″not even speaking the language nor knowing our cultural traits″ [59] and explicitly stated that you edit the article because it ″helps you to connect with my German heritage″ [60].

And therein lies the problem, because that's only half the story. It's clear to me (and I hope also to others) that it's not just your desire to connect or explore your heritage but also a clear desire to shape your claimed heritage to your own personal liking. If you were truly interested and invested in this article, you would welcome every possible view, nuance and sourced addition to the article. Instead, you seem to exclusively want to see your own personal views and preferences in the article page and get abusive as soon as anyone dares to challenge or even as much as doubt it. That's a clear example of WP:OWN-behavior and I really do not see how you can objectively deny this given all the evidence and examples provided. Vlaemink (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Vlaemink, as someone who agrees with you, Aearthrise's cultural background is irrelevant, and I'd recommend dropping the topic. Judge by actions here, not possible motives. The sole thing that matters is refusing to work with others to improve the article and instead insisting on "their" view. SnowFire (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire: You are right, I should have stuck to the refusal to cooperate and ignoring of alternative POVs.Vlaemink (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The refusal to cooperate is on your side. You don't want to listen to opposition and work towards a solution; it's not about ignoring alternative points of view, it's about making points of view that are weak equal to ones that are very strong, based on hard evidence. Aearthrise (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem being identified in the discussion of personal background is the rather blatant inconsistency of the claims, suggesting strongly a history of dishonesty. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You want to purport that sharing self-identity on the talk page this platform is supposed be an "inconsistency of the claims", and say the writing self-identity on the talk pages "strongly suggests a history of dishonesty". This is an incorrect statement, and users should be able identify however they want on their talk pages, without being harassed about it. Aearthrise (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Vlaemink, you are doing everything to try to save face. You claim WP:OWN, but your only evidence is that I added more than over 50% of the current content on the article, that my talk page identifies me in a certain way, and finally a cherry picked quote from the discussion about treatment of Pennsylania Dutch language in the Fraktur discussion with Theodore Christopher, which his whole argument was based around how we treat standard German.

You're using personal information now to try to prove that I claim ownership on the article, but all you're doing is making a discussion of who I am as person. Aearthrise (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• (de-indent, reply to Aearthrise above, but it seems Vlaemink decided to reply there instead): I'm going to try to keep this brief. A), Yes you did make such a claim on German nationalism, it's right in the linked diff above (and the incorrect statement wasn't in the version of the article in 2022 before your revisions), but if you're saying it was a good edit of Vlaemink's accidentally swept up in the undo, fine, glad we agree. B) Okay, so your sources are right and Vlaemink's are wrong on etymologies. Put a pin in this. C) You clearly aren't understanding The Problems in what I wrote on the IP's Musk question. C1) How would you react if someone on a talk page asks what is in your view a simple and easily answered question in the future? The same way or different? Why? C2) I agree that the Forbes article is the real source. I was saying you only should have linked that before. Instead you linked obvious chatbot splurge as "proof" as well. This suggests you thought it was real proof. This does not speak well for your discerning judgment in figuring out which sources are reliable and which aren't - do you understand that? Everybody makes mistakes, it's no big deal, I've personally trusted some awful sources in retrospect. But an editor who makes mistakes, refuses to acknowledge them after they're pointed out, and then basically invokes their own judgment on which other sources are reliable (say in case B on etymologies) as unquestionable is treading on thin ice. (SnowFire, interjection by Vlaemink)

@SnowFire: I hope you don't mind me placing this small comment in between your comment, but the sources I've provided on etymology A are valid, reliable, and cited in full on the talk page. Also, Aearthrise is trying his utmost to frame this as ″my theory″, but I've provided sources on both etymologies and have no personal preference; my POV is that both should be mentioned as they both appear in the scholarly field.Vlaemink (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) (SnowFire again:)

That was meant only as a summary of Aearthrise's argument that I'd loop back to (hence the "put a pin in it"). I'm not saying he's actually right about everything and you're wrong about everything. SnowFire (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, I misunderstood. English is not my native language and I think I got my idioms mixed up.Vlaemink (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You claim i'm trying to frame this as your theory, but show no proof of it. The point of contention, and we've repeated this several times, is the consensus around the origin of the word "Dutch" in English. The other theory has been debunked by experts of the topic, and the debunking is based on a plethora of hard evidence.

You haven't tried to revise your work as of yet, and you still want to present them as equal arguments. Wikipedia is based on what you can prove, and you can prove that some people mention it as the etymology of Dutch in English, but it has no evidence behind it beyond anecdote.

Oxford for example lays the term out perfectly "from Middle Dutch dutsch ‘Dutch, Netherlandish, German’: the English word originally denoted speakers of both High and Low German, but became more specific after the United Provinces adopted the Low German of Holland as the national language on independence in 1579.". Oxford on the same page explicitly mentions the Pennsylvania Dutch as an example that falls under the historic use: The German language, in any of its forms. Obsolete except in High Dutch n. A.1a; Low Dutch — Pennsylvania Dutch, a degraded form of High German (originally from the Rhine Palatinate and Switzerland) spoken by the descendants of the original German settlers in Pennsylvania. Aearthrise (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point I think there can only be two options: either you never understood what is being discussed to begin with or you did but are now purposely creating a smoke screen: nobody is contesting that the word ″Dutch″ at one point had an older, broader meaning in English which, in today's terms, could also include Germans. I wouldn't be able to name a single professional etymological or historical linguistic publication that has ever disputed that. That's not what being discussed here: the issue is not whether ″Dutch″ had additional meanings in the past, but why the ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ are called ″Dutch″ — and that question has at least two possible answers. Yoder in his 1980 article assumes ″Dutch″ is a relic of an earlier meaning surviving in American English, another explanation found in reliable sources is that its an Anglicization of ″deitsch″ or ″deutsch″. That's two theories, both of which should be mentioned in the article. The fact that (etymological) dictionaries prove that ″Dutch″ had a more diverse meaning the past does not mean they validate or prove Yoders hypothesis, it merely means Yoder used a historical dictionary as part of his explanation. Your quote from an 1897 Oxford Etymological dictionary entry (which also defines Pennsylvania Dutch as ″degraded German″) is in the same ballpark: it supports Yoder, but this has no relevance on the fact that other scholars hold a different view and that this view should be included per WP:NPOV. Louder already explicitly mentioned the popularity of the alternative among scholars, proving its relevance and further casting doubt on your continually repeated claim that a ″total consensus″ exists on the matter. Vlaemink (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

First, this Oxford post is from the online dictionary, which they've updated with all of the information they've collected, so you're claim that it's just an 1897 quote is unsubstantiated here. You say "Louder already explicitly mentioned the popularity of the alternative among scholars, proving its relevance". Dr. Louden like Dr.Yoder explicitly states that this idea is incorrect, and he provides reasoning why, the same that I have presented to you over the past few days.

Dr.Louden says: "Contrary to a widespread belief among both nonscholars and scholars, though, the Dutch in Pennsylvania Dutch is not a historical mistranslation of the native word Deitsch...", and Dr. Yoder was quoted: Dr. Don Yoder, father of American Folklife Studies, and co-founder of the Kutztown Folk Festival, tackled this question in 1950 for previous generations: “When they stepped off the boat at Philadelphia, they were called by the English-speaking people ‘Dutch’ and ‘Dutchmen.’ This term was not, as you often erroneously hear, invented in America as a mispronunciation of the German word ‘Deutsch’ which means ‘German.’ No, ‘Dutch’ was in 1750 already an ancient and well-established term. It has been traced by the Oxford English Dictionary as far back as the late Middle Ages.”

Online beyond Oxford, the University of Wisconsin-Madison clearly shows Although scholars and some language advocates prefer the term “Pennsylvania German,” the use of “Dutch” here does not reflect a (mis)translation of “Deutsch” or “Deitsch.” The English word “Dutch” was used in earlier times to describe people of both German and Netherlandic origins.... I can produce so many more quotes and evidence, so many already being on the article's talk page.

You're still trying to push the definition not based on any hard evidence to be equal to one that does. Your thought process is like using a paper tiger. You can't prove it isn't a tiger by looking at it, but it doesn't hold the weight of a true tiger.

This is the whole point of contention, which your unwillingness to compromise has lead you to create several RFC requests, and being impatient, skipped over them to make this call to administrators because you're not getting your way. Aearthrise (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Louden does not provide any reasoning why the alternative is incorrect, he defers to Yoder as anyone looking up the source can see for her or himself. If you take a close look at the online Oxford Etymological Dictionary (which is an active project, not a finished dictionary) you'll find (in the top left corner a disclaimer stating whether an entry has been revised since 1897 or (as in this case) not. Vlaemink (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Louden does provide reasoning why the alternative is incorrect. The expanded quote, from his book "Pennsylvania Dutch: The Story of an American Language" reads "Contrary to a widespread belief among both nonscholars and scholars, though, the Dutch in Pennsylvania Dutch is not a historical mistranslation of the native word Deitsch, as earlier pointed out by Don Yoder. Although the words Deitsch and Dutch do share a common Germanic etymology, both German and Dutch were used in earlier American English to mean 'German.' The two synonyms differed in terms of formality. The word German, which was borrowed from Latin, traditionally had a neutral or formal connotation, while Dutch was used in more familiar and informal ("folksier") contexts." Aearthrise (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No he doesn't, as can be clearly accessed from both the quote above and the source itself. He expands on why he thinks Yoder is correct, he doesn't address why the Anglicization hypothesis is wrong, unlikely and/or impossible anywhere in his book. Vlaemink (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• On Fraktur, I'm sorry, but unless the passage is specifically on fonts or art, it isn't how things are done on Wikipedia, and the other editors were correct. We don't have Kulturkampf in Fraktur despite it being the contemporary font in 1870s Germany. Maybe we need an explicit passage in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting forbidding this but I think this just has never come up before. On the very long Miller quote, it's very, very common chest-thumping that thanks to its language only gets seen by its intended community. You could find near-identical statements in Norwegian in 1903 Minnesota, or in Yiddish in 1903 New York, or in Guarani in 1903 Paraguay, talking about how wonderful a local group is and how people look down on them but they're totally wrong and we're actually awesome. It's all standard cheerleading written a million times before, not just the wild claim on agriculture. But this is more a vanilla content dispute. Suffice to say you haven't made the case that this is really a worthy quote to include both the translation AND the original text.
• Your final comment on demanding "proof" ownership is occurring is very strange. What do you think the purpose of this AN thread is? SnowFire (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that German nationalism was a just swept comment, and if it needs to be corrected, it should be. The focus of the reversion wasn't about when German nationalism took place.

  As for the quotes I added, I simply added four extra web pages (in total 5 with the Forbes quote already present on the article, and the next four web pages after it) to demonstrate that it was easy to make a Google Search to find the information.

  On the Fraktur point, the literary Fraktur Pennsylvania Dutch should be given consideration due to its history and unique circumstances, and should be treated in the same way other languages are uniquely written for their circumstances (I mentioned Yiddish and Coptic Greek for example). Nevertheless, the whole paragraph on prejudice against the Pennsylvania Dutch is unnecessary on the article and can be removed; the removal of content so far has been about how the language information was presented.

  As for the final point, I asked for proof of ownership, because the only points Vlaemink provided are my passion for the quality of the article, how much of the article i've contributed, and who I am as a person. Aearthrise (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  For your Musk quotes: AN is a little tense for a "learning experience", but you still don't seem to be engaging with the problem here. It doesn't have to be a big deal, exactly, but you seem to think that more quotes is better and the other person was very lazy (your words, not mine) for asking the question. Did you read what I wrote above that "you made your case seem worse by linking some truly awful sources like random websites"? If someone asks what the capital of Illinois is and you link a terrible AI-generated source, it makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about, even if the source is accurate. If you couldn't be bothered to critically examine the websites at all and were literally just pasting Google links, maybe don't do that? To back up a little here, your enthusiasm in researching the Pennsylvania Dutch article is a good thing. But learning what sources are reliable and what aren't is a key Wikipedia skill - one that frankly most of the world is bad at (most people believe memes shared on Facebook uncritically). Please click on your own links. Discarding sites like that are the basics of learning how to source. If you agree that those non-Forbes sites weren't useful, then great, we can move on to tougher questions like when to trust old sources from 1878 or whatever. But if you still don't see the problem, then nobody is going to believe on your judgment anywhere else.

  On that note, you didn't answer my C1 question above. If someone asks an in-your-view "easy" question in the future, how would you respond?

  It's moot, but for future reference, you will want to distinguish fonts and language scripts. Yiddish and Coptic are written in non-Latin scripts. Pennsylvania Dutch, like German and English, is written in the Latin script, of which Fraktur is one font. Varying up the script to match a language is fine; varying up fonts within a script is very unusual and not done just because it would have been contemporary without a very good reason.

  On ownership: I think Vlaemink has made his case. I think you have two ways you can defend yourself: A) Actually, everyone else IS really wrong, and you were just performing good stewardship by stopping these wrong editors. But given some of errors so far in your preferred versions, you're not making this approach the easy one. B) You commit to accepting feedback and not reverting and working with others. If you commit to B, and then actually follow through, that'll actually be the happy case - but you have to understand that you will sometimes "lose" and other editors will put in the "wrong" stuff and you'll need to develop a consensus on the talk page otherwise, politely, and without bludgeoning. Are one of these doable? SnowFire (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding: Since the first post on the Administrators noticeboard, it has come to light that a very large amount of the references and sources added to Pennsylvania Dutch, almost exclusively by Aearthrise and within the past two years, have very serious issues. It appears many of these references are in fact personal, family or travel websites, self-published (family history/genealogical) books and a very large number of hopelessly outdated publications all over a 100 or even 150, years old, some of them containing false dates of publication which made them appear much more recent than they really were. Some references were simply copy-pasted from other Wikipedias without even changing the language in the citation. This is only based on the first 50 references given out of a total of 130, and it is very probable that the other 80 references will yield similar results. The Pennsylvania Dutch article seems to be in a truly terrible state and will need much improvement. Vlaemink (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Vlaemink, you claim that there are very serious issues, but show very little to make the claim about severity; your whole argument is about time period and a nitpick of a six sources, but don't point out any flaws of the information they corroborate.

Dealing with the topic of Pennsylvania Dutch, Pennnsylvania Germans, the height of information about this culture was written between before the American Revolution and World War 2, with the period between World War 1 and World War 2 being heavily obscured and marginalized.

I've spent a lot of time researching this topic to bring light to facets of this culture, corroborated by many different sources, because prior to my additions, there was almost no history mentioned, only information on the Amish.

If you see something that you find questionable, then bring it up, and it can be discussed, but without better evidence you're just inventing claims about "very serious issues" based around only 6/130 sources you claim are questionable and fifteen sources from dates before World War 2. I have made a response to your claim on the discussion page.

This addition is still part of your tactic of character assassination to win your argument on the discussion page, this whole post being because I reverted your deletion of my arguments, which you deleted three times; trying to silence me, you threatened to complain to administration only because I restored my arguments. Aearthrise (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Aearthrise, please try to keep consecutive edits down to two or three, by using the "show preview" button. It's hard enough to read all of these walls of text without watchlists being flooded too. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's time for you (Aearthrise) to stop doubling down, to stop pretending to be a victim, to stop twisting words and to stop defending what cannot be defended and to get back to reality.

At no point, did I ever threaten you. I asked you to stop making significant changes to your comments well after they'd been responded to and after asking multiple times I told you I would seek assistance from the admins if you continued [61], which you did without any hesitation — so I did what I explicitly told you before.

You also cannot bluff your way out of the serious sourcing issues described above: I've very clearly stated that of the 130 sources in the article, I've only been able to take a look at the first 50. Discounting sources used multiple times, effectively half of these references were unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards with regard to valid and reliable sources. You're now actively trying to misrepresent the facts by speaking of ″fifteen sources published before World War II″ — which is absurd and extremely misleading, given the fact that these invalid sources include material published over a decade before the start of the American Civil War and leaves out untrustworthy (personal) websites, self-published books, falsified publication dates and copy-pasted references from other Wikipedias!

This is not the first time your sources have been questioned and found to be totally unsuitable for a serious and reliable encyclopedic article. Take for example your 240 word by Daniel Miller from 1903 — for which you still, despite unanimous pushback from all users involved so far, refused to accept that the Fraktur font is unwanted — which was shown to be both outdated and incredibly biased; or in the words of @SnowFire: ″the good professor was deluded″.

You need to take a critical introspective look at both your attitude towards sources and other editors. You constantly talk about ″winning″ arguments, unilaterally declare that others ″have failed to convince you″ and are downright rude towards others. The sources you spam every time you are questioned look AI-generated and often have little or nothing to do with the issues being discussed. You say that prior to your additions, there was almost no history mentioned? I'm here to tell you that barely any history is to be preferred over an extensive history section with flawed, biased and hopelessly outdated information.

There are a great many recent and reliable academic sources on just about every aspect of Pennsylvania Dutch culture, past and present, and these can be found and used by just about any editor. The proposition that you had to use thoroughly antiquated material because nothing of note has been published since 1945 is simply not true and frankly ridiculous. Vlaemink (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You're bouncing around between discussions on this page and the article's page, and this is just another character attack. You're copying this argument from the article's talk page under Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch#Very serious problems with the reliability and validity of the sources used. There, I pointed out a lot of the problems with the routes you're taking to get your way; you don't use evidence, and make statements based on nothing but your word. Aearthrise (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable Sources is extremely clear on what constitutes a reliable source and with whom the burden of proof rests and I'm not going to debate these community standards with you. You are not in any position to make any demands: you've added a huge amount of unreliable, questionable and/or outdated sources, in several cases even falsifying their dates of publication or misquoting the source material, and it is highly likely that most if not all will be removed from this article within the next couple of weeks because of this. The quality standards apply to all and to all equally. Vlaemink (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You made a claim on that page of what is "unreliable", and you didn't back up your claims. I addressed your claims, but you ignore them and show that you would rather make a character attack than directly argue with evidence and well-reasoned arguments. Aearthrise (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Holy wall of text, Batman! Gents. Please endeavor to be more concise. @Vlaemink:, please point out 2-3 sentences and the associated sources you believe to be incorrect, incomplete, misleading, or inappropriate. @Aearthrise: I understand your frustration and find comments here to be less-than-collegial. Let him present his evidence and then we can address them. Buffs (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wouldn't normally try to backseat a report, but since Vlaemink isn't very experienced with AN and also said English is not their first language, I'll just note that Vlaemink's original post did include lots of diffs showing uncollegial behavior from Aearthrise, since collapsed after told it was way too long. (Then they spent a bunch of time holding their content dispute here anyway...). While since then there's been uncollegial behavior on both sides, the accusation is OWN, and an even casual inspection of the talk page & page history shows that Aearthrise has indeed been defending their "turf", at least in the past (although did say a few good things above on easing off some matters). However they seem to have backed off the article at the moment and are letting Vlaemink make some changes, so maybe the problem is moot? SnowFire (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

    You're saying "defending their turf" and "backed off on the article", like that was the point of the arguments I had with Vlaemink. This is a complete mischaraterization on your side.

    This whole discussion was about Vlaemink adding content that was untrue (writing High Dutch was a calque invented by Americans of Hochdeutsch, which is false and didn't have any sources), and making an argument had a little weight beyond anecdote equal to one that there is consensus and is backed by an abundance of hard evidence.

    I reverted his edits because he refused to revise them after being addressed why his addition was misleading. Now Vlaemink is trying many different ways to make his earlier work seem legitimate, but it's not true. His newer edits having nothing to do with that argument, so bringing them up here and stating how I'm allowing them is not needed to be said, because it's completely irrelevant. Aearthrise (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

    This is why I asked him for clearer evidence. I'm not suggesting anyone here is as pure as the driven snow...I mean MAYBE fire ON snow might be ok...I'll have to see the diffs. :-) Buffs (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Outside observer's summary of the WoT and best steps forward. Since I suffered through reading some of the above already, might as well chip in as someone who's never edited the Pennsylvania Dutch article. There's two issues here: a content dispute (that ideally isn't resolved at AN, but it's here, so I guess it might as well be acknowledged) and behavior woes.
  • On content: While I can't be sure that Vlaemink's "version" is better, I do think that they are correct that Aearthrise's old version was very... credulous... of old and dated sources, or stuff like genealogy websites. Old sources have their place, but in moderation, and maybe more for a "History of the Pennsylvania Dutch" article when desiring a contemporary report's details. This would normally be No Big Deal, Normal Editing, but Aearthrise initially responded hostiley to attempts to bring in alternate perspectives rather than saying "great, let's expand the sourcing." (And per above, I do not really have confidence in Aearthrise's current ability to pick out what is a good source and what isn't on their own, which is not meant as an insult - this is a fixable problem, just please accept advice with good grace rather than defensiveness). For the record, someone like Aearthrise being willing to dig up old sources like Aearthrise can be a tremendous asset to research on the article, just as long as you work with others to figure out which sources are usable and which aren't, and apply them in WP:DUEWEIGHT. I hope that you two can actually work together in the future.
  • On behavior: Vlaemink's depiction of Aearthrise's behavior as being uncollegial and OWN-y are correct per the diffs in his original report. Simply peruse Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch, or Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch#Family_of_Elon_Musk? for one obvious example to an IP address - Aearthrise tends to paste some text that supports his position and assumes that denying the printed word is obviously perverse, as if there was one established truth and people don't disagree. Before, he also "defended" his version of the article with salty reverts rather than working collegially toward a better article or as a compromise. (Which would be one thing if Aearthrise was clearly "right" and Vlaemink was a passing crank, but see above on content, I don't believe that was accurate.).
  • Suggestion: If Aearthrise is satisfied that they can do better and is willing to commit to working collegially forward, and understands that not every random old source they find is necessarily that usable for Wikipedia, there's nothing that needs to be done other than perhaps a warning. If Aearthrise plans on just restarting the edit war, and plans on snidely replying to newbie questions while being wrong himself, then a page ban from Pennsylvania Dutch & Pennsylvania Dutch language may be in order. But I'm hoping that isn't necessary. SnowFire (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the SnowFire's assessment and also support his suggestions (a warning now, a page ban if the previous MO is continued) concerning the use of sources and incivility displayed.Vlaemink (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

SnowFire, you've said your piece four times already and repeating it doesn't make a more compelling argument. You first tried to make a "gotcha" with my sources by making a whole argument around Elon Musk (I simply added the first five sources that corroborated the same point, to show how easy and quickly the evidence could have been found through a Google search) and you nitpicked one while ignoring the others, and presenting it here like the whole post was wrong saying "given Musk's reality distortion field, it wouldn't shock me if it was at least possible that someone just made it up in the past, so there is an interesting question here". I pointed out the other sources, and you back pedaled.

You tried making a completely different tangent about the page by starting an argument about German nationalism, and I pointed out that it had nothing to do with the reversion of Vlaemink's edit.

You say I tend "to paste some text that supports my position"; that's called providing evidence, which is how you prove arguments. Again, those weren't "salty reverts," they were made to stop misleading information from being added. The lack of cooperation is not from my side; if Vlaemink wanted, he could have made well-reasoned arguments and discussed the evidence. Instead, he is going this route of character attack and avoiding addressing points that I made against his argument rather than directly supporting his position. Aearthrise (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid the wall of text, but for the record: this was never a "gotcha", Aearthrise. It was a sign of a problem and a genuine attempt to get you to understand that A) Your petty reply to that IP address isn't how we do things on Wikipedia, and B) How to improve in the future. You can choose to take that advice or not. SnowFire (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand your sentiments, but I felt I needed to defend against mischaracterization. The crux of this argument, is that it's important to maintain civility, and I agree. I got frustrated with the situation with Vlaemink, and I took it out on the IP address, and that was wrong.

Wikipedia should be a place of civility, and one without character attacks. If we can maintain peace, then the experience on the site is more congenial, especially for cooperation. Aearthrise (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I support SnowFire's assessment of the situation and this response only serves to show Aearthrise's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. It is quickly getting to being beyond the point that a warning would be sufficient. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The response was just a defense of some the claims that SnowFire made in his assessment. But beyond that, I agree with the background sentiment. This whole muddy post is the result of bringing an ego into the editing process, and clearly chaos is the result. I don't want chaos, I want peace and harmony, and I want the best articles available, like any good Wikipedian.

On a side note, Vlaemink has made the revision that I asked for initially, so that point is out the way; this the fruit of cooperation. Aearthrise (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems I spoke too soon I spoke too soon about Vlaemink's revision. Aearthrise (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Both Vlaemink and Aearthrise have posted far too much here, and Aearthrise seems to have ignored my previous post. Please stop posting and let independent editors decide things. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I see your post Phil Bridger; I understand your point of keeping consecutive edits down to two or three, and I understand that it's to help editors read the history of this thread.

I have made a habit of continuously editing my words for small phrases and grammar mistakes, and I forgot it when writing my response to Vlaemink's most recent charge. I thank you for reminding me, and I ensure it won't happen again. Aearthrise (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am making one more short comment here so that this thread isn't archived without action. Vlaemink was not very concise in raising the problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't a real problem, IMO. I've posted my own tl;dr analysis above and would encourage at least some admin to wade through the mud to provide some semblance of a way forward for these feuding editors, even the "bad" kind of a-curse-on-both-your-houses. SnowFire (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you SnowFire; I don't want to be cursed, and I don't want Vlaemink to be cursed either: we've had a discussion with very heavy emotions, and lot of mudslinging- the only result of that kind of behavior being a big mess.

  A good Wikipedian should be able to edit without bringing in such strong emotion; in my final words, this whole experience has been a lesson on why it's important to manage frustration and anger. Aearthrise (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Potential Canvassing on Talk Page for San Bernardino County, California

A Twitter user has posted [62] about Talk:San Bernardino County, California#Election results gone. and seems to have a lot of people saying they are going to participate in the discussion. Just wanted to give a heads up. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion was held, piling on was ocuring. Nothing more to be gained by the debate so I've collapsed it. Lets all move on as any other issues that need discussing should be done separately to that debate. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Block review User:Jamiesonandy

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.

---

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

Blocking admin: Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The blocked user is clearly an elderly person who misunderstands what Wikipedia is. It was explained to him at the help desk, and he stopped editing. Ten hours later, Mike indef blocked him. I feel like this is far from the first time I have seen Mike come late to a situation and substitute his own judgement for that of others who already adressed the situation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Egregiously bad block What the hell? Not a single warning on the user's talk page, not a note from the admin prior to jumping to a block, and an indef block at that? For a newbie who seems confused and needs some direction? Have we forgotten WP:BITE and WP:BLOCKP? I daresay I hope Orangemike is able to defend their actions, because I'm not seeing any reason they should be blocked indefinitely for a few questions on the Teahouse and Help Desk (two places designed for people to ask for..wait for it...help!). Not to mention, Orangemike mentions the editor being "belligerent" in the block reason, which I see absolutely zero evidence of, and the rest of their block reason of WP:NOTHERE seems to be a very unsubstantiated position to take. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The belligerency was when he demanded, I asked a question; where is your answer? The guy was just not getting it, was using both the Teahouse and Help Desk as general information sources for UK banking questions, and clearly was not going to accept that this was not the place to seek help on this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

It wasn't just one out of place question. It was several on both the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and it didn't seem like the user was ready to give up asking. RudolfRed (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not a good block. I've taken a look at a number of Orangemike's NOTHERE blocks (I didn't look at others), and there were a number of very bad blocks:

• Special:Contributions/Studio_Atinati, one-edit no warning block
• Special:Contributions/Caroline.j.ashleyy, another one-edit no warning block
• Special:Contributions/Mrpoopbenji, user who stopped editing after warning, blocked more than a day later
• Special:Contributions/Wilburthewigga, no warnings whatsoever; this is not a good deletion either

Nearly half of the blocks I looked at were like this. Orangemike really needs to stop doing these no-to-little-warning blocks. —Ingenuity (t • c) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If my colleagues really feel that I'm being quick on the trigger, I will accept your collective judgement and take my trouting like a mensch; but I genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project in the way that somebody like Sideways [nee Beeble] does every day. Two spamming accounts with spammy usernames, one poop joke, one racial epithet username, and our confused British gentleman who thinks we can put him in contact with a bank account dead for over half a century...... --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into any of your blocks and so have no opinion whether or not you have acted appropriately, but I would say that the fact that you genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project does not override Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy on blocking. The intention behind Wikipedia was to create an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Policies which temporarily (even indefinite blocks shouldn't be considered permanent) remove an individual's ability to contribute to the project exist only to limit damage and disruption to the project and should generally be considered a last resort, not the first tool you pull out. I am not and have never been an administrator on this or any other Wikimedia project, but I have been an administrator or bureaucrat on multiple MediaWiki installations through my work and can tell you from experience that biting the newcomers in such a way may temporarily put a stop to vandalism or disruption but long-term only harms the project. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these 4 blocks make any sense, and while I think Mike's explanations are genuine, this is a base breach of the blocking policy, and at least a couple of those user's blocks are concerning. The first, for User:Studio Atinati, based on the contributions looks like they need to be redirected to a different language content project (Google tells me it's Georgian?). The second user, User:Caroline.j.ashleyy, just needs an extra dose of the introduction to Wikipedia, not a block for heaven's sake. The third user, User:Mrpoopbenji, based on their contributions just seems like they need some help getting started, something the Growth Tools like mentorship are supposed to help with. Finally, the fourth user, User:Wilburthewigga, is the only one I'll say should probably be blocked, but not for WP:NOTHERE. If anything they should have been blocked for a UPOL violation, but not for their contributions or whether they are HERE or not. To be quite honest though, their edits are just to their user page then a question to their mentor. Of those edits to their userpage, they didn't seem to have any malicious intent either. In addition, they appear to have responded to the block notice, stating they would learn from it, which isn't typically a trait associated with blocks for WP:NOTHERE. On just a closing note as well, the deletion, unless something else had been added that was horridly obscene other than the page creation with "Woo!", I would say that's a violation of WP:DELTALK and the deletion policy in general. Based on the API result here, there doesn't appear to be any other edits to the page, though. Just out of curiosity, Ingenuity, would you (or of course any other administrator) be able to confirm if there's still a deleted revision on User talk:Wilburthewigga? If there is, I wonder if it would be possible to restore that revision, as it doesn't appear to be a proper use of the deletion tool. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I remember encountering Mrpoopbenji (talk · contribs) through WP:UAA, and discovered that all of their edits were created by a large language model. Ther sandbox was deleted for this reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone with a username that's slang for "white nigger" needs only a swift kick in the ass out the door. I'd have blocked on sight as well. As to the others: one is an obvious username violation, with another the text being in Georgian is the least of the problems given it was an obvious attempt to hijack an article with blatant spam about an entirely unrelated subject, and the last was as flagrant a case of noble cause syndrome as it gets. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Just wanted to point out that the blocked editor did not stop editing once it was pointed out (not only on May 14th, which they may have not seen, but also on Jun 14th at 18:34, again at 18:34, at 18:35, and at at 18:44) that wikipedia, including the Help desk and Teahouse, was not an appropriate place for their query. Rather, 20 minutes after that last response, the editor reposted the question asking for legal/financial advice on the userpage. Secondly, while the editor said that they had "contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years" at least this account seemed to be dedicated to a single purpose that was not that of building an encyclopedia. Finally, as Girth Summit eloquently explained on this page a short while back, albeit in a different context, one motivation for applying an indef block is to get assurance from the blocked editor that the problematic behavior will not be repeated.

Hence, while I understand that the Jamiesonandy block was still a judgement call, and that it is natural to feel sympathy for a senior citizen in distress, I can also see Orangemike's thinking in applying the NOTHERE block. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've noticed for years that Orangemike is quick to block, often without any talk page warnings but I generally have trusted their judgment. I'd ask them to ease up on the trigger finger and try communicating with an editor before laying down the ban hammer first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in my view, a NOTHERE indef block is admissible (although not necessary) if none of the user's edits indicate an ability or intent to improve our articles. This seems to be the case here. It's then up to the user to convince us, in an unblock request, that they are indeed able and willing to edit constructively. Sandstein 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick show of hands: y'all do realize that the "reason" you fill in at Special:Block isn't just for the entry in the block log, but is shown to the user every time they try to edit, yes? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• The thing here for me is that the Teahouse and the Help Desk are exactly where we want users to go when they are lost or confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone is defending this users actual edits, but he hadn't posted anything in many hours and the situation seemed to have settled itself when Mike just indef blocked out of nowhere. Mike, like myself, has contributed for many years at WP:UAA Personally, I don't even think most of the thousands of accounts I've blocked at UAA were here in bad faith, they, like this person, just didn't get it and tried to use Wikipedia in ways it isn't intended to be used. So, they use an WP:ORGNAME and write upa draft article on said organization, and the usual response is that we delete the draft and soft block the user, explicitly allowing them to just start a new account and try to edit within the rules. Looking at some of Mike's blocks, he treats "being lost and confused on help forums" the same way most admins treat "actively disrupting article space." I just don't think being clueless in WP space is what NOTHERE hard indef blocks are for, it is for people who come here to push the content to suit their own needs, not for people who ask deeply misguided questions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd add that if you look at the language at WP:NOTHERE there's a lot of wording like "long-term history...Extreme lack of interest in working constructively...Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity..." and so on. It doesn't say anything aboout "asks clueless questions at help forums, because help forums are there, at least in part, to help clueless users get some clue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I get that in general, but this particular account was going well beyond that. I count 4 separate instances of being told, in various ways, that Wikipedia is not a forum for handling personal bank squabbles that date back to something from 1950s British probate court (!); to respond to said warnings with this tells me that, in a very literal sense, this user was not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm American and even I could point out that a solicitor, not an online community devoted to building an encyclopedia, would be who to ask these questions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've brought this back from the archive because this is still relevant. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Should've let it stay archived. I get the sense of injustice, but I don't see anything useful this user can contribute to the encyclopedia. And that's the benchmark - the project is what's important. I'm not going to undo the block, myself, and I'm not sure any other admin would, either. This isn't an endorsement of the block, I probably wouldn't have made it myself, but I can't see how unblocking makes the project better.--v/r - TP 14:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think we all agree here that although Orangemike is too quick to block users, all of the blocks in question except Wilburthewigga were sound. It is evident that all of the users except Mrpoopbenji and Wilburthewigga were WP:NOTHERE, and Mrpoopbenji was a good block because they misused a large language model.

  As for Wilburthewigga, they were unambiguously asking for help because they were new to the project, and the deletions of the userpage and user talk were clearly wrong, but they should have been soft-blocked for an offensive username (the word wigga). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  The closest analog I could think of is a racist username [partial redaction] from 2012, who received the soft usernameblock notice because despite the offensive username, none of their edits were obviously unconstructive (though they were preemptively reverted by The Mark of the Beast (talk · contribs)). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Or you could have just held that thought in your head and not reposted racist hate speech here. That would be fine, too. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCENSORED, you might not like it but Wikipedia is not censored and sometimes we have to discuss unpleasant speech in order to effectively maintain the project. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  This sort of abstract defense is incredibly stupid: if you think the inclusion here can be defended on its own merits (I am skeptical but it seems like a minor point) then do so, otherwise why are you wasting the time of everyone who reads your comment? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  When we have to put up with people making unpleasant, unhelpful comments like yours (incredibly stupid and wasting the time of everyone who reads your comment specifically were unnecessary) in all corners of the encyclopedia, I think it's perfectly acceptable to use a blocked username as an example of how an editor thinks blocks of problematic usernames could or should be done. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 16:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the example is a fine example; and anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would come up with ways that use it effectively as an example without needing to include the actual offensive username here. What is unpleasant and unhelpful is dropping of WP:NOTCENSORED without any evidence of having thought about how it applies to the situation under consideration. (Both the policy and the guideline WP:Offensive material recommended by it are thoughtful and are very clear about the context-dependent nature of their application.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Orangemike:, you say you'll "take the trout like a mensch" if the community disagrees, so while I don't think there's agreement among commenters on all 5 of the blocks discussed here, there does seem to be an agreement that your blocks, in general, are a little too quick. So if you could dial it back, like, 10-15%, I think some of us will be satisfied, and others will at least be happier. In this particular case, I think the block was good if we're confident this is a troll of some kind, and too aggressive if we think it really is a semi-confused person. It seems too quick to just assume the former. Do you mind if I unblock, as a gesture more than anything else (there's a 90% chance it's too late anyway), and as a way to shut down this zombie thread? I'll keep an eye on their talk page and edits. It would make me feel better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • User:Jamiesonandy was totally astray, like an angry ratespayer demanding a VAT refund from a Beefeater at the Tower; but I certainly wouldn't object to an unblock, especially if you attempt to get clear to the guy that he's not just in the wrong pew or the wrong queue, but in the wrong universe. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

    Great, thanks, I've done so. We'll see what happens. By commenting and then unblocking here, I probably shouldn't close this thread myself, but IMHO it's ripe for closure. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (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 creating a redirect

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 hit a title blacklist trying to create Muñoa’s Pampas cat as "REDIRECT [[Pampas cat#Taxonomy]] {{R to section}}". I can't figure out why it is blacklisted, there is nothing in the deletion log. If there is no significant issue, perhaps the redirect could be created, or the blacklist could be removed to allow for a WP:REDLINK page creation prompt? (Seems a viable topic.) Best, CMD (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It's because because the title has ’ instead of '. The contents of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-curly-quote should have been shown to you, explaining this, when you tried to create it; did it not? —Cryptic 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It does not. Here is the text I see when I click that red link:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Muñoa’s Pampas cat in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
This page is on the title blacklist, so only administrators, template editors, and page movers can create it.
Search for "Muñoa’s Pampas cat" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.
Other reasons this message may be displayed:
If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function.
Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?

I was also getting the same message with Muñoa's Pampas cat, but I refreshed that a couple of times and managed to get it to work. CMD (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you perchance editing on mobile? It works properly for me while logged out (at Draft:Muñoa’s Pampas cat, because as an IP I can't create in mainspace anyway) on desktop, but mobile view seems to throw away the blacklist custom message. —Cryptic 05:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Afraid not, windows 11. Checking both the original redlink and that draft redlink in an incognito window on Chrome, as well as unlogged-in instances of Firefox and Edge yield the same text I'm afraid. CMD (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I click on that red link and get this message in pink:

• "Warning: This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist:

.*’.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-curly-quote> # right single quotation mark with custom error message"

So, does that mean that an admin or page mover can create this page? As an admin, I've never been allowed to override a blacklisted title or weblink (which can happen when fixing old archive talk pages) so I was suprised to see this message implying that we could. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User access levels#tboverride says that the right to override the title blacklist is granted to admins and bureaucrats and additionally to template editors, page movers and interface editors. Looking at your last edit filter log, you do indeed have that right. Per this old AN comment you get that warning because you have the override right.

Perhaps one of you user scripts changes the default behaviour? – 2804:F1...35:42BC (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I've opened this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Not getting the curly apostrophe message at page creation as it is apparently more technical than administrative. Thanks all, CMD (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2024 (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.

SilverLocust appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome SilverLocust (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § SilverLocust appointed trainee clerk

Birdienest81

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

---

I don't know if this is the good place to notice this and if I'm allowed to do it, but I just want to notice something. I was involved in an edit war with Birdienest81 about keeping and removing WP:red links. The red links were at the 96th Academy Awards page untill Birdienest81 reomved them from 07:30, 26 June 2024. We received a justified warning by Cinemaniac86 on 21:33, 26 June 2024 and an ongoing discussion started at Talk:96th Academy Awards. The warning included 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. However after the warning, and taking part in the discussion the user continued removing the red links here for example and within his edit also here. While it seems like an experienced editor, I think it doesn't allow the user to own the control of the page. 46.44.158.42 (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that is being discussed on the article Talk page. Nor has Birdienest81 violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The user ingnores the warning at the users talk page and continued with the edit war. Apart from that I think the user violated the WP:3RR.

26 June (7:30) - The user reverted for the first time a previous edit where the red links were added, as part of this edit

26 June (17:03) User reverted the edit

26 June (17:04) User reverted the edit

(The user was warned on 26 June (21:33) including “Do not edit war even if you believe you are right…. …If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.”)

26 June (23:12) user reverted the edit

26 June 23:16 - user reverted the edit. 46.44.158.42 (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2024 (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.

Unexplained decline of CSD on several TimedText pages

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 nominated several TimedText pages for speedy deletion per G8 because they were associated with deleted files, but all but one were declined by the same user without any explanation. The admin who declined, Liz (talk · contribs · logs), didn't respond when I asked on their talk page.

• TimedText:Heaven circa 2016.ogg.en.srt
• TimedText:Pe-al nostru steag e scris Unire.ogg.ro.srt
• TimedText:Pambansang Martsa ng PDP–Laban.ogg.tl.srt
• TimedText:My Favourite Mistake (Sheryl Crow song - sample).ogg.en.srt
• TimedText:Avicii - Wake Me Up.ogg.en.srt
• TimedText:Avicii - Wake Me Up.ogg.vi.srt
• TimedText:Test.mp3.en.srt (also per G2)
• TimedText:Cass Elliot - Dream a Little Dream of Me.ogg.en.srt
• TimedText:Pambansang Martsa ng PDP-Laban.ogg.tl.srt

They also declined an attempted CSD on TimedText:File:Title_(Meghan_Trainor_song_-_sample).ogg.en.srt per R3 and G6, after I moved that TimedText page to the correct location. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

These aren't the typical pages we see tagged for CSD G8 which are orphaned talk pages. I haven't encountered many "Timed Text" pages except for some vandals who create Timed Text talk pages which are deleted as CSD G8. I'm sorry that I haven't been prompt in responding to User talk page messages lately but for the past two months I've been taking care of a relative on hospice care who died over the weekend and honestly, sometimes the last thing I want to do when I come to Wikipedia is respond to talk page complaints. That's my failing, I'll admit, I need to improve. I'm sorry that you felt the need to come to a noticeboard about this, if I had responded in a timely manner, I probably would have suggested that you retag them and I'd let another admin who is more familiar with Timed Text pages deal with them. They are not a namespace we encounter much patrolling CSD categories so I probably should have just left them for someone else to deal with instead of untagging them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleted all of them. Take care of yourself, Liz. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

All the best, Liz. Sorry to hear that. El_C 09:15, 27 June 2024 (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.

Remove pv-magazine from spam-blacklist

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 source has been blacklisted since 2011 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2024#pv-magazine.com. Several requests have been made to allow it but no action has been taken. Could an admin please review the request? Thanks! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems you restored the request from the archive... back into the archive - I don't think that's what you meant to do. – 2804:F1...35:42BC (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's try this... one... more... time... can someone please fix this? MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#pv-magazine.com {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It was added by Hu12 on 31 March 2011 as a result of this complaint. The reasoning was that editors -- possibly socks or someone with COI -- were adding cites. That is, it wasn't about whether the publication was spam, it was whether spammers publicized it in Wikipedia. I've seen (and made) fruitless complaints about similar situations to the blacklist/whitelist folks and believe the proper solution would be to allow only confirmed users to add such cites, though I don't know if that's technically possible. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a long way back. So I think it is safe at this point to remove it and if the problem resumes the spam list is just one click away. The site is a legitimate and reliable source. I guess at the time someone from pv-magazine thought they had a "great idea to grow the site quickly" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also: why was the source/website blacklisted and not simply the individual spammers blocked? I think the wrong tool was used here to fix this (old) issue and we are now stuck with it 20 years later. Time to fix this especially since multiple editors have raised this issue several times already. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

When sock account after sock account is registered to evade attention while spamming links, the right thing to do is to address the root of the problem (the spamming) rather than playing whack-a-mole with socks. PV Magazine's staff shows up from time to time to complain about the blacklisting, so it is reasonable to assume that they are paying attention and would resume linking if they could. MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Should probably continue this at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#pv-magazine.com. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, thanks. Several editors have raised this issue on that page multiple times (definitely unaffiliated with PV magazine) so if @MrOllie could provide links in that discussion it would be helpful. Thanks! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:12, 27 June 2024 (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.

Continuous disruption

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:Malik256 spamming everywhere "Kashmir" with an edit summary "Added links". Nxcrypto Message 03:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

They’ve also created categories with spelling errors, such as Category:Kashmiri Philosphers 173.22.12.194 (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be an exuberant and misdirected new editor. Have you tried explaining WP:REDNOT (with respect to adding categories that don't exist) to them? Chetsford (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I left them a note [63]. Hopefully that helps remedy any misunderstanding on their part. Chetsford (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be remedied. Simple typos are an easy fix. Buffs (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2024 (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.

Spam blocking warning templates

I've just discovered that {{Spamblock}} and {{Uw-spamblock}} are redirects to different templates: the first to {{Uw-soablock}}, for an indefinite block of a spam-only account, and the second to {{Uw-sblock}}, for a temporary block. I'd like to file an RFD, asking that they both be targeted to the same place, but I don't want to mess up everyone who uses one or the other, and as a substitution of a redirect, I can't figure out how to track usage of the redirects. Can anyone help me know if both are used significantly, or if one is used more widely than the other? Nyttend (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no mechanism for tracking substitution, but {{spamblock}} is linked to from Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking, which suggests to me that it may be widely used. Retargeting {{uw-spamblock}} might result in confusion, since, as you point out, it is short for {{uw-sblock}}. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone at WT:UW might be familiar with this sort of issue, since it should apply to non-administrator user warnings as well. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § Spamblock redirects jlwoodwa (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Correction on list

My daughter's age is listed wrong on the following list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Teen_USA_2024 (says 19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_New_Jersey_Teen_USA (on this one it's just listed as TBA) Julia Livolsi Miss New Jersey Teen USA 2024 It should be 18, not 19. Her birthday is February 21, 2006. Thank you. Glnrcker (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There needs to be a reliable source that states her birthday. If it doesn't exist then her birthday and age shouldn't be included in the article. Nemov (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, at the time of your comment, the source in the article was a profile of last year's Miss Teen New Jersey, who is a different person. I have removed that source and added a CN tag, but the article needs further attention from editors who are familiar with the subject matter. I've been trying not to be my usual ornery self, but it's not great that this report sat here for 16 hours before anyone actually looked into it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Glnrcker: What that means is that you need to provide a citation from a reliable published source which mentions her date of birth. Read WP:RS for the Wikipedia definition of what kind of sources are considered reliable. Once a reliable source confirms the information, the articles can be corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what constitutes an RS in this space, but through a few quick searches I found 2 instances reporting 19[64][65] and haven't found one saying otherwise (or any with a specific birthday). CMD (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Her birthday is February 21, 2006, according to her birth announcement in the Glen Rock Gazette, April 7, 2006 Page A7, and apparently she is from Glen Rock. Including her birth announcement, there were five mentions/photos of her in that newspaper. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

new page

i want to create new page for minecolonies but it say you cant Denizprof (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Denizprof. Brand new users are limited in their ability to directly create articles. But you can work on a WP:DRAFT and submit it for review. Please see the template I left on your talk page. If you have any additional questions, I suggest dropping a note at the WP:HELPDESK. It's extremely late where I live, and I am about to go to bed. But you you can also drop me a line on my talk page. Just be aware I may not get to it right away. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Denizprof, you'll want to check out Wikipedia's general notability guideline and guideline for video game notability and make sure Minecolonies warrants an article before putting effort into creating one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

A minecraft mod is unlikely to meet our notability guidelines, sorry. Secretlondon (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Problems on a family article's tp

There is a discussion with an IP on the talk page of the page Du Quesnoy which would need some clarifications by an administrator, as I'm personnaly not sure I'm fully aware of how to interpret certain rules on the english wikipedia, although it seems clear to me that there are several problems on that talk page.
Mostly, it's suggested that I'm libeling living people.
Kontributor 2K (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Undo a move on a page with a title blacklist

I moved Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu to Taumata Hill to be more concise. I didn't believe a reasonable person would oppose the shortening of such a lengthy title to a common name, but it is clear from the talk page (which I should looked at first) that this is controversial.

I cannot move it on my own due to a title blacklist, apologies. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried but failed thanks to weirdness involving long names. Thanks Gadfium for the help. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Well now I think I screwed it up. I had reverted my own move because of the soft hyphens in the title, so now it's at Taumata Hill again. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting removal of perm

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, can my pending changes reviewer permission be removed? I requested it with the intention that I was going to use it, but I hardly ever did and is essentially useless for me at this point. Thank you! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 11:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (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.

why isnt this page move closed? it was opned a month ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza Gsgdd (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason it hasn't been closed is that very few uninvolved editors have the time, ability and inclination to read and understand what people have said in that discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yah - its too big. I think we need another page move with only the top titles from that discussion and ask people only to vote for one of them. what do you think? Gsgdd (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyway we need to close it asap Gsgdd (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

looks like these are the titles suggested

1. Allegations of genocide in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

2. Genocide accusations in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

3. Gaza genocide question

4. Gaza genocide

5. Gaza genocide accusations

6. Accusations of genocide in Gaza by Israel

7. Accusations of genocide in Gaza

8. Gaza genocide accusation

9. Allegations of 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza

10. Allegations of genocide in Gaza (2023–2024)

11. Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza

12. Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war

13. Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war

14. Accusations of genocide by Israel in Gaza

15. Accusations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians

16. Allegations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians Gsgdd (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It will take some time to read and close. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

thanks for closing it Gsgdd (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Subject

The page Casablanca derby is every time vandalized by one person who deletes the table information absolutely need protection Ji Soôo97 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried requesting it here? (non-administrator comment) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You're both edit warring, and now it's locked. Please use the Talk page to establish consensus. Star Mississippi 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

edit on Gaza genocide

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

---

A user with 225 edit is making edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide How is this possible. since its extended protection. User in question is User:Kinsio Gsgdd (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please notify users on their talk page when you discuss them at this noticeboard. Kinsio (talk · contribs) is a declared (and permitted) alternate account of Gawaxay (talk · contribs), so they were manually granted extended-confirmed status. DanCherek (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2024 (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.

Suspected sockpuppet?

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’ve just come across a user, User:Coop443535454, whom I suspect is a sockpuppet. I don’t know if what I suspect is true, however I am saying this could be true because of two very similar sounding users, User:Coop40493 & User:Coop2017. The edit patterns of these users appear to be very similar. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is what WP:SPI is for. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Drmies, I know it's a long time ago, but the Coops belong to you. Beside the Coops, is there a master?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't see anything, but I don't doubt it's them. No point in writing up at SPI. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2024 (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.

Sockpuppet page moves

I just blocked Leithiani as a sock of LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. They performed a bunch of page moves prior to the block, if anyone is looking for a 4th of July /election day project.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There's also Normanhunter2, a confirmed sock who participated in a bunch of AfDs; their votes should be struck.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Resigning rollbacker/PCR

Won't have a use for them anymore. See ya later, space cowboys. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've removed those two permissions from your account as requested. DanCherek (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Archiving AN

It seems like AN is archiving awfully fast so I looked at this page and found instructions for two different bots to archive this noticeboard. One states that discussions are archived after three days but they are obviously being archived sooner than that and they are not being archived manually. Could someone who is knowledgeable about archiving make sure that the instructions are clear and not confusing and only one bot is archiving this page? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the instructions is commented out; I changed the other to seven days. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, BilledMammal. I appreciate you checking on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Admin Misconduct

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 a new user so apologies if this is not the correct way to go about it, but it is an issue that undoubtedly needs attention and with the structure of Wikipedia on mobile it has taken me forever to at least find somewhere suitable enough for this.

Prior to creating an account, I had received a year long IP block by Graham87. This has since been lifted, I do not know how, who did it, or whether how up-in-arms I was about it helped bring that along. But it has given me the ability to do something about it and I will take that ability.

I have been very active on the Queensland Fire Department Wikipedia article recently, undoubtedly providing the most information and putting in the most work to ensure that the article reflected the recent rebranding and complete overhaul/transition from Queensland Fire and Emergency Services to QFD.

Recently, however, I was IP banned by Graham87 for alleged “vandalism”. However I can happily provide sources for my information, they are just information I have found presented in a format that cannot be cited (such as ArcGIS maps). Following this, an unknown IP editor came in and completely destroyed a lot of my hard work, making the article extremely difficult to read and removing the neutrality. They even chucked promotional content in it. This user has not been warned or blocked at all, but I was blocked by a guy half way across the country who has numerous complaints online (search ‘graham87 block’ or ‘graham87 ban’ on google and you will find that half of the USA would be able to back me up at the very least).

I feel that action needs to be taken against this user as he fails to follow the etiquette and guidelines of the website he is an administrator for and silences people editing in good faith while letting people while letting the true “miscreants” as he calls them slip by undetected. It’s not something anyone should stand for and is against the very thing Wikipedia seeks to provide and protect. VollyFiremedic (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We can't look into the details without knowing what the IP is (but you aren't obligated to say, and please be aware that doing so may expose personal information such as your location). However, in general, it is very possible that the IP block you experienced was not targeted at you. IP ranges are usually shared between different people who have the same internet service provider, mobile provider, institution, etc. When we have persistent and long-term vandals (and I know Graham87 deals with a lot of these), we sometimes have to block the entire range knowing that there will be 'collateral damage' to others who share that range with the vandal, but haven't done anything wrong themselves. It's unfortunate but necessary. The way around it is to create an account of your own, as you have done – and not take it personally. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you add material to an article without sourcing it - as you appear to have been doing - it is likely to be removed again. Editors are regularly blocked for persisting to add unsourced text. If your sources are "in a format that cannot be cited", then you need to find alternative sources. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Yeah I've never edited that article and you may well have been affected by one of my rangeblocks. Graham87 (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is probably 2001:8003:EC74:DD00::/64, who made this edit. Graham87 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct that is the IP (and another one as well which for some reason was given to me when I added over 1000 additional words). An IP block itself would not have been as worrying to me if it was not then followed by another guy completely messing up the article and adding a whole bunch of stuff that sounds like an advertisement and also removing a lot of my work which resulted in the article not making any sense at some points. I would love for someone to review that as well while we are here if possible.

As for the citing, I am still very new to Wikipedia and the format leaves a lot to be desired for me so citing does not make sense. I was hopeful that other editors could come along and take part in some teamwork to get citations for what I wrote but perhaps I should not have been so helpful. Regardless, I do not see how lack of citations constitutes vandalism. I’m getting a lot of my information from QFD resources and brigade training and adding it in. I understand the need to cite, but my priority remains giving people access to information on topics I am passionate about. And I feel a warning prior to a year long IP ban would have been much more warranted and stand by what I have said previously. VollyFiremedic (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We try to warn users before blocking them but sometimes it's just not practical, especially for wide rangeblocks that affect hundreds or thousands of innocent users as collateral damage, as this one probably is. I can't find any evidence that the IP you're using has ever been blocked. As for citing, it should be a very high priority, given how often Wikipedia content is copied; it can turn up in rather unexpected places. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Graham87 (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:TUTORIAL may be of help to you. If you want to make WP edits that can "stick", learning how to add refs correctly is essential, I can't stress this enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2024 (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.

More admin misconduct

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

---

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 5: it seems User:OwenX thinks that I am not an administrator "in good standing", and says that my status compares to that of someone with a compromised account. I don't know, maybe the racist and sexist trolls have found dates and jobs, and my talk page can be unprotected. Still, if OwenX had looked they could have seen that there was plenty of interaction between me and that editor in other places. But who knows, maybe OwenX can start a procedure to get me desysopped, and we'll see how that goes. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The title is appropriate. Failure to communicate is indeed admin misconduct per WP:ADMINACCT. By XC-protecting his Talk page, Drmies knowingly and willingly shuts down the primary means of communicating with him for an entire class of editors. This isn't an isolated out-of-process deletion or something we can wash over with IAR and get back to our daily business. It is a effectively a declaration that any editor with fewer than 500 edits under their belt doesn't deserve to have a voice. DRV is an editorial venue, not a disciplinary one, but the kind of dismissive tone expressed by him above is one I'm sure ARBCOM would have something to say about. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are ways to communicate that don't involve going on a user's talk page. You have no right to the time, attention, or talk page space of anyone else, even an admin. Yes, failure to communicate can be an issue, but if you refer to WP:ADMINACCT you'll see that "protecting a talk page" is not among the examples of infractions. That said, Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

And your use of such an argument at deletion review is inappropriate; the protection level of an admin's talkpage has nothing at all to do with deletion review. However, I gather you're fortunate enough to have never seen the threats and harassment aimed at Drmies and his family from LTAs. If you have a complaint about it, take it up with the arbitration committee, not as a specious argument in a tangential forum. Acroterion (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

OwenX, you are so wrong on so many different levels. It is because of Drmies commitment to the project as an admin that their talk page is EC protected. Calling for Drmies admin actions to be vacated and positing that they should be desysoped by ARBCOM for protecting their own talk page from persistent trolling and death threats against themselves and their family, that they receive as a result of the volunteer work they do here for you and other editors, is beyond the pale.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Acroterion, over the years, I have received many threats and much harassment on my Talk page and my User page, including a recent death threat against me and my family. I reported the recent death threat on AN/I, and it was handled by an uninvolved admin. I don't remember if it was revdel'd or oversighted, you may be able to still see it. It never even crossed my mind to block access to my Talk page. I did eventually, many years ago, semi-protect my User page after 160+ vandalism edits, but that doesn't prevent anyone from contacting me, and it's still open to non-XC registered accounts. Our deletion review policy highlights communication with the deleting admin as a key requirement. A deletion by an admin who prevents communication with him is very much relevant to a DRV appeal. If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel. Drmies has my sympathy for all the harassment and threats, but that does not exempt him from accountability for his actions. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk page protection is not equivalent to 'preventing communication.' This is nothing more than a petulant complaint that you cannot not everyone can communicate in the way you they desire. With all due respect, grow up. Dumuzid (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

OwenX is an admin and extended confirmed. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to review both WP:ADMINACCT and WP:DRV then. I too have received threats, but nothing approaching the volume, virulence and specificity that Drmies has: do you think that should be grounds for desysopping? DRV is not a forum for arguing about technicalities or complaints about other editors in order to gain the upper hand. Take it up with Arbcom if you have a policy-based argument. Acroterion (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Drmies should step away from any activity that requires him to be available for contact by non-XC editors until such time as he is ready to reopen his Talk page to all. That includes blocking, deleting, protecting, and most admin functions, with the possible exception of checkuser. Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights, and grounds for automatic vacating when contested in good faith at DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is so asinine, I'm beginning to wonder if your account is compromised. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't agree with your proposal at all as I don't think Drmies has done anything wrong. I'm honestly more concerned you're calling for that AfD to be vacated for this than about anything Drmies has done. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you seriously suggesting that an admin should refrain from acting as as an admin on the project while their talk page is protected due to abuse? Do you have any idea how easy that would be to game from a trolling standpoint? It's a ludicrous suggestion. And your comment "Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights" is equally absurd. I can't take anything you say from this point forward seriously.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

One can argue that you, an admin of many years' standing, should have a better understanding of policy before making such accusations. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I take your views, Acroterion, very seriously. I'm not one of those who dismisses accusations with a, "Haha good luck trying to get me desysopped". Yet I still don't see how we can simply waive a policy requirement of accountability simply because an admin found no better way to handle harassment than to shut down the main communication channel to anyone with fewer than 500 edits. We used to deny promotion at RfA to candidates who didn't enable email contact. Remember those days? If the situation doesn't allow you to fulfil your admin duties in an accountable way, hang up the mop until you can do the job as required by policy. There is no other way to ensure accountability. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading the trail on Rocky's page, Drmies has email enabled and that's how he contacted him. Drmies was accountable and accessible, just not in one specific channel so not sure your analogy fits there, @OwenX (and I don't think email is required at RfA anymore, although I may be wrong) Star Mississippi 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Star Mississippi, for addressing the actual issue at hand. Having reviewed Rockycape's exchange with Drmies following Rockycape's email to Drmies, I struck out my comment at the DRV. Drmies, please accept my apologies for the inappropriate comment. I still wish you would reduce the protection level on your Talk page to just semi, and handle harassers who have a registered account by banning, which would benefit the rest of us too. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We already do that. How many prolific abusive sockpuppeteers do you thing we see every day? There are some who've been harassing individual edits, posting threats, and wasting everybody's time, for decades, with hundreds of accounts. Admins who take action against them become targets. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You are simultaneously complaining about a perceived IAR and then making up a new policy that an admin who has been abused to a sufficient degree can be driven away, rather than dealing with it in a manner that doesn't conflict with policy. The net result is that trolls can target people and win, according to your interpretation. "There is no other way to ensure accountability" is hyperbolic." And I agree that no action is required, except to ask that you remember to confine your comments at DRV to matters pertaining to the request, not to your perception of the justification for the closer's level of talkpage protection. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OwenX, I think you are wrong here. Mandating that all admins allow anyone to post sexist and racist attacks and death threats, and worse, on their talk pages is a non-starter. I know that's not explicitly your goal, but it is the natural consequence if admins must always leave their talk pages unprotected. Good-faith users can easily contact Drmies, such as by leaving a ping on their own talk page. Or by reaching out to a third party. Or, heck, taking it to one of the admin noticeboards. You say, "If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel." I'm not sure you are aware of the seriousness of some of our LTAs. I get multiple daily death threats, as do several other admins, and I consider myself lucky that I'm currently not targeted for far worse abuse, as I know Drmies has been. I think it's entirely reasonable to protect user talk pages to deal with such attacks. Disclaimer: my talk page is currently restricted to autoconfirmed and confirmed editors, protection applied by me. It was previously protected by Ponyo in a similar manner. I will note this helps but most certainly doesn't prevent the daily death threats I receive. I strongly believe your approach would, very quickly, result in many admins handing in their mop while LTAs would celebrate their substantial win. I think the balance is wrong. --Yamla (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that admins should receive the same protections afforded to all users. The rules do not and should not allow that admins have to take any abuse from troll accounts. I would expect that the community would want all editors respected and protected from threat and harassment. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is entirely overblown and absolutely no action needed. I've worked with and highly respect both Drmies and OwenX so I don't think I'm Involved in that sense. This is all because an SPA had their personal project deleted and has spent a week bludgeoning and badgering rather than looking for sources. (Disclosure, endorsed the close at DRV but did not !vote in the AfD). Rocky had two means of communicating with Drmies, which they made use of and Drmies responded, which is all that's required of an Admin. Drmies has always been more than responsive, and self protection is not a reason for de-sysop (self or ArbComm). We are not required to be at the beck and call of users or abuse of trolls.Star Mississippi 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• If I'm reading this correctly, Drmies' Talk has been protected since October 2022. That makes it even more unlikely that this is an admin conduct/contact ability issue or it would have been raised sooner. Star Mississippi 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted, as maybe the disruption won't continue. All editors, admins or not, should be equally eligible to have their user talk pages protected, eg with a request at RFPP. If anything, an admin's request for UTP protection should be held to a higher standard than non-admins because of adminacct (and because protecting an admin's page can cause problems like what happened at DRV where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first, which they couldn't do because of protection). Admins shouldn't protect their own pages because they're involved; another admin should review the request. In this case, if it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted and Drmies should make an RFPP request for re-protection if/when necessary. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first that was me, and I apologised for it when I got online this morning. The discussion happened via email and on the requestor's Talk, which was just fine. Let's not conflate the two. Star Mississippi 17:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also made the same mistake when replying to the editor's enquiry on my talk page, for what it's worth. Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it was proven that Drmies was difficult to contact and unresponsive to editors concerns I would be the first to side with this position. But there are other avenues available to communicate with them and those avenues were used. Drmies was responsive to editors concerns and a discussion was had so I don't see a conduct issue. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• From a purely 'policy' perspective and without any context, I tend to agree with Levivich above. But I am also cognisant that Drmies is one of the most targetted administrators we have for abuse, for all the hard work they do with LTAs etc. Ultimately we are all people, human beings, and it is impossible to ignore the human element of this issue — which is that Drmies needs this protection to reduce the impact of their editing on themselves and their family. I think that requires sympathy and understanding, and insofar as I noted my agreement with Levivich as a general statement, I feel like it may be appropriate to ignore this view in this situation. Daniel (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If Drmies had requested protection at RFPP, it's likely it would have been granted, so we end up at the same place anyway. Conversely, anyone who thinks it shouldn't be protected can request reduction of protection at RFPP as with any other page. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:INVOLVED does not apply when dealing with vandalism. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor and I think having your user talk page vandalized or receiving death threats counts as "conflicts with an editor." (I know some admins strongly disagree with this interpretation because they think it would allow editors to "conflict out" admins by picking fights with them.) Levivich (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors and admins who confront people who make graphic threats of violence against them, their families, and others are in no way "involved," as the policy makes amply clear. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The policy also says that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved. Interpretation of "conflicts" as it is used here to encompass efforts to prevent long-term abuse of the platform strains credulity. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Advice needed re request to unprotect a draft

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.

---

Article Hera Pheri 3 has a long history of deletions, un-deletions and moves. I added protection to it on April 28, 2017. Not all editors/admins involved are still active. SafariScribe has requested on my talk page to un-protect Draft:Hera Pheri 3 created Feb 21, 2023. Guidance on this would be helpful. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason they cant create in their sandbox and move it subject it to review there? Amortias (T)(C) 15:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that, just realised you mean to unprotect the article not the draft page. Its been submitted for review by AFC, if its approved then an admin could unprotect at that point if it has now managed to reach a suitable style/substance of article. Amortias (T)(C) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That was the guidance I was looking for. SafariScribe it looks like you will have to wait until that review process has been completed. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Maile66, @Amortias, thank you for your words. However, I don't believe this situation will escalate to the notice board. The draft after reviewing it as part of AFC work meets WP:NFILM, and the principal photography has already started–WP:NFF. I was about to accept the draft when a pop-up message indicated that the target page is admin-protected, hence my request for unprotection of the target page so that the draft can be moved. I think there may have been a misunderstanding of my intentions. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think things got muddled here. @SafariScribe is a longtime editor and AfC reviewer in good standing looking to complete that review that was asked for. I do not have the on wiki time today to process the AfC move but I've dropped protection to E/C so Safari or any other AfC reviewer can accept and move the article. If folks feel as if it's still not notable (haven't reviewed, taking no position), a new AfD to reflect current consensus would be more helpful than a 7 year old one. Star Mississippi 17:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Star Mississippi for the clear understanding. I have move the article as meeting WP:NF or any required policy. I doubt it won't survive AFD if it is taken there. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:22, 6 July 2024 (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.

Self-requested block of my old account

I would like to request a block on my old account M14325 (talk · contribs), which I no longer have access to. The account has already been blocked in de- and metawiki and now I would like to request a block here as well. Regards, Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wüstenspringmaus, rather than do it piecemeal, you should probably request a global lock at meta:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Primefac, they appear to have requested a lock at Meta here, though it was declined and they were re-directed to local admins. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Good to know, I did wonder if they might disallow self-locking. I don't really see much point in blocking an account that has zero edits and was created two years ago, but... meh.  Done. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Vanished user returned

If a user vanishes and then returns, should pages about that user, eg RfC's that the vanished user deleted, be undeleted, or signatures that they altered after vanishing be restored? DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

So per WP:VANISH, If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. Though as neither deleting pages (except for user pages) or altering signatures is part of the vanishing process in the first place, they shouldn't have happened and therefore shouldn't need to be reversed. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Among the deleted pages are Arbcom candidate statements, an MfD, their own contributions on other users' talk pages, and their own talk page. They also renamed an RfC, altered their own sigs on various pages. Then they returned and now edit under the same name, but I can't see any linking of the old account (which has a generic vanished name) and its edits and logs to the new one. This was all done some years ago, but the editor is active now. DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds pretty exceptional, though the policy does allow for exceptions. Maybe you should email ArbCom about it? – Joe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds more like scorched earth than vanishing, but if you do have specific concerns about this issue and do not want to divulge here (which I totally understand) I agree that contacting an Arb (or even an Oversighter) is probably the best bet. I also agree, in general, that deleted pages should not be restored purely because they have returned; it's not like the U1 becomes invalid. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of them wouldn't qualify for U1 in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of perms

Can an admin please remove the perms associated with this account? I tried to come back, but have decided to scramble my passwords and leave this account for good. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed you extra permissions. Let me know if you change your mind. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnight you missed autoreviewer I think. The Night Watch (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Now done. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking to fix a defaced wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Itzler I am a live streamer and is being harrased by multiple trolls, im looking to get this page reverted back to a previous state, and lock the page from further edits. I am the owner of this wiki.

you can see there is trolls by checking the name of the image they provided, and a brief reading Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

While there are grounds for protection on BLP grounds which I plan to enact and potential blocks, please read WP:OWN. You have no specific role when the content is compliant with guidelines here. Star Mississippi 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted to a version on June 22, right before the recent wave of disruptive editing began. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

and I think I got all of the offending content. If I missed any, @Cullen328 or any admin please feel free to continue. I'm about to hop offline. Star Mississippi 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

ETA, I have just semi'ed it. Found BLP violations going back to 2017. Have to hop offline but if someone else has time and can eyeball, that would be helpful. Star Mississippi 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

personal attack, spreading rumors

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:Michalis1994 accuses me without any proof that I am the same person as a blocked user on Greek Wikipedia. These kinds of accusations, on matters unrelated to editing, besides insulting my person, spread insidious rumors that may cause other users to view me with suspicion.

Extra careful, because you got blocked - who knows what could happen next? Removing cited content is not a great idea, Στρουμπούκη. and You're obviously trolling. Your account has been blocked completely from Greek Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts, whilst your name is... Dora? Yikes D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_Reason_-_Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1233180463 — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Once again, this is exasperating. D.S. Lioness has been blocked on Greek Wikipedia for being identified as the person behind the indefinitely banned account ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη. According to Meta, this individual has created over 50 sockpuppets in the past two years [66] [67] [68]. D.S. stands for Dora Stroumpouki, and she even refers to herself as Dora on her talk page. Despite being previously blocked, she has returned with no sign of self-reflection or a willingness to change her behaviour and adopt a more diplomatic approach. What is it that you hope to accomplish here?? Michalis1994 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

what does this have to do with my contribution to english wikipedia? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Just stop removing cited content. Also, your previous behavioural patterns have been moved to the English Wiki, which is not really a great idea. You have been warned. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? what are you doing here? how can you talk like that to another user? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not the same person! D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to stop here. You are the same person and that's why you got blocked on Greek WP. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.S. Lioness/Archive— Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

I would suggest not continuing this discussion. Michalis1994 can file a WP:SPI if they want. It isn't an actionable personal attack. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

spreading rumors about a user's previous activity it is a serious personal attack and hurts my credibility. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. You clearly are the same person as is blocked on el.wikipedia, because your global contributions are here for anyone to see. So saying "I'm not the same person" is a lie, and doesn't do you any credit. However your misdeeds, whatever they were, on that Wikipedia do not affect your existence here, as long as the same edit practices do not re-occur. If they do, you can - and probably will - be blocked here as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• My question is how the original poster thought it would be a good idea to open yet another noticeboard thread, when Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#No_cooperation,_no_good_faith (also started by them about the same editor) is still open? This is now the third thread started by the original poster about the same editor in a couple of weeks, if you included this miguided attempt that was eventually merged with the existing thread. I suspected there were some significant competence issues last week based on the ANI, and I am not being dissuaded in my view by subsequent developments. Daniel (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is also an AN3 report too, which I just found. Daniel (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michalis1994 stalking case here. 90 out of 100 edits from Michalis are related with my contributions. I wait for check user results to clear the case, but the offensives are in daily basis. I don't know what to do..D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2024 (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.

Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for conflict of interest VRT queue access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment here until the end of 17 July 2024 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/蔡瑞月

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 Administrators,

Someone upload a wrong portrait of Madam Tsai Jui-yueh on the Traditional Chinese Wikipedia page. https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/蔡瑞月

Someone uploaded using the reference below, Madam was tagged in that News article photo album, but photo is someone else in a group photo https://ahonline.drnh.gov.tw/index.php?act=Display/image/4359360wg9foOB#d6C

The same news article and album you can see Madam Tsai Jui-yueh is in this photo https://ahonline.drnh.gov.tw/index.php?act=Display/image/4359360wg9foOB#0Osa

Can someone please check the reference and correct this page.

該封禁的查封ID是#560409。--Tjyfoundation（留言） 2024年7月8日 (一) 11:27 (UTC) Tjyfoundation (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

zh.wikipedia.org is a different project. There's nothing that en.wikipedia.org can do for you, you need to raise your concern on that project. --Yamla (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

How to raise my concern on that project? Tjyfoundation (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (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.

Multiple reverts

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

---

A user has reverted my edits two times each in First Dutch Military Aggression and Second Dutch Military Aggression. Can someone please prevent him from reverting it. I'm trying to avoid violating WP:3RR. Desertasad (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP for 72 hours for their homophobic comments they posted at NFSreloaded's Talk page, whom they failed to notify of this complaint. Any administrator is free to block Desertasad for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I can tell you that if I were an admin, I'd indef. Saying that the legalisation of LGBTQIA+ is a bad thing is extremely disruptive. I've seen users indeffed for less. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have made it an indef. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the tag. In response to this complaint: the manual reverts in question are here and there on Operation Product, and here and there on Operation Kraai. On the former article OP duplicated information already present in the lead section, on the latter article they moved the informal non-English terms for the military operation up to the first sentence. I considered both contributions redundant and undid them, ultimately resulting in the exchange on my talk page. That said, I don't feel I was pushing any kind of nationalist narrative in this situation or elsewhere. --NFSreloaded (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2024 (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.

Withdrawing deletion nomination

I have withdrawn the deletion nomination of a page, see this, an administrator must talk. Hamwal (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that two people have weighed in on the discussion with something other than a keep !vote, the nomination is no longer eligible for withdrawal. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well you can add a keep vote with reason and state that you are withdrawing your delete nomination. But that will not trigger close in this case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Opinion sought

A small edit war occurred at LGB Alliance leading directly from the closure of The Telegraph reliability RFC. While no intervention is, at present, required, as parties appear to have stopped warring, two editors are under the impression that it is other editors who were edit warring, not them. There has been discussion of this, with diffs, at Talk:LGB Alliance#Dubious source and at User talk:Amanda A. Brant#Talk:LGB Alliance#Dubious source. As you can see from these pages, both I, BilledMammal and WhatamIdoing have offered our opinions and all of us have been rebuffed. Both Amanda and BilledMammal have thrown WP:EDITWAR at each other during the article talk page discussion. I'm including BilledMammal as among the participants of the edit war, as their edit was warring back to "status quo". Furthermore that "status quo" includes text sourced to The Telegraph, and therefore aligned with BilledMammal's position being very upset about the Telegraph RFC closure, and they had not previously edited this article or talk page.

I would appreciate an admin/admins who will be respected as neutral by all participants (i.e. not those whose position wrt trans/GCF topics is well known and can therefore be rebuffed as biased by one party) to briefly describe what occurred in terms of our Edit warring policy. No editor even remotely reached 3RR. This is simply about what edit warring is, what constitutes participation in that war, not whether their edit warring needed sanctions or whether the content or absence of content was correct. I'm hoping for enlightenment and better future behaviour as a result, rather than anyone to get into trouble. -- Colin°^Talk 13:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Whatever the result of the review above that's a misinterpretation of WP:MREL. Marginal or disputed reliability is not the same as WP:Generally unreliable.

This was edit warring, reverting reverts of other reverts, even multipole editors only each reverting once could still constitute edit warring. After WP:3RR editors may very well get blocked, but that's not a reasont to get right up to that point.

As with most issue more discussion on the talk page, and less in edit summaries, would likely solve the problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Small correction; I didn't say that Amanda was edit warring - while if they had reverted again I think they would have crossed the line, as it was I don't think that was one of the issues with their conduct there. BilledMammal (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You're comment "I’m just here because people are misusing RSP. I’m not interested in joining the discussion beyond objecting to that." might as well have read "I'm only here to join the edit war". CNC (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagreed with the specified reason for removal - you can't remove a source on the grounds of unreliability if you're not actually claiming that its reporting is incorrect. Editors later raised other reasons for removal, and I wasn't interested in getting more involved in the discussion.

This isn't an unreasonable position, per WP:SATISFY and WP:VOLUNTARY. Editors are allowed to address one issue without becoming permanently involved in a dispute. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your argument has helped to confirm my suggestion as now you are trying to justify your reason for edit warring, rather than any acknowledgement that is was the wrong action: you made no attempt to avoid edit warring and your revert wasn't necessary. On 9 July, you joined the edit war with Amanda A. Brant, reverting at 15:18 [69], making your first comment on the topic 5 minutes later.[70] This is a clear case of "revert first, ask questions later". Then at 16:50 after stating "I’m just here because people are misusing RSP. I’m not interested in joining the discussion beyond objecting to that.[71], failed to revert your edit. I say "failed" because once you no longer claimed to have an issue with the removed content based on the argument presented by YFNS, you let your revert stand. It seems you've ignored the concerns Colin has raised in this topic. CNC (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Where's the problem? Someone removed an unreliable source from a page. Fairly reasonable thing to do. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MREL is not WP:GUNREL, I'm shocked you haven't understood this yet. Likewise regarding edit warring and WP:BRD. It's unfortunately got to the point where an admin needs to explain to you the basics. CNC (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, MREL is not GUNREL. But if a source isn't appropriate (as in here), it shouldn't be used. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if the source isn't appropriate, editors shouldn't be edit warring over whether it should be used (in that place, in that way). The dispute involves the repeated removal and restoration of this sentence:

• "The organisation has said that lesbians are facing "extinction" because of the "disproportionate" focus on transgender identities in schools."

along with one out of the seven uses of this source in the LGB Alliance article:

• Tominey, Camilla (25 December 2020). "Lesbians facing 'extinction' as transgenderism becomes pervasive, campaigners warn". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 4 January 2021.

The first sentence of the source says:

• "Lesbian are facing “extinction” because of the “disproportionate” focus on transgenderism in schools, a controversial campaign group for gay rights has claimed."

which could perhaps be faulted on grounds of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, but I think it is inarguable that the cited source WP:Directly supports the statement which it was being cited for.

I think this ought to proceed as an ordinary content dispute over whether the organization in question actually did espouse this POV, and (if so) whether that fact is DUE for the lead or should only be placed lower in the article. I don't think this should be considered a dispute solely about whether a source that is still used six other times in the article is inappropriate for citing a seventh time.

Also, I don't think that we should be thinking about this in terms of "sides". An editor who seems to oppose everything this organization stands for has removed damaging information about that org from the lead. Their PR team is probably very happy with her right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not just about the fact that The Daily Telegraph is no longer considered "generally reliable" on transgender issues and gender-critical views, and was listed as yellow on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There is a nuanced discussion of whether it is appropriate in the specific context (which I addressed) and whether it is WP:DUE in the first paragraph (whether the source is good enough in the specific context is part of that discussion). As I explain on Talk:LGB Alliance, I have reverted exactly once, and only after offering a detailed rationale on the talk page that the other party did not respond to, after being given an opportunity to do so. That is not edit-warring. That is normal editing. Pretty much all the other participants in the discussion routinely do the same thing. I don't think the most recent edit by User:Barnards.tar.gz that basically reinstated my edit with some tweaks is edit-warring either. There now seems to be general agreement to remove the material in question. The only really unacceptable behavior in relation to this minor incident was the abuse of templates and personal attacks by one editor. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Depending on where one chooses to start counting, you have reverted either once or twice. The question here isn't really "Did User:_____, personally and individually, do anything that should be punished?" The question is more like "Do we have one of those situations in which editors [note the plural] keep flipping back and forth between the same two versions of the article?"

If you click through the relevant diffs ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]), then I'd say we have an edit war, even if no single individual has broken any bright-line rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

- Just to say that I did ask for neutral admin (or experienced user) to comment as a third opinion, not for existing participants to continue to argue whether they did or did not edit war, or for folk to offer their opinions about which warring edit was the right one. I think such a wise authoritative voice would still be very welcome, as editors are continuing to argue they were not edit warring because they were Right and everyone else was Wrong, on the article talk page. -- Colin°^Talk 21:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It does look like an edit war, at least the early stages of one. Unofficially, I'd encourage all parties to stop reverting and discuss on the talk page. That's exactly what happened, so I don't think it needs to go any further at this point. The rest seems like a content dispute which isn't really suitable for WP:AN. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would be more concerned about the reliability of anything written by Camilla Tominey (stick "Camilla Tominey trans" into Google and have a look at that - don't bother looking at the hagiography that is Camilla Tominey) rather than the fact she happened to write it in the Telegraph. And as far as I can see, regardless of its source, it certainly isn't WP:DUE in a lead paragraph. As a second point, articles such as LGB Alliance are covered by WP:GENSEX so I'd suggest that editors who are pushing their POV consistently across multiple noticeboards and articles have a think about where pushing too hard ad nauseam might lead. Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can we please not have comments on the content/sources. Go to the article talk page if you want to do that. The concern here is some editors are unaware (or unwilling to accept) what constitutes edit warring. The actual topic is irrelevant. -- Colin°^Talk 11:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, the issue here is the material, that was dubious from the start (dubious in the sense that its use in the first paragraph unduly promoted a biased narrative), and that has in fact been removed from the article by various editors. This harping on a supposed "edit war" after a couple of editors "reverted" exactly once each – in my case with a detailed justification and rationale that the other party had been given an opportunity to respond to, and in Barnards.tar.gz's case to attempt some sort of compromise, that now seems to be widely accepted by everyone – is not productive use of our time. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate the uninvolved parties offering opinions, so I don't want to rehash all this and I won't add any more than this, but as "the other party" I would like to offer context as I saw it.

  • The page in question is exceptionally hard to attain consensus on for any changes, due to the divisive nature of the subject
  • The content we're talking about has been in the lede unchanged for (I believe) couple of years
  • The change you wanted, you justified based on an updated note on The Telegraph on Perennial Sources that was barely 2 hours old at this point, after a lengthy and polarising RFC we were both involved in, on opposite sides
  • You used this very recent change not only to argue in talk for this removal, wrongly claiming that the Telegraph was WP:GUNREL and should not be used, but also elsewhere on that talk that it should not be usable WRT other disputed neutral wording in the lede
  • Your rationale, aside from being a misreading of the note, cast aspersions about essentially the entire UK media
  • When I pointed out you were overstating things, you replied with what was a restatement of the same claim. At this point, my impression was we were at loggerheads, so wait and see if someone else weighs in. I don't see the point in repeating myself ad nauseum.
  • When you then reverted my revert, it was 2:30am my time. I'm sorry but I don't keep tabs on this 24/7, nor do I see the desperate urgency to remove ancient content such that it cannot be discussed by more editors first.
  • When your change was reverted to restore the status quo ante, I was personally glad of an uninvolved intervention and considered it a call to actually discuss the change per BRD, which I felt your revert had not been in the spirit of. However, with the issue subsequently being raised here as an edit war, I now see things like WP:DONTREVERT say Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo so I guess my understanding of norms about this sort of thing are not correct. Every day is a school day, and I'll certainly bear this in mind in future.
  • FWIW, I have since chucked my 2p in on talk after the fact and endorsed the actual change as subsequently performed by Barnards, for the rationale that emerged on talk which I agree with, but I do understand the concerns about the process.

  At this point I think, despite how it was arrived at, there is actual unanimity about the content, which on that page is a cause for either celebration or to check its not April 1st. Void if removed (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

98.115.164.53's Numerous Minor Edits

98.115.164.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This editor has made numerous minor edits to articles. Most of them seem innocuous, but others, particularly the ones that remove terms like "to date," seem problematic for contextual POV. There seem to be hundreds of account-less edits, despite the suggestion to create an account already being made, but what do I know.

This user made a personal attack [72] after I reverted their edit on a page I had watchlisted. And then they put their edit back [73].

So far, they seem to have stopped editing for now, after being warned. I've gone through some edits to see what edits can go or stay, but they're just too numerous. Anyone have thoughts on what to do next?⸺RandomStaplers 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You could ignore the user and move on. If the edit is truly problematic, you could revert it anyway, and/or you could ask an administrator to protect the page. 98.115.164.53 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What of the middle line in the report, the one where they say that they did revert one of your edits and you personally attacked them back and restored your edit?

Also, are you saying that the way to stop you from making problematic edits is to protect the pages you're being problematic in? Are you unwilling to change or discuss your behaviour?

– 2804:F14:8081:3201:9827:3072:74BC:2770 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• 98.115.164.53, what account or accounts have you used here and are any of those accounts currently blocked? --Yamla (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Yamla I've opened a checkuser request. [74] ⸺RandomStaplers 20:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  98.115.164.53 is CU-blocked by Ponyo. --Yamla (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Yamla IP 2804:F14:8081:3201:9827:3072:74BC:2770 has responded to the CU request.⸺RandomStaplers 20:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Yamla I'm looking through the edit filter log... this person was tripping rate warnings left and right. It's amazing this person wasn't caught sooner.⸺RandomStaplers 21:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Durova

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Principle 2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, Private correspondence, is changed from
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
to
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Poggies. jp×g🗯️ 06:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Durova

Some Help with Bot-Like Editing

I ran into OpalYosutebito with this edit. They were trying to address a citation error by removing |agency= from {{Cite journal}}, but also removed all other |agency= parameters from the other citation templates (which are valid parameters in those templates). I reverted and left a message, but then looked at the user's edits and saw what appears to be an abuse of AWB with bot-like editing. Over a recent 40 minute period, they completed 499 edits making AWB changes to unsupported parameters (about 12 edits a minute). However, looking at these edits, they are either making mistakes (like the one I noted above or this one) or are removing valid reference material from the citation template that should be fixed, not outright deleted. As an example this edit, the template should be changed to {{Cite news}}, which would correct the issue while retaining the correct parameter. There appears to be hundreds, if not thousands of recent edits that could be introducing issues like this. My gut says they all just need to be outright reverted. I removed the user's AWB privileges for now and was close to blocking for running an unapproved bot, but just don't have the time to dive into this anymore today. Can another admin take a look and review my actions so far, and take additional ad warranted? Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Checking OpalYosutebito's contribs, they appear to have begun self-reverting, which is certainly called for. Unsupported parameters in citation templates almost always contain valid bibliographic information, and are usually the result of bot action, template updates, or translations from a sister project. Just removing them rather than attempting to incorporate the information properly into the citations is incredibly destructive.

I'll keep looking, if I can remember, since an AWB run this ill-conceived and deleterious may require a mass rollback while the edits are still fresh. Folly Mox (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm about halfway done with fixing the mistakes I made. They're my errors, my responsibility - OpalYosutebito (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Scott's use of revision deletion

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.

---

Scott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello. Following discussion on Scott's talk page, I am asking for review of Scott's revision deletions. Despite another administrator and I attempting to explain that RD3 should not be used for all vandalism, Scott has misrepresented previous consensus (the discussion specifically stated that "it was also generally agreed that most vandalism was out of scope for RevDel"), changed the text of policy to suit their interpretation of it, and responded to the other administrator's concerns with "my God, stop being so melodramatic ... This is absolutely pathetic".

Much of Scott's revision deletions have been of run-of-the-mill instances of vandalism from years ago, such as 'When people eat Pringles, it is very yummy according to the people who eat/ate it', 'WORST WEB PAGE ON THE WEB "LULZ!"', and keysmashing. As revision deletion should not be used for such "basic" instances of vandalism, they should be undone. I would also point out that the tone of responses have been deeply disappointing. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me of "spamming the logs" by deleting (hiding) 3 revisions is melodramatic and doing so as a transparent attempt to get me in trouble (based on an idiosyncratic personal interpretation of long-established policy) is pathetic.

I already responded to your concern on my user talk page where you raised it, to remind you that "purely disruptive material" is the definition of WP:RD3 as established community practice, and the last RfC on the topic (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3 in 2011) failed to establish otherwise.

You accuse me of "changing the text of policy to suit my interpretation" when in fact, I simply corrected a contradictory statement in the preamble (which you highlighted) which had been sitting there invalidating every RevDel criterion except RD2 since 2009. Obviously, nobody interpreted it literally enough to prevent them from using any of the other criteria, but it does seem to have been sufficiently confusing to cause you to think that it should.

As I said to you before, if you disagree with the definition of RD3 then the appropriate place to gain consensus for a change is WT:Revision deletion.  — Scott • talk 21:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not endorse. Those are definitely not suitable uses for revision deletion. There's a reason why "vandalism" isn't one of the examples provided for RD3: includes harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus-proliferating pages, and links to any of these or to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no valid purpose. More concerning, though, is Scott's attitude towards this. When someone asks on your talk page why you decided to take admin actions, calling their concern "absolutely pathetic" is not acceptable. —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how the diffs provided above are not describable as "purely disruptive material"?

Also I'll thank you not to misrepresent my words - aggressively accusing me of "spamming the logs" is what's pathetic, rather than civilly opening a talk page conversation over the interpretation of RevDel criteria. I choose not to be bullied, thanks.  — Scott • talk 22:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The only person who was aggressive in that conversation was you. And you think that this is bullying? Wow. —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What kind of topsy-turvy world is it where someone comes into your talk page yelling about at you that you're "spamming" and standing up for yourself in the face of that makes you aggressive?

Anyway, I guess you're choosing not to answer my question.  — Scott • talk 22:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Until you changed it earlier today, the revdel policy also stated that "material must be grossly offensive". Maybe RD3 should now be renamed to "purely and grossly disruptive material". —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The "misuse" section of the preamble, not the criteria themselves which define the use of revision deletion, said that for revision deletion to be used, the "material must be grossly offensive". As I have pointed out multiple times now, that invalidates every single criterion except RD2. Somehow nobody noticed that since 2009 the revision deletion policy has been contradicting itself.  — Scott • talk 22:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

From a review of his last 10 revdel's, Scott seems to understand RD2, but doesn't seem to understand RD3. We have never revdel'd run of the mill vandalism, and we certainly don't revdel 20 year old run of the mill vandalism. Contrary to Scott's claim, doing so is not long-established standard practice. I also agree with Ingenuity above that Scott's snarky attitude in response to a very reasonable request is unjustified. If he's just having a shitty day, then it's not a big deal; I've acted like a jerk when I'm having a bad day too. But it should stop, as should the RD3 revdels. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Floq. If you're going to make a sweeping statement like "we have never... and we certainly don't..." then perhaps you could contribute some evidence towards that, perhaps in the form of a written policy which explicitly supports your interpretation, or a discussion which established consensus?

Regarding snark, if someone comes onto my user talk page with a shitty attitude then what do you expect? Come on now.  — Scott • talk 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Per above. RD3 is not for regular vandalism. These deletions should be reversed. – bradv 22:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scott, I think you're the admin with the idiosyncratic view of what RevDel covers. Run-of-the-mill vandalism is reverted, not revdeleted. I don't believe the community has or ever would explicitly agree for it to be used this way, especially on lame throw away edits from years ago.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. If you look at the RfC I linked to above, it was noted in the closing summary that "The overriding agreement appears that admin discretion still has strong support in these cases. But it was also generally agreed that most vandalism was out of scope for RevDel." [Emphasis in original.] Most vandalism certainly is out of scope, and I've used my discretion to hide a minority of purely disruptive rubbish that has no place on public view. This is in keeping with both the written policy and consensus as previously established.  — Scott • talk 22:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the deletions highlighted by Sdrqaz cross the line between basic vandalism and "purely disruptive rubbish". It's just childish scrawling in comparison to the grossly inappropriate edits REVDEL is meant to cover. I think you have it wrong in this specific instance.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that basic vandalism isn't purely disruptive? Then what is it? Genuine question.  — Scott • talk 22:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If the community had as broad an interpretation as you as to what is purely disruptive, the policy would simply state that any vandalism is fair game for revision deletion. I repeat what I said above, the community would never approve such a liberal use of the tool. You appear to have dug in here; I'm not sure if there is any point in debating further. You are using an admin tool in a way that is not approved by the community and, based on your replies here, don't appear open to considering you may be incorrectly applying RD3. I really hope I'm wrong. You don't have to agree, but please consider that you might have it wrong.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to considering it - that's exactly why we have collective discussions to elaborate upon and refine policies. You say "the community would never approve" - to add to what I've just said below to Floquenbeam, policy is set by what the community did approve. This seems like the perfect opportunity for another RfC on the topic to get the current consensus formalized, and ideally reflected in a well-written and unambiguous criterion to be understood and followed by all.  — Scott • talk 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Discretion is for borderline cases, it is not limitless. Just because you're an admin does not mean that you can do whatever you want because you have "discretion". Every admin who comments here is going to say they don't routinely revdel this stuff. That needs to mean something to you. If people revdel'd only stuff 10 times as bad as that, our revdel logs would still increase by several orders of magnitude. There are easily 100 more vandal edits on that page just as bad, and that's only one page. Among other reasons, we limit the use of revdel because non-admins can't tell what's going on, and that's a bad thing. We should only do it when removing the material being revdel'd is a bigger benefit than the cost of hiding revisions. More importantly, "Scott vs. All You Insane People" is not an appropriate approach. Consider the possibility that you drastically mistook the tone of the original message. I can assure you, for what it's worth, that you are the one who appears unreasonably aggressive there, not Sdrqaz. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Try reading what I wrote again. Sdrqaz's message to me was absolutely fine. I was talking about Thryduulf.

Anyway, regarding your comments - you've just illustrated how our admin corps aren't doing enough to suppress vandalism. I doubt that you could quantify "the cost" as it's entirely nebulous. Your argument also doesn't hold up - regular admins can't see what the higher level ones with oversight have hidden, and that's not a "bad thing" even though it's far less accountable.  — Scott • talk 22:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, I thought Sdrqaz started the thread on your talk page, his was just the last comment there. It is starting to make more sense why you assumed Thrydulf's initial comment was an attack, you had a recent run-in elsewhere. Anyway, you started out saying Thyrdulf was out of touch with long established procedures. Now the whole admin corps is out of touch with long established procedures? That's kind of impossible by definition. I will never understand why people can't just say "OK, my thoughts on this are apparently different than the consensus, so I'll suck it up and change what I do." Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What can I say here? There are apparently loads and loads of people who seem determined to interpret one of our policies in their own way rather than following it to the letter as written, and their response to that is to do everything except take to the policy venues to clarify what exactly an ambiguous policy really means and establish a firm consensus. You say "long established procedures" and "the consensus", but so far nobody has managed to produce a single written record of these that trumps WP:RD3, which itself would be different as a result of such a consensus, by definition. 🤷🏼‍♂️  — Scott • talk 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we're probably done here, we're just going around in circles. Ingenuity answered your question. There is more to RD3 than the initial wording; the followup clarification counts too. Ponyo answered your question. And you don't need policy to determine "long established procedure", instead you look at what all the other admins have been doing long term. By definition. A bunch of non-Thryduulf admins have told you that no one interprets this the way you do. I don't think anyone is asking for grovelling, but if you continue to misuse RD3, someone is probably going to take you to ArbCom for misuse of the tool. You don't have to agree, but you should be aware. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am aware, and I'm waiting for the one single person who actually cares about procedure enough to fix this weak criterion by kicking off the process which establishes consensus to narrow the wording. Until then, everything is just "well I think it means".  — Scott • talk 23:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If you decide to do this, please let me know. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 28 recently and was struck by both Scott's tone (e.g., In summary, get stuffed.) and the fact that the deletion was unanimously overturned. I'm concerned that this is more than just a one-time issue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, when Thryduulf chose to call me a liar in public with absolutely zero consequences. I guess having been on ArbCom gives you a free pass exempting you from WP:AGF right? I can think of a whole bunch of people here who'd have responded with something far more fruity than "get stuffed".  — Scott • talk 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that not a single other person has taken issue with my describing intentionally leaving incorrect deletion summaries as "lying" should cause you to reflect that it actually is? Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that I see it, I take issue with it. For what it's worth. But Let's stay on track here. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If it isn't lying, what is it? Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh stop it. "Lying" has connotations that do not apply to every instance of "intentionally leaving incorrect deletion summaries" (note that I have no idea if even that is true, but assuming it is for the sake of argument), and you know it. You've been around long enough to know that calling someone a liar basically shuts down future legit discussion. Case in point: if anyone else had left an identically worded initial message on Scott's page, Scott possibly would have interpreted it differently, and maybe we wouldn't even be here. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.  — Scott • talk 23:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's your response? Just doubling down? Absolutely incredible. Well, at least everyone can see your true colours.  — Scott • talk 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I do hope that we're not going to spend volunteer time on undeleting blatant vandalism for procedural reasons.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that would be silly. I'd be satisfied if the unnecessary RD3 revdel's just stop. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I certainly wouldn't want to mandate that (or even recommend that), but if someone chooses to spend their time reversing out-of-process deletions I'm not going to spend my time complaining about it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm glad it's not just me who feels that these RD3 deletions were incorrect, in isolation not badly enough to merit more than a note that they have misinterpreted the deletion policy. However the tone of their responses here, on their talk page and in the recent DRV are grossly inappropriate. If they don't start listening then we'll have no choice but to go to arbcom and that would be a real shame as most of their admin work is correct and good, but the communication is that big a deal. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• This sort of revdel, if it were to become commonplace, would be highly disruptive to those of us who create edit filters, and for that matter, to the thousands and thousands of people who patrol recent changes. We need to see the big picture. We need to see patterns of vandalism. What's common enough to warrant a filter? What are the "tells" of that sneaky LTA? If everything disappears behind a struck-out diff, then we're just left reacting to what's in front of our nose. Now revdel is, sometimes, a necessary evil. The libeled BLP subject doesn't care about any of this, nor should they. But if you can't answer the question "what harm will come if J Random User views this diff?" the diff probably should remain visible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for making a contribution to this debate based upon actual, quantifiable reasons. Although the instances of RD3 under discussion here were in application to 20-year-old vandalism, I'll commit to cease using it in such a fashion specifically on the basis of your demonstrated need, rather than that of the kind of unprovable assertions about the "true meaning" of a policy we've been seeing until now.

  As a side note, your comment completely demonstrates that the permissions you have are insufficient for the job. Filter managers should be able to see deleted revisions. Yes, I know the WMF's position on who gets that permission and I don't agree with it.  — Scott • talk 23:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Suffusion of Yellow and Scott: On just the strict idea of what the WMF requires for access to deleted revisions, filter managers already arguably go through an election process (2 in fact, usually, since most filter managers have gone through an EFH consensus process as well). Now, I expect the idea of adding viewdeleted to EFM would likely end up mired in debate since it isn't necessarily RfA-level given there's usually only 10 people who actually follow the notice links that get posted to noticeboards whenever someone puts a candidacy up as a non-admin, but as a theoretical I somewhat wonder about the practicality of whether an RfC to add the rights would succeed. I guess that's a bit off-topic for this AN thread, though it would certainly help given that RevDelling revisions essentially roadblock any non-admin from building a filter regarding it. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  For a long time there was a bug where even admins couldn't see filter logs corresponding to revdelled edits! Not sure if that's been fixed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yikes. Well... I have minor feature requests for our admin tools on Phabricator which are old enough to go to secondary school now, so the pace of development in that area really isn't helping.  — Scott • talk 00:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm, seems fixed now at least on testwiki. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not endorse. 61 edit summaries in a row of all caps FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.... maxing out the edit summary length is purely disruptive. Changing a redirect to HAGGER???? is normal vandalism. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing here is an administrator who's not interested in using the tools on behalf of the community, but instead based on their own whims, and responds by attacking anyone who challenges their actions. Seems like a case of "would not be trusted with the tools if their RfA were today", but that's the nature of lifetime appointments. Even in the 2007 RfA, the support/oppose ratio dropped significantly based on temperament concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Cool attacks on my character! 👍🏻  — Scott • talk 00:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Quite apart from any questions about (mis)interpretations of RD3, I'm just perplexed why anyone would be concerned about vandalism from 20 years ago. Editors can focus on what they want--it's their time, after all--but why was this considered a priority over vandalism from, say, 20 minutes ago? That's by far the oddest part of all of this to me. Is it deliberately to make a point about the RD3 wording? I'm genuinely mystified. Grandpallama (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Why was this considered a priority over vandalism from, say, 20 minutes ago?" It wasn't. You do know that not everyone is patrolling things, right? I use tools exclusively in the areas that I'm working in.  — Scott • talk 00:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC) P.S. I'll choose to ignore that intimation of bad faith on my part.  — Scott • talk 00:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  There was no intimation of bad faith; there was genuine puzzlement about why you would be concerned about something that is, by internet standards, ancient. What was the purpose? You didn't actually answer that question, you just responded with more snark. Whatever, I guess. Grandpallama (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn't snark. And regarding bad faith, you literally suggested the possibility that I was purposefully making a point violation. So yeah, whatever.  — Scott • talk 10:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  You do know that not everyone is patrolling things, right? is unambiguous snark. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, it isn't. Maybe spend less time on the angry noticeboards so they don't color your reading ability so much.  — Scott • talk 18:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I think you may be dealing with a different definition of 'snark' than some of us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I noticed one of the revdels on a page I worked on and it was a completely disproportionate reaction to juvenile harmless vandalism that took .2 seconds to revert. I don't get why, that's very clearly not what RD3 is written to mean (or else why would it except "most vandalism??"), so I have no idea what the motive even is here. What is the point of this except needlessly cutting parts out of the page history?

Of course if it's harassment-based vandalism that's a different thing, but I really don't think this is what RD3 is used for or meant to be used for. I prefer when page history is intact unless there is a dire need for revdel. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think all we're looking for from Scott is an acknowledgement that their interpretation of RD3 is out of step with current practice and that they'll change their approach going forward. This shouldn't escalate, and shouldn't have gotten this far in the first place. It's okay to be wrong and it's okay to admit it. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Kindly read my response to Suffusion of Yellow. Thanks.  — Scott • talk 00:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mackensen here, I think we just need a small change of perspective and maybe a little more time to do some calm learning. The defensiveness is a bit too far, but I'll hope that Scott is a little less aggressive in the case that a similar case occurs in the future. We all could take to heart a commitment to take things slower and more-open mindedly, myself included. The Night Watch (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scott: Perhaps this will help clarify the issue: how do you decide which vandalism (recent or old) warrants rev-deletion and which does not? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Short answer: vibes. Longer answer: gut feeling on on a combination of the questions "is there more than a fractional chance that this vandal would be motivated to return later to see the mess they made?" and "how annoying was the vandalism?" and "how jarring to the experience of someone looking through page history would it it to see the vandalism?"

Anyway, per my response to Suffusion of Yellow, this is now moot.  — Scott • talk 00:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I agree that Suffusion of Yellow made an important contribution to this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. It's 2am here (which to be fair is when I sleep a lot of the time anyway), so I hope that by the time when I check back in tomorrow there won't be lots more people who piled on without having read that.  — Scott • talk 01:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that Scott's comment, "I'll commit to cease using it in such a fashion" will be enough for those who were looking for just such a commitment. After the dust settles a bit, we should have a discussion about the wording of our RD policy, as the "must be grossly offensive" line that Scott changed does in fact need some changing. If someone starts that up before me, I'd appreciate a ping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

My hope for settled dust was too optimistic, and the discussion has started already. Anyone interested should pop on over to WT:REVDEL#"Material must be grossly offensive". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we close this. As noted above, Scott has said he'll stop doing this. Editing WP:REVDEL to support his position was probably a troutable offense, but let's all just take a deep breath and move on to something productive. If Scott is true to his word, then no more need be said. If not, then we can take things from there. I would close this myself but the close script I use was thursday'ed a while back and I've long since forgotten how to close these things the manual way. If people want to get hot and bothered, breaking essential scripts might be a place to start. RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I would have said a week ago at DRV, when there was the same level of aggressiveness/incivility in defending an action everyone agreed was well out of bounds. But now the same thing has happened again, just with a different policy. I guess it's good that Scott is going to defer to Suffusion of Yellow's demonstrated need, but I'm far from convinced that we're not just going to end up back here soon with a different form of the same problem. Hopefully I'm wrong. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I just came upon this thread during my daily skim-reading of these boards. I have a fairly unusual perspective here. Scott and I have talked about wiki-archaeology many times over the years and I actually had a discussion with him about this very issue back in 2022 (search for "That's actually led me to something else"). We were talking about the page Wikipedia:Deletion log/28 February – 19 July 2002 (then at the title Wikipedia:Old deletion log); here's the relevant diff and the log of revision deletion/undeletion. I'm relatively extreme about trying to preserve edits where possible and 100% agree with Suffusion of Yellow here, for slightly different reasons, and am glad that Scott has agreed to change his practices here. Graham87 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I mean setting aside the discussion about the letter and spirit of the law, you can boil down the whole issue to one of our software not being good enough. I think that vandalism should be hidden away (not "deleted" - the fact of the system being called "revision deletion" is just one of many issues with it) for two reasons: to deny recognition to vandals, and to minimize disruption to people reading page history. RevDel as it exists today is a crude and blunt tool with almost no nuance whatsoever. You have two options for a given unit of data (actor, revision text, edit summary) - leave it on public view, or punt it into the Phantom Zone where only admins can read it. There's no gradation that can be applied when hiding revisions.

By contrast, consider a system where applying, for example, RD2 would make an item inaccessible to anyone without elevated privileges, but RD3 would hide it behind an additional interface element until a button is clicked. Minimal visibility for disruptive material without presenting any barrier to edit filter managers, recent changes patrollers, etc. This isn't a new idea at all: various social media apps have had it for a long time in the form of "hidden replies". Even in the current system, we could unbundle the right to see hidden revisions and give it to reasonable interested users so that staying tidy doesn't impede research. I believe this actually was the case with the "researcher" user group until the WMF nixed it for some reason? I didn't hear about it until afterwards.

Similarly, other objections raised above included noise in the logs... once again utterly trivial to resolve technically. But the WMF has chosen to spend its giant budget on "increasing engagement" features, and leave our tools languishing pretty much exactly where they were fifteen years ago. The sheer amount of precious human time wasted by having to both use our incredibly out of date tools and debate extensively about the way to use them because of how crude they are is heartbreaking.

By the way, it's "them" now rather than "him". 😊  — Scott • talk 10:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the misgendering. Revision deletion is a great improvement on what was previously the only option, selective deletion. You were editing Wikipedia (but not yet an admin) when even that wasn't an option. This is the wrong place to debate the merits of hypothetical revision hiding options, but I don't really see the use of such gradation; I'd maintain that most people don't even look at page history and many readers understand that minor vandalism is often part of the life-cycle of Wikipedia pages (we even have a main namespace article on the topic). Graham87 (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No need at all to apologize. Yeah, I'm sure there's a better venue to talk about it than here. But you're quite right in that selective deletion was a massive pain in the neck and RD's arrival in 2009 really helped. Just now that we're 15 years down the line, I personally reckon it's overdue for a rethink based on lessons learned.  — Scott • talk 18:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO there was a problem of too broad of use of the tool and Scott has agreed to change accordingly. I think we're done here. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2024 (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.

my discussion was deleted

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

---

@Antandrus closed my discussion because someone accused im a banned user. im not. please revert the closure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks Gsgdd (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

i have made valid arguments which merits discussion. it shouldn't be closed because of pure accusations. is there any proof im banned? can two people not have same idea? Gsgdd (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was closed, for reasons, none of which was anything to do with the allegation that you are a sock account. You made a proposal and virtually all the respondents disagreed with you. Therefore the closure was simply that your proposal did not gain a consensus.

Please don't try and relitigate the same argument here, it won't get any traction. Nthep (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There is one editor who didn't disagreed. I'm trying to build consensus. why are you trying to block it? Gsgdd (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

and one editor opposed. what are you talking about ? Gsgdd (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

also there is no Consensus to delete it. i accidentally put rfc tag - which i removed and it shoudnt be the cause of deletion. then another user accused of being a blocked account Gsgdd (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, but unfortunately this isn't the place to resolve your concern. The issue is a content dispute and the close was not an action requiring admin tools. It's not within the scope of this noticeboard to overturn content decisions. If you disagree with the consensus outcome please do feel free to seek a new consensus at the article talkpage in due course (ie not today or tomorrow or next month but eventually). Please note you will probably need to have new reliable sources that back your view, or an alternative set of words to propose which might gain more support than that available in this current RfC. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

see this is a controversial topic. obviously people who follow this page will be quick to disagree. i need more time. i made some mistakes in the arguments, but its a learning process. i need to know people objections so i can research how to refute them. where can i seek arbitration ? Gsgdd (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

also an admin blocked closed it. Gsgdd (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to close an RFC, so this close is really just by Antandrus in their capacity as an experienced regular editor. I get what you're saying re more time to prepare arguments, but ideally the argument is fully prepared before opening the RfC rather than during it. There really didn't seem to be much support for your proposal, but if you do have some additional arguments or sources to present than maybe put them together over time (say, a few months?)and feel free to re-test consensus for the word "Islamist" in a future talkpage discussion or RfC. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

why do i have to wait few months. i already have reliable sources https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-language-islamism-as-a-dirty-word/ and others to support my arguments... this is crazy - why my voices are being shut down and prevented from being heard Gsgdd (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Per this policy section, consensus can change but repeated or rapid attempts to relitigate the same issue can be a bit disruptive. As above I get that you hadn't fully assembled your arguments before posting the rfc. That's unfortunate as maybe it would have led to a different outcome. Or maybe not. Either way it's probably better to take some time putting those arguments together and then starting a new discussion in due course, versus starting a new RfC or discussion on the same topic immediately after the previous one has closed. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I took part in the thread the OP is complaining about. They wanted the 9/11 hijackers to not be described as "Islamist". Around 6 or 7 editors were against the OP. One editor made a compromise suggestion which involved retaining the word but the OP rejected that. No one supported their proposal. They say above "one editor opposed". That is the same WP:IDHT we saw on display from them in that thread. I think they are best advised to follow WP:STICK rather than keep pursuing. DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The strength of arguments is crucial in the consensus process. no one other than you has made a strong case. so please stop that 6 or 7 editors against me argument Gsgdd (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Many people commented for sure, probably disapproved. but no valid reasoning imo Gsgdd (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

anayway... ill be back after sometime Gsgdd (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You, as proposer, are not arbiter of what reasoning is valid or not. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As Astropulse, to be clear. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Both those are ironic statements given that your argument in the thread was that we shouldn't be following the RS: "Just because RS promote hatred,racism etc.. does it mean wiki should do it as well?" DeCausa (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think the discussion was closed because someone accused you of being a banned user? There is nothing about that in the close. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

One person wanted the word "Islamist" removed, no one agreed with them, but instead of letting it go it went on and on and on, and on, and I closed it. All in a day's work. And no, this had absolutely nothing to do with a suggestion this was a banned user (I personally don't think it is, but did not look into it). Also (as above) this was not an administrative action. Antandrus (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2024 (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.

Error on page - Cannot add topic

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Joshua_Guimond

I apologize if this is the wrong way to go about reporting this. I have never actually done this on Wikipedia before. On the page titled "Disappearance of Joshua Guimond" it states:

Around the time of the disappearance, there were two reports of a man driving an orange Pontiac Sunfire on campus, dropping off other men. Before the disappearance, when campus security approached the vehicle, one of the men who were dropped off ran away. After the disappearance, the driver was contacted, and he gave no more information than saying the car was destroyed.[30]

However, the article that is linked as reference# 30 makes no mention of this at all. I have been unable to find the correct article that mentions this info about that car being destroyed.

I attempted to add a topic on the Talk page as recommended, however there is no topic button on the Talk page and it seems as if the Talk section is prohibited for some reason. 71.251.236.155 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were unable to start a conversation on the talk page, no idea what's up with that. The cited ref actually does support the content (open ref #30 and do a find for "orange") but it's badly worded in the article so I'm going to update that. Schazjmd (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry you couldn't add a topic to the talk page. There's nothing the matter with the talk page. The problem is that our mobile interface doesn't work properly. Reference #30 (which is this article) does say the driver gave no more information and the car was destroyed. Both pieces of information are in the third paragraph from the bottom.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Problematic rollover text

On this page I can't breathe The first hyperlinked instance of "George Floyd" in the section George Floyd shows text "George Floyd" when logged in, but an entirely different and problematic rollover preview when not logged in. I'm unable to figure out how to erase it myself. Eunoia666 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you still getting this? (It was caused by vandalism to George Floyd, now reverted and revdeleted.) I'm properly seeing the preview of the unvandalized article both logged-in and -out. —Cryptic 23:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of Revdel

Recently, several revisions were deleted using Revision Deletion (Revdel) by AirshipJungleman29 in Draft:Gupta–Hunnic Wars, which I humbly believe they were not justified properly as they only found close paraphrasing in "The Huna Volkerwanderung" section and "Rise of Kidara Kushans" sub-section [75]. I'd rewrite the whole contents in these section/subsection but kindly please restore the appropriate contents so that I do not need to spend a lot of time to re-write it for months all over again. Also the user has only found few scanty grammatical mistakes in such a massive article but it was still drafted by them which was quite harsh in my humble opinion. I would like to request any admin to help me in restoring this article, because I have earnestly worked a lot before and spent months for the article already. Thank you. Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 is not an administrator and can not delete revisions. I have notified them of this report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The revdeletions were performed by Robertsky. —Cryptic 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jonharojjashi:(Non-administrator comment) That will not happen. That—substantial—chunk of text was a verbatim copyright violation which is an absolute on Wikipedia. See Wp:COPYRIGHT, which is a policy policy with legal considerations. For why it will not be restored, see WP:UNDELETE: Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided. In any case, since the source and text were effectively the same, you only need access to the original to rewrite in your own words. But it cannot be hosted anywhere on Wikipedia—talk pages, draft, email—as the deleting admin—Robertsky—would have told you had you asked.

In fact, instead of relitigating it now, at a noticeboard, it would be more productive to simply take AirshipJungleman29's original advice and "take this issue seriously in the future". ——Serial Number 54129 14:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 Yes I know that the section "The Huna Volkerwanderung" and sub-section "Rise of Kidara Kushans" are highly identical and I'd rewrite it in my own words, but what about the rest of the article? Even the attributed contents from parent articles were not spared. The article was massive and it's possible that there would be some grammatical mistakes and copyright violation but instead of removing the particular concern they have deleted more than 120k bytes of contents. I am not asking for restoration of those closely paraphrased section/sub-section but the restoration of the fair contents, please look into this. Kind regards. Jonharojjashi (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not possible. Specific sections of a page can't be revision-deleted, only entire revisions. —Cryptic 14:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

So I guess I have to manually restore non plagiarised contents? Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add to Serial Number 54129's comment above. They have stated in a succinct manner what I would have conveyed. – robertsky (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• The examples listed by AirshipJungleman29 at the talkpage are egregiously bad; essentially close-paraphrasing by (nonsensical) word-substitution. Given Jonharojjashi's poor record of content-creation in the IPA-history topic-area (see their talkpage, including several copyvio-related notices) and the amount of effort required to save their work on a notable topic from deletion (see this AFD), I believe a topic-ban or block from mainspace should be considered. Abecedare (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, Abecedare. Unfortunately, a topic ban the simple way (=placed by one uninvolved admin) seems to be off the table, since Jonharojjashi has not been alerted to the contentious topics restrictions, or even to discretionary sanctions. A pity. A topic ban by the community (=placed by consensus at this board) would be an unreasonable hassle and waste of time, IMO — there has been enough waste of the community's time by this user, surely. Therefore, I recommend an indefinite block from article space, which can be appealed in the usual way on their page, or, no sooner than in six months, to the community at this board. Bishonen | tålk 18:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

  Agree w/ Bishonen. Enough time has passed, and enough energy has been wasted. You can PB at will can't you? Carry on, captain. ——Serial Number 54129 18:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Bishonen: Jonharojjashi was alerted of IPA DS in Aug 2023, so a (non-community imposed) topic ban remains an option. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I missed that. I've never seen such an alert not appear in the edit summary before - I thought that happened automatically. Well, in that case... do you think a t-ban or a mainspace block would be best and most relevant to the disruption, Abecedare and Serial Number 54129? Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: IMO a topic-ban would be preferable in order to not simply shift the burden of spotting copyright, paraphrasing, POVforking, source quality and source misrepresentation issues onto AFC reviewers. See this, this, this and the many abandoned drafts to get an idea of the concerns that have been previously raised. Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I hear you, Abe. On the other side, blocks are conveniently self-enforcing, while the user has ample opportunity to violate a topic ban through (perhaps innocently) misunderstanding how it works. I'm going by the difficulties they have demonstrated in understanding our copyright and sourcing policies. But you're right, a mainspace block wouldn't be fair on AFC reviewers. I have topic banned Jonharojjashi from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

Global account with similar name

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.

---

• 0xDeadBeef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This username resembles 0xDeadbeef. I am not sure if there are others.102.158.175.24 (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted, anon, although A user with 0 edits. Account created on 30 January 2013.  :) ——Serial Number 54129 11:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

They made a viable edit to frwiki at that time. But meh...this was all 11+ years ago. DMacks (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an ancient computing term; it is not unusual that two people would have thought of it for a username. And given the old account hasn't made an edit to any wiki for over ten years, I think we can ignore it. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And WHAAOE: 0xDEADBEEF. DMacks (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (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.

Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom

I resign as Arbitrator effective immediately. I will be retaining Oversight and giving up Checkuser. It's clear I am no longer at my best as an arbitrator and so rather than waiting for U4C to achieve quorum before resigning - as I still believe we should have no rule against serving on both but that it would be foolish in the extreme for a person to do both - I have made the decision to step down from ArbCom now. I look forward to focusing all my energies on the U4C and the ways outside of ArbCom I am able to help Wikipedia. Thank you to the community for electing me, I hope those who supported me felt like I honored their trust and thanks to my current and former colleagues from whom I learned so much. It has truly been an honor to serve. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom

Explanations about a block?

Hello,

As a sysop on frwiki, and global renamer, I came across the situation of Pelage de lézard. This contributor was blocked in August 2023 by Materialscientist, apparently for sockpupetting according to a CU and his renaming requests were logically denied. However, I cannot find any mention of his username on enwiki, and he hasn't made any contribution. I wrote to Materialscientist but after almost a week haven't received any answer. Could any of you give an explanation to Pelage de lézard? Thank you! Litlok (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Litlok It's User talk:Pelage de lézard, to edits to their talk page, both deleted so you can't see them. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we are expected to give an explanation to Pelage about the reasons for the block; also his 2 edits haven't been deleted afaics, they're still on his talk-page, asking about the reason for the block (in French). Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

From the CU log, Pelage de lézard was confirmed to Flo ! Allez, who was blocked for petty vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: OK, thank you! Litlok (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

More haste; less speed.

• Trump raised fist photographs (AfD discussion)

We all know how this goes, do we not? Let's let all timezones have a say before any administrator leaps in to close this. We're not in some desperate hurry. So for goodness' sake, please learn the lesson of not speedily closing these things after not even a full rotation of the planet. Thomas Matthew Crooks (AfD discussion) (and again) (and again) has been through three AFD discussions in a 15 hour period and through Deletion Review. Please learn from that at least, event if not from the umpteen other times that this has happened at AFD over the decades. Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

How yet do we not have at least a 48 hour moratorium on current events? We say we're NOTNEWS, and then we act like we are. Bewilders. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And closed within a day, because, of course it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotary Engine (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Well, Uncle G made the point that much of the commentary was just noise and of no use to a closing administrator, because they do not show at all how Wikipedia deletion policy applies, one way or the other, to the question at hand. Some people have addressed sourcing and notability, though, which is exactly what a closing administrator needs, and I'm sure the closing admin took that fully into account, Rotary Engine  :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, Aye. Fully. :) But whatever the quality of argument, given that the article would be extant during the discussion, it's not a thing that needed closing early. sotto voce: and the closing "adm-what now?" Rotary Engine ^talk 15:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me it would be particularly difficult to maintain less speed in a climate of more haste. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh FFS. This is exactly the reason I wrote WP:EVENT years ago. And why it has both "Don't rush to create articles" and "Don't rush to delete articles". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Do you really expect deletion despite heavy ongoing media coverage and the resulting new editors? Perhaps it would be reasonable to renominate only after a week.

Yes, I agree about Please learn from that at least. But it's not the closers that need to learn. The 2nd and 3rd nom for AfD, and the sock in the case of DRV, should all read WP:OTHERPARENT. The 1st nom might be OK, but the others should WP:DROPTHESTICK as discussed. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections to it being reopened, but does anyone honestly think it's going to turn out any different with more time? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

NAC at FFD File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp

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.

---

(Non-administrator comment)I don't think Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14#File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp was a good close, and it would've been better to have left it to an administrator who has experience in closing FFD discussions. This was a highly contentious discussion with many particpants. Non-free content use discussions can be quite nuanced and such closes often require and are expected to to be something that's simply more than a "Closed as keep" type of statement. I think this discussion probably falls under WP:BADNAC (no matter how well-meaning the close was), and should have at least been allowed to run the seven days typically allowed for FFD discussions and then perhaps be closed by someone more familiar with WP:FFDAI and more experience at closing file related discussions. This doesn't seem to be the right discussion for a non-administrator with what appears to be not a lot of experience in non-free content matters to decide to step in and close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC); edited 08:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. Thank you for notifying me of this discussion. I do have experience in non-free content matters. I have been a near daily editor of Wikipedia English (and frequent editor of Commons) since 2011. I carefully read the criteria for non-administrative closures of XFDs. My decision to close the discussion was motivated by fair use criteria (small/low pixel image of content not widely available, that is of educational use and for public information) and:

• by the following information inserted at the top of the discussion, making the matter seem moot to me: "Update: the nomination statement is now outdated. The article Trump raised fist photographs now exists, as well as a section in the main article: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump § "Raised fist photographs"
• the fact that an article about iconic raised fist Donald Trump assassination attempt photographs has already been created (after extensive discussion) and is even undergoing refinement for a minor name change, and a third article section, photographs during 2024 assassination attempts

If administrators feel that I improperly acted to close the XFD discussion, I apologize now, and will not attempt to do any such thing again in the future.--FeralOink (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Even beyond being a NAC, I am extremely concerned by the lack of any close rationale for a complicated discussion with nuanced copyright issues. A strong close rationale is expected in difficult closes. Curbon7 (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The series of automated XFD close steps caught me by surprise before I had a chance to enter a short form version of what I stated above. You're correct. I also just read this, above, about more haste, less speed in the context of Trump raised fist photos. Okay, mea culpa, it was a bad close. Revert me, reopen the discussion, and issue my punishment. I'm ready. Please don't block me from editing Wikipedia permanently though?--FeralOink (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)First off, nobody's asking for you to be punished (at least not me), Moreover, it kind of takes a bit of moxy to try and close a discussion such as that. I certainly don't think I could do it and I've got a fair amount of experience in FFD discussions. However, just from what you posted above, it seems like you might not be expereinced enough to take on something like this, particulary since you don't seem to be very active at FFD. For reference, WP:NFCC and fair use aren't really the same whenit comes to Wikipedia; they're being used interchangeably alot in that discussion, but Wikipedia's policy has been set up to be more restrictive that fair use. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of non-free content needs to satisfy and failing to satisfy even one of these means the particluar use is not policy compliant. In addition, FFD discussion typically run seven days before being closed as per WP:FFD and WP:FFDAI, except perhaps when it's quite clear an eariler close is going to be non-contentious or otherwise obvious. This discussion was only open for only two days and yet had a huge numnber of particpants discussing multiple interpretations of different non-free content use criteria. It's likely going to continue to generate more comments because there are not only multiple articles where some may want the file to be used, but also multiple ways in which the file could be used. FWIW, being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article may strengthen the justification for a particular non-free use, but it's doesn't automatically make said non-free NFCC compliant. I'm sure you meant well, but the number of participants in the discusison and the complexity of the what was being discussed probably pushed this discussion into realm of item 2 of WP:BADNAC, which means closing it is probably better left to an administrator whose more experienced in non-free content use policy and closing FFD discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I've undone the closure per your request. Certainly there's no need for any punishment or block—you understand the issue, so there's nothing more for us to do here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that one (and almost all XFDs) should run the full 7 days since there is no reason stated to close it early. I also think a detailed rationale is needed for a complex discussion like that. I see the closer gave permission to revert, which was done, so we should be all set here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a nuanced close is needed here. For a significant time during the FFD, people were voting "Keep" despite the fact that the image was a clear F7b speedy delete candidate. The only reason it isn't one now is because an article was quickly knocked together to make it not one, which I'm not sure is in the spirit of a Free Encyclopedia (regardless of the issues with that article itself). Black Kite (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The image was the subject of sourced commentary in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Aftermath continually since the time it was nominated, so I don't really think that's true. Endwise (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A sourced statement of any sort about the image was not added until this edit more than an hour after the image was nominated at FFD, when it looked like this. I can say I certainly would have speedied the file myself if I had known it was an Associated Press image when the FFD looked like this. Anyway, FFD is an extraordinarily bad place for non-admins to close discussions in general; more than anywhere else, debates there are closed on strength of policy-based argument rather than raw vote count, and there's still, among other things, an overriding and unrebutted UUI6 argument to remove the image from one of the articles it's currently in. —Cryptic 09:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, my mistake on the timing there. The version I remembered was indeed from about an hour or so after the FFD was opened. Endwise (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have replied in the FFD, arguing why FFD is not the proper venue for UUI6. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:NFCC, Files for discussion is the central venue to discuss whether a particular image meets the non-free content criteria, regardless of whether the file should be deleted or not. For example, a discussion might be held about whether it is appropriate to use an image in ARTICLE1 even if it unquestionably meets the criteria for use in ARTICLE2. However, this discussion is such a trainwreck that a new seperate thread to determine whether inclusion in the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump would be better. The image indutiably meets NFCC in the article about the photograph. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:05, 16 July 2024 (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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Super ninja2

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.

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Super ninja2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

"formally topic-banned from the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area indefinitely, appealable to AN in no less than 6 months"

Administrator imposing the sanction

Daniel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[76]

Statement by Super ninja2

The admin said in the unblock request's Accept reason: it goes without saying that you are on a pretty tight piece of rope here which means that If they mean what they say, then unblocking will be the right thing to do, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough. And during these 6 months I think that I proved that I understood my lesson. I restricted myself from editing both continuous and Palestine-Israel topic areas. Regarding my edits on other topics, I practiced self-restrain, patience, thinking twice before undoing an edit or saying something. I think that means I corrected my disruptive behavior. I don't think I will engage in any future lengthy heated discussions. Just some votes and maybe RfC. But if I do, I will do it calmly, discreetly and practice patience. Thank y'all. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

As per the thread in Super ninja2's archive (linked above), this restriction was implemented as part of an unblock agreement. No strong opinion either way from me about whether it gets lifted or retained, although I acknowledge the diff provided by Brad below gives me some level of pause. Whichever decision is reached via consensus here has my implicit blessing, as both outcomes would be reasonable in the circumstances — up to consensus to determine which is preferred. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by The Kip

My bad. The Kip (contribs) 04:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No opinion on the appeal itself (yet), but shouldn't this be at WP:AE? The Kip (contribs) 16:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC) The editor may...request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"). This is an appropriate venue. Grandpallama (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Context: I was the one who initially reported Super Ninja2 at ANI back in November, during my one major dabble in the ARBPIA area before I opted to stay away. This report, and a concurrent 3/1RR violation, is what led to his indef by HJ Mitchell, later reduced to a ARBPIA TBAN from Daniel.

On one hand, their prior history of edit warring and the whole Al-Ahli saga were... not ideal, and this incident from late February + this reverted edit from April still gives me some pause regarding an overturn of the TBAN - I'm not entirely convinced the maturity is there yet.

I was about to say that on the other hand, that's simply my opinion and I couldn't really find any concrete reasons to oppose an overturn, buuuuut this edit from last month seems like a pretty clear-cut TBAN violation, given the quote they modified directly relates to the conflict's hostage crisis. As a result, I don't think an overturn is the right move at this moment. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Super ninja2

• This is a topic ban violation from only 5 days ago. – bradv 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I thought the article does not belong to the Palestine-Israel topic area. But I see where you're coming from. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 16:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  You legitimately did not believe that edit violated your topic ban? Grandpallama (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Come on! If I wanted to violate my ban, I would have edited a more important article about the topic, right? Why would anyone want to get in trouble if they want to start an appeal right after, right? So you can have a good faith and confidently say that "No", I didn't mean it or believed it was in my ban. BUT, I do understand that this was/is a bad indicator, even I can see it (that's a more accurate and rational rephrasing). I was skeptical about editing it but gave it the benefit of doubt. But, yea, I know it's indicating that I'm a bit impulsive. I get it.

  And if you say:

  • "then why did you start an appeal knowing you are impulsive?"

  Only a little impulsive, trust me but more importantly I am making a progress!

  • "why would you expect us to accept the appeal?"

  Because acknowledging the flows in oneself is a good indicator for good behavior too? I mean you can't say you are perfect either (in editing Wikipedia context). I bet you have many flows but what matters is working and making a progress in being a constructive editor and it doesn't matter if I'm more flowed than you are in this field, it's making a progress into being a better editor what matters.

  Hope that wasn't extra! 😅

  ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 17:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  The topic ban was for the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area (emphasis mine). It was not for the Israel-Palestine topic area (note missing word). I note too that the topic ban did not say "broadly construed". Seeing the article, I don't see how Eli Harari has been involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, only that they were born in the region. I concur with Super ninja2 and disagree with Bradv; I don't see this as a topic ban violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  You have provided the reasoning/rationale I was looking to see from SuperNinja2. I'm not sure they realize why it is or isn't a violation, though I tend toward the latter. Grandpallama (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't realize how changing "Israel" to "Palestine" in relation to Tel Aviv is related to this conflict, then you likely haven't been very active in this topic area. Also, by default all topic bans are "broadly construed", unless otherwise specified. – bradv 00:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it's broadly construed, it's broadly construed. If it's not, it's not. I've seen a lot of topic bans. If it was to be specified, it should have been. It's absence isn't Super ninja2's fault. I've also seen a considerable number of edits on various articles across the project that properly adjust what a birth place is based on the time of birth. It's a very common edit, and proper to do so. Again, Super ninja2 didn't do anything wrong. It's a good edit, and outside of the topic ban. If this is the only thing anyone can find that even remotely smacks of Super ninja2 doing anything wrong in the last six months, I dare say the case has been made that Super ninja2 has been acting very appropriately. Personally, I haven't investigated their edits over the last six months. But, this claim is making the case in favor of Super ninja2 all on its own. Please come up with something substantive. This one isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'll openly admit I'm not the biggest fan of SuperNinja's past conduct (I was the one that reported him in the first place, leading to his TBAN) - with that said, I don't really think this is as severe as you believe it to be.

  It'd be one thing if he changed a post-1948-born Israeli individual's birth location to "Tel Aviv, Palestine" (as in the modern State of Palestine), which would obviously be a TBAN violation; however, the subject of that article was born in 1945, when Tel Aviv was still part of Mandatory Palestine (as in the British-controlled mandate/territory). It'd be similar to changing a 30s/40s-born Jordanian's birth country to "Transjordan," rather than simply Jordan. Besides debates on whether birth locations should be contemporary or modern, it seems like an appropriate edit to make. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Have I missed something somewhere? Is it now normal for WP:AN to include discussions for arbitration appeals? No comment on this particular one's merits; I'm just not sure it's in the right place. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Nyttend, in my original notification I advised them that they can appeal at AE or AN, as per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's never made sense to me why the process allows for two separate locations for appeals as standard, but it does. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  As I posted above: The editor may...request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"). This is an appropriate venue. Grandpallama (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2024 (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 of protected redirect (AFC/R)

During the course of handling this AfC/R request, I was blocked from creating the redirect due to seemingly blanket title blacklist. Could an administrator create the target page? Thank you. Garsh (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Garsh2, not an admin, but done. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I forgot page movers can do this too. Apologies and thanks. Garsh (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

EggRoll97 and Garsh2, the IP that requested the redirect creation was the same sockmaster that led to the blacklisting. Any objection to deletion? I'm not sure WP:G5 speedy deletion fits here, since the sock isn't the one that created the page, so I'd prefer something like WP:G7. I'm not sure which of you to consider the "author", and I'd love to hear from you both. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll invite any uninvolved editor to disagree, but I find this to be an independently valid redirect regardless of who the AfC/R requester may have been. It strikes me as an obvious subtopic redirect under WP:POFR, and a validating source was even provided in the request. What goes on with the sockpuppetry is not my area of interest, but I will object to deletion based on the merit of the redirect itself. Garsh (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's reasonable. If you find this edit to be good, you may want to restore it and assume responsibility for its content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I find myself in a situation where this edit is not one I would have otherwise made, but I do not see anything that makes it immediately revertible (other than the obvious sock). I'll look further into it shortly. Thanks for your help on this, there turned out to be more here than I originally thought. Garsh (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, Garsh, but this request was by a sockpuppet. If you looked at the history of the redirect page, you'd see that it was created by several socks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that this appears to be a frequent sock target and I was informed about the nature of the request in the above comments. Thanks. Garsh (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers and Liz: I agree with what Garsh2 commented above. I saw the deletion log, but the redirect led to, at the time (prior to the removal of the section) a section that contained a source indicating at least some level of notability, so I didn't see any reason not to create the redirect. It still remains mentioned on the target article for Kashf Foundation at Kashf Foundation#Media and social platforms, so per WP:PROXYING I will take responsibility for the content. No opinion personally on the edit that was reverted to the page itself, I'm not sure it really needs its own section. I've retargeted the redirect to the Media and social platforms section. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA gaming?

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

---

The user Amayorov, despite having an eight-year-old account, made their first edit on 3 July 2024 before proceeding to pass 500 edits and receive extended confirmed permissions on 6 July 2024. All of the edits made, 100s a day, were on European politics and history. Shortly after achieving EC permissions, suddenly it's all 1948 Palestine war, specifically inserting Benny Morris as a source all over the place and doing some work on the Benny Morris biography. Apparently European content has lost its appeal. Make of this what you will. I also have to wonder if, despite having an extant account for 8 years, achieving 500 edits in three days (rather than the 30 days as envisaged in the ECR rule set) is somewhat of a violation of the spirit of the restrictions, even if not the technical function. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Were there any issues with the edits?

Discussions recently have come to the conclusion that absent obvious abuse - unproductive or disruptive edits, or repeatedly making a dozen edits to do what could be done in one or two - it’s acceptable for editors to work towards ECP.

To an extent, this makes sense - if we tell people "this is what you need to edit this topic area" we can’t reasonably expect editors interested in the topic area to not work towards it. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

see my reply Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Issues other than that pushing Benny Morris here there any everywhere with little regard for any other sources is a terrible form of disregard for NPOV? That alone, in a contentious topic area, is pretty disruptive. The 500/30 rule is aimed at ensuring a minimum level of understanding and competency. Yes, some are encouraged to rush the requirements, but we shouldn't encourage editors to rush the requirements. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not "push Benny Morris" but rather expanded on the already existing citations to his work. Recall that Benny Morris' 2008 book had already been the most quoted reference on that page. When necessary, I've added phrases such as "some scholars allege that" etc.

When you and other users disagreed with my edits, I didn't proceed, but rather created sections on the Talk page. Unlike other users, you didn't engage.

I think the extensive sourcing I use in any of my edits illustrate that I at least possess "a minimum level of competency". Amayorov (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have engaged. As of the time of me writing this, there are at least two comments from me to you that you have not responded to. Again, this can be checked. I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You wrote those comments less than an hour before reporting me on the Admin board. Yes –– all of this can be checked.

I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Amayorov (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant in regardless to the substance of this complaint - with the edits to reach 500.

If we don’t tell editors that they can’t work towards 500/30, then how should they know we don’t want them to work towards them? If the goal is to ensure a minimum level of understanding and competency, and 500 edits isn’t sufficient for that, then let’s modify the requirements - for example, require edits to be a minimum byte size to count, as I have proposed in the past. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. However, I have clearly written plenty of bytes in my 500 edits, in some cases going as far as copy-editing entire pages that had been poorly translated or unsourced. You can see all that in my edit history. Amayorov (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is patently false. I have made extensive edits to various topics, including military history and Central Asian history, paganism, and engineering. All my corrections were extensively referenced. I have also rewritten several large articles, requiring copy-edit and verification.

It is true that I have re-activated my account in the week. This is simply a reflection of the fact that I have free time, and have grown fond of Wikipedia.

Benny Morris' 1948 book has always been the most referenced book on the topic. I have used not only that book but also others by different authors, as well as sourcing UN archives.

I have added corrections and more references on the subject, including 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and Palestinian nationalism. None of the other users had an issue with my work.

By contrast, @Iskandar323 has reverted my edits without giving a justification. They also ignored my attempts at a discussion in the Talk pages. Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I had a justification, and I have responded on talk. I suggest that you avoid misrepresenting things that can be checked up on (on an administrative noticeboard). And yes, other users have taken up issue with your edits. I'm not sure why you would misrepresent this. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your justification was RV gf edits - unfortunately, adding random titbits of background information from Morris, removing dates and badly rephrasing other parts is not an improvement.

This is not specific or constructive. In order to clarify your objections, I created discussion topics on the Talk page – which you have ignored. Amayorov (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have responded to some, not all of your posts. However, I would prefer to see what administrators think of this situation before potentially unduly spending more time on explaining why expanding claims from a single source that is, in your own words, already the most [(over-)]quoted reference on the page, is not particularly in the service of NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You have responded to them half an hour ago, almost immediately posting on the Admin board.

Yes, Benny Morris is the most quoted historian on the 1948 war. I barely added new references to him, usually simply extending the existing ones. Amayorov (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I should be grateful that you've helped illustrate quite how over-represented Benny Morris is (more than 50 citations and mentions), but again, that begs the question of why you think this clear imbalance problem should be worsened. If you can't see that there might be an imbalance problem there, that somewhat illustrates why the 500/30 rule exists and why a month of actual editing is, in spirit, what is expected of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Because Morris has written multiple, highly regarded books on the 1948 war. He's cited by plenty of other authors, such as Shlaim, Khalidi, Ben-Ami, and others.

Besides, and as I've previously explained, I didn't add much new material. I've clarified previous references and added qualifications to partisan statements. Amayorov (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, Iskandar323, moreso than any actual gaming. It seems like it might be better to have discussed this with the editor on a talk page, not hauled them to AN. The editor's contributions appear to be in good faith, and while I haven't gone into a full deep-dive or anything of the sort, they don't seem to be unconstructive at first glance. Favoring a specific historian isn't necessarily a behavioral issue, so long as they are willing to discuss inclusion and abide by the results of consensus. Building a culture of continually questioning those who take the time to build a constructive editing history in order to prove they can be trusted with access to contentious topics is a terrifying idea. If I was to accuse someone of gaming for rollback, for example, because they spent a lot of time reverting vandals, it would likely be considered at the very least rude, and at worst a personal attack. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a content dispute for sure, which I will continue in good faith. At the same time, there is only one type of account that I have ever seen that goes from 0 to 100 edits a day on some random topic before switching (after 3 frenetic days) to almost pure ARBPIA edits, and it isn't the constructive variety. There are plenty of dubious accounts that have just passed this threshold currently operating in the contentious topic area. This account, however, caught my eye due to the rapid edit aggregation and glaring topic switch. I have raised the issue of quite a few gaming accounts on this noticeboard, and to date, most of them have raised eyebrows for admins too. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, from my perspective there appears to be some unnecessary edit farming in this user's background. For instance, Sukhoi Shkval did not require 40 edits in a row to achieve this relatively minimal difference, while not managing to add a single in-line citation or new source. On 9К512 Uragan-1M we got some extremely minor, non-substantive copyediting that frankly didn't change the readability of the article much. An improvement? Perhaps trivially, but reasonable editors could disagree there. Worth sanctioning over? IMO probably not, but I don't think Iskandar323's concerns are without merit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 9K512 Uragan-1M, the article had been marked as “roughly translated.” I did my best to correct residual grammatical errors, before marking the issue as resolved.

Regarding Sukhoi-Shkval, I agree that 40 edits were excessive. One reason for this was that I was still learning about the editing tools, discovering new templates and features. Another justification is that I had to decipher some unclear text, such as “Each wing has a rudder that functions as a rudder and aileron.” Here, the first “rudder” is in fact not a rudder at all, but a flap. I had only figured that out once I read through the sources. Amayorov (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't require 40 edits from an experienced editor who knew everything about how wikitext worked, but for somebody figuring it out for the first time I am inclined to assume good faith. jp×g🗯️ 20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There may be something going on with ARBPIA, perhaps unrelated to this, but worth thinking about. We had a recently compromised account jump into ARBPIA in the past week, threatening to report other editors if reverted, then reporting a prominent ‘opponent’ to WP:AE, volunteering to be topic banned if the ‘opponent’ is also topic banned, before being Checkuser blocked by an Arb. starship.paint (RUN) 23:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I was going to report this user as well. Account created in 2016 but first edit made a few days ago and quickly put in 500 edits, immediately jumps into Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, seemingly POV-pushing. Seems to be an experienced user as well. I agree with @Starship.paint that there seems to be something going on with ARBPIA, specifically a surge in sock accounts. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether these plots can provide any illumination. The dramatic change in slope and shape of the bytes added and page byte size change curves after extendedconfirmed has been granted at 500 edits is consistent with the notion of gaming to obtain the privilege in order to enter the contentious PIA topic area. These kind of signal shapes for users that enter the PIA topic area can often be seen for sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון, not that that suggests this is an AHJ sock. Wikipedia provides tools to help new users rapidly gain EC. Sometimes this kind of impressive efficiency is thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation Growth team's "Newcomer tasks" project. Also, their first edit being an WP:ARBECR violation is not great. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

When I was doing my edits, I was using almost exclusively Wiki’s backlog. I chose the issues that I could conceivably help with, such as Rough Translation from Russian and French (the languages I speak), and lead rewrite requests. I intend to continue on with this work in the future.

And, yes, I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start. Amayorov (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Amayorov but you don't need to defend yourself to me. I'm nobody. I'm just providing information. Either way, the notion of gaming in Wikipedia and its relationship to the WP:ARBECR barrier is currently rather vague. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Where did you learn to add a colon prefix to the category name in your busy schedule by the way e.g. :Category:Wikipedia backlog|Wiki’s backlog? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The visual editor adds it automatically, when I link to the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog Amayorov (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Either way, regardless of the specifics of this editor, it's important for the community to acknowledge that a) WP:ARBECR was introduced as an entry barrier for good reasons and b) highly motivated people have already discovered ways to essentially tunnel through that barrier. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not being a tech wizard, I can only judge by what I see over time. I am in the habit of adding awareness notices if I notice new editors (non EC or EC) making edits in the topic area and off the top of my head, I would say that occurs 3 or 4 times a month at least, there appears to be an increase in the number of such editors in recent times, as to what proportion of them are WP:NOTHERE I couldn't say but experience tells me that some at least are in that category. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating your contribution. This year I think you have provided the awareness notices to 202 users, or thereabouts. That is based on your revisions to user talk pages where the byte size change is in a range consistent with the awareness template size. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The top of my head is very unreliable then, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: There is an easier way to check; see this log search. Selfstudier has posted 210 this year. BilledMammal (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's useful to know. Thanks. I've not really spent any time looking at the filters, despite them being a likely information goldmine. On the other hand, the pointlessly harder path is often more fun. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No comment about the gaming accusation, but the ARBPIA edits themselves seem fine. Morris is arguably the most prominent historian in this area, and one of the more neutral ones, with critics from both sides. It's debatable whether some of the added content is important enough to include, but it's reasonable enough, and Amayorov seems open to feedback and compromise. POV pushing involves aggression, which I don't see here. If we were to expect some kind of strict symmetry in editing behavior, the vast majority of us ARBPIA editors would fail that standard. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's quite natural that hot topics attract new editors trying to fix (perceived) gaps or biases. I myself got to 500 edits within two months after getting involved in another contentious area. At the end of the day the question should be whether an editor understands and follows the rules. Alaexis_¿question? 21:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say, at the start of the day the test should be - is an editor violating the rules merely by being here evading a block or ban. Unfortunately, it's not possible to tell whether an editor understands and follows the rules, all of the rules, not just a subset, by looking at the content they generate and the image they present. If an editor violates the rule against sockpuppetry by employing deception, a very common occurrence in the PIA topic area, it's reasonable to assume they will likely violate other rules while generating content or interacting with editors at some point. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Amayorov can you explain why your account was created on July 8, 2016, but your very first edit[77] is on July 3, 2024? To me that's a red flag. A proposed remedy is that Amayorov's 30 days start from July 3, 2024.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I explained it here. In 2016, I created an account for a university practical that required me to create a web page about a chemical compound on Wikidata. In my case, it was a terpenoid, Q44009079‬. I don't know why the page doesn't exist anymore, but I found emails from 2018, notifying that other pages have been linked to it (see screenshots).

  A couple weeks ago, I started to be interested in trying out Wikipedia editing. I'm currently waiting to start a new job, and have plenty of time. Amayorov (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I've been able to retrace this a bit more, and what I said wasn't entirely accurate. In 2017, I created a new account, @Alexmayorov, specifically for that practical. I used it to create Q44009079. Both Amayorov and Alexmayorov are registered on the same email address. Regarding @Amayorov, created in 2016, I can't recall why I made it.

  In April 2023, I decided to restore access to my account. I couldn't recall my username, and requested a password reset using my email. That reset came back with Amayorov as the user. Amayorov (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, this is my second account, which I've only just realised I had! Alexmayorov (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Alexmayorov, @Amayorov if you're going to have two accounts, you should disclose on your userspace of each what the alternative account is. Just to cover yourself from accusations of socking in the future. TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Have just added the relevant userbox, thanks! I only intend to be using one though Amayorov (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confused. It says "20:42, July 12, 2024 User account Alexmayorov talk contribs was created automatically", as opposed to 2017.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexmayorov IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Because it was a wikidata only account. So the en.wiki one poofed into existence when they logged in here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent Amayorov (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks! VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent Ping as requested Amayorov (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see this as "gaming" anything, but more of a content dispute (which should be resolved amicably at the talk page). Buffs (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2024 (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.

Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The November announcement of the suspension of Beeblebrox is amended to remove the sentence These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums. and insert in its place the sentence In September 2021, within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal.

For the Arbitration Committee, Aoidh (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox

RfC closure review request at Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

Mukokuseki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: User talk:LokiTheLiar#Notice of noticeboard discussion

Reasoning:
1. Discussion of point 1 ended with "no agreement to take or not take an action", and should have been closed as no consensus. None of the "No" voters responded to any attempts to discuss their positions, and of them User:Biosaurt did not cite any evidence for their position beyond personal opinion and User:Super ninja2 simply copypasted an already debunked paragraph from a previous discussion, which did not even apply to the running version of the page at the time.
2. LokiTheLiar cited the rough majority towards "no" on point 1 as the basis of their eventual decision, however, rather than what they described as a "firm majority" in the closure message, the "no" votes were only one vote away from a clean 50%, which would not be a majority; Loki only evaluated it as a majority because they counted User:Seraphimblade's highly conditional "no" as a vote. Seraphimblade did not respond to an attempt to explain how the condition in question was not met by the article at the time, their vote should as such have counted as a "yes" or "neutral" vote instead. This was just a further result of Superninja actively misinterpreting or misrepresenting the phrasing of the article in their original request submission, as was noted in a comment elsewhere in the same thread.
See here for the version of the article at the time of closure. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Addendum, The closure message also implied the expected course of action would be to remove the information cited to Yano and Oana-Maria but to keep the information cited to Ruh, which would be a flagrant violation of the policy on neutral point of view. Should have been clarified in the closure message. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Closer (Mukokuseki)

1. I don't know what Orchastrattor is talking about here. There very much was an agreement to take an action, namely to remove the phrase about Western features. There were only six participants, but of those, four of them supported removing the phrase about Western figures. As the closer I get to weigh the relative strength of the arguments and my determination was that there wasn't anything that was either particularly strong or particularly weak, so I went by the consensus as expressed by the participants.

2. I mean, this feels like it's restating my close message in hostile terms. Yes, it would have been a "clear consensus" if there were more people, because 2/3 of the participants supported "no". However, since there were only six participants, I didn't feel comfortable saying something so strong, so I only found a "rough consensus". Yes, there's so few participants means is that if one participant had flipped the result would have changed... and that's exactly why it's a rough consensus rather than a clear one. The actual fact of the matter is that nobody did flip, and the actual votes were 4 to 2.

Seraphimblade can say more about his !vote, but while he was less strongly for it than the others he did very clearly say he was "no" on 1. Furthermore, one of the two "yes" votes was a qualified yes, so I don't think this line of reasoning holds up.

Also, Orchastrattor repeatedly says or implies that not responding to his counterarguments constitutes a weak argument. That's not true and I'd invite them to read WP:BLUDGEONING. Loki (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of Bludgeon, thank you. I am not saying any individual editor was at fault for failing to respond, I am saying that the fact that none of the four or five editors in question engaged with opposing arguments indicates the overall lack of discussion I alluded to. I had to respond to Biosaurt simply because I had already reverted one of their edits, but if either Seraphim or Superninja had responded to me at least once I would have already been far more willing to accept the closure as an actual consensus.

On that note you keep saying you weren't "comfortable" with stating a clear consensus, but why does that matter if the "rough" consensus is just as binding for the future of the article? The risk of POV in Ruh's favor is just as great either way, what is even the point of distinguishing between the two? Orchastrattor (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Put more directly, why would you be confident enough putting this consensus as the closure if you aren't actually confident that it sufficiently represents the consensus of the community? Orchastrattor (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I am confident that it sufficiently represents the consensus of the community. You're mistaken about what a "rough consensus" means. Loki (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an internally accepted definition for a rough consensus versus a clear consensus. You described it as a situation in which no one argument can be said has been demonstrated through discussion to be stronger or weaker than another, which sounds an awful lot like a no-consensus closure to me. Polling is meaningless if no actual policy- and source-based discussion took place. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

But I said exactly that in the close: Since this is very fact based, I don't really see either side of this argument as inherently stronger, but the fact that the No side had clearly more people implies strongly that it was more convincing.

And discussion did take place, it's just gone against you. Sorry about that but you have to learn how to accept a loss. Loki (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Simply stating a stance the most times isn't discussion. The main wpspace article on Consensus clearly states that discussion must use "reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", that "[t]he quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view", that "[t]he arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever", and that "as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting".

Out of the four votes you cited IOHANNVSVERVS was just referencing an earlier discussion that reached a complete impasse, Seraphim was only speaking abstractly and still hasn't made their stance on the actual article clear, Superninja wasn't even talking about the same version of the article as everyone else, and Biosaurt's should have been discarded immediately for WP:OR. Polling returning four to two votes doesn't matter if in terms of actual arguments presented its closer to one-and-a-half to two. Expecting a reply to at least one of my four comments was perfectly reasonable on my part. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants (Mukokuseki)

• That's a remarkably obvious "endorse". There's also an opportunity for a sysop to visit the nominator's talk page to offer support, advice and guidance.—S Marshall T/C 17:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I'm really more confused on what problem is here..? The close appears fair and neutral, and judging by the RfC, it may be helpful if an admin (or just, someone? I'm not sure how best to offer advice to this user, personally) were to give some guidance to the filer, because the most gentle way I can put such advice would be that a reading of WP:SATISFY would be beneficial for the filer based on their demands that participants in the RfC give them a satisfactory answer for their opinions to be valid. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• I looked the discussion over around a month ago with a view to close, although I didn't get around to it. I think the conclusions I reached were similar to those in the close, so a clear endorse for me. I also remember noting Orchastrattor's borderline incivility in their WP:BLUDGEONING-adjacent replies; I suggest they try to keep a lid on that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Participants (Mukokuseki)

SuperNinja2

This user is constantly edit warring and has disruptive editing behavior and would not stop annoying the community to have the articles reflect their narrative. I hope you take proper action with them to stop them from disturbing the work of the community. We have other things to do than dealing with them. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 18:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't even like anime, what narrative would I be pushing? I had essentially no familiarity with the subject of the article before I started collecting the sources for it, I am just placing Yano's view as equally important with other views because that is what the sources indicate. That is the basic requirement of WP:Neutral point of view, if you do not believe it applies in this case the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Orchastrattor

I understand the concerns over SATISFY, however I still feel justified in highlighting Seraphim's case because their answer could have determined whether their comment actually counts as a vote or not, my argument there is that in absence of further clarification the closer should have erred on the side of caution and counted it as a "neutral" vote or something similar. additionally the two comments I directed at Superninja were concerned with an underlying issue of if they were engaging in good faith with an objective reading of the correct revision of the article, something I also feel would have been reasonable for the closer to consider. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Release of the 2021 letter to Just Step Sideways

The Arbitration Committee attaches the following addendum to its previous announcement regarding the suspension of Beeblebrox, also known as Just Step Sideways:

Redacted contents of the 2021 letter

Dear Beeblebrox, I'm writing to you on behalf of the rest of the committee, after (Redacted). Your plain speaking is appreciated, however there have been a couple of occasions that comments made in public risk compromising the faith the community puts in arbitrators to conduct arbitration fairly. Two important traits the community expects us to be are to be (a) discreet and (b) scrupulous/fair. Mocking another editor (albeit one currently indefinitely blocked on en-wiki) on a Wikipedia criticism site is not compatible with fairness, and candid comments about differences in opinion concerning (Redacted) and (Redacted) are not compatible with discretion. Outside the public comments, your recent message to the functionaries list regarding (Redacted) has caused significant consternation amongst editors there. Whilst you may not have realised (Redacted), the tone used in regard to another contributor who is participating in good faith was also not compatible with scrupulous behaviour. Can you please be really really careful in situations where a public comment (a) may reveal or hint at private committee discussion, or (b) come across as denigrating, mocking or flippantly dismissing another person's concerns, or other ad hominem comments, in all fora, but particularly if made on Wikipediocracy. For the Arbitration Committee,

Support: Aoidh, Barkeep49, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree

Oppose: CaptainEek, Maxim, Primefac, Z1720

Abstain: HJ Mitchell

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Release of the 2021 letter to Just Step Sideways

Reporting Nisf

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.

---

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

I sadly wish to report this user for baseless accusations aimed at me. The user claims I have made unconstructive edits when I have not so far during my time here in fact I’ll happy present this for your eyes Special:Contributions/Fishytimes196 Please can you help clear this issue for good thank you kindly and sorry for all of this Fishytimes196 (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That and they went out it they’re way to insult my mother who is no longer around Fishytimes196 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have anything to back this up? I can't find any evidence of Nisf having said that. Also, when reporting a user, please inform them on their talk page, I've done it for you. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank u and unfortunately they seem to have erased said information Fishytimes196 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope to resolve this issue and gain closure Fishytimes196 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

And if u meant in constructive edits then “Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Disney+ original programming. Your edits appear to be disruptive” when I barely said anything Fishytimes196 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a fairly serious accusation that I think should be retracted.  miranda :3  22:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You must provide WP:DIFFs of the offending comments. We're not trawling through their contributions trying to figure out what you're referring to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

If nothing can be done about this matter I will respect your decision and move on sorry Fishytimes196 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was was there anything on my wikipedia contribution page that u would consider in constructive and attacking sorry not to sound rude Fishytimes196 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, Fishytimes196 appears to be a sockpuppet account for the ISP address 2.98.157.209. The reason for the reversion of their edits has been explained, they were warned their for continued disruptive editing (which they deleted from their talk page). I chose not to engage further and they posted... whatever's going on here. Nisf (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s official I’m leaving wikiedpia now Fishytimes196 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

if I’m considered a puppet then I have not a single thing to say that will convince you otherwise. If you are unwilling to apologise for your actions and end this fight then I’ll just finish it and not speak to u ever again thank u and now I’m out for good. Fishytimes196 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Fishytimes196, if you decide to reverse your flouncing out here are a few things to bear in mind:

1. People are welcome to log in or contribute without logging in, but doing both in the same or related disputes is frowned upon.
2. Reports at WP:AN or anywhere where an editor's behaviour needs to be looked at should come with evidence, preferably in the form of diffs. Things in blue are links which should be read.
3. People will look at the behaviour of everyone (including the reporter) involved in a dispute.
4. Many people here (including me) are prejudiced against people who don't write in pretty standard, pretty formal English when in a situation that demands it. I mean things like "u" for "you" and the misuse of capital letters.

I think that's enough for now. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Spelling has nothing to do with this so please move on from that. Thank U Fishytimes196 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fishytimes196, this is your only warning, do not remove other editors comments. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies it’s just I’m not happy with the slander present by this user nisf of this issue cannot be resolved then I’ll remove myself from the equation thank u and my apologies for said removal Fishytimes196 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fishytimes196, you need to provide a link to the edit in which Nisf "went out it they’re way to insult my mother who is no longer around". I've looked at Nisf's contributions and cannot find an edit that supports your accusation. Schazjmd (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I suspect this is likely a case of WP:BOOMERANG. I noticed 2.98.157.209 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)'s problematic editing a few days ago and just judging by the edits here, they're the WP:LOUTSOCK of Fishytimes196 (talk · contribs) – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a coincidence I bet. Q ^{T C} 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fishy times indeed – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:37, 17 July 2024 (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.

Merging an article

It has been suggested to merge the Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force article to Roshan Goonetileke, I do not know how to merge, please tell me the system of merging, after merging contents from the Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force to Roshan Goonetileke, will the Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force article be redirected to Roshan Goonetileke? Hamwal (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

They've been merged. For future reference, see Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed motion on historical elections

The Arbitration Committee is considering a proposed motion related to opening a case to examine behavior within the historical election topic area. Community statements are welcome at the above link. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion on historical elections

Indian National Army potential edit warring

Hello, I am trying to bring attention to a potential edit warring on the page Indian National Army. The page had been initially written with painful attention to NPOV since there is a percpetion amongst Indians that this organisation was one of "Freedom fighter", whilst amongst British historians they were "Fascist/Japanese collaborators". This was covered in the main article. I haven't kept watch on this article, but it seems the "collaborator" identity (and a pejorative connotation) has now become very important to a few editors, along with factual inaccuracies, and my reversion to the last neutral version (although still degenrated to a poor version since 2007) has since been reverted by another editor Orientls (talk) twice. I do not wish to engage edit warring, but it appears the editor has dismissed the fact that the article (as initially written in NPOV) relied on history books written by historians dedicated to the topic, and instead relying on snippets and sentences from tertiary sources like sentences etc in publsihed book to claim WP:RS. I have pointed out that there are two POVs, but this particular editor appears to be very dismissive of other PoVs to the point of dismissing reliable sources, and appers to be asking for evidence of what is very obvious. some help and input would be appreciated.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The edit warring appears to have been by the OP. This is a content dispute that should be discussed, as it is being, on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Doing a 4 year revert is a bold choice, granted that page history is a mess – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I will note that the 4-year revert to the "stable" version stretches the term "stable" a bit. In my capacity as an admin, I'd recommend 1RR be imposed to prevent this sort of back-and-forth slower edit warring. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would recommend article protection or page blocks for both parties because from the talk page discussion because frankly both sides are wrong: rueben_lys arguing that NPOV should be based on what "people" believe rather than reliable and sources and Orientls citing a book about a imagined alternate history in which the Japanese won WWII for historical facts! Abecedare (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• You are reading it wrong. On talk page, I had cited a total of 5 sources of which this book is one, authored by military historian Peter G. Tsouras (cited across Wikipedia) and this has called "more academic in nature" (in comparison with other alternate histories) by others.[78] Also see earlier discussion on military alternative history on WP:RSN.[79] Nobody blocks anyone for citing such books in talk page discussion only for showing a "prevalent fact" which is backed by other 4 scholarly sources cited in the same message. Orientls (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

KiranBOT

KiranBOT keeps add things like this to Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/November 2004. I know the bot is just doing what it's been tasked to do and doesn't "read" what it's adding, but that's some pretty offensive stuff that might even need to be WP:REVDEL. Perhaps someone needs to manually go through the bots edits and get rid of the really offensive stuff, and also check that it's not happening on other pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot for the moment until this can be sorted out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Also if this is sorted out and I'm not around, any admin can lift the block for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I terminated the program responsible for that particular task, in case RickinBaltimore is not around, would someone kindly unblock the bot? I will fix the problem soon, but the bot needs to be unblocked for other tasks. I apologise for the inconvenience, and thanks for the patience. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it for you. No problem, happy to help! RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Rick! See you around :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, this appears to be a legitimate archival, just that the bot is trying to archive vandalism. See here for the previous discussion. The behavior is ultimately just the bot functioning as intended, it's just that the page history for the ITN template includes revisions by the AppleWorks vandal back in 2004 (I know, ye olden days.) which inserted graphic imagery since the template wasn't fully protected back then. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97, RickinBaltimore, and Usernamekiran: I realize the bot is just doing what it's been tasked to do and isn't acting or being used maliciously. I also am not trying to throw shade on the bot's creator/operator. The problem totally lies at the feet of the accounts that originally made the posts being archived. The bot is, however, still archiving things like this mixed in with the proper edits it's archiving. This issue seems to involve archiving really old ITN posts that almost certainly would be immediately removed and likely revdeleted if made today. Is there's a way to use the bot (directly or indirectly) to find these post so that an administrator can go in and get rid of them once and for all? There's no point in doing anything about the accounts that made the posts, but the posts themselves shouldn't be allowed to be publicly visible on some archived page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this sort of thing happens with old history archives. It also occurred with the old bot-generated village pump archives; I obliterated most of the evidence when reordering them last year, but you can still see some bizarre letter-changing vandalism in this bot archive of Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive AH (search for Comcast if the anchor doesn't work). Graham87 (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if this is really the end of the world; it's just a bunch of schoolyard nonsense. I mean: "A bastard on wheels is an ugly car on FUCKING BASTARDS BLOODY MOTHERFUCKING BASTARD FOR PISSING IN MY FUCKING GRANNYS FLOWERPOTS" -- who cares? Anyway, this is a thing which seems to co back to December. jp×g🗯️ 12:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Peter Sonski 2024 Presidential Campaign

Could an administrator take a look at Peter Sonski 2024 Presidential Campaign? It seems to have been started as Draft:Peter Sonski 2024 Presidential Campaign, but then was copied and pasted into the mainspace earlier today. A draft isn't really needed if the article is OK for the mainspace, but perhaps it would be better to submit this to AfC for review. I did some really minor clean up, but there's still entire sections that are unsourced and seem to have some NPOV issues. There's also a good chance there might be some COI edit going on, but that's just a guess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree that draftifying and submitting to AfC would be the right venue for this - it’s certainly in-depth enough to make a decent article, and the existing sourcing seems adequate, but I share the NPOV/ concerns. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The copy-paste is fine attribution-wise, since the sole author of the draft is also the one who copied the content from the draft into the mainspace. But Earwig is not super happy when just checking the links in the page, as this appears to largely be a copy-paste from campaign materials or elsewhere. WP:COPYPROBLEMS here we come... — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, @Marchjuly: you probably should notify the page creator when bringing this sort of thing here if you are alleging that there might be some COI edit going on. I've done so, in this edit, but just please remember to do so going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: My bad about the lack of COI notification. My apologies to the creator for that. Anyway, I didn't think attribution was a problem for the reason you cited, It does seem redundant, though, to have a draft and an article about the same subject matter. Assuming the the copyvio problems also pertain to the draft, then perhaps it should be nuked so that the focus can be shifted to clearing the article of copyvio content. Are you going to list the article at WP:CPN? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Already done at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 July 18. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Thanks for taking care of the CPN stuff. I've apologized to the creator on their user talk page for not notifying them about this. I suggested that they consider requesting that the draft be deleted per WP:G7 since there's really no need for it anymore. If that's not possible until the copyvio issue is resolved, please let me know. I'll strike that suggestion from my post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi all.

thanks for all the info.

Ive rewritten the article on my sandbox without the copyvio material. I did use one link as a ref in a way i think complies.

Either way... am i ok to just paste back in the article with the clarifications or are there other things to do? I should add that a good percentatge of the article was already outside of the copyvio sections.

Thanks again Eleutherius (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

apologies i read the way ahead on the copyvio notice. Still learning. I think ive rectified the situation now. Eleutherius (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we place Extended confirmed protection?

all articles on Israel - Palestine articles should have this this article was recently created. on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_to_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war Astropulse (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish took care of the recently added article. M.Bitton (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Death of Jay Slater

Is there a template or something that can be added to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Death of Jay Slater to let those posting on it know that !votes should be added to the discusion's main page? Maybe {{Not a vote}}? In addition, it seems like it might be a good idea to add "Not a vote" to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jay Slater. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Added (not a vote) template to the AfD. As for the others, not a lot we can do except tell them they've got it wrong, but I bet most of them aren't ... shall we say ... people who are going to come back and take any notice of it. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing that Black Kite. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Account hacked

I have two Wikipedia accounts. On my new device I was able to log in to my first one alright, but the email of my second one was changed. I have publicly linked both of them a long time ago and I can prove my identity. Please help. 2409:4042:818:A8D5:28D6:71FF:FE03:CB55 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Well if you can log on from one, then you can post from there to prove who you are. see Wikipedia:Compromised accounts#After being compromised. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Rohitha Aluvihare

I have created a page titled Rohitha Aluvihare, please create a talk page of this article. Hamwal (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone already created it. In the future you can create it yourself by clicking on the red link (e.g. the Talk tab) and typing some wikicode. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

User is ignoring ArbCom's explicit instructions, is harassing, hounding, and attacking me

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.

---

CloversMallRat (talk · contribs · logs) (CMR) is someone who edits--among other topics--music-related articles. On several occasions, some of his editing has involved coming to an article to change its existing styles (among other changes that he makes). I have brought up how we have several portions of the MoS that explicitly say to not do this (e.g. MOS:CITEVAR or MOS:RETAIN), particularly MOS:VAR, which reads in part:

"The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

With citations to ArbCom decisions in June 2005, November 2005, and 2006

and continues:

enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable

Germane to this, WP:ALBUMSTYLE is a style advice page that has been thoroughly vetted repeatedly at WT:ALBUM and the community members there have expressed on multiple occasions that it represents the will of the editors and that it should be incorporated into the MoS. Regarding track listings, it reads in part:

"A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list... In more complicated situations (releases with a wide variety of writers/producers, compilations culled from multiple sources, etc.), a table or the {{Track listing}} template may be a better choice."

It proceeds to give examples of all three styles and discusses other elements. The most recent time this has been discussed and revised was just weeks ago.

Over the course of several years, CloversMallRat has continued to come to album articles and change their styles and I have brought up this topic at his talk page multiple times. In spite of the fact that there are two or more acceptable styles, he has insisted on converting existing, stable articles to his preferred style with justifications such as "style is more popular" or "style is used on all of the other articles by this artist", etc. without addressing that these changes should not be made unilaterally and he has also refused to revert himself in these cases. Examples over the years:

• 2020-03-07
  • Discussed here with no response from CMR.
  • Added again
    • Discussed here with no response from CMR and no post to talk. Eventually, a discussion did happen here: Talk:Your_Life_Is_a_Record#Track listing with literally every other person pointing out how it is not normative or required to use {{track listing}} and no consensus to change the format.
• 2023-10-13
  • Discussed here where CMR did actually engage in discussion, but his rationales again ignored what ArbCom explicitly said about multiple acceptable styles and he is in my opinion, enforcing his preferred style in a bot-like fashion by calling converting track listings things like "bringing them up to date" or "fixing" or noting other changes he makes while omitting the fact that he is changing the style at the same time or leaving no substantive edit summary at all and refusing to give any reason why he did it.

This came up again today because he did the same thing all over again, inserting his preferred style for the track listing and ignoring MOS:CITEVAR in this edit (he amended the latter issue later: I mention this to point out how he is in fact conscious of the fact that there are multiple acceptable styles for several things on Wikipedia and he does know better than to change or ignore them based on personal preference). When I brought it up at his talk page again, he refused to revert himself and seek consensus. He gave a justification for his edits based on this being a duets album, but of course, he has also done the same thing of changing to his preferred style on other track listings evidently just because he wanted to (note that I did explicitly ask him why he did this and he refused to answer). I asked him why he made this change and I have repeatedly asked him if he is willing to revert himself, but he has refused to explain his actions, revert himself, or post to talk. Instead, he has:

• insulted me and stated that since a majority of articles are a certain style, that justifies changing the other articles to his preferred style (which, of course is exactly why MOS:VAR, MOS:CITEVAR, MOS:RETAIN, etc. exist: because there are multiple acceptable styles.)
• he has imposed his own standard on when a certain style can and cannot be allowed, which has no basis in consensus or discussion at all ("the only time when it is preferable and effective to utilize that"), which again, seems to confirm that he insists that he will continue in a bot-like fashion converting articles to his preferred style.
• followed me to another user's talk page, hounding and leaving a personal attack. (The third party removed his comments and told him to not post unrelated topics on his talk page.)
• proceeded to do the same preferred-style replacement at another article that I have recently created with another misleading edit summary. I do not know if he explicitly chose an article just because I created it, but I am alleging that he did purely to be provocative and cause me more grief.
• When I pointed out how he just so happened to have done this same behavior on an article I created, this was his unacceptable response, which should never have been posted.

CMR is explicit and recalcitrant that he will not abide by the clear instructions of ArbCom, has engaged in this behavior on repeated occasions for several years knowing better, and is now deliberately attacking, hounding, and harassing me personally, and he is generally not acting in a way that is collaborative, civil, or acceptable. I am requesting admin action and for someone else to please undo his style changes at Ain't My Last Rodeo, Psychopath (album), and Stampede (Orville Peck album), while retaining the useful additions he has made. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice given. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There are several things to note here, among them:

"Discussed here with no response from CMR and no post to talk. Eventually, a discussion did happen here: Talk:Your_Life_Is_a_Record#Track listing with literally every other person pointing out how it is not normative or required to use {{track listing}} and no consensus to change the format."

Only two outside parties responded, and one of them agreed with me that the style should be consistent across an artist's catalog, which is why that initial issue took place because she had released two prior studio albums where the style was inconsistent with the format you used on her third record. I was not aware of the rationale behind your complaints at the time this took place, as it was the first instance that it occurred, and eventually made an effort to engage in discussion as requested because in this particular case, nothing new was being added.

"followed me to another user's talk page, hounding and leaving a personal attack. (The third party removed his comments and told him to not post unrelated topics on his talk page.)"

This user responded in their edit summary being wholly unfavorable in YOUR direction, rather than mine, so this is a very odd way of spinning this to make you look better. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aria1561&action=history) And while granted I shouldn't have posted anything in that conversation in all honesty, I did take notice that you were employing the same hostile scare tactics over another reputable user simultaneously for perfectly acceptable edits they had made, and being deliberately combative/obtuse when they explained themselves adequately.

"When I pointed out how he just so happened to have done this same behavior on an article I created, this was his unacceptable response, which should never have been posted."

With respect to Psychopath (album), you were more bent out of shape about the style change than actually putting in the time and energy to sufficiently add songwriters to the article you created! You seem to have a sort of superiority complex about articles as if you creating them makes them "yours" and yet couldn't even be bothered it seems to fully complete the job? A tracklisting without songwriting credits when they're easily obtainable on the Internet is just ridiculous. I didn't actually note that you had created this one; the timing is just odd because I was listening to Morgan Wade's newest song that came out today ("Total Control") and it caused me to go to her page and notice that, a year after release, her album STILL had no songwriting credits.

And with regards to Stampede, as that is what prompted all of this aggression today:

I explicitly stated WHY the style was edited, because the format you had used was inadequate for a duets album where not a single one of the duets was properly notated. The purpose of the {{[[Template:tracklisting|tracklisting}} is to expand upon more complicated tracklistings, and you failed to properly list this vital information seeing as the project is a DUETS album, therein every track realistically should have something indicating a featured artist somewhere on it.

Lastly, above all else,

Justin/Koavf has repeatedly approached me with a hostility and confronting nature, time and time again, while also repeatedly ignoring and steamrolling past my responses where I try to actually engage with him in discourse, instead choosing to continue exerting a superiority complex over me. I am merely editing Wikipedia with the whole purpose of improving articles and adding beneficial information, which is a lot of times lacking in these instances. I gave a 100% completely valid and sensible reason why the Stampede tracklisting was updated to reflect additional information necessary to have in the article, i.e. This user seems to have a great deal of time and energy to expand on policing my editing history, and it is reflected in instances like choosing to berate me about fully updating tracklistings with proper info, instead of just... finishing the job himself the first time. The fact that me adding songwriters or duet partners to articles you created but did not complete has caused you to experience "grief" is just unsettling, to say the least. Reading my talk page from today gives a clear glimpse at the obtuse nature with which this user addresses me. I do not wish to engage in these cyclical debates with this user and have to worry about whether I'm accidentally adding something to one of his precious untouchable articles that he's created. I have edited Wikipedia for nearly two decades and have never had a single other user on this website who has repeatedly hounded me the way this person has over stuff that I have added for the benefit of the article at hand. The time and effort you've put into this witchhunt against me exceeding your time and effort put into the articles you create says a lot of your character imo and is part of the reason why I have a hard time being able to even engage in civility with you because you just quite frankly won't allow it. It's just exhausting. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is a preposterous complaint. I don't see how an ARBCOM decision from nearly 20 years ago is "explicit instructions" for this dispute. I don't see how Special:Diff/1232515279 or Special:Diff/1235395043 are inappropriate (EDIT: apparently Koavf's "diff" involved 17 edits from 3 users; the links may not include the objectionable changes). And I don't see what other diffs are considered problematic. Koavf has enough experience to know that WP:AN complaints should be clearer and less bombastic. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Special:Diff/1233927777/1235400176 (16 edits by CloversMallRat) seems to be the diff for the most recent dispute; I think the use of the {{track listing}} template instead of a wikitext list is the crux of the dispute. I must frown upon appealing to MOS:VAR to prevent style-changes when editors are rushing to create an article about an album that has not been released. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    It's also worth noting that the statement cited indicates "unless there is some substantial reason for the change" and I assessed that adding duet partners to a duet album is a pretty damn convincing argument for updating the tracklisting to properly include and display that information. Instead of listening to that though he just started yelling at a different cloud and instead cited an album from 1999 as proof of not needing to use {{tracklisting}}. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    I agree. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice (an essay, but a long-standing one which has had this content for over a decade and which Koavf has edited multiple times) says In more complicated situations (releases with a wide variety of writers/producers, compilations culled from multiple sources, etc.), a table or the {{Track listing}} template may be a better choice., and that certainly applies to Stampede (Orville Peck album), where each song has different performers. This is not just a meaningless style change, it is an informed style change related to the addition of information to the article. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    And for all the other articles? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    This complaint is a mess and I am not going to keep digging on your behalf for possible malfeasance by another editor. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    What could I do to make the complaint less of a mess? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    For added/further context, one of the other article he is also disputing (Psychopath (album) is one regarding an album from August of 2023, which he created in December of 2023, and I just TODAY came by and added the songwriting credits to the tracklisting. So, in short, he created an article over 7 months ago and never even bothered to complete the tracklisting in question, but has the time and energy instead to complain that I did it differently than he would have, had he actually done it himself in the first place. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The way that it's relevant is that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." and this user is just going to articles to change styles repeatedly. If I went to all instances of {{track listing}} and just removed them and replaced them with plain lists, would that be appropriate? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why would the presentation of the track listing fall within the scope of CITEVAR? Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't. I appealed to MOS:VAR. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all of the evidence presented here but the diffs I have looked at show that Justin makes a lot of demands on experienced editors to revert their edits when he disapproves of them or he will "escalate" the situation. You might feel that you are providing guidance to other editors who, like I said, are experienced editors but it reads like you are telling them what to do according to your interpretation of policy without considering their perspective might be different but equally correct. Your attitude seems absolutely certain and unyielding which is not a good way of working with editors who also edit in the area you focus on. Have you ever considered that you might be wrong and they just have a different point of view? You might not be right 100% of the time.

I don't know enough about the music guidelines to say whose right and whose wrong here (if there is a right and wrong) so I'm just looking at how you choose to interact with other editors which seems less than optimal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have, yes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• An idea, perhaps. Does the style change actually harm anyone? And by that I mean, does it actually make it harder to read? If yes, that seems like something that needs to be elaborated on (because all I'm seeing is a slight bit of changing in a list?). If no, then does it actually matter? We really could do with a page about "no one should be expected to know the Manual of Style". The closest I can find is WP:MOSCREEP, but the length of the MoS is ridiculous, so holding anyone to it is equally ridiculous. As for ArbCom, it's worth noting that in years like 2005, you could become an admin with 13 people supporting and 3000 edits, and rulings from back in that day aren't exactly the most widely perused today. Regardless of all that, and the idea that maybe we should stick a bit closer to WP:IAR when it comes to the MoS, this seems like a content dispute with a couple people getting a bit out of hand, and should probably be taken to WP:3O or WP:DRN instead of continuing lectures on talk pages. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you think there's a better venue, then I am willing to use that instead. The problem is that I could go around changing styles to whatever I prefer, too and someone else could go around changing them to another, etc. It causes a waste of time to change from one arbitrary style to another and to bicker over a certain date format or a certain citation style instead of just sticking to one within an article and being consistent for that article. CMR knows this and yet he just changes things to whatever he wants. Would I be justified in changing things to however I personally prefer, too? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  You continue to keep insinuating this idea that I'm just arbitrarily changing styles for fun or to cause you immense "grief", but in at least two of the instances under dispute, I expanded the tracklisting in question with provided reasoning because you failed to properly provide all the information yourself, and the information was not something that could easily be slotted into the style you had chosen to use. If your grand takeaway from this is to just go around changing things without actually adding info or improving articles on Wikipedia, then you're completely missing the point, and several people seem to have already responded to you above addressing this superiority complex you seem to enjoy flexing on others. Like I said above in one of my responses, you have literally chosen to exert more time and energy into being upset with me, than you have at actually properly adding information that you could've just included in the first place. When your priorities are focused on how I edit "your" articles over actually making meaningful additions to Wikipedia, your heart is in the wrong place. CloversMallRat (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is--who knows?--the eighth time I've asked you this. We'll see if you decide to answer this time. Why did you change the established style here other than "I like it"? And if "I like it" is enough of a justification for you, surely it's enough of one for me to change all instances of styles I don't like too, correct? Looking forward to you actually answering these questions. Also, your allegations are false. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The answer to your question, which I am not obligated to provide because you are not a superior to me and boldly rehash the number of times you've harassed me with them, is that I edited it to reflect the format of his prior album for consistency's sake, something that User:TenPoundHammer himself (the creator of the article in question) had referenced in one of your previous "gotcha" attempts: [80]. The fact that you are once again concerned and focused exclusively on that -- an instance you only discovered after you'd launched your initial demands that I undo my edits for Stampede -- and continue to constantly evade addressing that I've improved two articles you created that you never properly put the appropriate work in to finish their tracklistings (Stampede and Psychopath). I find it curious that you never have anything to say about that, perhaps because you have no explanation why you never finished your job. Once again, if you dedicated this much time and energy into editing Wikipedia for the better instead of trying to police me on my editing Wikipedia for the better, you'd be way better off. CloversMallRat (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  What is it in principle you want me to say about the constructive edits you've made? It's like you deliberately miss the point: no one is arguing that everything you have done is inappropriate, so I don't know why you keep on talking in circles about how "I added songwriters!" Great. Thank you for your service. There's nothing to discuss there. Instead, you keep on droning on about irrelevant noise and complete lies. The fact is, as pointed out below, you keep on changing styles based on your arbitrary standards which we should not do. That standard could be "But I like it" or "It looks cooler" or "The only time that style x is allowable is under the following conditions..." but they are all made up by you, not decided by any consensus, and the exact opposite of what the MoS says repeatedly, which is when there are multiple acceptable styles, changing them arbitrarily is not acceptable. And then you seem to think that abusive and berating language that you post about me everywhere is okay. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Like others who have commented here, I haven't looked at everything cited in the walls of text above, but generally, the MOS is not enforceable, and ArbCom principles from seventeen and eighteen years ago are not justification for anything in the contemporary editing environment. The committee was a very different beast back in 2006. It took dozens of cases a year, screwed up at least as many as it got right, and did not have a well-defined scope. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm also finding the section title to be deliberately misleading. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Koavf: The above is too long. If new examples of arbitrary style changes occur, please let me know. @CloversMallRat: Like others, I haven't examined this but despite responses above, changing the style of anything in an article without good reason is very disruptive. As pointed out above, it is obviously not going to work because what one person likes will be quite different from what others like. Churning from style changes will be prevented. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good reasons were given; they were just ignored and/or deemed insufficient by the complainant. One such example was given above and User talk:Walsh90210 declared it was indeed a legitimate reason for the stylistic change. He has leveraged this entire thing to look like I'm making disruptive edits, when in reality my edits have been purely to improve and expand upon missing vital information from the articles in question. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm finding this discussion linked to above by Justin as evidence that CMR is the problem here, shows instead Justin seeming to just get angrier and angrier when the answers are not to his liking, eventually resorting to both bolding and enlarging his comments to basically yell at CMR. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  An interesting find that prompted me to enter into a state of deja vu, because I could've sworn that Koavf was just a guest on this noticeboard only slightly over six months ago, and I was right. They are subject to a 0RR restriction by community consensus here, and have apparently found it difficult to comply with this mandate. This isn't even to mention that they also violated it again by reverting an addition of a CSD tag (though in all fairness, they have self-reverted). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  In the interests of good faith and ensuring compliance, I have reverted myself. Note that the tag says "This status should be changed if collaborative activity resumes." so I thought what I did was consistent with the tag that the user placed there. I have also removed tags like {{cn}} when the request is met. Does that constitute a violation of 0RR? It seems like when someone places {{cn}} on a page that person is actively soliciting someone to remove it (by completing the request for a citation itself). I have tried to be strict about the 0RR ban and have solicited feedback here about what could even constitute a "revert": obviously, trying to use the revert tool is unacceptable, but things that could inadvertently result in basically undoing someone's work I have tried to avoid entirely. I have been careful to not remove content or even undo vandalism in the interests of being as conservative as I can or self-reverting on times that I have been negligent, as you noted above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Recidivism noted. See: WP:RECIDIVISM. Also noted that, but for Ritchie333's cowboy unblock (pretty roundly condemned at AN) in January this year of Bbb23's original indef from the previous November, Koavf would not be able to continue the trolling that we are once again enjoying. Noted; a site ban was very much on the cards; the refrain was "How many times does Koavf need to be blocked?" rolling alongside "How often does the community have to put up with this?". Altho the site ban did not pass, the closing admin, Extraordinary Writ, noted that

  It should be abundantly clear that Koavf is on very thin ice, and even editors opposing the siteban describe this as "one last shot", "a final chance", "pretty much a last chance", etc. I don't think it's likely that the community will give any more last chances in the future.

  The walls-of-text battering ram approach taken to editor interaction, noted by EggRoll97 and Just Step S'ways here reflect an earlier comment by Bishonen that she and Doug Weller had been comprehensively attacked by Koavf in November. This is only a few months ago. I'm not sure what's worse, these perennial discussions or our inability (or is it refusal?) to do anything about the root cause. ——Serial Number 54129 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Serial Number 54129: Was that AN discussion ever formally closed with a disposition? Your link just shows it sort of ending.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Bbb23 and apologies; I unhelpfully linked to a post halfway through the discussion. I've updated it to the final score. While the SBan proposal lost traction, the closing admin made some pretty choice remarks, which I've added to my post. ——Serial Number 54129 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate that you disagree with the premise of my post and I also appreciate that the tag that I changed explicitly says to change it if necessary and that others may understand the manner in which I did that being inappropriate (hence I have undone it and posted to talk). I do not think that characterizing my post as trolling is fair. I am making a good faith post that is not an attempt to be disingenuous or inflammatory or provocative without any reason. I made an actual attempt to discuss what I thought was behavior that contradicts an ArbCom ruling and which involved making personal attacks against someone and hounding that person across the site. I also appreciate that some of the language that I used discussing on my talk with Bishonen and Doug Weller was inappropriate. Have I engaged in similar inappropriate behavior since then or in this conversation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Would removing deprecated parameters from this template constitution reversion? (Note that it was a blank field before I entered text, but still, I removed the entire field.) Would removing a request for a photo from a talk page contradict 0RR if there was a photo present on the article? These are genuine questions and not trolling. If the tag or request explicitly says "Remove it if [thing happens]" am I not allowed to remove it if [thing happens]? E.g. a PROD tag says "remove this if you disagree with the proposed deletion": it's soliciting me to remove it. Am I not allowed to as that's breaking 0RR? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'd forgotten about the AN discussion and Koavf's restriction. I'd refrained from commenting in this thread because "disagreeing" with Koavf is exhausting and there were enough editors here who were taking him to task. But now that I'm reminded of what happened last January, the reason for Koavf bringing this complaint becomes much clearer to me. If he weren't subject to the 0RR restriction, He would have reverted CloversMallRat; instead, he wants some poor schlep of an editor to agree with him and revert for him. This thread should have been closed a while ago or Koavf should have been blocked for bringing the thread and for digging his heels in after getting negative feedback from many people.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I officially withdraw the complaint. To the extent that anyone wants to discuss the thread itself or my behavior broadly, then I won't try to intervene in that, but I otherwise request that this original topic be closed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  The above initial complaint is withdrawn: community consensus is obviously against me and this topic as such has no purpose in being a topic of discussion here or elsewhere. To the extent that discussion should continue about my behavior or the thread's merits itself, it remains open; if and once that topic is done, I request closure. Upon my withdrawal, I note that I should not have made this complaint, several community members (including admins) have asked me to change my tone when talking with other editors and to be extremely mindful of the editing restrictions I have, and I will not make future requests at AN regarding issues of personal editing disputes. Thanks to all for the time involved and my apologies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:06, 21 July 2024 (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 request of Devlet Geray

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 following is the statement of Devlet Geray, who is requesting the removal of their community imposed block. They are also under a topic ban but will deal with that separately at a later time. I bring this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear Community Members,

I am writing to request a review of the block that was placed upon me. I understand that the actions leading to this decision were not in line with the community's standards, and I deeply regret any disruption or negativity my actions may have caused.

I acknowledge that I was wrong and behaved incorrectly when communicating with other users. I was young then and lost my temper because of now proved sockpuppets and trolls that I had to communicate on ruwiki (i became paranoic then because of it, but after many of my concerns regarding those accounts were proved by ruwiki check-users).

Besides, I acknowledge that I was especially wrong and incorrect on Iranian topics, now I am not going to repeat those mistakes and will refrain fully from editing anything related to those topics. Some years have passed since the block was imposed on me with a statement that I "can appeal the block and the ban in six months", I am hopeful that I can demonstrate to the esteemed Community that my approach has significantly improved and ask the community to give me a chance. Furthermore, I have been an editor and rollbacker on Ukrainian Wikipedia for several years without any issues; on the contrary, I have authored both good and featured articles there. I pledge to make only beneficial and constructive contributions (I am going to start with creating articles on Crimean topics - without going into modern politics; for instance, I am going to translate my article uk:Сім планет у звістках про царів татарських which is now nominated to good articles and my article uk:Джаніке which is a good article there) to the community and to English Wikipedia moving forward.

Sincerely, Devlet Geray (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - The request seems promising. Topic ban can be appealed 6 months after the unblock. Orientls (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I'm happy with this. No opinion on when they should be eligible to appeal the topic ban (procedurally, they have already met the standard imposed in the original discussion of 6 months, I think?), but 6 months as proposed by Orientls sounds fine. So long as their contributions have improved following the unblock, I don't see much probability that a topic ban appeal after a sufficient amount of editing following unblocking would be rejected either. I'll mention that his editing restriction for the topic ban will need to be brought back from the archive on WP:EDR by the closing admin if this finds consensus to unblock. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - 3 years is plenty, and I am all for second chances. (Hopefully), welcome back! I would also be in favor of giving Devlet a trial period TBAN lift before fully undoing the reins, so to speak. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I support the removal of the site-wide block. I favor leaving the time for a topic ban appeal unspecified and to instead wait for a sufficient amount of editing on other topics. I don't see why such an editing history couldn't be established in less (or possibly more) than 6 months. Garsh (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per all above. starship.paint (RUN) 09:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support the unblock as exactly what an editor should show when they come back to request it. Neutral on how long they need to show an en wiki history before removal of the topic ban. Star Mississippi 13:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock ~ an excellent appeal, giving reasons for previous behaviour while not attempting to excuse it, and showing both recent work elsewhere and plans for here if/when unblocked. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support All we ever ask is that the user understands what they were doing wrong and gives a credible assurance that they will be productive going forward. Both of these have been met. They've already stated that they'll stay away from the topic areas which were problematical before, so keeping the TBAN in place for now seems reasonable and can always be lifted at some point in the future if they request it. RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The request seems sincere and it seems like they will be productive in the future. No comment on the TBAN. TarnishedPath^talk 12:30, 22 July 2024 (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.

Proposed siteban for Koavf

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

---

I'm not satisfied with the above situation being resolved by Koavf simply retracting his complaint and the thread being closed when his own behavior became the focus of an increasing number of particants. The section title itself, "User is ignoring ArbCom's explicit instructions, is harassing, hounding, and attacking me" is a gross exaggeration that seems intended to poison the well by implying ArbCom explicitly told CMR not to do what they have been doing, when the fact is that Justin is citing an MOS page that, until just now, cited some extremely old arbitration cases, and he has been the one doing the hounding.

• Justin seems to have finally learned, after being blocked for edit warring... I don't even know how many times that he should stop doing that. However, what he seems to be choosing to do instead is that when he would have previously edit warred, he resorts to relentlessly hectoring the user he disagrees with, demanding they answer all his questions to his satisfaction,threatening to escalate matters, and trying to get others to do the reverting for them by making exxagerated claims and denying that the other user has ever provided a reason for their actions.

• The last unblock was roundly criticized [81] and a site ban was only narrowly averted then. This was the fifth time Koavf had been indef blocked for their behavior. Part of the closing statement reads It should be abundantly clear that Koavf is on very thin ice, and even editors opposing the siteban describe this as "one last shot", "a final chance", "pretty much a last chance", etc. I don't think it's likely that the community will give any more last chances in the future. Well, are we going to give a sixth last chance, or we going to impose a sanction that cannot simply be lifted by any passing admin?

• In this conversation, offered above as evidence that CMR is the problem, scroll down to the last posts, where Justin resorts to both bolding and expanding the font of his questions, basically the wp equivalent of a screaming tantrum, because he did not like the answers CMR was giving him.

• His talk page has been a morass of deletion nominations of things they have created for years and years. The number of pages created by him that have been deleted has got to be in the thousands by now.

• Barely a week ago an admin had to remind them not to use global rollback to move pages without leaving a redirect. His user rights log is almost as ridiculous as his block log, local pagemover permisssion was removed for cause due to his unseemly history, and he used global rollback to backdoor his way around that. Again, he obviously should have known better.

After nearly twenty years of contributions, I think it is reasonable that we expect that a user be solving more problems than they are creating.

I therefore propose the following:

For persistent disruptive and combative behavior over a prolonged period, and exhausting the community's patience, Koavf is banned. This restriction may be appealed after one year, and no more than once every six months thereafter.

• Support as proposer. Far too many chances have been given to this user. By imposing a CBAN, Koavf cannot simply appeal on his talk page and be unblocked by the first admin to pass by.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

JSS: I appreciate several of the issues you cite, but I'm confused as to what the problem is with categories I made being nominated for merging or me moving a page to a correct name almost 20 years ago and the old redirect being nominated for deletion. If you look at my edits for (e.g.) the past 2.5 years, I have created several hundred pages that are totally valid and it's not reasonable to characterize my editing as consistently making junk that should be deleted. Additionally, if you could clarify about pagemover removal for cause. When Jc37 removed all of my user permissions it was just a product of the editing restriction, not because of abuse of any user right. It was a blanket action he took unilaterally and has since restored one of those rights. The global rollbacker was not something I initiated or was some end-around here (note that I have not used rollback here except on myself), but was nominated by someone else.

Several users here will certainly have strong feelings and several of them will certainly bring up valid complaints about my behavior. I respect that there are users who have been upset by my behavior for a variety of reasons. I can't and won't try to defend myself against all of those issues, nor will I engage point-by-point, etc., but I would like to state that I have tried to abide by the editing restrictions brought up in the last discussion c. six months ago and my editing on this site is done in good faith with an attempt to make encyclopedic content. If users think that the thread I started above is itself enough to warrant en entire siteban and that's after I've said that I wouldn't bring other threads to AN, then I will obviously respect the decision, but I would hope that they would look at my recent editing history and note that at worst, there are some issues with tone, but not malice or the sort of behavior that I think warrants banning me from editing for no less than a year. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support, unfortunately. Everything is an endless battleground. Badgering others to implement his preferred outcome when he can't because of 0RR isn't what was intended in January and isn't working now. Star Mississippi 01:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Forgot I weighed in in favor of 0RR in January so disclosing Involved although not in the admin way. And what I said then is unfortunately still true. The edits have changed, the conduct has not. This gives Koavf the .0000001 % chance he'll actually this time for real no backsies change, and we maintain his positive contributions to the project. I don't want to see him site banned, but that's not really our call. I mean it is, but I share the hesitation that it would pass. If he ends up indeffed again, and that's not our fault, it's his. No one is forcing him to make these edits that he knows are a problem/ Star Mississippi 23:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Continued support even with his notice. The broader problem is someone is always willing to unblock and a self imposed ban doesn't change that when he changes his mind about time off (or changing his behavior). When multiple people support a block, an unblock shouldn't be in the hands of one requesting and one granting. That's the bigger part that needs to change. Star Mississippi 12:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• The edit restriction unfortunately appears to have only stymied a symptom of collaboration issues. The point made about demanding answers to questions reminds me of a particularly perplexing discussion I had with koavf in April at Talk:Dependent territory#Possible vandalism. This discussion included koavf asking "...You know that column headers are disallowed and you added them (back). Why?", then an hour later stating "I did not ask you "why", I asked you: "to be clear, you did x, yes or no" and you keep on not answering and then come up with demonstrably untrue nonsense about how I asked "Why..." which never happened." The "Why?" and the "you keep on not answering" here together with the multiple instances of "Why?" and "You've never answered this question" in the CMR discussion linked above indicates that this non-acceptance of answers is a pattern, which continues still with "We'll see if you decide to answer this time" in the discussion above. CMD (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to the above evidence, note that following their withdrawal of the complaint above, Koavf has continued to hound CloversMallRat for the same behavior ([82]) and has dragged the argument to Johnuniq's talk page ([83]). This isn't the behavior of someone who actually has heard and understood the advice of others, it's just backing down from a venue where things are going poorly to try it somewhere else. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 02:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I invited Koavf's comment and the fact that he accepted the invitation should not be a factor in this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I boggled at the last AN discussion, which had mind-bending defenses like him "only" being edit warrior, as if that doesn't already impede collaboration. I'm all for second and third chances but Koavf is on their zillionth chance. He probably should not have been unbanned at all, but given that he was unbanned, it was somewhat on the expectation of being on absolute best, most collegial behavior. koavf chose to escalate the above incident. As noted in the previous discussion, Wikipedia procedures are very, very bad at handling someone who is low-level unpleasant for a long period of time (compared to doing one really bad bannable thing). I'm not a koavf expert, never really interacted with him, but come on, given the block log. Let's get it right this time. SnowFire (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: My vote here likely doesn't matter given my experience on Wikipedia right now, as this is the first time that I'm (if I'm remembering correctly) participating in a discussion here, and I'm only really aware of this user through their contributions to music articles; I discovered this discussion when looking through their contributions after looking at a page they were responsible for creating. From what I can understand, however, a block log as long as the one this user has and what seems to be an endless amount of problems with other users on Wikipedia is enough justification for such a ban, regardless of their extensive contributions here. The way I see it, I'm sure newer users (including myself) wouldn't have received as many chances as this user has, so I'm of the belief that special treatment like this shouldn't really continue. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Neo Purgatorio - Every vote and every contribution to a discussion on Wikipedia matters. Being new does not nullify your vote or silence your voice :-) — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: No opinion on the general issue, but koavf has created a gigantic number of articles; the most recent 500 date back less than a year. Given any reasonable base rate of any random article being nominated for deletion, say a 1% chance of being AfDed every couple years, we would naturally expect someone who created many thousands of articles to have a big list of deleted articles. Please note that this is not a suggestion that the overall issue be decided one way or the other, and I am not interested in participating in further discussion here or on any other website regarding it. jp×g🗯️ 07:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• If you're not interested in discussing your comment, why did you bother posting it? Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• It's a random attack on Wikipedidoxracy, by the looks of it. I guess somewhere in the secret squirrel part of their website there's a thread on Koavf or Jpxg or both where Vigilant posts their real name, address, date of birth, telephone number and salary.—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, you can agree with it or disagree with it, I just don't have any interest in rooting through twenty years of noticeboard archives to figure out what my opinion on koavf is -- this is all I've got to say about it. jp×g🗯️ 11:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

So not only do you not want your comment to be discussed, but you don't actually have an opinion on the issue either? Thanks for your input, I guess. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, a single-sentence explanation: Please do not interpret my comment as arguing for or against the siteban. Please do not interpret my comment as arguing for or against the siteban. Please do not interpret my comment as arguing for or against the siteban. Let me know if you have trouble understanding what I mean by this. jp×g🗯️ 01:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The tone I get is that JSS' fourth bullet point is off. Saying that someone should be sitebanned with one of the reasons being thousands of articles of theirs being deleted over twenty years when they have 688 active ones in the last year isn't a good example of a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think even if I conceded this point and struck that part of the proposal, there is still more than enough there to merit a siteban. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on the two discussions, I concur. The only thing of merit in Koavf's complaint could have been resolvable through dialogue. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• It's just pathetic that we haven't dealt with Koavf. If we reach consensus on a sanction, some genius will unilaterally lift it in a few months anyway, but we might as well reach for the sky. Support.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support I've been watching this editor for a long time. Yes, he has done some good work - just as there is no question he's caused a lot of problems with his editing. We've ended up indefinitely blocking better editors before. "Everything is battle ground", "zillionth chance" are good descriptors. I think the last time I checked he had had 20 blocks. I see a CBAN as the only way to stop this. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose/non-admin comment. The nominator has recognized that the edit warring issue, which appears to have been the rationale for past blocks, has improved. I also don't agree with punishing Koavf for having posted a WP:AN report. As for articles getting deleted, for those who've been around for close to 2 decades it isn't strange that many articles later end up in deletion discussions years later (as deletion standards have changed over time). --Soman (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I say this as someone who supported banning him last time, but I'm going insane reading the last AN complaint. Koavf's complaint about MOS:VAR is clearly correct on the merits. Granted, there may have been reasons why the {{track listing}} template was preferable in context, but CMR should have started a discussion on a talk page, or at least note those reasons in their edit summaries. I agree that Koavf's manner of talking has been poor, but that wasn't the issue at hand during the last site-ban discussion; that was mostly about edit warring, as I recall. Mach61 12:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  that wasn't the issue at hand during the last site-ban discussion; that was mostly about edit warring You are correct, this is what he is doing instead of edit warring, so I'd say it is in fact still the same problem. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways Fair. Clearly, a lot of people disagreed with the outcome of the last siteban discussion, and it's not as if enough time hasn't passed (during which Koavf hasn't been a saint) for an appeal to be warranted. I just dislike that what prompted this thread was a withdrawn complaint in which Koavf did have a point. Consider my oppose a very weak one. Mach61 11:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Folks are far too lenient on the most clear-cut cases here. I mean, the bolding and font size portion really speaks for itself. For such a long term editor, who has gotten themselves into trouble again and again over the course of his wikicareer, it's disappointing. It's a shame, but I think we gotta cut our losses eventually. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support There is inevitably, regardless of the volume of positive contributions, a point where the scales tip over to net negative. This should have been last time Koavf was indeffed, which was overriden by what was a pretty cowboy unilateral unblock (followed by a discussion which was frankly embarrassing in a lot of places). It needs to stick this time. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support This comment is ridiculous, but it's clearly just the tip of the iceberg with this user. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support pretty much per my remarks on recidivism above (I agree that was an unnecessary close, tbh). To repeat much of my post, which sums up my thoughts: Also noted that, but for Ritchie333's cowboy unblock (pretty roundly condemned at AN) in January this year of Bbb23's original indef from the previous November, Koavf would not be able to continue the trolling that we are once again enjoying. Noted; a site ban was very much on the cards; the refrain was "How many times does Koavf need to be blocked?" rolling alongside "How often does the community have to put up with this?". Altho the site ban did not pass, the closing admin, Extraordinary Writ, noted that

  It should be abundantly clear that Koavf is on very thin ice, and even editors opposing the siteban describe this as "one last shot", "a final chance", "pretty much a last chance", etc. I don't think it's likely that the community will give any more last chances in the future.

  The walls-of-text battering ram approach taken to editor interaction, noted by EggRoll97 and Just Step Sideways here reflect an earlier comment by Bishonen that she and Doug Weller had been comprehensively attacked by Koavf in November. This is only a few months ago. I'm not sure what's worse, these perennial discussions or our inability (or is it refusal?) to do anything about the root cause.
  Unfortunately, perhaps, it's well established that however much in the right one is, one is not guaranteed a pass, particularly if being good at what one does is at the expense of so many other editors' time... who may also be good at what they do, but have to stop doing it to deal with dramah. Either way, the project loses out cos of one guy. Bad odds. ——Serial Number 54129 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Reluctant support for some sort of sanction - I didn't like what happened to Joe Vitale 5. It was similar, in that it seemed like Justin had a point, which was however much ado about nothing. Maybe the problem I have here is that to my mind this sort of drama should be reserved for articles with real-world consequences. An alternative might be banning him from music articles. We do have a lot of malicious editors, and I don't think he is one of them, so I am a bit uncomfortable with going straight to a site block. On the other hand I not familiar with the history beyond what I have seen this year. Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support I didn't comment in the January discussion about their unblock, but I would have supported it. They've done a lot of good work, and seemingly deserved a fine chance. But now that final chance has been had. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support with regret. I normally am not a fan of the wiki version of capital punishment but the history here just can't be ignored. Blocked 33 times. Unblocked 9 times. Three of their blocks were initially indefinite, though one was almost immediately reduced to 48 hrs suggesting it might have been an error. When you add in all the other issues, it's time for the community to say enough. I'm a strong believer in 2nd chances, sometimes more. But not 34 chances. There is no doubt that this editor has the capacity for incredible productivity. But it is also clear that they have been a massive distraction and time sink for the community. It's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. He gives Wikipedians a bad name, and picks on people for no reason other than his own ego. He’s an awful stain on our community, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is that really necessary? Apart from anything else, Justin has been a member of this community for nearly two decades. We should be able to show him the door without kicking him on the way out. – Joe (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support To quote myself in the unblock discussion in January: "At what point do we say as a community "it's not worth our time"?". We are at that point. Koavf has been indeffed FIVE times. Five. They have had enough "last chances". RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A community ban for Koavf was proposed as long ago as 2008 (it did not pass). It was said then that he had been blocked for the 19th time. Since then, he has racked up multiple further blocks and is still demonstrating disruptive behaviour. He was in the last chance saloon, that ship has now sailed (if I may mix my metaphors) and it’s time for a parting of the ways. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. Koavf has been given plenty of chances and, based on the above, I don't see the justification for "just one more"... Buffs (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I've never seen an editor as persistent and stubborn as Koavf on this project. When faced with a 0RR, they could no longer revert, so he had to change his M.O. which resulted in pestering editors to self-revert, and when that didn't work, he would wait awhile and then try to sneak in a stealth edit reverting to his preferred version, at least in my interaction with him. And what got him riled up in the first place, a single citation. You've earned a year off Koavf, relax and reflect on what other editors are telling you is wrong with your behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - do we have any disruptive, ban worthy diffs beyond a stupid comment 9 months ago? GiantSnowman 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Twenty years worth probably suffices, GiantSnowman. I did wonder if—having kiboshed sanctions against Koavf in the last thread—you'd comment here. Interesting. ——Serial Number 54129 19:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Say something with your chest if you have something to say. Also remember that sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. GiantSnowman 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Basically per GiantSnowman. I've read through the complaint above and am really not seeing the sort of misconduct that would be used to justify this. But then the community has always been far more willing to ban long-term contributors than I ever will be.
  And much of this ban proposal is misleading: His talk page has been a morass of deletion nominations of things they have created for years and years. The number of pages created by him that have been deleted has got to be in the thousands by now. - the vast majority of them are either categories that became empty through no fault of Koavf's, didn't result in a deletion, or were of things he created over a decade ago
  And I find local pagemover permisssion was removed for cause due to his unseemly history, and he used global rollback to backdoor his way around that. Again, he obviously should have known better. similarly misleading - all except one set of moves in July the resulting either redirect would have met G7 or G8 anyway or he went on to recreate the title so whether the move is done with or without a redirect is a distinction without a different, and I find that one set to be plausible as just a mistake rather than deliberately knowing better. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Moral oppose, because there's too much to read through, and Koavf's approach clearly needs to change, and it hurts to see so many people I respect all supporting a cban of someone who has given so much to the project – even if it is deserved – with barely any opposition. This makes me feel sad. Folly Mox (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• In an ideal world, someone (someone smarter than me) would be able to craft some kind of editing plan that would channel the enthusiasm for the project that Justin obviously has, such that we would be able to benefit from his prolific efforts without the not-great aspects that come with it. I’m not seeing such a plan, though, and I’m not very optimistic that one is forthcoming. 28bytes (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  +1. I wish there was some solution between doing nothing and a community site ban. We've lost some very prolific editors over the years because of the way they handled interpersonal disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Liz I've been thinking about what you've said here, and at least in Koavf's case, I truly think all options have been exhausted. He's been blocked 33 times, indeffed multiple times, the last unblock was very controversial to say the least, he's under a 0RR restriction due to his prolific edit-warring that he's already violated, and at least in the CMR instance instead of reverting he just talks and talks and talks if he gets answers he doesn't like (and according to others here, it's not an isolated thing to the CMR case either). Personally I just don't know what else can be tried with Koavf. An "accept the answers you're given" solution would be novel and I wonder how that'd be enforced, but that's not workable. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if the statement on User:koavf will affect this discussion. This isn't intended as a ping but a link to a User page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Hopeless, passive-aggressive, and exhausting.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a site ban. I am still of the opinion that measures less than such an absolute sanction can be effective. BD2412 T 02:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's been tried, more than thirty times. Most people don't get more than thirty seconds chances to just meet minimum standards of behavior. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not voting because I have not adequately reviewed the evidence, but for all those opposing without actually offering viable solutions guaranteed to work: Site bans, like all other sanctions, can be appealed after the requisite amount of time. Softlavender (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note Koafv has added this notice to the top of his userpage.

Just thought participants ought to be aware. Nyttend (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support I'm sick of seeing him get repeatedly blocked and unblocked. Although he left an interesting notice on his userpage, I think it is best that he be site-banned without any ability to appeal for at least a year. We have given him far too many chances to improve. Scorpions1325 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2024 (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.

Reports against me

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, without my knowledge, the subject of reports to two administrators by User:BILL1 for no apparent reason. 12 July and 21 July D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not something that needs admin intervention. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

what it needs, then? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (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.

Conflict of interest VRT appointments, July 2024

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team following private and public consultation:

• Bilby (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The VRT administrators are asked to grant access to the aforementioned users pending signatures to the required confidentiality agreements.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT appointments, July 2024

Block notice without actual block

I found a user that received the {{vaublock}} notice in April 2023, but was never actually blocked: Nate Higgers III (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: No, they were blocked at the time (and remain so), but the block log entries have been redacted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Block log entries are not allowed to be redacted, per WP:REVDEL#Log redaction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the creation, move, and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content. The whole purpose was not have a name that is clearly a play off Hate (you can figure it out) in the logs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

More explicit policy permission for this sort of log redaction can be found at WP:DISRUPTNAME: consideration should be given, with appropriate judgment, if the username should be redacted from any logs or edit revisions - especially if they're grossly offensive or destructive in nature, and likely to offend many editors. YMMV, I guess, whether this one qualifies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's never really been the case for grossly disruptive content, libellous stuff, and maybe some other categories (also may I suggest this link and especially any 'unhidden' events). The RD policy is worded to prevent removal of mistaken or ordinary blocks. There's also been some recent changes to the wording in policy, which may have affected its nuance. The original policy used to explicitly allow 'blocks of attack usernames', and I suspect that probably wasn't removed deliberately. BTW, in case you come across similar cases, the most definitive place to check is Special:BlockList, though even that is not 100% guaranteed to be correct. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that block redactions like this essentially only occur when all edits have also had their username redacted, and it is prohibited by policy (and by law, under the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0) to redact usernames from substantive edits. Which means that in practice basically all block redactions will be of users who have made zero substantive edits. Perhaps that could be formalized, but there's really no reason to do this if the username is going to be visible elsewhere, so that might just be instruction creep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have the vague suspicion that a bunch of the rules we believe to be legal requirements of the Creative Commons license might just be folklore. For example, it's always possible for a rightsholder to release a work under a more permissive license -- which should mean that "I relicense all of my contributions as CC0, please delete my account now" ought to be legally sound -- yet we claim this is impossible. It also seems weird that we can't just include a click-through in the Terms of Use after the you agree to license your contributions under the username you've chosen that says ", comma, comma, comma, unless the username you've chosen is some trash like 'I Freakin' Love Adolf Hitler' in which case we will change it to something else, comma". jp×g🗯️ 07:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe the reason we "claim this is impossible" is because of the sheer headache involved in ever keeping track of it, should someone challenge the CC0 status of an edit later down the road. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree it wasn't removed deliberately. It was copyedited out. 'blocks of attack usernames' was removed from the criteria on 17 October 2009 (summary: reword the hiding usernames part ...). Redaction of a block log entry due to an attack username was not prohibited by any language found elsewhere, and the following text remained included, and has stayed essentially the same: ... use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs ... in a manner not covered by these criteria ... will usually be treated as abuse of the tool. (A contrario: use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs in a manner covered by these criteria will not by itself be treated as abuse of the tool.) While LaundryPizza03 says that the "Log redaction" section disallows block entries to be redacted, it specifically allows them to be redacted consistent with the criteria when the content is grossly improper (so, IMO, the most explicit policy permission is already in the revdel policy). —Alalch E. 01:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• It's actually rather appropriate to delete block log entries, for example when the block was mistaken. The rules to which Tamzin refers are ill thought out and confused.—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Which rules, @S Marshall? The only rule I've mentioned is a tangential (and legally non-negotiable) one about redacting usernames from edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  The one in your first sentence, which reduces to "only vandals can get entries in their block logs deleted". That's a problem. Non-vandals also have sysop mistakes on their permanent record. It ought to be possible to fix them.—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're reading as consequent what for me was the antecedent (i.e. assumed in "like this"). But it doesn't really matter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  The fix for inappropriate blocks isn't RevDel; it's the unblock reason if the accoun/IP is still blocked, or an extremely short block with an appropriate reason if it isn't. RevDel-ing a block prevents the blocking admin's mistake from being visible to the public. This isn't a problem if it's the only mistake the admin makes in a significant time period, but can be a problem for an admin who is careless or hasty with blocks causing many mistakes in the process. Animal lover |666| 07:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  There's actually two logs, Animal lover 666. There's your block log and the sysop's admin action log. By erasing a bad block from one log and not the other, you could correct injustice without reducing sysop accountability.—S Marshall T/C 07:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

RD1 backlog

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

---

Hi there – we could use some help with the revdel button over at Category:Requested RD1 redactions, which has nearly 50 entries at time of writing. It would be greatly appreciated if any willing admins could chip in. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 12:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Will try to reduce the backlog a bit. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking a break, but should be better now. Thanks to whomever else helped reduce the backlog. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:59, 23 July 2024 (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.

Edit Warring on “Tom & Jerry (2021 film)”

{{subst:AN-notice}} [[CriticallyThinking]]

Hello, this is my first attempt at reporting a user so I may need some guidance.

Despite repeated efforts to structure sections of the article properly, this user repeatedly removes sources and constructs sentences in ways that are unverifiable, evidently original research and warp the intent of the original sources. There are numerous grammatical errors and defiances of neutrality in spite of my best efforts to rework the article in a comprehensible fashion. Unfortunately the edit logs have turned into mud slinging between this user and myself, and I think this is the best way to handle the situation from here on.

Embedded here is a link to my previous effort to structure the article properly.

Since then, CriticallyThinking has removed the embedded quotes and replaced them with unverifiable and impartial sentences that I feel muddy the comprehension of the article. They have accused me of edit warring, and it is true that this is the case between the two of us; however I fail to see how their attempts at editing are conducive.

I may need some assistance with issuing a Warning or a request for a Third Opinion, thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you haven't done it right at all. The real problem is you and CriticallyThinking have been edit-warring at Tom & Jerry (2021 film) with an outrageous number of reverts today.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a known LTA who works in this area & is known for using sources that aren't verifiable, among other things. Victoria (tk) 00:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Who?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a number of accounts, mostly IPs, that make up fake articles about children's films. I know one geolocates to St. Johns, Canada, another is in Missouri. They often put their work on Talk pages rather than Draft pages. You can usually identify them because they have unbelievable cast lists. Some of them have registered accounts. I haven't looked at this article diffs that closely to see if it is one of our regulars.

Of course if there has been edit warring on both sides, that's a different matter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Protected in lieu of blocks. If it turns out we have a sock in play, no objection to it being lowered. Star Mississippi 01:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I take ownership over the fact that I escalated it further than it should have gone. With that said, it was quite frustrating to actually attempt to structure a segment of the article properly, only to have it blitzed because of a very arbitrary argument. Either way, I would rather put this to bed and can only do better in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciscocat (talk • contribs) 04:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but these notice templates are not correct: the ANI notice template supposed to go at the guy's talk page, not at the board, and it should be {{subst:AN-notice}}, not {{tl|subst:AN-notice}}. It is one of those use-mention escaping things, sorry, it is kind of complicated. jp×g🗯️ 17:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

AIV backlog

There's quite a heavy backlog at WP:AIV, with some active vandals that need dealing with. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 08:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Lifting topic ban on User:Rachel Helps (BYU)

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 propose lifting the topic ban applied on March 2024 to:

Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reasons why the ban should be lifted:

• She did a lot of good work before violating the COI policies. She was virtually the ONLY editor adding anything related to Mormon feminism articles, an area sorely needed. It would be good to have her back. A permanent ban would be ultimately detrimental to Wikipedia.
• It has been long enough. I seriously doubt she will make the same mistake as before.
• Her connection to the BYU library gives access to important Mormon sources difficult to find elsewhere.
• At risk of exposing my own biases, most Mormon editors come on and are borderline vandals, putting pseudo-scientific garbage in a lot of articles. With a couple exceptions, User:Rachel Helps has not been like that. She has always been willing to talk things through though. We need that perspective here on Wikipedia.

Bottom line, I don't think the issues that happened before will happen again, and a second chance is warranted. Epachamo (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, if Rachel Helps believes she's ready for the sanctions to be lifted, she may appeal herself. There is no reason for third party appeals. Star Mississippi 02:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't an appeal of the punishment. She violated and was banned. It's time to let her out of prison. I'm not sure why a third party appeal matters at all. Where is that policy? Why does it matter? Epachamo (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  The general principle is at Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeals by third party. There is not even consideration of the possibility of third-party appeals at WP:UNBAN. CMD (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Again, this is not an appeal of the ban, but about lifting the ban, "Bans imposed by community consensus or for repeated block evasion may be lifted by community discussion (unless needing ArbCom review)" This is what I'm trying to do here, get community consensus for lifting the ban. Epachamo (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  You are literally WP:APPEALing the ban. Wikilawyering the process is unlikely to help with the goal. CMD (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Appealing a topic ban" and "proposing the lifting of a topic ban" mean fundamentally the same thing on Wikipedia. I have no idea what you're trying to do here other than argue over semantics or wikilawyer, both of which are a waste of community time. Left guide (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't an appeal of the punishment. What on earth do you mean by that? And then what is the purpose of this post if you're not trying to appeal the topic ban? That remark makes absolutely no sense. Left guide (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm using the word "appeal" in the same sense that the justice system uses it, to overturn a judgement, as in I disagree with it and think she should be found innocent. Im not contending that she was innocent, just that she has served her time and should be let out of prison as a productive member of Wikipedia society. Epachamo (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• On hold. If Rachel Helps comes here and indicates that she is wishing to appeal, then this case can proceed with an examination of the evidence. Without her input, I don't think we should do anything. Also, it is customary in appeals for appellants to address the reasons for the ban and convince us that they would not be repeated. You can't do that on her behalf. Zero^talk 05:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as not appealed by the sanctioned user. Epachamo, cut the pettifogging out. I know you're acting in good faith here, but the fact of the matter is we have never entertained ban appeals from anyone but the banned editor, with third-party appeals generally being grounds to reject the appeal out of hand. If Helps wants to come and appeal her topic ban she is more than welcome to do so, but it will be when she wants to make the effort to do so and not before. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Third party appeals not entertained, and the OP lawyers like a puritan hedge priest. FWIW whereas WP:TB tells us

For example, if an editor is banned from the topic [Mormonism], this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article [Mormonism], but also ... discussions or suggestions about [Mormonism]-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance ... the user's own user and talk pages.

FYI diff. Conversely, it's only one bloody comment, let's enjoy ourselves. ——Serial Number 54129 11:08, 27 July 2024 (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.

COPYLINK question

I apologize if I'm asking about this at the wrong noticeboard, but I've got a question regarding WP:COPYLINK. I recently posted at WP:RX asking for help tracking down potential sources for an article currently being discussed at AfD. The source was posted by another participant in the AfD but there was no link provided. Anyway, someone at RX was able to able to find one of sources, and sent me a url to a Google Drive page where a NewsBank printout of the source can be found. Is it OK for me to add that link to Google Drive to the AfD discussion so that others can view and assess the source themselves? Would it be considered a COPYLINK violation? Is there anyway for others to use the URL to find out who created the link? I don't want to accidentally out someone. FWIW, I did respond to the email and asked the sender if it would be OK to do so, but I have yet to receive a reply. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there anyway for others to... Yes, in the 3 dots and details. As to COPYLINK, the second paragraph of that does not seem to be talking only about sharing those links in articles, though I have no experience with this. – 2804:F1...05:D414 (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say a link to someone's personal Google Drive is not allowed, even if it has sources in it. You can probably image search the Newsbank photo and get that link (if it exists). Or, similarly, if the page#, date, and publisher exists, then someone can probably use newspapers.com to find it. Conyo14 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yarnell Hill Fire Article Objection

• Yarnell Hill Fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 whom it may concern, I'm expressing deep concern for the article of the Yarnell Hill Fire. This article is a direct reminder of what occurred on the fateful day of June 30, 2013, along with the entire incident as a whole. however, there's a complete and utter disregard for the firefighters who lost their heroic lives, by stating the toxicology report from their autopsies. They fought for their lives and in the end paid the ultimate sacrifice, and yet the article shows how the firefighters were not only on drugs but legally drunk by state statues of the 0.08 BAC Laws. This is a great disregard for the families that have to not only live with but to read on this page. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information in ways that don't tend to disregard and disrespect our heroes who gave the ultimate sacrifice. It's bad enough that Yarnell lost 19 Hot Shots they do not need to hear about how they were under the influence fighting for their communities.

Thank you for your time and understanding of my concerns 143.170.106.2 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a matter for AN, The toxicology reports are what they are, and the article doesn’t actually state what you say it says in the manner you assert. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2024 (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:Eches0's file uploads

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.

---

• Eches0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Eches0 is a newly created account that looks to have uploaded 300+ files today alone without any kind of information about their provenance or copyright status. This is probably just a good-faith misunderstanding of WP:IUP, but the number of files is so great it might take time to sort them all. Perhaps an admin could ask Eches0 stop uploading files at least until they've gotten a better understanding of file copyright licensing and relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

While I was posting this, Ingenuity blocked Eches0 as a sock, so I guess that means notifying them of this discussion is no longer needed. There's still a incredible amoount of tiles though that need to be dealt with, and perhaps they could all just be speedily deleted per WP:F9 or WP:G5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried mass deleting them all per G5, but it crashed, I assume because there were 300+ files because Ingenuity got to them first. I'll leave it for someone with more technical skills (or a better computer). Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

sigh, fuzzy headed tonight. It now appears Ingenuity and I both deleted some. So I'm not a total waste of space tonight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nuke is not working super well... after giving lots of errors, it looks like we both managed to delete the same page at the same time? —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Double secret deletion. I wonder if you'd have to undelete it twice? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam and Ingenuity. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2024 (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 User Lavalizard101

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.

---

Lavalizard101 has for no reason started reverting edits I have made. Mostly page merges and seems inclined to get involved in revert battles. Zigismon (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

further this user gives no reasons for the reverts. Zigismon (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Where have you attempted to discuss this with them, as advised by WP:BRD? --JBL (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You have not made any attempt to speak to Lavalizard101 about the reverts. I would suggest instead of going to a noticeboard, you speak to them first. Conyo14 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2024 (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.

Crypto General Sanctions Review

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

---

General sanctions including 1RR and ECR were put in place by the community on all pages with content relating to blockchains and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, in May of 2018, in this discussion. Disruption and general interest in the area seems to have decreased significantly since then. Should the sanctions be lessened, completely removed, or stay the same?

• As the proposer, I support lessening the restrictions to auto-confirmed removing the sanctions completely. Per the block log at WP:GS/CRYPTO, there have only been 3 bans/blocks in the past 4 years, compared to 22 in 2018 and 18 in 2019. The sensationalist aspect of crypto seems to have passed, and if it happens to return it the future, sanctions can be discussed at that time.JoeJShmo^💌 23:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure about the extended-confirmed restriction? While the linked closure does refer to "WP:ARBPIA-equivalent" sanctions and some pages have been extended-confirmed protected in response, a topic-wide extended-confirmed restriction never really existed nor was asked for in the discussion as far as I can see. There is thus no way to lessen something that doesn't exist, and "lessening the restrictions to auto-confirmed" would add a restriction.

I'm fine with removing the 1RR as I personally didn't see it as helpful in practice. Someone comes and writes something promotional, is reverted and reverts the revert: all allowed. And then the removal may not be re-done? That just hurts recent changes patrollers rather than advertisers. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Although not every article has the protection in place (although such protection is warranted under the current sanctions), there are a number of articles that are under ECR because of this sanction, and the discussion is therefore relevant. I do agree with you that the sanctions should just be removed completely in light of the fact that most articles in the space aren't even auto-confirmed protected– good point. JoeJShmo^💌 07:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Those would be page level sanctions if logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. As I understand it, removing the general sanctions will not lift the protection for any of these pages since WP:ECP is a valid form of protection for any page nowadays. The only difference is it will allow the protection to be lifted or reduced by any admin instead of only by or with the permission of the protecting admin, or after discussing here. Note I'm fairly sure this already applies to any page where it isn't logged on the general sanctions page (and isn't protected under some other CTOP, general sanctions or other process), the protection there is not under the general sanctions system therefore is just an ordinary ECP. To be clear, this also means if there is any page protected under general sanctions, where any editor feels ECP is no longer justified, there is no need to lift the GS system for the removal or reduction of the protection. Instead they can ask the protecting admin, or open a discussion here, about that particular page. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There is one other difference between CTOP/GS ECPs and regular ECPs, which is that the latter can only be done if semi-protection hasn't worked. At least in theory. I'm not sure how often that rule is followed anymore. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Argh, mobile diffs! Those are my kryptonite. Anyway, I'd oppose lifting the mild restrictions, such as they are, in the absence of evidence that they're doing any harm.—S Marshall T/C 08:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  What brought this to my attention was a particularly long edit request posted by a user on one of the ECR pages. I wouldn't call it 'harm' exactly, but keeping sanctions in place does have the effect of newer editors being unable to edit that area, so if there's no good reason for the sanctions they end up just being a waste of other editors' time. JoeJShmo^💌 09:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you're talking about Talk:List of bitcoin companies#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024, note that Special:Contributions/Domglu is not even confirmed [84]. Perhaps they would have made the 10 edits to earn auto-confirmed (the account was created back in 2017 but doesn't seem to have edited here until now), but I'm not sure how likely this is. And I'm unconvinced we want Talk:List of bitcoin companies to be unprotected whether the GS exists. I suspect semi-protection is the bare minimum for such a list as it will be a magnet for spam and good-faith but non-notable additions. So in that particular example, I'm not sure anything would be different with or without GS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• I am happy to see some discussion of a community GS as I think the community would do well to periodically review its sanctions. In this instance, would prefer to see no blocks/bans for at least a couple of years in order to rescind and so I would be in favor of keeping the restrictions on Crypto/blockchains the same at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - cryptocurrency spam has not gone away. The reduction in spam is a sign of the sanctions working. MER-C 16:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note - JoeJShmo is currently blocked for 1 week for a topic-ban violation, unrelated to this discussion. As such, he will be unable to respond to comments here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - While it has diminished from its 2023 peak, there're still no shortage of people trying to prop up currencies to take "investors" for a ride, and Wikipedia pages would be a huge boon to those efforts. The increased vigilance is still necessary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally, an established editor can make this request but JJS has had trouble in other contentious areas and I don't think this is an area where it should be lowered so he can edit, which I assume is the unspoken behind this request. Star Mississippi 01:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Partially struck at subject's request, although I think this remains a bad idea. Star Mississippi 02:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Crypto promotion isn't going away while people think they can make money. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Scammers promoters of get rich quick schemes are still active in this topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2024 (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.

AIV backlog

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

---

There is currently a huge backlog at AIV, with 29 comments and multiple LTA reports that need dealt with. Jdcomix (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hacking away at it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Jdcomix (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2024 (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.

LTA attacking noticeboards

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

---

Not sure who it is, but there is a very persistent LTA attacking our noticeboards with constantly changing IP addresses. I've blocked a half dozen or more and protected a number of the targeted boards. Unfortunately, it is getting a bit late where I am and I need some sleep. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2024 (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.

No action taken on stockpuppet and vandal User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya

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.

---

NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya

• This account is a sockpuppet of User: Kairakairav, who has a history of adding factually incorrect information on WP: Hinduism articles by making 100s of sockpuppets.
• They gets banned everytime for vandalism, despite attempts made by other users to guide them.
• However, they make another account and continue the same type of vandalism.
• This cycle has been in continuation for more than a year.
• Like previous sockpuppets, Kairakairav has returned as NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya and constantly irritating users by adding "fanfics", replacing the well sourced info from articles like Kunti, Pandu, Eklavya, Madri, Sahadeva, Yudhishthira, Nakula and many more.
• I had opened an stockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kairakairav but no action has been taken even after 3 weeks.
• Earlier User: Redtigerxyz had reported this user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya, but it was archived without any action taken.

.245CMR.•^👥📜 06:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2024 (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.

Request to start a 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.

---

I request permission to create a page, Thulani Victor Mbuyisa, a Roman Catholic bishop in South Africa. I thank you. SiniyaEdita (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see Help:Your first article. All the best, Miniapolis 22:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A "first article" page is not relevant here (the user then requested assistance at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit where the request was removed with a suggestion to "try the Article wizard" in the edit summary). The reason an article or draft could not be created is because of the title blacklist: .*thula.*(victor|makhubu).* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokuthula27 - it looks like this could be changed to .*thula.*(victori|makhubu).* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokuthula27. Peter James (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at these sockpuppets in 2020, it looks like they were all focused on creating an article for a South African model, Thula victorious, I'm not sure how this other page title got caught up in this title blacklist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@SiniyaEdita: I have made the change to the Title Blacklist proposed by Peter. You should be able to create the page now. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:11, 2 August 2024 (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.

Undo

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 undo this [85] and [86], this is vandalism, thanks  Rafael Ronen  09:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I see IP vandalizing this article seriously, need to undo to February 10, 2022  Rafael Ronen  09:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done and revision-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: thanks  Rafael Ronen  01:10, 1 August 2024 (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.

Appeal of a 6 year old topic ban on closing/relisting deletion discussions

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

---

I was indefinitely topic banned from closing/relisting any deletion discussions in February of 2018. Since it has been 6 years since the topic ban was enacted, and the enforcing admin said I could appeal in 3-6 months, I would like to appeal my topic ban long after that time. I have gained a lot more experience on AFD policy in that time through observation, and don't plan on closing any non-SNOW/speedy discussions. My focus is almost entirely on RC, edit filter, and new page patrol now, so to be honest, I just want a clean slate after so much time even though I don't plan on closing many (if any) AfDs. Jdcomix (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Convenience link to the ban discussion: [87]. I note Jdcomix has been around for quite a while, took a hiatus from 2021, and has returned to active editing 2 months ago. I feel quite comfortable wiping his slate clean via a formal unban, given his assurances above. I'd also suggest that if he does any NAC at all, including crystal clear and appropriate ones, he go slow and start off doing one at a time. That would be good practice for any NAC, doubly so given his history here. Martinp (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• I took a look at their block log and discovered they've had exactly one block; by me, during the aforementioned discussion. I have zero recollection of the details. In any case, that was 6 years ago, which is a long time. Their user page says they are currently in college; without intending to pry into any private details of their life, most people in college are very different from the person they were 6 years previously. I can't see any reason to deny this request. RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support reasonable appeal and next steps. Star Mississippi 03:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support reasonable timeframe. Appears remorseful. Etc. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2024 (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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus (not even WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) to either unblock outright or to convert the block to topic ban/s. El_C 13:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite site block made by Galobtter as an AE action.[88] An appeal was declined at AE.[89]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Galobtter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/1236676427

Statement by Sennalen

Since the original closing only alleges "disruption" without identifying specific acts, I look to Galobtter's comment[90] on the appeal as the definitive statement of what I am supposed to answer for.

• I did not use a news source to undercut a scientific source. I wrote the entire Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 to give priority to peer-reviewed journal articles over news and opinion. By design, only the final 6 KB "Views" section[91] of this 61KB article included news sources at all. Part of that was a neutral summary about congress calling a paper into question. The paper itself was outdated for the purpose of presenting current scientific understanding regardless. I used the news source in an appropriate way, and furthermore, the choice to pick this minor aspect of the article to characterize my overall attitude towards the topic is highly misleading.
• I did not push a lab leak point of view. In the article, I wrote that scientists consider a natural origin more likely than a lab origin. I also presented several new lines of evidence, which had never been cited on Wikipedia before, against lab theories. Galobtter cited some isolated Talk comments seven months older than my article edits.[92][93] I did express belief in a lab origin at that time, but also principally argued for following sources. My beliefs evolve over time to account for new evidence. Having a belief is not a behavioral infraction. Every edit I made to article space was verifiable from peer-reviewed journals and given balanced weight. There was no violation.
• In the months since I was blocked, proposals to delete[94] or merge[95] closed with no consensus. In particular, there was no consensus that my article was a PoV fork of Origin of SARS-CoV-2. Several editors noted that I wrote mainly about science whereas the existing article was mainly about political inquiries. In short, I wrote a good article in a valuable unfilled niche.
• In a matter Galobtter raised after the block, I agreed that I should not have WP:OVERCITEed seven reliable sources to support a contested claim on Western Marxism. Nevertheless, the wording of the claim and the choice of which page to present it on were based on prior consensus.[96][97] When new arguments were made, I withdrew voluntarily to work on better edits incorporating on that feedback.[98] The situation resolved positively on its own. Nothing about these events explains why I was indef site blocked.
• Finally, Galobtter made some statements about race and intelligence that continue to be of unclear relevance. It is a fact that I was an uninvolved commenter on an RfC and then in some related ANI threads about the RfC. Old threads keep being linked without any indication why they are supposed to be a problem in relation to me. This, more than any other part of this ordeal, feels like a WP:SMEAR.
• To address Seraphimblade's concern about whether I understand WP:FRINGE, I wrote an overview of the history and meaning of the guideline [99]. Hopefully that puts those concerns to rest. I have never promoted any kind of pseudoscience or conspiracy theory on Wikipedia. Though I have edited in some contested topics, I have always done so while using appropriate sources and writing from the perspective of the scientific and/or historical establishment. Policy says, Editors may present active public disputes or controversies documented by reliable sources; citing a viewpoint stated in a mainstream scholarly journal, textbook, or monograph is not per se disruptive editing.[100]

The case against me was based on routine edits that are of no significance without a context of already assuming bad faith. I have observed all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and as ever remain committed to observing all policies and guidelines in the future. It's not necessary to like me personally or agree with all my content positions. All that matters per WP:Blocking policy is that blocking me does not prevent any disruption; therefore the block is against policy. I look forward to writing many more quality articles on diverse subjects in the future. Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if anyone finds my tone too defensive or not apologetic enough. There is an appropriate order to things: an act is alleged, evidence for it is presented, a rule or principle the act violated is identified, and only then is it possible to reflect on the error of my ways. I can't just skip to the end without the previous steps. If I have made a pseudoscientific edit, I really want to know what it is. If there is one, I will be deeply embarrassed and disappointed in myself. As a matter of WP:ADMINACCT it shouldn't be a guessing game for me.

I'm glad people are starting to notice some other editors have avoided scrutiny, but I disagree with saying they are on the opposite side of a conspiracy theory from me. We are all on the same side against the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. It's a false, dangerous, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. I was the first person on Wikipedia to try to systematically explain why the conspiracy theory is factually wrong[101] (rather than just asserting that it's a moral outrage.) This follows WP:EVALFRINGE, describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. There is a timesink, and it comes from editors whose feelings about the topic are too strong to treat it objectively. That's especially damaging when they export their feelings about the conspiracy theory to ordinary articles in history and sociology. That's what I have been up against.

Replacing the existing sanction with something less severe sounds like an idea worth exploring, but there is no reason to split the difference between truth and falsehood. The truth is that I have no problematic agenda. The value of a sanction is what it prevents. A topic ban from covid would stop me from supplying requested sources. For cultural Marxism (broadly construed) it would stop me from planned expansions on the theory of communicative action or the aestheticization of politics. That's not serving the community's interests. Sennalen (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

(additional statement by Sennalen pasted from talk page by me) Schazjmd (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to XOR'easter for taking the time to investigate my comments. I only tried to document the evolution of the policy over time, not to argue that it was better or worse at any stage of that evolution, so I'm sorry if I gave that impression. There is no "editor cabal", but some editors mis-apply the policy, as recognized for example by DGG.[102] My behavior when unblocked will be as always to follow the policy as written.

To reiterate to @S Marshall:, I don't cast doubt on academic consensus about any of the topics. I have presented the academic consensus in every CTOP I have been involved in. All content I added was accurate, verifiable, and neutral. When challenged, I listened and built consensus. It's not that I'm treated more harshly for breaking the rules than my opponents. I'm treated more harshly for following the rules than they are for breaking them. I don't doubt that it takes a lot of time to generate novel reasons to cast doubt on reliable sources. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTMANDATORY, no one actually has to spend time doing that.

Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks says that showing evidence no violation took place is a valid form of appeal. I have demonstrated that Galobtter's accusations were false, and she says she has nothing more to add. The timesink here is persisting with disproven allegations. Sennalen (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I copied the third statement Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

Re EggRoll, I don't have anything to add beyond what I said at the last appeal. Galobtter (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial

Sennalen's second statement presents this diff as showing them to be the first person on Wikipedia to try to systematically explain why the conspiracy theory is factually wrong (rather than just asserting that it's a moral outrage.) Since I reverted that inclusion, Sennalen reinserted it, and it eventually did not make its way into Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, I'd like to use it as a potential "best case" example that actually shows why Sennalen's interventions in these areas have proved to be unproductive time sinks - and perhaps to show that "moral outrage" doesn't motivate the objections to their contributions.

Sennalen presents this edit as explaining "why the conspiracy is factually wrong", and I wouldn't doubt the sincerity of that intention. However, what that edit actually does - in my view but also the consensus view on article Talk (see this archive) - is to say, effectively, that the things Sennalen lists as "wrong" are how Cultural Marxism in the conspiracy theory differs from real (sic.) Cultural Marxism (my words from the archive linked above).

In fact, about six months after their attempt to distinguish what parts of the conspiracy theory are "factually wrong", Sennalen launched a malformed RfC (found at this archive) to establish that something called "cultural Marxism" existed apart from a conspiracy theory. Sennalen's insistence on this POV, in spite of repeated findings of community consensus from 2014 to 2023 that there is no there, there, makes for tiresome reading on Talk and is, in my view, inherently disruptive. An editor who engaged to restore this content, alongside Sennalen, was the same one who later appealed Sennalen's OWNTALK editing ban (for proxying); that editor was subsequently indef-blocked for disruption.

The bottom line is that Sennalen's edits do not accomplish the avowed goals they have in mind as their intended purpose; they consistently cause disruption and lost editor time in various domains, and this filing shows no sign of a change in their approach to editing that would lead to less disruptive results. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Novem Linguae

I guess I'm involved in COVID-19 origins so moving my statement up here. Oppose revoking the block, per HandThatFeeds and S Marshall. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by XOR'easter

Oppose revoking the ban, as the argument for doing so reads like a request to do more of the same civil POV-pushing that led to it in the first place. (See Galobtter's statement in the March 2024 appeal for why the race-and-IQ topic was included.) I have edited in these topic areas, but not (AFAICT) in the specific disputes that led to the ban or the AE discussions about them, so I am commenting in this section to be on the safe side. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The overview of the history and meaning of WP:FRINGE does not put any concerns to rest; rather the opposite. For example, it complains at considerable length about language that has been stable for a decade and a half, while selectively quoting the older text, e.g., omitting the qualification that the guideline won't even attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible. The older phrasing somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications is treated as more precise than the newer departs significantly from the prevailing views, despite the obvious vagueness of every qualifier. It then advances without evidence a claim that a new interpretation of "fringe theory" has gained ground on Wikipedia, accusing a nebulous editor cabal of refusing to read sources. Far from allaying any concerns, this "overview" is a promise to sealion more. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

I started an AFD on Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 and have participated in a merge discussion concerning it, so I guess that makes me involved. This unblock request is mostly defensive and there is a severe lack of acknowledgment for what led to the block or what they will do differently in regards to those issues. I'm not convinced that their previous disruption will cease and therefore oppose unblocking them. TarnishedPath^talk 05:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Sennalen

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved editors. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Sennalen, I mean this in all good faith, but I don't think this is a well-crafted request at this time. By putting "disruption" in quotes and evincing skepticism as to the basis of the block, it does not engender confidence that a return would be smooth. I am in no way saying you have to agree with the block, but I think it would be wise to take on board that there was at least a reasonable basis. Again, you don't have to agree, and you're welcome to argue against it. But the tone here strikes me "this obvious injustice must be undone" rather than what I think would lead to success, which would be more along the lines of "I don't think it was an appropriate punishment, but I also know I can do better." Just a thought from the peanut gallery, and whatever happens, all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I just wanted to note that this appeal was post here by User:JJMC89. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral on substance, but will note that only the first year of the block is under CT and after a year it becomes an "ordinary" admin block. No difference here because the block was in December but might matter for future appeals if this is declined. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I don't see necessarily much of a problem with this, and I could be completely missing something (or many things?), but it seems as though the indef was taken as a way to circumvent the fact that AE can't impose topic bans on areas outside CTOP, and while I will wait for Galobtter's response on the substance, I'd be fine with repealing the sanction at AE, and replacing it with a community-issued topic ban on pseudoscience, fringe science, and Cultural Marxism, broadly construed. That would allow for Sennalen to make contributions outside of those areas, while lifting the site-block itself. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I commented at the giant trainwreck AE thread that resulted in Sennalen's ouster last December, although I was not involved in the dispute which that thread arose from. Does anyone know if that makes me involved here or not? If so, I will go say my crap in the section above this; if not I will say it here. jp×g🗯️ 07:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: while I would not personally consider you involved, I'd suggest best just to comment above like some others have done with varying levels of involvement. But whatever you do, might be wise to comment soon since this has already been opened for a while so might be closed soon. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm seeing cultural marxism, zoonotic origins of Covid-19, and race and intelligence. These show every sign of being sincere, non-trolling edits. Sennalen seeks in good faith to cast doubt on the academic consensus on those topics. EggRoll97's proposed alternative will founder on the fact that Sennalen doesn't grok that these are pseudoscientific edits, and that this editor's going to be a massive timesink in areas where volunteer time is precious. I can see the injustice to Sennalen here: we're not treating her as we've treated others, and we're kinder to editors on the opposite side of these conspiracy theories to her. But I'd place the encyclopaedia's interests first, so I'm at endorse indef and deny appeal.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  [Later] I've seen Sennalen's additional remarks and considered them. I remain of the view that we're not being evenhanded and we haven't treated Sennalen particularly fairly. We're here to get an encyclopaedia written, and the resources of volunteer time it would take to deal with an unblocked Sennalen are substantial. Volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so this would be an expensive unblock, if you follow me. I'm disinclined to pay that price.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Skimming those earlier discussions, I actually do think she was treated somewhat unfairly (in particular, I see no evidence they've done any disruption in the Race and IQ area). Unfortunately, her(very defensive) appeals indicate that she won't change her mode of communication in contentious areas at all. An unblock with CBANs on Cultural Marxism and Fringe science seems reasonable. Mach61 12:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm a bit unconvinced by I look forward to writing many more quality articles on diverse subjects in the future. As far as I can see, in their 2000 edits Sennalen has written only two articles; Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 which they would now be topic-banned from, and Muppet Theory which was non-notable and was redirected to its author. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose revoking the ban. Sennalen was a massive time sink on the pages in question, the definition of a polite POV-pusher. As evidenced by the appeal above, Sennalen absolutely does not believe she did anything wrong, and would be just as much of a time sink at any other article where she was convinced she was in the right. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons already nlaidnout by others. Their appeal shows nothing has changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  As a second choice in case of the SB being lifted a TB should cover COVID, Marxism and fringe science. Rather than a narrower version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support TB / oppose indef SB I rarely disagree with Galobterr (indeed, I don't say his wrong, per se now), but in this case, there's sufficient interpretative leeway to allow for the imposition of an AE topic ban rather than the full-on indef site ban. Per the Egg Roll. As noted above, this might be because the options are limited at AE, whereas we (the community, right here, right now) are not tied. I think it fair to say that if that discussion had taken place here rather than there, an indefinite site ban would have been seen as breaking a butterfly on a wheel, with the lesser sanction being imposed. I can't prove it, of course, but there's sufficient possibility to allow it now. I think we would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face if we lose an otherwise productive editor in other areas when we could keep the editor on board just away from the boiler room. It certainly seems worth a try; if their approach remains abrasive, then we can revisit it. But it could be that the tone is a reflection of the—red blooded?—topic area and that working elsewhere might temper it. ——Serial Number 54129 10:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support shift to TB: While I'm no personal fan of Sennalen, I do not think that there's enough evidence of actual disruption, as opposed to disagreement, that an AE indef is justified. Being on the wrong side of consensus over and over is not by itself grounds for a ban. Loki (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support overturn indef. It seems clear that Sennalen edits in good faith, and I don't see an argument for supporting an indef, or any ban really, because of perceived 'time sink' or 'polite pov pushing'. These characterizations are almost entirely subject to the POV of the beholder. Also, I will note that the crux of this appeal isn't "I'll be better in the future", it's an argument that she never deserved the indef in the first place. Bypassing her arguments and assuming she definitely did something block-worthy and then going on to take issue with the perceived defensive tone and lack of apologies, and quoting that as a reason to support indef, seems like an absolute non-argument to me. JoeJShmo^💌 01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per S Marshall. --JBL (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

This user is abusive Materialscientist

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 tried editing a page and he said no that there was no links provided but i did explain to that person i provided links. Viking Fox Queen (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You are meant to notify users if you start a discussion about them. This is NOT OPTIONAL. I have now notified User:Materialscientist here.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Very difficult for Materialscientist to abuse anybody, considering he has an... inexemplary track record for communication, shall we say. SerialNumber54129 13:14, 4 August 2024 (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.

Histmerge

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

---

Could an admin perform a histmerge of Wikipedia:Robert Dell (Engineer) and Robert Dell (engineer)?

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I s'pose. —Cryptic 22:30, 3 August 2024 (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.

Russell Brand revdel request

Diff (admins only)

-thx Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, an edit like that deserves an indef block and revdel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:IronMike6#Indefinite block. El_C 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of Talk:MeToo movement § Proposed merge of Weinstein effect into MeToo movement

In any merge discussion, the bare minimum requirement for the pages to be kept separate is for those opposing to articulate and agree on distinct scopes. That did not happen here. The vast majority of editors felt that the terms were synonymous — I count 12 supports to 4 opposes, with a few IPs on both sides — and among the minority who did not, there was never agreement between even two editors on how the content of the two articles should differ. The secondary oppose argument, that the MeToo movement article is too big for a merge, was dispatched with the counterargument that the article ought to be trimmed down and that there's not much worth merging.

The closer initially justified a no-consensus close in part by stating, erroneously, that Consensus for both sides had about equal numerical support. He then modified the close once challenged on his talk page. Still, given the overwhelming numerical support for merging, and that without a baseline agreement on distinct scopes there is no hope for the pages to evolve in a useful direction, this nomination clearly should have succeeded. Sdkb ^talk 15:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to a merge, as nom. Sdkb ^talk 15:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: To be clear, the error was in phrasing, not in my actual evaluation of the numbers of people supporting/opposing in general. Also, the specific arguments here about my evaluation of consensus were not presented on my talk page. In any event, those arguments would not have persuaded me to change my mind, so I think it's fine to proceed with this close review. I'll let my close speak for itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Backlog

There is a tremendous backlog of RD1 requests. I just thought I'd drop a note. Scorpions1325 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

As one of the people contributing to the backlog (in the good way, not the adding copyright violations way!) I just want to say thank you to @DanCherek for dealing with it. It's much appreciated. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Scorpions1325 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

IP user 24.50.25.163

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

Hello, this anon is removing my warning for not assuming good faith in the edit summary for Toy Story 2. I am getting tired of reverting their talk page edits. Felicia (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

They're allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page (see WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME). I've reported at AIV for persistent vandalism and block evasion, though. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Refresh of arbitration policy and procedures

The Arbitration Committee has been working on a refresh of the arbitration policy and procedures. We invite interested editors to participate in the community consultation, which will be open until at least 16 August. Maxim (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Refresh of arbitration policy and procedures

IP User 23.241.114.84 Threatening Messages

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 IP User 23.241.114.84 has left vaguely threatening messages on my talk page with links to 4chan about how they're watching me. Here. Given that the recently blocked User:Nocomputersintexas shared [103] edit history with the IP [104], I'm inclined to believe they are related incidents. Brocade River Poems 23:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Given the attacks and their lulz edit their motivation is clear. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2024 (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.

Draftified an RTOA attempt

Would an admin mind taking a look at Cornelius (Planet of the Apes) to make sure I didn't make a mess when trying to draftifying the attempt of another user to create and article titled "Cornelius (Planet of the Apes)" as Draft:Cornelius (Planet of the Apes) with this edit. I didn't realize this was WP:RTOA attempt until after I draftified the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Replacement needed

Due to an undocumented bug in the MassMove script, where it occasionally just decides to execute a dozen page+talk moves with a broken find+replace, I have been spending the last half-hour or so trying to repair this clusterfuck:

Extended content

(change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:54 diff hist +94‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport to Environmental impact of transport: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:54 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport to Environmental impact of transport: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:45 diff hist +93‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping to Environmental impact of shipping: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:44 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping to Environmental impact of shipping: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:36 diff hist +90‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper to Environmental impact of paper: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:36 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper to Environmental impact of paper: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:25 diff hist +90‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint to Environmental impact of paint: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:25 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint to Environmental impact of paint: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:12 diff hist +91‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining to Environmental impact of mining: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:12 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining to Environmental impact of mining: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:27 diff hist +95‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation to Environmental impact of irrigation: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:27 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation to Environmental impact of irrigation: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:15 diff hist +113‎ N Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production to Talk:Environmental impact of illicit drug production: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:15 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impact of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production to Talk:Environmental impact of illicit drug production: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:14 diff hist +108‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production to Environmental impact of illicit drug production: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:14 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production to Environmental impact of illicit drug production: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:01 diff hist +92‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin to Environmental impact of bitcoin: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:01 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin to Environmental impact of bitcoin: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:33:45 diff hist +115‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:33:45 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:33:24 diff hist +93‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation to Environmental impact of aviation: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:33:24 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation to Environmental impact of aviation: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:30:59 diff hist +107‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia to Environmental impact of transport in Australia: WHY IS THE MASSMOVE SCRIPT EXECUTING WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FIND-REPLACE?????????? current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:30:59 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia to Environmental impact of transport in Australia: WHY IS THE MASSMOVE SCRIPT EXECUTING WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FIND-REPLACE?????????? current rollback: 2 edits (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:59 diff hist +133‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of transport in Australia to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:59 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of transport in Australia to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:59 diff hist +128‎ N Environmental effects of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of transport in Australia to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:58 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of transport in Australia to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:58 diff hist +120‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of transport to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:58 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of transport to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:57 diff hist +115‎ N Environmental effects of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of transport to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:57 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of transport to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:56 diff hist +119‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of shipping to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:56 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of shipping to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:56 diff hist +114‎ N Environmental effects of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of shipping to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:56 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of shipping to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:55 diff hist +116‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of paper to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:55 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of paper to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:54 diff hist +111‎ N Environmental effects of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of paper to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:54 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of paper to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:53 diff hist +116‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of paint to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:53 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of paint to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:53 diff hist +111‎ N Environmental effects of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of paint to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:53 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of paint to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:51 diff hist +117‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of mining to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:51 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of mining to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:50 diff hist +112‎ N Environmental effects of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of mining to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:50 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of mining to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:49 diff hist +121‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of irrigation to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:49 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of irrigation to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:48 diff hist +116‎ N Environmental effects of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of irrigation to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:48 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of irrigation to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:47 diff hist +134‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of illicit drug production to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:47 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impact of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of illicit drug production to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:47 diff hist +129‎ N Environmental effects of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of illicit drug production to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:47 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of illicit drug production to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:46 diff hist +118‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:46 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:45 diff hist +113‎ N Environmental effects of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of bitcoin to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:45 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of bitcoin to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:44 diff hist +141‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:44 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:44 diff hist +136‎ N Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:44 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:43 diff hist +119‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of aviation to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:43 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of aviation to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:42 diff hist +114‎ N Environmental effects of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of aviation to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:42 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of aviation to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing

Anyway, I managed to manually move the 22 pages, and then delete the 22 asinine redirects from the erroneous pagenames. But on the third task, which is to retarget the original page titles that are now redirecting to redlinks, I cannot: because for some reason, an insource search is bringing up nothing. Can someone, please, for the love of Christ, figure out how to do this? The search URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22Environmental+impactEnvironmental+effects%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1 and the search string is insource:"Environmental impactEnvironmental effects" -- this needs to be changed, on the 22 applicable pages, to "Environmental effects" -- for some reason the search is just proudly wrongly displaying nothing. jp×g🗯️ 01:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like 'MassMove' is one to avoid! Go to the red linked page and in the LHS menu, click on 'What links here'. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed them all. 11 of them plus talk pages. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A bot will sort out the double redirects. Also amended 'effects' to 'impact' in the lead section of the articles where appropriate. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure it doesn't show with insource: because redirects are excluded from the search results (intitle:"5P" brings the redirect target, but not the redirect itself, for example). – 2804:F1...14:B176 (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"intitle:" is appropriate for redirects, eg intitle:"Environmental effects of transport" but those redirects that had "Environmental impactEnvironmental effects" in the title were deleted so there’s nothing to find. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I tell page movers that they should leave a redirect when moving pages from bad page moves or else you end up with a lot of broken redirects. You can always delete the mistaken "bad" page later but the bots need a redirect to correct all of the existing redirects to the articles or talk pages. For some reason, many page movers tend not to leave redirects behind when they move articles. Luckily, because there is such a gigantic time replag going on right now, Anomie Bot III hasn't issued broken redirects reports for days so no pages got deleted accidentally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

My plan was to go through and AWB the old titles to semi-manually correct the redirects to go to the new titles, which I seem to recall doing before to fix redirects -- I figured it was some sort of weird database lag thing, but I guess redirects just don't show up in searches at all(?) so maybe I was just misremembering the entire thing. So it goes, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In the future, WP:VPT may connect you with technical editors and technical solutions quicker than AN. The insource question, and fixing the MassMove script, would be perfect topics for VPT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is now also a discussion at WP:ANI#Environmental impact of bitcoin that appears to be related to this. Left guide (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding My very best wishes

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) are repealed.

And it has resolved by another motion that:

My very best wishes' topic ban from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed under the Eastern Europe contentious topic procedures, is repealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding My very best wishes

User:Kierandude

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

Perhaps an admin could take a look at this user's contributions? Everthing they've uploaded and created seem to be associated to some kind of "fan fiction" they're working on. This could be a WP:YOUNG user who's just not aware of WP:NOT, which is why I'm asking about this here instead of WP:ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. This looks like a walled fictional garden. Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

They've even created a category for their fiction. Category:Fiction_by_Kierandude (swiftly deleted) Schazjmd (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

They're making some edits that seem OK, but then are also creating pages like User:Kierandude/When an AI writes Wikipedia, User:Kierandude/Soulhouse Your In Bird, User:Kierandude/Ruin This Page, User:Kierandude/Catulia, Template:Not actually fair use and Template:Kierandude. They seem to have made the "Not actually fair use" template just so that they could post it on my user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Kierandude/Soulhouse Your In Bird are mangled lyrics of Birdhouse in Your Soul. So mangled that I don't even know if they're a copyvio anymore. —Cryptic 22:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've got no idea what the point of User:Kierandude/Ignore all rules is supposed to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither do I, but I don't see a reason for any other actions right now. It would be nice if they were a little more responsive though. Acroterion (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I understand and thank you for what've you done so far. This probably can be closed now (I guess) since several administrators seem to be monitoring the situation and Kierandude has been advised how to best move forward on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Block request

Posting here because AIV is currently protected, but DK1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very obviously WP:LTA/D86 continuing to block-evade, see [105], [106], and [107]. Please do not protect that last page (Redacted)2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:641C:8D6D:8AF:85B9 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

DK1964 has been indeffed by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Rollback abuse by User:Jasper Deng

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 misuses MediaWiki rollback by using it to make unexplained/vague/disruptive reversions of good-faith edits as he did in Magnetic field. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope. This is WP:Twinkle, not WP:Rollback. You also ought to have discussed it with me on my talk page before trying to raise it here, and when you did, you failed to notify me as clearly required by procedure.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Your userpage says the otherwise. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because an editor can use Rollback, doesn't mean that they used it for a particular edit.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, he is abusing his rights. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You are wrongly assuming I used them here in the first place. Since it seems like I wasn't clear the first time, let me be a bit more blunt: if you do not drop this frivolous complaint, you are in for a WP:BOOMERANG especially in light of your earlier and now-continuing WP:IDHT behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

To remind you my behavior was a case of WP:Edit warring not WP:IDHT. Also, I have already apologized in my talk page for the same. Now better not try to change the subject Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You did engage in IDHT behavior in response to my edit warring warning and are now engaging in it again here. The time to drop this WP:STICK was as soon as it was explained to you that I didn't use rollback in this instance. Drop it now. Otherwise this conversation will indeed become a WP:BOOMERANG and be about you and your (in addition to WP:IDHT) childish behavior (examples: unhelpful; "better not try to change the subject").--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

How? Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Look at the length of this conversation and the one at User talk:Jeaucques Quœure#August 2024 and how resistant you are in both cases to what you are being told.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Smh I asked you how to drop the WP:STICK? Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read the essay, and just stop commenting here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The edits at Magnetic field show that Jasper Deng did a single revert with a comprehensive edit summary. That is model editing, not abuse. See WP:ROLLBACK for the details; an edit using rollback is tagged in the page history. Please discuss article content at the article's talk page and bear in mind that many edits are reverted: it's part of life here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain what was comprehensive about that edit summary?

• Disregarding the diagrams.
• Labelling vector equations are "useless".

Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no violation of rollback, and this does not belong on AN. If you don't understand Jasper Deng's explanation of his edit then ask hm for clarification on the article's talk page or his user page, not here. Meters (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2024 (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

Why did you block me? Hippobunny123 (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If you posted here, you are not blocked, unless you created this account to post here, thus evading your block. 331dot (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This was their only edit. They did create the account to post here. Who are they? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

CU shows nothing. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Tell us who you are and what you did. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here's a my possible explanation, this user used something like open-proxy when edited and showed with a block page, then they stopped using them, nothing found from Checkuser and no socks found?
@Doug Weller @Hippobunny123 -Lemonaka 17:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonaka Good idea, thanks. I see they are editing now. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller It may be related to this user that got blocked from the main space for continuously creating unsourced stub articles. See here. User:Hippobunny123 has been editing similar articles, including Draft:Southern Hoiho which was created by the blocked user. As User:331dot mentioned, is likely a block evasion. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru Great catch, thanks. I ran a check and they are the same. @Cullen328: you need to see this. Doug Weller talk 06:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, Doug Weller, are you telling me that somebody that I blocked tried and failed to evade their block? I wonder how often that block evasion has happened in the 21st century? Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Kingsif

The user is reverting edits and imposing their own opinions on the article 'List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records'. This is the second time I have entered into an argument with them on the same article. The first time, he accused me of sexism just because I put a (Women) label next to each woman on the list. I ended the argument the first time because I don't like getting into too many problems. This time, he is trying to revert my edit despite me explaining the reason. I request the administrators to put a stop to this. Mishary94 (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The first time, we had a discussion, and I did not accuse you of sexism - I said using only women as a defining category but not men, youth, amateur, could be read as sexism. This time, I have given you like three reasons why your explanations do not justify your edits. I have participated in discussion and it is a radical acceleration to come to ANI instead of just replying to me at the relevant talkpage. Especially when if you want to change the definition of a header, that's something that warrant discussion before making changes. But you made it, I reverted it with reasons, and am participating in discussion - see WP:BRD. Coming to ANI because you don't like that your edit and explanation wasn't just accepted is out of line. Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Mishary, you need to understand that if a revert happens, you need to discuss why it happened. Usually the edit summary provides enough reason, but the talk page exists too. Also, if Kingsif is reverting you while you aren't discussing, you risk an edit war, plus disruption, making this a WP:BOOMERANG. Conyo14 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• I have also found Kingsif's recent edit behavior battleground in nature. During a recent RFC, Kingsif accused others of harassment[108], bludgeoning[109] and being sockpuppet[110]. These accusations were all without merit. During this strange episode Kingsif even went so far as to template me for harrassment.[111] It's difficult to review that in context and draw any other conclusion than the editor is making baseless accusations that are battleground in nature. That aside, this is an experienced editor who is an overall a positive contributor to the project. Perhaps a polite WP:TROUT is in order to work better with other editors. Nemov (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Blatant favoritism in editorialization of article titles about the current conflict in Gaza.

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 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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel

Unconscionable these two are allowed to exist simultaneously.

This discrepancy ensures that nobody will ever again take this site seriously, as a supposedly neutral and unbiased source.

Not to mention the incitement this implicit accusation entails, justifying the same against Jews:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

Already i have seen the first URL shared on other websites, as if the title alone were proof of its occurrence, not a link to an article discussing and debating the same.

Some have attempted to address this on their respective Talk pages, but unfortunately those discussions are roundabout and railroaded, and resolve nothing. Brianmarx (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You do not meet the criteria to be able to contribute about this topic, you need to have at least 500 edits. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Awareness notice given. This should be archived. Selfstudier (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I will notify you about the special rules on your user talk page. Wikipedia does not claim to be "neutral and unbiased". Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Sources are presented so that readers can evaluate and judge them for themselves. You are free to read anything on Wikipedia and disagree with all of it. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2024 (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.

My that was fast. I am aware of these restrictions, I am an established user and editor regardless. They prevented Talk there, so I wrongly assumed discussion would be allowed here. Besides, you know that falling back on that here is an arbitrary gate-keeping restriction to stifle complaints and free conversation. Now on to your attempted excuse: "The sources I have chosen are biased so I must be too" is not at all a valid defense, and in fact makes you complicit in perpetrating this libel. So do you have an actual answer for these important questions that I have raised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmarx (talk • contribs) 08:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Brianmarx If you persist in contributing about this topic you will be given an Arbitration enforcement block. The restrictions apply anywhere on Wikipedia, not just on articles about the topic. Wikipedia is not a forum for free discussion, see WP:FREESPEECH. Go to social media to discuss your views about the conflict. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2024 (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.

Requests for page protection

Can any Admin work on WP:RPP, heavily backlogged. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nobuyuki Sato

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 an administrator take a look at Wikipedia:Nobuyuki Sato? This started out as a user sandbox draft that was mistakenly moved to the Wikiepdia namespace by its creator, who then moved it again to the article namespace: first as Nobuyuuki Sato and then again as Nobuyuki Sato (judoka). Does the Wikipedia namespace redirect need to be deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Done by @Liz. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ahri Boy for looking into this, and thank you Liz for sorting it out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2024 (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:CNMall41

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.

---

• CNMall41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user suddenly start targeting my created articles and put them into a Afd, i don't know why ? as a woman i am feeling harrassed. that's why i'm reporting here, Please do something. Xegma(talk) 05:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Can you specify which "articles" I "target[ed]?" As far as the accusation of sexism, I hope you have evidence of that as such an accusation is not appropriate without such. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You know very well which 2 articles i am talking about and you put them into Afd, and i have also checked you edited all my created articles on last 3 days. Now I am asking Why ? you put them into Afd and can you not tag that 2 articles with "More citation needed" or "Notability guidelines" tages and let me improve those articles. and that's why i am feeling harrassed and also disappointed. :( Xegma(talk) 06:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You could have improved them with more citations before creating them but here we are. I would suggest a look at WP:CIVIL and would also like a response to your sexism accusation prior to me requesting a WP:BOOMERANG at WP:ANI. I have no issues discussing something if you feel wronged, but throwing around such as strong accusation is not something that is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs)

You know very well which 2 articles i am talking about. The rest of us do not. Please feel free to link them. And I agree that accusing someone of sexism without evidence is inappropriate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: That time i have said it on "Anger" and I am very very sorry for that and apologising for it.

But i am still disappoint for this two [112] and [113] Afds, this could have tagged and let me improve those articles. Xegma(talk) 11:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology.

When done properly, AFD does not evaluate the current state of the article. Rather, it evaluates the existence of sources. Because notability is about the existence of sources, rather than the current state of the article, an article can be nominated for AFD at any time.

The best thing you can do at this point is to google search for high quality sources that meet our WP:GNG or WP:NSONG guidelines, and add those to the article or the AFDs, in case they were overlooked by the people who created the AFDs.

Sadly, whether or not sources can contribute to notability can be hard for a newer editor to correctly judge. I talk about it a bit in my essay User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Thoughts on notability and AFD. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"But i am still disappoint for this" - is a non-apology apology. Maybe it is a language barrier, but you made a strong PERSONAL allegation which does not sit well with me. You insinuated that 1) I am likely a man 2)I singled you out for being a woman 3)I stalked your edits because you were a woman 4)I harassed you because you were a woman. So again, please provide evidence that this is what happened and stop playing the victim because you are upset about AfD.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want any filing here to be taken seriously, you have to substantiate accusations that you make. You haven't supplied a single diff that supports these accusations or even indicates a problem. This is not a place to book fishing expeditions. Having two articles covering subjects of very marginal notability being nominated for deletion does not remotely constitute harassment. Hopefully you have a lot more than this; there is no immunity for making vexatious filings. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I have had a chance to review the complaint and all the edits associated with it (disappointingly, these weren't presented as diffs by the complainant, so I reviewed them indepenently). My summary below:

• CNMall41 nominated two articles for deletion. Both were nominations in good faith, and could concievably result in deletion or draftifying. There is nothing inherently "harassing" about nominating two articles from the one editor, absent evidence of bad faith or a distinct pattern.
• The complainant referencing their gender, and saying "as a woman i am feeling harrassed", actually undermines all the genuine harassment that editors of all genders sometimes suffer, but disproportionately at times female and non-binary editors. The edits by CNMall41 were not only not harassment, but were absolutely not gender-based harassment as alleged by the complainant, from the evidence I can see and the statements above.
• Accusing another editor of gender-based harassment with no evidence is a vile personal attack, and the complainant would do well to formally withdraw and/or strike it without condition to avoid a sanction themselves.
• I find no actions of improprietry at all from CNMall41 relating to this incident from reviewing contributions and the above statements.

The only person who should be sanctioned out of this complaint is the original complainant, Xegma — pending whether they unconditionally withdraw the personal attack on CNMall41 or not, this could be either a reminder or a strong warning. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I am very very sorry and still apologising to everyone for my behaviour and I am withdrawing it. And it will not happen again on future. Xegma(talk) 04:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Haven't been for a couple days and see this thread went slightly in the wrong direction. To be clear, I would opposed any type of boomerang at this point. I think the most would be a side serving of TROUT. It was a personal attack as the OP could have stated they felt harassed. But, when they bring sex into it, it insinuates that I am sexist. Intentional or not, it was inappropriate. I would say since the post is about my actions, if there are no sanctions that will be applied against me, we could close this out without any action against OP. I do have some concerns with their editing but that can be addressed in other forums and not on this thread. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang for Xegma

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've seen people pretend to be female to garner community support by falsely accusing other editors with whom they have disputes. I strongly feel Xegma should face sanctions for filing a baseless report, which is nothing more than an attempt to undermine and slander CNMall41 who's diligently working to keep Wikipedia free from UPE. I propose a t/ban for Xegma, who predominantly edits articles related to Indian films/TV series and actors, an area which is rife with WP:UPE and sock farms. I get that attacks like these are part and parcel of NPP and dealing with UPEs and I’ve been dealing with this myself for months. But honestly, it feels like these issues are only going to get worse. We should brace ourselves because it’s frustrating to see no end in sight. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Tban per above. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Right now this is just one incident which the user has apologized for. I'm hopeful it won't recur in the future. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 15:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• oppose this seems punitive and unnecessary. she's already apologized and withdrawn her comment. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: There doesn't seem to be enough reason to warrant such a sanction. Am I the only one who sees it this way? I'm not aware of any other discussions that might have taken place, but based on what's been presented above, I don't see any personal attack. Xegma said, "..as a woman (herself), I am feeling harassed. That's why I'm reporting here. Please do something." It's normal for someone to feel harassed. Even I sometimes feel harassed, although in this case, I think "frustrated" would have been a more appropriate word. We all know how frustrating it can be when your draft is declined at AFC, nominated for deletion, or your GA nomination fails. It's part of the process, and like other editors who might not express it, Xegma is likely feeling the same frustration. I believe Novem addressed this in the essay, clarifying that it's just a normal part of the editing process—a normal business—that the complainant misunderstood. Additionally, editing Indian articles, which are often targeted by WP:UPE and sock farms, shouldn't be a reason for sanctions. It's important to note that there's a difference between "feeling harassed" and "being harassed," and I don't see anyone else interpreting Xegma's comment of being frustrated as harassed. She need guidance to know about he user talk pages or dispute board instead of AN. Lastly, she also apologized. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary at this time. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and there's no evidence that Xegma is "pretending be female to garner community support". That's an unwarranted and unfounded accusation and I ask that you strike it. Pinguinn 🐧 23:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and you should strike your own accusation per Pinguinn. I suggest this be closed quickly so none of you hits themself with the boomerang in confusion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Saqib, this proposal and your comment about "pretending to be female" are not only trout-worthy, they could be seen as casting aspersions which can be blocky-worthy. You should strike your ill-founded remarks which, to be honest, reflect poorly on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

User:Thewikizoomer

I've just come across some edits by this editor and looking back on their edits immediately issued them with a DS template for gender issues. But looking further back, these are some of their edits for the last two weeks.

• added a POV tag to LGBT rights in India without a note on the talk page [114]
• PRODded the well-sourced Chennai Rainbow Pride [115] (I removed the PROD)
• PRODded a reasonably well-sourced article (Padmini Prakash) on a transgender journalist [116]
• PRODded another article (Gazal Dhaliwal, needed some more sources, but wasn't a PROD candidate) on a transgender film-maker [117]
• Some terrible AfD nominations of women

• A female scientist (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shipra Guha-Mukherjee)
• A female Member of Parliament who is immediately notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anis Kidwai)
• Another one of a female (surprise!) stuntwoman (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reshma Pathan)
• And another one of a burlesque artist (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukki Singapora)

Clearly the editor can't be trusted with editing such articles, so I am wondering what the best course of action is. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, this and this also don't leave a good impression. Nobody (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Issue a warning/continue discussion I think this is more of a misreading of intent.
  • POV tag on LGBT rights in India: Even a cursory glance through the page leads me to think it reads as an advocacy piece. I think a POV tag is reasonably appropriate and certainly within debate.
  • PRODded Chennai Rainbow Pride: I think that it could be better sourced. WP:N and WP:RS are minimally met
  • PRODded Padmini Prakash: I think that it could be better sourced. WP:N and WP:RS are minimally met
  • PRODded Gazal Dhaliwal: It needed more sources and they were added. The process worked
  • "Some terrible AfD nominations of women" - There were other articles too...it wasn't just women. At least one was reasonable. The others...I mean, WP:BITE seems a reasonable guideline. Let's go ahead and issue a formal warning that they need to take a little more time to understand policies. Given the familiarity with WP policies, I think an SPI might be in order. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that WP:BITE doesn't apply to an editor who has been here more than two years and has over 3,000 edits. Black Kite (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note that this editor is very active tagging articles for PRODs and AFDs, usually offering only very brief deletion rationales. Despite this, many have been successful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Are they incorrect? If not, sounds like a net benefit. Buffs (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• All the ones I mentioned above were incorrect. However, since the editor hasn't done anything like that since, we can probably close this until such time that they do. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding the adminship privileges of ScottishFinnishRadish

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

---

Hello,

I would like to raise a concern regarding the adminship privileges of ScottishFinnishRadish.

Reasons for my concern:

1. Premature Adminship Grant: User ScottishFinnishRadish joined Wikipedia in 2021 and gained adminship in 2022. Adminship necessitates not only exceptional editing and involvement but also consistent and sustained contributions over a lengthy period. Granting adminship after just a year of editing is alarmingly premature, as it is insufficient time to fully understand and evaluate an editor's behavior and reliability.
2. Edit Count and Quality: As of August 2024, ScottishFinnishRadish has a total edit count of 54,664, however, only 9,865 of these edits are in the mainspace. This indicates that at the time of gaining adminship, they likely had about 4,000 edits on Wikipedia articles. The majority of these edits take place on talk pages in the form of arguments and other behavior that damages the editor retention rate, such as targeting new editors and stretching policy far beyond the means of fair interpretation to dish out an abundance of unwarranted deletions and blocks.
3. Harassment and Misconduct: I have personally experienced harassment from ScottishFinnishRadish, who has baselessly wiped my contributions and failed to take simple policy-based actions to peacefully resolve issues. Instead, they have favored arguing and engaging in selective scoping behavior, further contributing to a hostile editing environment.

This user, who was only on Wikipedia for a mere year before being handed the highest privilege a user on this project can receive, is deeply concerning. I am requesting their adminship privileges be reconsidered. I will seek consensus on this if not able to find a resolution here.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards, 9t5 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no evidence presented(diffs) that supports your claims. As such I'm calling for this to be closed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Follow up comment - most recently, after deleting an entire section of an article and citing WP:BLP as the reason, ScottishFinnishRadish spoke to me on my talk page to which I had informed them that according to policy all they needed to do was remove the perps name from the entry on History of violence against LGBT people in the United States. After juveniles reverting of each others edits, they felt the need to start a discussion on the matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and in under 5 minutes, another admin agreed with me that all that needed to be removed was the perps name — and they went ahead and did that. An admin should be aware enough of policy to do that themselves and not need to start a discussion about it. That is concerning. What’s more concerning is that I have now discovered in the wake of that a stretch of edits where SFR was deleting my contributions and citing WP:BLP even when it is absolutely not relevant, like the removal of a file used at Sigma Nu. These are editing flubs based on not understand the policy clearly.. understandable.. forgivable. BUT AN ADMIN??? Why was he given adminship so prematurely? Why is he making amateur mistakes still? I will tell you why it’s because he is still new to Wikipedia. Remove his admin privileges. That’s ridiculous!

9t5 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless you start providing diffs of this misbehaviour, the only thing that's going to happen is scrutiny of your behaviour. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In 9t5's defense, they can't show a lot of diffs because one of the articles they're talking about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mateer (musician) - despite the fact that the posted a less-than neutrally worded request at the Article Rescue Squadron (see Special:Diff/1236882976) where they accuse (without evidence) ScottishFinnishRaddish of acting in bad faith, trying to WP:OWN the article, and possibly imply that SFR is trying to delete LGBT history from Wikipedia? I'm a bit unclear on that last point. In 9t5's defense, they did eventually change the tone after a warning.

Disclaimer: 9t5 and I have interacted once on discord, when I complimented their userpage, and once on Commons, when I nominated one of their files for deletion as a copyright violation- and 9t5 made a comment saying You must be really proud of the work you do, huh? (I still stand by my original thought that 9t5 AGF on a dodgy Flickr license)GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As it happens I spot-checked Sigma Nu and ScottishFinnishRadish did not cite BLP when removing the image, at least not in the edit summary. In the absence of diffs, I agree that this should be closed, and perhaps refiled with more diffs and less impassioned language. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

On the topic of Sigma Nu, the person arrested for the assault was not a member of the frat, had been removed from the party by members, and the assault happened outside of the frat's property. Additionally, in one of the sources it states, The victim called a friend who came to help and he was provided first aid by the Sigma Nu fraternity brothers.[118] This isn't a controversy involving the frat, and the image adds weight to the false impression that the frat had anything to do with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as History of violence against LGBT people in the United States goes, I always start a BLPN thread when I have to make multiple BLP reverts, and as I was on my phone I wasn't able to edit the large section the violating text was in. There are also other BLP concerns in the article, which is why I requested additional eyes. I also started a discussion on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• SFR gained the admin tools after a request for adminship; that is, via community consensus. The only body that can remove his access to the tools is the arbitration committee. If you have genuine evidence of misconduct, that is the place to go (I do not recommend this: you seem to have no evidence at all). If you take issue with a specific admin action, you need to explain what, and why. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Another follow up - I am DISTURBED. I have only now just realized that after engaging in an AfD discussion with @ScottishFinnishRadish where I cited my 87% live rate for my edits on Wikipedia, my live rate —- in two weeks time — has plummeted to 50%. Meaning my contributions to this project were targeted by an admin simply. because I had the audacity to call them out for not following policy. I am disturbed, upset and hurt by this. All the while.. this “admin” that was given this privilege so incredibly prematurely touts themself as an advocate for editor retention. How? By targeting new editors? Hurting their contributions because their ego is hurt? Not only does it make me fear for this project, it makes me fear for the prestige of adminship. What a joke.

9t5 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"When the facts and the case are against you, pound on the table." Are you just here to pick fights in a contentious topic area? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:44, 5 August 2024 (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.

Why was the discussion archived after only two hours?

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

---

This is what happens when you put adminship in the hands of narcissistic amateurs. Need I remind you that the media reads these editor discussions as the information on this encyclopedia serves as the source of foundational information in global databases. The issue is far from one that can be brushed off like that, and while I am respectfully going to end the arguing now, I ask you to question why you all just went crazy on me, because that is seldom the behavior of the innocent. Talk:Sigma Nu#Admin acting like a child

Good night. 9t5 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to the ScottishFinnishRadish complaint, I agree. The prior discussion was archived far too early, which prevented us from discussing the appropriate WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

i point the participants on this noticeboard to the recent addition 9t5 has made to their userpage. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

They made a similiar accusation in Special:Diff/1238830998 to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Premature adminship; as the discussion had already been closed by @HouseBlaster(courtesy ping as MFD closer)thisq addition should not have been made and I would like to invite @9t5 to self-revert before somebody else does it for them.

I'm making a similiar courtesy ping to @Black Kite as the closer of the prev. AN report. (And thank you for trying to head this off early before anybody could dig themselves further into any holes. Regrettably, hints were not taken). GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I probably should have noted in the closure that it was procedural only; Fastily had already CSD'd it. I have amended my closure to reflect that. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Between the personal attacks, the likely undisclosed use of LLM output, and the lack of awareness of BLP policy, some block of 9t5 is called for. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

regarding LLM usage - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Premature adminship, and their two other essays which seem to also be LLM-generated, Wikipedia:The Importance of Creative Contests for Community Engagement on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Herd mentality (this one seems like it's only partially LLM). their opening comment in the initial thread above this seems like it's LLM-generated as well. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while the deleted essay was obviously LLM and detected as 100% AI by (ironically) LLM-text-detecting AIs, their opening post in the report does not read like something that guaranteed had heavy use of AI, and QuillBot thinks only part of Edit Count and Quality and the whole of Harassment and Misconduct is AI generated.

The Harassment and Misconduct one is the only one I would think was for sure written mostly by them, because it's clearly the reason they made all of this, so I don't agree with QuillBot either...

Breaking WP:AGF policies and throwing around accusations without any evidence against admins and users disagreeing with them is clearly a self-fulfilling prophecy on getting admin actions imposed against them though. – 2804:F1...D5:33ED (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

LLM detectors are very unreliable. their noticeboard comments definitely could be their own stilted writing; it just struck me as oddly-written and in the context of their obvious LLM usage elsewhere, seemed plausible to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Second this. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We all know that some media read talk pages but what on earth does "encyclopedia serves as the source of foundational information in global databases" mean? I'm going to assume you wrote this rather than used an LLM to come up with meaningless nonsense, so please explain. Yes Wikipedia is way too often used by other sources as the sole source of information without even checking our cites which they then repeat, I mean we even have the well documented problem of WP:CITOGENESIS because of that, but it's not even close to whatever "source of foundational information in global databases" means. Nil Einne (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked 48 hours as a minimum for the repeated personal attacks towards SFR. Galobtter (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I considered indefinitely blocking 9t5 for disruptive editing four hours ago, but I am travelling today and didn’t want to ‘block and run’. The conduct in the intervening period has done little to change my opinion on this being the best course of action. I would support increasing the 48 hour block to indefinite. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I would still support an indef. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking of a longer block and based on the conduct here an indef seems fine but needed more time than I had to look into it. Galobtter (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef for PAs and poor trolling. Star Mississippi 03:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I won't since I've !Voted here but suggest someone yank TPA if & when this block is extended. Star Mississippi 02:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block/community ban - This is verging on harassment mixed with competence issues, either of which are grounds for an indef by themselves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support The behavior here was so far beyond the pale that a 48-hour block is insufficient to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Galobbter beat me to a short term block, but I do think something longer is needed. This is a good case of "indefinite does not mean infinite"; as best as I can tell this user has done useful work before. But they have utterly lost perspective here, and don't seem to believe they could be doing anything wrong or that criticism of their work could be anything other than harassment and/or prejudice against queer users and topics. They need to recalibrate, and perhaps with a timeout they will do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef in light of the battleground mentality displayed on the editor's talk page. Those are not the words of someone who will work productively with others. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef Its clear they have become a timesink and need some enforced time away. The vendetta against SFR and the battleground mentality shown in their recent edits has now become purely disruptive. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• adding a formal support indef based on their talk page comments today. they have refused to put the shovel down and instead continued to make baseless claims about sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry from SFR, which as others have said really indicates a battleground and uncollegial attitude. i don't think there's any place for this uncivil behavior here and i hope 9t5 will do some self-reflection. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

has anyone else got an email from 9t5? ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Svampesky (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block/community ban As the saying goes, enough is enough. Timewaster, continued personal attacks even after their block, I see no evidence their behaviour will change. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Over email, 9t5 acknowledged that the narcissistic amateurs remark was a personal attack. 9t5 didn't request that I post this, and I wouldn't action any request from a blocked editor. The dispute continues in my inbox. 9t5 is claiming that they are being harassed. Per Wikipedia:Harassment#Private correspondence, I won't publish the emails. Instead forwarded them to ArbCom (as advised in the footer of the email) for them to review the content as I'm uncertain what to do, but I made it clear that I'm not filing an ArbCom case over it. Svampesky (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

9t5 ban from using LLM for writing

In addition to the above instances of LLM use, I will also add that they added a plaintext list of 34(!) sources to the middle of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mateer (musician), claiming that it was a plaintext image they found online. Besides the absurdity of asking other AfD participants to ask them to wade through 34 sources – none of which even had a convenience link – I have a very hard time believing that a random website happened to have a plaintext list of GNG-eligible sources just lying around. In fact, this google search for just one of the citations only turns up copies of the AfD discussion. I suspect that this was another instance of asking a LLM to do their dirty work for them.

Wasting the community's time with LLM complaints and starting RfCs with a snowball's chance in hell of success without even a hint of WP:RFCBEFORE is disruptive, so I am proposing an indefinite ban from using LLM content anywhere on Wikipedia, appealable after six months and every six months thereafter. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No. This is too soft. I propose a community ban for 9t5 for competence issues and (attempted) harassment of ScottishFinnishRadish. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a cban is probably a bridge too far at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

yeah, i think we can give it a bit to see what their response to this discussion is. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

support and i'd support an indef block. this stuff really needs a legit explanation. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's LLM generated, their post to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mateer (musician)[119] is basically the same list they posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Thomas Mateer two year ago[120]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, and I similarly wouldn't be opposed to an indef. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• This doesn't seem like the right solution. The LLM usage is a symptom, not the cause of the problems. If 9t5 cannot understand the problems with their editing, a full block (at least 1 month, and possibly indefinite) is necessary. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hence why I support a full siteban. Banning the use of LLM is missing the forest for the trees when it's clear he's tilting at SFR. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment It seems unfair to allow a consensus to be established while the essay in question is deleted from view. Perhaps it should be restored temporarily to allow for editors to make a proper judgement for a consensus to be reached, and then deleted again afterward. Svampesky (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:Premature adminship filed. (I am not doing so myself per WP:INVOLVED.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  And it has been undeleted. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  That had the side-effect of restoring the RFC in the talk page, which Legobot has now listed elsewhere... – 2804:F1...D5:33ED (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Removed the RfC tag. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  And the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Premature adminship was reopened again, and I quick-closed it as delete per WP:SNOW, not being aware of why it had been resurrected (the only explanation given in the discussion was "multiple objections to the speedy"). But now that I've realized people need to be able to read it in order to form an opinion concerning this discussion, I suppose somebody uninvolved had better request undeletion again..? Sorry. (My excuse is that it did snow.) Bishonen | tålk 19:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC).

  Notification that the page has been restored and the MfD discussion has been reopened. Svampesky (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support and indefinite block or a site ban. They completely lack the introspection or the maturity to even edit here. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support but it's insufficient as the proper remedy here is an indef.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support this as well. If we accept for the sake of argument than an LLC can be used constructively, it's patently clear that this editor does not have the ability to do so. This is not instead of an indef, but just to be in place for if the indef is not supported by consensus or if this editor is unblocked after an indef. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support an indef or similar. This user should take the time to consider their actions and the community's reaction to such and learn from their mistakes. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block for repeated harassment and LLM misuse verging on WP:CIR. A community ban is a little too far, but a ban on LLM use doesn't solve the underlying issue of harassing SFR. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef due to continuous harrassment of SFR. I've seen the work he's done, and I could tell he was experienced enough to receive the mop. Harassing someone over receiving adminship after a year is too childish and immature, and SFR definitely knows what he's doing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support LLM ban This is a minor measure and an easy decision. Not sure what I think about an indef, make sure we don't hyperventilate. For a newer editor, under our system, indef means never can come back. Maybe 3 months to think about it? North8000 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block per above. More than enough community time has been wasted on this individual's tantrums and disruptive behavior. -Fastily 01:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to pile on- but whatever sanctions applied should apply to User:SigmaEmpath, 9t5's possible(?) alt, as well. I haven't seen any evidence of them using the account illegitimately, but you have to dig a bit to find it and it's probably best if we don't leave any temptation. And if it isn't their alt, then it should be blocked for impersonation. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is their alt; 4theloveofallthings was renamed to 9t5. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose an LLM ban, because it is extremely difficult if not impossible to know whether bad writing is done by a Large language model or by a human who writes badly. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I wonder whether the support for an LLM ban is a search for some sanction short of a site ban for an editor who needs some sanction. I just don't think that an LLM ban is the answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access

Would an uninvolved admin be able to pull TPA? (For the remainder of the current block.) They are currently posting a "timeline" and other screeds. Yes, I am doing that thing where I create a new section for my own Very Important Comment. But I do feel like this is a separate thing which belongs in a different section. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And as I was writing this, they posted the {{admin help}} template. Sigh. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked it now. —Ingenuity (t • c) 04:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Doug Weller for yanking TPA. @Ingenuity I see from your note below it was intentional not to, but I think you'll find it clear that the same disruption wasn't stopping. They're welcome to file their ArbComm case via email. Star Mississippi 11:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the rant they just posted, I think revoking TPA was very much warranted. —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In this latest rant, 9t5 did not publish email #2 in full, so I believe misrepresents my reply on their talk page. I've already forwarded the emails to ArbCom in case this needs to be proved. Svampesky (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

EmailUser access

I'm uncertain whether I can publish emails. Could ArbCom review the email I just forwarded (subject: 'Personal attack from 9t5 to Svampesky') containing the personal attack and make a decision on EmailUser access? To make it clear, I'm not suggesting filing an ArbCom case over this, I'm following the advice in the footer of the email. Svampesky (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Emailing ArbCom about email attacks is definitely fine to do. @Ingenuity: it seems like you have set the block to be email disabled but talk page enabled, was that intentional? Galobtter (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It was intentional, but I'm still debating whether I should've just left it turned off. If they continue using it for ranting like they were earlier, I won't hesitate to re-revoke it. —Ingenuity (t • c) 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It continues over on Commons, I was tagged in this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:This_Is_Called_Emotional_Abuse.jpg Out of the five emails I recieved from them, they published #1 and #3. My comment at 06:11 UTC here was in reply to email #2 (recieved at 05:58 UTC), an email which wasn't published. I understand that this file is outside the scope of the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard; but I'm just making a note of it here and will be ignoring it going forward. Here are the timestamps for the record: 1. 04:49 (UTC), 2. 05:58 (UTC), 3. 06:18 (UTC), 4. 06:37 (UTC), 5. 14:43 (UTC) Svampesky (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That's now starting to work it's way into a global block, seeing as it's cross-wiki harassment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The file was deleted by AntiCompositeNumber. If a global block a consensus-based decision, could I request that this file be temporarily restored, until the discussion is closed, so that those involved can see the extent of the nonsense? Svampesky (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Global blocks and locks are handled by individual stewards (like me), who have the ability to see deleted content on all wikis. I don't generally lock accounts for problems on two wikis, but if the cross-wiki harassment continues to another wiki a global block or lock is likely. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have joined eswiki and ruwiki this morning. I don't think the Commons block is the end of this. Svampesky (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

User:AntiCompositeNumber - What is the difference between a global lock of an account and a global block of an account? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

not ACN (or a steward) (or qualified to be answering this question whatsoever) a global lock completely locks the user out of their account (to where they cannot log in), whereas a global block just shows the standard "you have been blocked" message when they try to edit a page. Accounts have only been gblockable for a few weeks (although IPs have always been gblocked) and I have never seen a gblocked account (I think it's intended for when IP masking/temporary accounts become a thing). Queen of Hearts ^talk 06:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity Your block notice says "Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive." So I assumed you meant to revoke TPA and in any case it seemed appropriate to revoke it. User:Yamla turned down a UTRS request saying "s declined. User is not permitted to contest this block/community ban until six months have passed". Doug Weller talk 12:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It continues on other wikis

9t5 has taken this to other wikis. They have posted the same message to their user pages:

• https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:9t5
• https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:9t5
• https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:9t5
• https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:9t5
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:9t5

There isn't more to say, but I had to put a text under the above list, as my signature rendered into a code box. Svampesky (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if a request has been made at Meta, but this definitely is enough cross-wiki harassment to warrant a global lock of the account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't made any request (and I'm not even sure how I would). I wouldn't be against such a request if it helps prevent them from continuing to make an example of themselves. I also want to clarify that I don't believe my !votes in the various deletion discussions were influenced by the situation. I believe I would have !voted the same way regardless of circumstances. Svampesky (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made the request now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually had this idea in my notes to take to village pump as I couldn't find it anywhere, but it turns out it already exists. On Meta, there is a link to 9t5's global contributions. It seems they have requested help from the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. Svampesky (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Done by EPIC. Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It becomes a code block if there's a space at the beginning of a new line. Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2024 (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.

Meatpuppetry by User:ImperialAficionado

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 found a meatpuppet of a user who is pushing Muslim POV everywhere

Various Edits of Kemiliogolgi and imperialaficionado overlap, for example [121][122] here here too

• Both of them arguing to keep this page Maratha-Nizam wars
• Both of them editing same page [123]
• Imperialaficionado and Kemiliogolgi reverting Sudsahab's edit on same page [124] [125] And warring with R2dra here [126] [127]
• Imperialaficionado editing pages created by Kemiliogolgi [128]
• Imperial reaches on pages to support kemilliogolgi without invitations [129] [130]
• see here kemiliogolgi and imperial are trying to target marathas in these edits [131]
• All of Imperialaficionado's edits push muslim pov example see this edit summary [132], imperial uses a word "Maksad" which in used insense of Jihad agaist hindus.
• literally check the articles created by Kemilliogolgi [133] all of these are battle pages with a muslim victory and same goes to imperialaficionado's articles created [134]

I guess these proofs must be enough to prove Imperialaficionado as a sock/meatpuppet of kemiliogolgi Raged Pratihar (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the OP's attempt to post this at SPI. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R2dra.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Raged Pratihar, you are the same editor who told another editor in an AFD discussion to "stop pushing muslim pov" which is a personal attack and you repeat that charge here. I guess my User talk page warning had no effect. Would you retract these accusations? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 10 August 2024 (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.

Request for unprotection

I have reviewed the draft Draft:Michael A. Aquino and am ready to accept it. However, the page is protected from being moved, as noted in this log. The protection was applied by admin User:The Bushranger (also pinging), who may not be active, as their last edit was in December 2023. I kindly ask that another admin should unprotect the page so it can be moved. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Admin should consider if the concerns in the VRTS ticket mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Aquino still apply. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll just mention that the deleted article (via AFD) and protected page title is about the same person as the draft article covers. The AFD deletion was due, in part, to BLP issues about aspects of their life and allegations that can also be seen in the draft. The subject is no longer living so BLP doesn't apply but the content on the draft is provocative and I think it really should be carefully reviewed to see whether it is appropriate for main space and meets our standards of notability. I'm kind of suprised that after 16 years, some one wants to revive this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You declined the submission on August 2, saying not yet shown to meet notability guidelines. What changed your mind? I don't see any new sources or content being added to establish notability. And while BLP does not apply here, a court document, ref #[16], should not be used as the only source to support one of those sentences in the controversies section. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I have just declined the draft. Needs a more experienced reviewer and broader discussion before this is mainspaced. Star Mississippi 01:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi, this is also a way of seeking second opinion. I thought about the draft and it do seem to meet WP:CREATIVE because he founded a notable society and even if it reaches AFD, the highest deletion will be to redirect to the temple. Also, do you mean I'm not in good standing to accept that draft. I asked because you write, "Needs a more experienced reviewer." However, thank you for reviewing. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are absolutely in good standing, apologies for any confusion. I think this case is too complex for most AfC reviewers given neither of us an see the VTRS ticket referenced which is a part of why it was deleted. While BLP doesn't apply, an article dedicated to legal activities isn't going to fly without all issues addressed. Star Mississippi 12:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the AfD, it appears I was the lucky VRTS agent who handled it 16 years ago (16!). I don't volunteer with VRTS anymore so don't have access to the ticket, so can't confirm its contents. Based on how I used to handle these sorts of tickets though, my best guess would be that Aquino (alive at the time) emailed in complaining about the occasional hatcheting-job of his article (administrators, check out the deleted revisions on 10 May 2008 and also Maquino's edits back in March 2007). Due to the nature of the article and his status as a marginally-notable living person, he may have requested to delete the article (or I may have offered to list at AfD, and he accepted), at which point I listed it at AfD with the nomination statement "Marginal notability, not really a public figure, BLP issues in the past, plus subject requests deletion (OTRS #2008073010004644)". Consensus then supported deletion (correctly, in my opinion). I'm still not convinced we need an article on Aquino, although I acknowledge this draft is better than any deleted version. However, in such a contentious article (in the sense of marginal notability and significant negative material), we absolutely cannot be using primary sources. The more negative or extraordinary the material, the more exemplary the sourcing required. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for searching your memory to piece together why this article was nominated to deletion. It seems pretty clear for a 16 year old incident. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Echoing @Liz's thanks as well @Daniel. Maquino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also led me to Michael A. Aquino (lieutenant colonel). We don't really have a forum for the deletion was correct and reasons then may partially apply now, so I guess AN it is. No objection if someone overrules my decline. Thanks @SafariScribe for flagging. Star Mississippi 01:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faxxris

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.

---

Would an admin mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faxxris? I can see there's quite a bit of a basklog at SPI and apologize if posting here is jumping the que, but two of the CU-confirmed accounts are now participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Avilés; so, if these accounts are going to end up being blocked, it might be best to do so sooner than later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Topic Ban info

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 a bit unclear on how to go forward with appealing a topic ban that I currently have. It appears that I no longer need to go through the usual appeal process according to Wikipedia:Contentious topics since there has not been an update to my topic ban in over a year. How would I go about overturning it? Or is this now automatic? I am a bit unclear and would appreciate any additional info as to what this article means so I can proceed to have my topic ban removed. Thank you in advance to everyone who takes the time to read/answer Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume this relates to the appeal decline at AE July 2023 and described at your talk. The appeals process is given in a link at the December 2020 notification. Unless I'm missing something, there is no automatic expiration of the topic ban due to "topic ban extended to indefinite" at the 2020 log. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The CTOP regime tweaked duration of restrictions so that any unilateral action imposed under AE is just like an ordinary administrator action after one year. The question appears to be more about how to appeal (i.e. if they need to appeal to AN or AE and then get a consensus, or if this can be overturned by an uninvolved admin in the way that other ordinary administrative actions are overturned), rather than if the TBAN is still active. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This feels like a question that would be well-suited for WP:ARCA. If it were merely Dreamy Jazz's initial TBAN on the books, it would look somewhat obvious to me that it could be appealed to any uninvolved admin. But there was an AE consensus that you should be topic banned from post-1992 AmPol that was reached during an appeal. It is not clear to me whether or not that AE consensus at the time of appeal drags the max length of the sanction's stickiness to be indefinite, but I do feel like this is the sort of edge case that ArbCom should be able to answer with a request for clarification. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:59, 12 August 2024 (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.

Sock/meatpuppet account targeting AFDs

There is a ridiculous sockfarm on Wikipedia being operated by the sockmaster HaughtonBrit-[135]. They are incredibly fanatical and devoted in their cause to aggrandize their religion's military history and concomitantly downplay other regional powers (to the point where it would put most religious fundamentalists to shame), as you can see virtually all his sock accounts edit in this vein. Long story short: The majority of his sock accounts are employed to hound me/undermine my efforts to help with this POV issue on Wikipedia.

Sock accounts creating articles, almost every single one of them feature Sikh victory-[136], [137], [138], [139]

Sock accounts/IPs/proxies targeting my AFDs/PRODs/+ voting numerous times in AFDs in order to retain articles glorifying his side/delete ones which mention their defeat-he made 4 votes logged out and through proxies, [140], [141], [142], [143], 2 admins said that this was HB block evading, see next diffs- [144] + [145]. See also how his sock accounts were making multiple votes in AFDs and working in tandem on various articles-note many overlapping edits aren't shown because of deleted edits

HB's socks admitting to meatpuppetry campaign-[146] + From my understanding, I do not know either of these users anywhere else on other social media platforms unless they have different online usertag that I am unaware of, in regards to Alvin who I know on another social media platform , but this user had different user tag then the one shown on wikipedia.

This very recently created user, MasterofRepulse, very obviously not a lay editor (see how he turned on Visual Editor 4 minutes after being created and his sandbox has citations which a new user probably wouldn't know how to make 5 minutes in). One of his very first few edits is to create a draft of a badly written/sourced article which I PRODed-[147] and create another draft featuring a Sikh victory-[148]. What is obviously this user's IP/proxy further targets my AFD one day after it was created, and creates a draft of Katoch-Sikh war, same article HB's proxy targeted-[149]. Both the 2402 IP and MasterofRepulse submit their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib PRODed by me, and Katoch-Sikh war AFDed by me) and comments on Battle of Rumal's AFD minutes apart from one other.

The accounts MasterofRepluse is undeniably a sock/meatpuppet of HB and this is further targeting/attempting to unduly influence AFDs/PRODs in order to further HB's agenda. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please consider reposting this at WP:SPI, which is the ideal venue for requesting socks be blocked, especially when there is some behavior and patterns and diffs that need to be analyzed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I realize your SPIs aren't getting the attention you feel they merit, in part due to the SPI backlog and in part due to the proxies, but continuing to give the troll air here/ANI doesn't inspire them to stop. Star Mississippi 11:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

question re wikipedia rules

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.

---

someone just asked me the following. all these years, has no one ever nudged you in the right direction and told you that you're supposed to be summarizing information from reliable secondary sources, proportional to how it appears in these sources? That you can't string together primary sources to support an argument? The historical works and journal articles have already decided what's significant enough to cover.

ok, here i am!! can someone please explain to me whence this view arises that we don't use newspaper articles here as sources? what do we do for any events within the last two weeks, such as elections, riots, legislation, extreme weather, or indeed any such recent or contemporary events at all? can someone please assist? truly asking as a question. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

by the way., you can view the actual discussion at WP:Village Pump, on the "Ideas" tab. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

... and PS... maybe we need to fix WP:OR? Just a thought! Sm8900 (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, actually the person has now helpfully replied to my questions to them, seeking clarification. all's well there. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2024 (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.

Community ban proposal for Wikieditor662

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.

---

So after this thread advising this editor to slow down and not to jump into Wikipedia's deepest waters , Wikieditor662 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) took it upon themselves to create a good article review and pass a page as a good article. Enough is enough; Wikipedia does not have the time or resources to deal with such rank incompetence. I'd do the indefblock myself but I'm far too involved. Pinging those involved in the previous discussion: @Lemonaka, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Gerda Arendt, Usedtobecool, Softlavender, Aza24, Super Goku V, GhostOfDanGurney, Robert McClenon, and Just Step Sideways:. Also see their aborted arbitration request, which is just another piece of weirdness from this user. I was beginning to be more inclined to assume good faith with them but now I'm not so sure. I started this discussion here per the guidance in the banning policy; if I should have made it a subsection of the previous ANI discussion, or something else, then feel free to move/reformat it as required. Graham87 (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC) P.s. the article in question is Nimm von uns, Herr, du treuer Gott, BWV 101; here's a video of the work (uploaded by the copyright owner), which would make excellent accompanying music for any Wikipedia editing in my opinion. Graham87 (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this was the first time they edited the article in question, so far as I can tell. It was right after Gerda Arendt's GA nomination of the article. Kinda thinking that they followed them to that article. Might have been in good faith, but this is still disruptive. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've checked and Gerda did mention the article on Wikieditor662's talk page. Graham87 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah gotcha. At least that clears up how they got there. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support but I do believe in the good faith enough to prefer a WP:BANLENGTH in this case. I hate to be so quick on WP:CIR, but this editor appears to be so determined to dive into the deep end, despite a lot of feedback advising them to slow down, that I think they have to be forbidden from swimming in the pool for the time being. Hopefully they will take swimming lessons during the sojourn.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've done very little GA-stuff myself, so I'm not the one to judge how weird this is. My first guess would be they followed the "Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page." at Talk:Nimm von uns, Herr, du treuer Gott, BWV 101. If the nomination page was out of sync with Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Reviewing I can't say. BUT in GENERAL, I wouldn't recommend GA-reviewing to someone who started editing in July. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It is hard not to conclude, after all the month-long disruption, time-wasting, and innocence/ignorance-feigning that has transpired, and now this, that we are not being massively trolled. Even were we not being trolled, this editor would need a CIR ban for being a net negative. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Ugh! I will take another look at this when there is daylight in Eastern North America and when I should be awake. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point. WE editor made their first edit in early July, - it's not months long. It was to a list of composers. I noticed WE with the idea to make Bach a featured article, and thought they have no idea. Next thing I noticed was wanting to write the legacy of Beethoven, and I thought who do they think they are? Then came the idea to link that list of composers, and to link it from the word "composers". This breaks both WP:Overlink (composers is a common word, and needs no link at all} as WP:EASTEREGG (a link should go to the expected subject, not some list, even if it is an informative list). I have begun conversation about this topic on WE's talk, and would like to continue. Overnight, they declared an article I had nominated for GA, a Good article. This is nonsense, of course, but I can see that they might have thought "good article" just means one editor reads it and thinks it's good. Summary: I see a new editor with (too) high ideas, (too) convinced that their ideas are better than what experienced editors have told them, - can these problems change, that is the question, but I think a ban is not the answer. I'd ask WE if they see a chance to change the problematic attitude and to listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a really common pattern. You get an enthusiastic new editor who wants to contribute to Wikipedia but doesn't know what specifically to work on. They don't get the hint that what they're supposed to do is work on content or low-profile maintenance backlogs while they gain experience. Instead they take "anyone can edit" a bit too literally and jump in at the deep end, and more often than not end up blocked. But to be fair, we do say the anyone can edit, and they can see that experienced editors flit between ANI and ARC and GA with no problems. It isn't unreasonable to try and follow that model and not everyone is equally able to read between the lines of policies and guidelines. I'm not saying this isn't disruptive, but like Gerda I'd really like to find a more constructive way of dealing with this pattern. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gerda's reasoning. And I'd also like to hear from Wikieditor662 before the ban hammer is dropped. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your time.

The good article nomination writes that "The nomination may be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." I did overlook the part that says "If you are not a significant contributor to the article, secure the consent of the significant contributors before nominating." However, the part that seems to be the problem is that I'm a month old account doing this, but it's confusing as nowhere did I find it saying you have to be very experienced to review good articles. Why is that? Also, I don't understand what was wrong with my nomination, as I did follow the criteria and it passed all of it.

Even though I don't agree with every accusation, from everyone's comments it seems that I have wasted much of people's time, and I deeply apologize for that. Timesinking or trolling is not at all my intention and I just want the best for Wikipedia. If a ban on me is necessary, then I understand. I am very ambitious and I guess this is causing damage. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Because ... most people wouldn't be confident enough in their abilities to write a good article review until they're experienced editors. I for one have never done one in my life and don't plan to; I don't like seeking out accolades for my own articles and am not really a fan of the system around it ... and it's a lot of responsibility to put on one person. Ambitious people either sink or swim hard on Wikipedia, and it looks like you're doing the former. Graham87 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose yes I think we can all agree that a couple of Wikieditor662's actions are misguided and disruptive, but they appear to stem from a desire to contribute positively rather than from malicious intent. And from their talk page, they seem to be very eager to learn from their mistakes. We should not ban such a new user so prematurely. We should continue to be patient and offer constructive feedback and guidance, and encourage them to carefully read our policies and guidelines. Zingarese talk · contribs (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) 15:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - A sports analogy comes to mind. WikiEditor662 is a sports fan watching a game and wanting to play, not knowing much about the rules. Their entry is a one-person pitch invasion, which is no more useful than any pitch invasion. However, this is a game that almost anyone can play, if they learn the game, which this editor does not want to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, after sleep and consideration. What is needed at this time is a warning or admonition, and a signal to admins that they should be quick to administer blocks for disruption, which should begin as short blocks and then escalate. WikiEditor662 says, in their statement, that they are very ambitious. They will never be an administrator. Will they be satisfied to be an editor, or to find a special niche? Their intentions are good, but they are doing harm. We need to respond in a way that is not excessive, but is strongly discouraging. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Robert McClenon summarizes it all quite nicely. Enthusiasm can't overcome ignorance. Buffs (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zingarese and Robert McClenon. They should certainly be given a very short WP:ROPE going forward, but an outright CBAN at this moment feels a bit WP:BITEy. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support After reading Wikieditor662's response above I'm settling on support, as I do not believe they actually understand the problems they're creating and intend to change. Nowhere in there is an acknowledgement that they've been asked to tone it back or slow down, and haven't listened; in fact just the opposite -- they contest (some of) the accusations, and the response is tantamount to "This is what I want to do, deal with it, ban me if you must." They even go so far as to acknowledge that their behavior has wasted our time -- a "I'm sorry you were hurt by this" response, not a "I'm sorry I did the thing" response. Maybe they're capable of one day becoming a competent editor here, but the cost-benefit of working with someone who doesn't want to listen or change just isn't there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't agree with the statement that I don't want to listen or change. And I don't agree with "this is what I want to do, deal with it". I'm constantly trying to improve and I DO listen, the problem is that sometimes I think an edit is good when others don't see it that way, and when multiple experienced members tell me to stop I do so even if I don't agree with it. And if you look at some of my other responses, I have apologized for what I did with continuing the composer linking thing after Gerda asked me not to. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, for the part where you said "they contest (some of) the accusations" -- I think I have every right to not blindly agree with every accusation thrown against me. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:Wikieditor662, no one here (or anywhere else on Wikipedia, as far as I have seen) is asking you to blindly agree to anything—or anyone else. This is a collaborative project; editors from many countries, many levels of education, many levels of writing experience, many different political views... Most of the policies and guidelines here are necessary for all to work together.

Please be much slower to make edits and to reply to talk page discussions or here on ANI. Think three times, wait a day. Until you make such a commitment editors will not take you seriously. Really. Mostly read, compare, and make useful, short edits. You are off to a fast start, but you are not carefully examining statements from experienced editors. Consider making only a few edits to Wikipedia each day while reading policies, guidelines, and essays. Help make this a better place to work. I suggest this will bring you acceptance as an editor. This notice board is expecting a change in attitude—show that you pay close attention to advice; evidence so far indicates that you do not. Please, show you are worth the time invested by others. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 04:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC) —

• (Thanks for the ping) It is certainly disappointing to see disruption has continued since I looked at this last, and Graham may as well ultimately be vindicated on their instincts here, but again, this feels a bit rushed. New editors get a bit more opportunity to clean up their act, and the disruption isn't severe enough to justify an exception. The new incident appears to involve deleted page/s, so I could be missing things that Graham saw, but, it looks to me like Wikieditor got the idea to do Gerda a favour or at least collaborate with them on that, as a consequence of the conversation that they were having. We've got half a dozen experienced editors, including admins, functionaries and arbs in conversation with them. New instances of disruption might have been best brought up in that thread; I am sure they could have come up with the right remedy without need for a broad community input here. The conversations don't give out IDHT vibes. I would expect the respected editors to present with increasing firmness, issue more straightforward warnings, maybe block warnings, and even shorter blocks before we get to this point. I do not think a sufficient case has been made that a prospective volunteer in their first days has established themself beyond doubt to be irredeemable. So, I would have to oppose at this point. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: It's nice to find that Wikieditor662 has taken on the advice here and focused on tasks that are more suitable for a new editor. I like most of their five recent edits, except two of them. Firstly, there was this mistake (involving the removal of too many words) at the Alfred Lennon page that was quickly corrected by WWGB (mistakes happen, no biggie, but it's good that that article is well-watched). More concerning (but still not quite as serious as what led to this discussion) ) is this trivial reply on that article's talk page in response to a 4-year-old drive-by IP comment about this person's notability that "He's the father of John Lennon", which contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion; hopefully my reply contributes a little more. I accept that this discussion probably won't result in a ban, but it might be worth keeping an eye on their edits for at least a little while (which I'm sure will happen naturally). Graham87 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Opposed gross negligence of a somewhat new editor doesn't deserve as long a block as we think, plus they have shown just recently that they are willing to learn. If it were a long-time abuser, I would be less sympathetic. Conyo14 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not familiar with this case at all, I only proposed a check for them in previous case. However, if they are truly new user, then check user is not needed right? -Lemonaka 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• I haven't been around a lot lately, but I felt compelled to log in and comment when I saw this thread and looked into the situation a bit further. There was a time a bit over a decade ago where I was a new, younger (age-wise) editor with a lot of enthusiasm for contributing to the project. My enthusiasm led me to make some mistakes and definitely got me into some trouble. If it weren't for the good faith and patience of many of the editors I encountered back then, I probably wouldn't be around here today. Although I cannot be sure where Wikieditor662 falls on the age scale, I see many similarities between my earliest days on the project and where Wikieditor662 seems to be at right now. Perhaps that blinds me and makes me too sympathetic, but I must oppose a site ban at this time. I think excessively harsh sanctions could rob us of someone who could yet become a very valuable contributor. Wikieditor662 has received a lot of helpful advice from others, so I won't add too much to it. My general advice to Wikieditor662 is to slow down and think about what you're doing before doing it. Try to be aware of the relevant policies and guidelines before diving into something new or making major changes. Start small and work your way up to bigger things; there is no rush. I wish Wikieditor662 the best, and I hope I don't see them here or at ANI again. I am willing to afford a lot of rope to newer editors, but the rope is not infinitely long. MaterialsPsych (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Like Graham87, Robert McClenon, and Softlavender said, this is the dogpile of WP:SEALION WP:CIR WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:NOTGETTINGIT WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia is one of the Internet's definitive golden honeypots for abusers. Wikipedia's insane and derelict policy of open editing with absolutely no training, no vetting, no apprenticeship, no reputation, is the primary offender, with a culture of admins afraid of each other in doing obviously necessary protections. That big lie of "anyone can edit" (and that we desperately need anyone to edit like it's 2001) is the bait, and zillions of bored people per day take the bait. This user is the archetypal everyday victim-accomplice who learned barely enough rules to play WP:SEALION and to retaliate; and most wikiveterans exhibit Stockholm Syndrome, musing from within the eye of the dysfunctional hurricane system that is this site. Several people inverted Robert McClenon's comment with drive-by projections of the magical idea that this user hasn't already been exhaustively instructed and admonished countless times in entirely dedicated threads, including his own retaliatory thread against Graham87.[150] And more outrageously, the aggressive projection of their own competency upon this abuser's WP:CIR black hole by magically guessing that this one user might become invaluable someday, but ONLY if he's coddled and not if he's stopped. One of the countless absolute final confirmations of abject capitulation to all those principles is the offender's comment in this thread, supporting being banned. It's another in a long line of shameless confessions that he simply will not learn and will not voluntarily stop. He shamelessly said "Thank you all for your time." which is all this energy vampire wants, as has been already concluded in multiple community-wide admonition threads. A massive "time sink" is the main description everyone has had of this user in those countless prior threads. When someone confesses who they are, you believe them. Wikipedia culture is contrary to that common sense and decency, and well into extreme coddling of abusers like it's a sport, and civilly implicitly systemically counterbullying anybody who draws a line. I truly love and admire and thrive on your commitment and attitude but not on the toxic positivity surrounding abusers. Your tolerance of abuse doesn't make it not abuse. Stop forcing the world to share your hypertolerance of abuse. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I understand you have some concerns, but surely calling me a "vampire" and "shameless" for thanking others for their time is a bit much, no? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  When you refer to the offender's comment in this thread, supporting being banned, I'm assuming you're referring to the statement If a ban on me is necessary, then I understand. That doesn't come across to me as an outright support for the ban, but rather an understanding that their actions have led to a community ban being a reasonable possibility. I'm also not inclined to throw the NOTHERE label at them, given that WP:NOTHERENORMS seems more applicable in this case. Besides that, I see where you're coming from Smuckola. I don't want to "hypertolerate" abuse or "counterbully" anyone who draws a line, but perhaps I am blinded and prejudiced by my past experiences in not wanting to give them one of the harshest punishments that we can dole out to someone and in thinking that they will, with some difficulty, contribute constructively. I hope they're able to take the advice that they've been given on board and correct their approach to editing. If that doesn't happen very soon, I see an indefinite block in their future, and I wouldn't be opposed to it under those circumstances. Wikieditor662 should recognize that they're on very thin ice right now by virtue of this thread taking place and the fact that the community ban proposal has gotten some support. With that, I won't spend any more of my energy defending them. MaterialsPsych (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just wow. Even *I* think that was over-the-top ... I referred Smuckola here in this thread on my talk page, not expecting a response like that. As noted at Wikieditor662's talk page, their measured response here does indeed reflect well on them. Graham87 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikieditor662 is here to build this encyclopedia. Over enthusiastic for his first month here, yes. Needs to follow advice, yes. Needs learn more about how Wikipedia works, yes. But look how mildly Wikieditor662 responded to a blatant PA—vampire & shameless in the same sentence? Some editors, even here, with much longer tenure, have yet to learn that very basic rule of behavior. Several participants in this discussion have agreed to help this editor—I am already watching and trying to intervene. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC) —

ps Perhaps Smuckola should strike a bit from a line in his, um, !vote. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC) —

Support having Smuckola strike that, it's a objectively a PA. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:36, 9 August 2024 (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.

WP:AIV has large backlog

Seems like WP:AIV is getting backlogged. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to collapse a pointless heated discussion

Since we do not have Wikipedia:Requests for collapse, I'll ask here for an uninvolved editor to collapse most of the less-than-ideal discussion at Talk:Occultism_in_Nazism#Merge_with_Esoteric_Nazism (to which I am sadly a party to), before it gets (more) out of hand. I suggest collapsing after the second or third post (the discussion is off topic, reducing the chances of others commenting on the issue at hand - i.e. merge, and has CIV/NPA issues too). TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

How do I start a deletion discussion?

I want to start a deletion discussion for the List of fictional countries on the Earth, how do I do it? Sekundenlang (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You should follow the process laid out here. Lectonar (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, then install Twinkle from Special:Preferences. Click on TW and then XFD in the right-hand corner, fill out your reasonings and submit. NotAGenious (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism and biased opinions

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

---

The user of @Wellington Bay and the user of @Rambling Rambler are seemingly vandalising the updated and edited infomation on the article page of the CWI which is a Trotskyist International. In 2019 it spilt into 3 with one in particularly claiming for a while that they were the continuation of the CWI when in early 2020 they renamed themselves the International Socialist Alternative, with the remaining group still called the CWI to this day since we use the same resources, the same logo and we had our 50th anniversary early this year in April. I have no knowledge if these 2 users are members of the ISA, but I can confidently say that they do not understand our position on the situation and it appears they do not want new information shown on the article. They have given me a partial block on the article, and that's why I am reporting this to you. This is the version I lasted edited, I want an unbiased outsider to please renew this one and the newest one. Thank you. Jamesation (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hint, being a COI editor declaring anyone who doesn't like your unsourced edits and correctly removes them as per policy as really being a part of a secret ploy is a really quick way to get banned. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also accusing User:Wellington Bay and User:Rambling Rambler of vandalism is also considered as a personal attack. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Enough of this nonsense. I've made them go bye bye. This is not going to work out. Canterbury Tail talk 21:02, 14 August 2024 (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.