Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	19	0	19
TfD	0	1	11	0	12
MfD	0	0	6	0	6
FfD	0	0	5	0	5
RfD	0	0	81	0	81
AfD	0	0	12	0	12

• 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 121 sockpuppet investigations
• 27 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 11 Fully protected edit requests
• 9 Candidates for history merging
• 12 requests for RD1 redaction
• 31 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 40 requested closures
• 132 requests for unblock
• 2 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 16 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Bericht

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (39 out of 8347 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Typ Summary Admin Tulkarm Brigade 2024-09-05 02:43 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (1 April – 26 July 2024) 2024-09-05 02:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2 January – 31 March 2024) 2024-09-05 02:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (24 November 2023 – 1 January 2024) 2024-09-05 02:11 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (8 October – 23 November 2023) 2024-09-05 02:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (27 July 2024 – present) 2024-09-05 01:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Partition of India 2024-09-04 21:00 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: this discussion Academic Challenger Darryl Cooper 2024-09-04 19:56 2025-09-04 19:56 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Tiwana 2024-09-04 19:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Karabakh movement 2024-09-04 19:06 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree White genocide (Armenians) 2024-09-04 19:05 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree Western Azerbaijan (irredentist concept) 2024-09-04 19:03 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan 2024-09-04 19:02 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree Rana Sanga 2024-09-04 15:57 2026-09-04 15:57 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 AH Milad 2024-09-04 14:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jauerback Red Sea crisis 2024-09-04 01:53 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection (move protection was missing) by Ymblanter: Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Daniel Quinlan Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-09-04 01:51 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection (move protection was missing) by Isabelle Belato: Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh 2024-09-04 00:24 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Red-tailed hawk: Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA Protection Helper Bot Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war 2024-09-04 00:14 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Malinaccier: Per WP:A/I/PIA Protection Helper Bot Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts 2024-09-04 00:04 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Prolog: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War Protection Helper Bot September 2024 Israel ceasefire protests 2024-09-03 21:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case September 2024 Poltava strike 2024-09-03 20:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Template:Election box turnout no change 2024-09-03 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2516 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Rauso 2024-09-03 16:46 2025-03-03 16:46 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Bhar 2024-09-03 03:40 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case List of massacres in Jerusalem 2024-09-03 03:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Tarqumiyah shooting 2024-09-03 03:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Abu Shujaa 2024-09-03 03:13 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Alien vs. Predator characters 2024-09-03 03:04 2025-09-03 03:04 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate List of Rick and Morty characters 2024-09-03 02:44 2024-12-03 02:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Al Madeena Cherpulassery 2024-09-02 20:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Khalil al-Hayya 2024-09-02 18:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction EdJohnston Draft:Ahsan Ali Web Designer 2024-09-02 16:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Valereee Draft:Sudarshan Khatiwada 2024-09-02 13:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack 2024-09-02 02:36 2024-10-02 02:36 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Raised by Bats 2024-09-02 02:28 2024-10-02 02:28 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate The Devil's Bris 2024-09-02 02:28 2024-10-02 02:28 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Ooky Spooky 2024-09-02 02:26 2024-10-02 02:26 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Lehi Street bombing 2024-09-01 19:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case

UCoC enforcement guidelines voting has begun

This is your unofficial reminder to vote in the UCoC enforcement guidelines ratification. Please, consider doing so if you haven't already!! -MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, the impenetrable Meta Strikes Back. Well, at least as a venue, it isn't a ghost town like Fakebook's Meta (Truth Sokial?). BTW, the Glossary cracked me up. Q: what is X? A: See X on Meta. What, we are on Meta? Well, we're still not gonna link it for ya, peasants! And... scene. El_C 08:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I linked the most obvious ones. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Affcom is the Affiliations Committee and not the Affections Committee? Now I'm extra-sad. El_C 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if there is a logical discussion venue - no doubt there should be one, not sure if it should be here, somewhere else local, or there @MJL: - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I'm cool with whatever, but I'd check with Xeno (WMF) since he's the one that gets paid for this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty pathetic. Doesn't anyone there know how to link? Doug Weller talk 12:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This was a reply to El C, but reply didn't put it in the right place. Known problem? Doug Weller talk 12:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Your reply was (and still is) correctly positioned as a reply to El C. See WP:INDENT for the basic rules of threaded discussion: If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level. Floquenbeam's reply above (not made with the reply tool) is an example of one that is not correctly positioned. Modulus12 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right of course. It's a problem with WP:INDENT, not the reply tool IMHO, in that it's not obvious unless you carefully look and line up the replied. Like it or not, User:Floquenbeam's post is an obvious reply to El C, mine is not. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Modulus12: Didn't read all of your post. So you are saying that the reply tool isn't doing what I expect/want it to? I did notice once that using it and saving after someone else posted didn't cause an edit conflict but put it after the other person posted, so I went in and moved mine. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you expected it to do. But in this diff the reply tool correctly positioned your comment as a reply to El C, after Nosebagbear's reply to El C. I don't think there's anything wrong with the essay WP:INDENT either. Modulus12 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Question, asking for a friend. Do administrators have to sign their names in blood when forced to agree to this or will a regular pen or pencil do? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Are You Now or Have You Ever Been A Metamate? El_C 10:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Assuming your friend isn't an admin yet (because existing admins don't have to sign anything), I'm pretty sure it'll be a digital signature -MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My friend is rejoicing as we speak, because apparently "All advanced rights holders" doesn't apply to admins, as in "The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct: All Wikimedia Foundation staff, Board members, Wikimedia affiliate board members, staff and contractors; All advanced rights holders;". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Vote early, vote often, vote no. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Can someone please answer a procedural question (I don't want to e-mail the meta address to ask)? If I vote no, there is apparently a box to comment on why I'm voting no. Do I have to comment? If I don't, is there some kind of, uh, follow-up? I find the instructions confusing. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Having just voted, you do not need to fill out the comment. There was no follow-up after submitting my vote, beyond receiving a PGP hash receipt of it for my own records. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think there actually is a box even if you vote yes, though I've not tested Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  The comments box is available regardless of the answer to question 1 (Options: No, -, Yes); it is for overall comments, not necessarily a justification for your vote. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  For the record, upon voting No (a few min prior to commenting here, at AN), my vote box comment read (in full): learn to condense! I'm helping! El_C 15:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Learn to condense"? That's rude! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's probably a violation of the UCoC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  To quote James Randal: I got scared. El_C 15:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I highly recommend you include the reason why you voted no if you voted no. If ratification was to fail at this stage, then the revision committee that gets formed is going to use what people wrote as the basis for deciding what changes should get made. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Leaving comments no matter how you vote is helpful. Either it will pass and there will be an amendment process in a year (at which time it would still be good to know what people liked/disliked at ratification) and a U4C building committee (who might be able to address some issues that were disliked) or it won't pass and revisions will get made in which case again it's helpful to know what people liked and disliked so the right things are changed. If you already voted and didn't leave a comment you can go back and vote - only your most recent vote/comments are kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• In other words, we're going to keep having the vote with minor tweaks until we say "Yes". Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why would the tweaks have to be minor? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• They don't. But this is the WMF we're talking about here, I can't see them majorly revising this very important thing. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• This may be a gross misreading on my part, but does the section on harassment, as currently written, prevent us from sending non-public off-wiki information about other editors to ARBCOM? If so, that's immediate grounds for opposition; we cannot hope to deal with off-wiki harassment and coordination without the ability to handle such information. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  While I'm very confident that it's not intended as such, you're right that the base UCOC text doesn't include write-outs for it. It has a general category, that UPE (etc) combatting wouldn't fall into, and then names certain "included but not limited to" names buckets. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for this, Nosebagbear: do you know if ARBCOM members have commented on this before? I'm minded to ping some of them here, but I don't want to make a scene if it's been resolved elsewhere. I find this very concerning. ARBCOM has frequently banned users here because of their off-wiki activity; how is this to be brought to their attention going forward? Is the board aware that they are essentially preventing us from discussing off-wiki harassment anymore? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I hate to yell for attention, but given the off-wiki harassment I've seen, I think it's justified; @Wugapodes, Barkeep49, and L235: I'd be interested in hear whether y'all think the the doxing section of the UCoC prevents editors from bringing off-wiki information to ARBCOM when it relates to things besides paid editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking only for myself, I don't get that reading, but if you are not confident that the policy is clear enough, then that is a good reason to oppose. Section 3.1 of the UCoC, Harassment, includes a definition at the start any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome. Sharing non-public personal information with the arbitration committee in private for the purposes of administering the project does not seem to fall under that definition. My understanding of the doxing example in the text is that it is limited by that main definition, and covers the public sharing of non-public personal information as the main outcome of that action would be intimidation, outrage, or upset, but private reports have the main outcome of effective project administration. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I can see how it may be read that way; and if it's always read that way, it would address my concern. I'm not (yet) confident it will always be read that way, however. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just noting that I am not speaking publicly about the UCoC Enforcment draft, other than to encourage people to vote and leave comments regardless of which way they're voting. Courtesy ping to MJL who has been speaking about their interpretation of things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have any special insight about the UCOC itself, so I try to avoid talking about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Other than the apparently obligatory fear and loathing of anything WMF does, can somebody explain what the problem is with the UCoC? I get the objection made by Vanamonde93 about off-wiki evidence, but I assume that's something that can get fixed with a minor working tweak. So, what else about this has people upset? I've read through the whole thing and I really can't find anything it prohibits which I wouldn't want prohibited. I assume nobody's saying that sexual harassment, doxing, threat of violence, etc, are actually things they want to allow. So, what am I missing? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm perhaps in the "pass with fixes but not right now" camp. I'm leery about the lack of language describing who gets to decide when there are failures to resolve disputes locally or systemic failures to enforce the UCoC; if this is clearly a decision made by the community at the target project and/or Metawiki, there's no problem IMO, but right now it's vague and could be interpreted as a blank check for office actions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  But there already is pretty much a blank check for office actions, and this doesn't change that one way or the other. Is there any fundamental difference between WMF doing something we don't like and justifying it with "Because T&S" vs "Because UCoC"? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's reasonable to worry, even without indulging the "WMF is out to get us" mentality, that the community buy-in afforded by a successful passing of a UCoC would encourage the WMF to use its provisions more fully than the existing T&S. Given the possibility, I'd rather object now and push for language I am fully comfortable with rather than endorse something I don't necessarily agree with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: I'm not convinced about the possibility of a minor working tweak. I'm also not sure how this impacts on fighting paid editing. Without something more official I shall probably vote no. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Principal issues to me, @RoySmith with the enforcement guideliness (phase 2) include:

  i) There are numerous requirements of anonymity capacity, but no countervailing evidentiary safeguards for the accused. It moves the marker a very long way.

  ii) It also, despite it being the single most requested amendment to the 1st iteration of phase 2, has functionally zero right to be heard inclusion. Such a right definitely shouldn't be absolute, but given the community demand, its exclusion (other than one line that may refer to it, but only in specific regard to the U4C) is unacceptable

  iii) It is unclear - even in English, making the translations likely even harder to be confident on reasoning

  iv) The training is mandatory (the definition that grandfathers admins doesn't apply here), and doesn't give a community veto on its content

  v) We were guaranteed that phase 2 would be iterative, but they decided, right at the endgame, that we would not be permitted any chance to amend significant parts of the policy text prior to the vote. That is, we'd never seen it until December, and despite major discussion, if we don't vote no, we can't fix flaws with it.

  vi) We were not permitted a vote on phase 1, and then T&S policy stated that no-one in the community had requested a ratification vote prior to the ARBCOM open letter, and when I provided a diff demonstrating exactly that, six months earlier, they ceased communicating about it. Until all issues with prior engagement have been resolved, I am nervous about trusting future ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I hope any admins supporting this are looking forward to their compulsory UCoC training course. This hasn't been developed yet but the WMF's anti-harassment course lasts 8 weeks and includes coursework. Hut 8.5 18:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Where does it say there's going to be a compulsory training course? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  RoySmith "Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training to ensure a common understanding of implementation". That includes all advanced rights holders. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training... That includes admins: the "Affirmation of the UCoC among certain groups" section says The following individuals should be required to affirm... they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct...All advanced rights holders. The glossary says that "Advanced rights holders" includes admins. Hut 8.5 18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, OK. I had to go hunting to find that, but for future reference, it's here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  lasts 8 weeks and includes coursework - Not gonna do that, personally. WP is suppose to be a fun hobby for me, and having to deal with a lengthy "seminar" and likely giving more personal information to the WMF than I would care to in the process of signing up does not sound enjoyable, plus whatever "follow-up" I'm sure they'll deem is necessary in a few months. I will almost certainly be resigning the mop if it comes to that. Hog Farm _Talk 20:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think that’s going to happen. They must know that’s too much. Do we have any information about what they actually plan? Doug Weller talk 20:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Call me cynical, but I'm not sure the WMF wants us to know exactly what they plan, or they'd be making it more clear. Either that, or Hanlon's razor is at play here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: As far as I am *personally* aware, no course has actually been made yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Which makes it difficult to support. A bit of a pig in a poke. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm just trying to share what I know. How the vote goes is beyond my control, but I'm glad the WMF is having a ratification process here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Roy, with insufficient clarity about local control vs WMF control of enforcement, I worry that without further clarification in advance, this process as written will make it much easier to weaponize the UCOC, even easier than it is to weaponize our local policies. Some may recall we had a little dust up about that a few years ago, involving Fram? Voting yes on this, as written, seems to me to be giving up all the local control we painfully clawed back from WMF that time. Once approved, WMF will have zero incentive to modify things they like that we don't. Of course we all don't support harassment, but there is a thread on ANI right now where an editor is threatening to report another editor they're in a content dispute with to T&S for "bullying". I do not trust T&S to evaluate such a claim fairly. I think it will be easier to pull the wool over the eyes of T&S than even editors at ANI, or our local ArbCom. One thing I'm curious about; if editors of other language wikis - where there may be no functioning ArbCom, and where something like this might make sense as "better than nothing" - vote for this, and English WP editors vote against, I'm guessing WMF is going to interpret that as an approval to go ahead and apply it to us too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  If 50.1% of voters support the enforcement guidelines, they will be applied to all editors. The UCoC was implemented by a Board resolution making it binding policy under section 11 of the Nutzungsbedingungen, but also means it can only be modified with the consent of the Board. I expect the enforcement guidelines to be resolution'd into force the same way. Neither document allows the community to make amendments to the UCoC itself or the enforcement guidelines, the only indication such a thing might be possible is an announcement that is not binding on anyone and was signed only by the current Vice Chair of the Board. The latest I've heard from the WMF is that if the guidelines pass even with widespread opposition, there will be no amendments for at least a year. Of course, the Board can modify either document by resolution whenever they want.

  Putting on my pile of non-enwiki hats, I think the UCoC will be a good thing for many wikis. But the enforcement guidelines are just not ready yet, and ideally the UCoC itself should have had another pass too. It is not possible to simply legislate social change into existence with a few Board resolutions, it is necessary to actively work with the affected people to fix problems and to find a mutually-acceptable solution. However, the WMF has decided to ignore this successful consensus-based model, and I think both documents are worse off because of it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:Fram, if anyone has forgotten. Please everyone: vote! I might disagree with "the powers that be" here on en.wp from time to time, but I have a heck of a lot more trust in en.wp that I have in WMF. Huldra (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Pointless, off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - The voting's taking place on Meta? No thanks. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC) No, it takes place here. The explanation page on how to vote is on Meta, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Not signing in at that other place, to vote. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: You don't have to (and in fact can't) sign in at vote.wikimedia.org. Just click the "Go to the voting server" button at this meta page and you'll be taken to the voting page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I believe I'll pass. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: Special:SecurePoll/vote/802 would be a non-meta way to the voting server. Habitator terrae (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I'll pass. GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I've always held the opinion that those who don't vote also don't get to complain about the result — I'm sure you feel the exact same way. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC) The opposite, actually. George Carlin's observation on the vote/don't vote topic, is one that I tend to agree with. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC) So that logic actually suggests you should vote in referendums. You're not voting for a person here. No gargabe in, no garbage out. Unlike with a person by voting you are making an actual decision here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: sorry to add to a close discussion, but while it's your choice if you want to vote because of the above discussion I just want to ensure that you understand SecurePoll is the exact same way we've been voting in arbcom elections (and some others) since 2009. And the only difference I can think of between this vote and such votes other than the obvious i.e. what you're voting for (possibly including the area of effect) and timeframe, is the scrutineer selection process (although scrutineers for arbcom elections come from outside en.wikipedia) and instructions, and voter eligibility. The software you're voting on, connection of the software to en.wikipedia and the community etc is the same. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Almost Late Question

I realized that I have waited until almost the end to vote. There is lengthy discussion above that provides at least as much noise as signal. It appears that the rough consensus is that we should vote No because, as written, the enforcement guidelines will expand the powers of T&S without any particular constraint on those powers, and so increase the likelihood of another Framgate. Is that basically what has been said above? Is there another two-paragraph summary? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That's how I've understood it, Robert. I 'm pretty sure which thread on ANI Floquenbeam refers to above, and yes, I can see how worrying WMF's handling of such cases could easily become. Full transparency: I've just voted "no", and have written "Because of the Fram fiasco" in the comments box. Bishonen | tålk 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC).

But that was kind of useless. I have re-voted (which is perfectly kosher) and adduced a much fuller rationale. Bishonen | tålk 10:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC).

Perhaps it goes without saying that recent events reinforce my concerns about bad-faith weaponization of the UCoC as a bullying tool. I don't see a lot of evidence that there are safeguards in place to prevent this inevitability, and I don't know that the WMF's track record inspires a leap of faith in that regard. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I've heard a lot of different reasons people had in the above thread. I don't believe anywhere in the proposed enforcement guidelines T&S have their authority expanded, but some people did mention above they did not restrict T&S enough (in their view). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@MJL While direct authority shift to T&S is not a particular concern of the UCOC#EGs, assuming that T&S will be the ones writing the training, where the Community is only consulted on its content, rather than authority to discard it, that is a source of authority given its purpose is to standardise judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 unblock request

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) has been unblocked by ArbCom for the purposes of making an unblock request to the community. I have taken the liberty of copying his request here, as per the instructions provided by the unblocking administrator. The text of this request follows below. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Upon unblock I will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before: Working RSN, providing translations from other Wikis, and working biology articles such as Hadesarchea, though my activities have shifted more toward Hylidae. I have a list of articles from other Wikipedias that I plan to translate. I've spent the past years at the Simple English Wikipedia with only positive incident. I've been awarded several barnstars and participated in many editing events. I was given patroller rights there long ago. All is going well. I've started many articles there, including Alberto Santos Dumont, Green-eyed tree frog and Trolley problem. I was on the team for two Good Articles: simple:Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) and simple:Sento and helped a little on simple:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I helped organize Simple's branch of two edit-a-thons.

I recently witnessed a block experience on another website, and it gave me insight into how my posts must look to other people. The disciplinary system is more complicated than it looks on the surface, and that's not the worst thing in the world. I accept that it is the admins' job to interpret policy. I asked ArbCom about their decision to block me in 2018 as I was appealing a lesser sanction, and they answered me. I consider it asked and answered. I plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction to be qualitatively different from my last, as stipulated, and to continue to obey said topic ban until it is lifted. As I have always sought to do, I will work completely within Wikipedia's posted rules. If there is anything else that the adminship wants me to do or not do, they need only post on my talk page with my instructions.

I have never attempted block evasion in my life on this or any website.

What I want most of all is to put this in the past where it belongs. I realize that will take time and work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 isn't able to edit here currently, so I'll add the timeline that was requested of them here on their behalf. Operator873 ^connect 02:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Responses

Two parties at the thread have asked for a timeline of events and more information. I put this together today:

In assembling this timeline, I realized I'd actually forgotten a lot of this. I don't think this timeline has everything but it does have most of the major parts. To address Ivanvector's point about Wikinews, the answer is no, the situations are not related. What happened on Wikinews during the early days of the pandemic in 2020 was that I criticized an admin action by saying "it's overkill." This statement was deemed to violate WN:NEVERASSUME. If you want to read just one link that shows the core of my case, I recommend this ArbCom appeal from 2018: [1] What I did wrong and kept doing wrong was grossly misunderstand Wikipedia's system for handling blocks and other sanctions. I thought that appealing a block meant providing an elaborate, detailed, multi-part proposal for solving underlying problems ("I'm ready to be part of the solution!") with tons of links and diffs explaining why the original sanctions were wrong, and that is absolutely not how the Wikipedia system works. In fact, by trying to do things that way, I was driving people nuts! As one user put it, I was writing a "call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's [not] necessary." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

In early 2016, I fell under a topic ban for part of the Manual of Style. I don't know how to give more detail on that without saying anything that could be interpreted as relitigating it. Do I agree with the topic ban? No. Have I always done my best to obey it anyway? Yes. The site can't function otherwise. After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. I'd actually planned to make monthly reports to him about what I was doing elsewhere on Wikipedia, as if he were my parole officer because that's what I thought was going on. At my formal appeal of said topic ban, I thought the right thing to do was to provide evidence that the original accusations were wrong. Again, that's not how we do things here.

In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia.

• Initial complaint placed by RGloucester: [2]
• Another complaint: [3] I don't really remember what this was about and I'd rather not reread it.
• Another complaint by RGloucester. I remember this one. Someone invited me to a discussion involving my banned topic and I said what amounted to "I can't go because I'm under a topic ban," but I did also include a link that the admins said was a violation: [4] Like I said earlier, if the admins say it counts as a topic ban violation, then I have to treat them like a referee in a sports match. If I remember correctly, the part of my post that they considered a violation was visible for forty seconds before I reverted it myself, without being asked, before this complaint was filed.
• Now the AE block... [5] I thought that WP:BANEX meant I was allowed to talk to the enforcing admin about these things, but the admins and ArbCom have decided it does not mean that.
• Since it was an AE block, I appealed at ArbCom once in late 2016 [6] and again in 2018. But AE sanctions automatically become normal sanctions after one year. In my case it was a little longer, but I appealed again in I want to say 2017 through the normal unblock system.
• I then spent the next six months working RSN and generally contributing to parts of Wikipedia that I hadn't been to before, staying fully away from the Manual of Style. I remember that time passing without incident.
• I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [7] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised.
• I appealed that block to ArbCom, and the appeal was declined.
• ArbCom invited me to appeal to the community in 2019. I did, and it was unsuccessful. [8]
• It has been two years and seven months since my last appeal. I've spent that time constructively contributing to other Wikimedia projects and practicing being a team player. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Community input

• Support unblock Darkfrog24 has become an integral part of the Simple English Wikipedia community and garnered the respect of that community and the sysops there. I hope my support of this editor, without hesitation, may speak somewhat to that end. While simplewiki is not enwiki, I believe Darkfrog24 will prove to be an invaluable asset to the English Wikipedia when granted a fresh start by the community. Operator873 ^connect 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've collaborated with Darkfrog24 on the Simple English Wikipedia, where they are a very helpful, trusted, and community-involved editor whose volunteering is highly valued. I am in support of an unblock. Vermont (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock – Regrettably, this unblock request shows the same lack of acknowledgement of the reasons for the initial block that has been displayed in previous unblock requests, and is laden with the same quasi-legalistic arguments about the procedure by which the block was enacted. Any unblock request must acknowledge the original reasons why Darkfrog24 was blocked, and show at least a modicum of contrition. Anything else is opening up the encyclopaedia to the same sort of incessant disruption that Darkfrog24 wrought upon the encyclopaedia years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) - struck, see below.

Just looking over the standard offer, I see a requirement to avoid the initial behavior that led to the block as the only stipulation regarding past issues. I feel Darkfrog24 addressed this in their request. Additionally, I'll further point out that the stand offer specifically mentions "Apologies and other expressions of remorse aren't necessary, but basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively are." Not only has Darkfrog24 distinguished themselves on other projects, they have specifically expressed the willingness to move forward productively on this project. I think this is an excellent opportunity to AGF and allow a chance to reintegrate. Operator873 ^connect 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In the first place, Darkfrog's case is anything but 'standard'. We're well past that point. We've had eight years of appeals, all of them tone deaf wastes of the community's time. While I agree, no one should be forced to grovel and beg for forgiveness, nor is that what I'm asking for here, this unblock request itself is an example of the 'initial behaviour that led to the block'. I do not believe that Darkfrog understands what Darkfrog did that lead to the block, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that they will actually abide their topic ban and avoid such behaviour in future. For Darkfrog to be 'productive', they will need to express a clear understanding of the topic ban that was issued, and why it was issued, without asking for endless clarifications. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support their work on Simple does the thing that we literally always ask for: demonstrate the ability to work collegially and without disruption on another project, and assuming that CU corroborates that claim, I think it's an easy decision to unblock per ROPE. I note, in passing, that neither WP:SO, WP:BLOCKING nor WP:UNBLOCK demand any kind of grovelling "contrition", and I do not think it is necessary to make people crawl to see that they know where they went wrong. I also think that it ill-behoves those that supposedly non-partisanly move an editors unblock request here then begin WP:BLUDGEONing the same discussion. What gives? SN54129 19:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a bit rude, don't you think? I have Darkfrog's talk page watched because of our previous interactions, and noticed no one had copied the request to AN as was requested. BLUDGEONing? Sometimes, I wonder about Wikipedia. One comment, a bludgeon. In any case, I will withdraw, if not for yours or Darkfrog's sake, for my own.RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RGloucester: I apologise for Assuming Bad Faith as I did; I've seen that kind of thing happen, and it's offensive when it does. But, I admit, one edit does not a bludgeon make. Sorry! SN54129 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You also removed my comment...[9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• If we want thoughtful participation from more people than just those who have had past dealings with them, there needs to be some background here. As someone unfamiliar, I have no idea what topic DF is even topic banned from, no idea what led to their topic ban, no idea what they did in violation of the topic ban to earn a block, and no idea why multiple previous unban requests have been rejected. There is no way to find all this without some detective work. Is the theory that every single person who comments here is supposed to spend an hour and do this research for themselves? Since @Darkfrog24: is the one requesting an unblock, here is the minimum I'd like to see from them:
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to the topic ban
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to their multiple blocks
  • Links to the previous unblock requests.
• If someone besides DF wants to compile this instead, OK I guess. But until then, this is an insufficient unblock request, and I conditionally oppose it until it is fleshed out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  DF has written their timeline on their talk page. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't expect a forced apology for past wrongs but I do expect that those past wrongs are at least acknowledged in an unblock request. I'm not familiar with this user, but from what I can gather from links in their extensive block log, they were topic-banned from a particular subset of the manual of style, I cannot discern for what reason, and some time later were indefinitely blocked with talk page and email access revoked (as well as UTRS eventually revoked) because they just would not stop wikilawyering and attempting to relitigate the topic ban. The fact that they were also indefinitely blocked on WikiNews for the same type of behaviour (allegedly also over that project's style guides), and the fact they've explicitly stated their intent to relitigate the same sanction again in their unblock request, does not sit right with me. I both commend and applaud your contributions to simplewiki, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  To quote from the 2016 Arbitration motion: "She is very strongly advised to focus that appeal on her future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of her topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas." I interpreted Darkfrog's comment about appealing lesser sanctions to be in line with previous advice, aka to work on editing constructively in other areas prior to trying to immediately re-enter the sanctioned areas that caused issues last time, and to abide by those sanctions so long as they are in place. And yep, I've had a hard time trying to sift through all of the archives, it's a rather annoyingly complicated set of discussions. Regardless, Darkfrog is certainly capable of contributing constructively to community projects, and I don't see how this block is preventing disruption by continuing. Vermont (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Then, as Darkfrog has not done so, tell us what the [expletive deleted] ban or block (it is unknown whether it was one or both, as the title of this section refers to unblocking but subsequent comments talk about a topic ban) was for and link to the relevant discussions. How can anyone independent come to an opinion without this information? And having to spend time digging around for that information will inevitably end up biasing people against her. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not enough information has been provided for anyone to have an opinion. User:Darkfrog24, you are the one asking to be unblocked, so you need to tell us (with links) why you were blocked. You can't expect others to do any detective work to find out. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• The following provide some background to the later portions of the situation: 2019 AN unblock appeal, 2018 AE appeal closure diff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• And here's a link to the 2016 ARCA motion declining the appeal of the original indef block and topic ban. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of thoroughness, I'm going to say here also that DF has posted their timeline on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Those demanding some sort of act of contrition are on thin ice for actual policy. All that matters is that henceforth Darkfrog24 promises to be a positive contributor, and has the work at other projects to show that they are capable of it. DF's work at Simple is absolutely all the evidence needed. (Those asking about a timeline of events can see the one DF24 placed on their talk page, being that that is the only place they can currently post.) oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. The failure to provide links to the discussions that led to the imposition of the sanctions and the previous discussions that declined to remove the sanctions is a very bad indicator, and to me, shows disrespect to editors trying to evaluate this unblock request without wasting editors time in conducting detective work. This editor has had many years to study and learn what is required to formulate and submit a successful unblock request. I looked at a unblock request from 2019 that is linked in this user's block log, and noticed that I had opposed the unblock based on comments from TonyBallioni which I agreed with at this time and still agree with today. Then, I checked out a block related conversation from 2016 which included comments from Drmies that gave me great pause. That was eight years ago. Some may argue that this was all quite a few years ago, but that argument is only legitimate if we have solid evidence that this editor has abandoned that disruptive point of view. I see no such evidence. The editor's supporters point to their good work at Simple English Wikipedia and I suppose that is a point in their favor. With no disrespect to thar project, I consider it to be relatively minor in comparison to this project, and I am sure that pageviews will back up my claim. So, perhaps this editor's best niche is as a contributor to that project, where they can make positive contributions to that offshoot project, but are unable to disrupt the flagship project of the Wikipedia movement. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: DF is unable to post their timeline and relevant links here as they are currently blocked. But they have posted the requested information on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Operator873, thank you for providing a link to where this blocked editor says After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. That amounts to additional evidence that this block remains necessary. What we need to see for an unblock is evidence that this editor has completely and definitively abandoned this type of disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, I think DF is specifically saying they see this was a mistake and a part of the problem. Hence, they do not intend to repeat it in the future and, at the minimum, are requesting WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap. Operator873 ^connect 03:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, that's them describing their past misconceptions from almost three years ago. See the last sentence of what you quoted. Vermont (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I don't care about apologies or statements demonstrating understanding; I don't pretend I can judge a stranger's mindset based on written correspondence. What I care about isn't what's in their head or heart but their actions, specifically whether they can contribute to Wikipedia without disrupting others. I believe they can after skimming their Simple Wiki contribs [10] and talk page (2021 is a year of what appear like productive collegial conversations), and their Wikinews contribs since being unblocked there in December [11]. Maybe I missed some recent red flags but absent evidence of recent problems, if they can edit without problems at Simple for the last couple years and Wikinews for the last couple months, they should be fine here. And if not, they'll get blocked again. Levivich 03:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Generally rather oppose due to extensive off-wiki experience with the user that led to me leaving #wikipedia-en back in 2019 when this user was allowed to "help" others with their policy questions there during their block. I believe they have always had the genuine intent of helping, but reading their name here again brings back bad memories. They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  It pains me to see someone say any reason made them walk away from Wikipedia. Indeed, that is, perhaps, the worse outcome of any conflict on Wikipedia. However, with respect to you and not intending to offend, but... isn't They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. the precise embodiment of assuming bad faith? I understand some folks expended a lot of energy in 2019 regarding DF and the incident they were involved in. However, in 2022, I hope those same people can see the amount of energy DF has put into re-earning enough trust to be given a chance. Operator873 ^connect 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  From the IRC channel, not the English Wikipedia itself. I assume good faith, but it was clearly combined with incompetence back in 2019, which may have changed. Assuming that this might not have changed is not an assumption of bad faith, it's just pessimism. That should be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair statement and I think I understand what you mean. While I can't speak for Vermont, I can say my reason for being here supporting her is that I am witness to her improvement and will put my name on this statement: I know the troubles are in the past and she's ready to move forward. Operator873 ^connect 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I also noticed that and had a similar concern. Though, it looks like that should hopefully no longer be applicable with the unban discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moving to support based on the responses and timeline. I do think the user understands why they were blocked by ArbCom on their last topic ban appeal, and acknowledges that rationale such that those particular issues won't recur. From the appeals of the block, it seems we as a community have pulled a "gotcha!" each time they appeal: if they acknowledge the topic ban we say "they're relitigating!" and decline; if they don't mention the topic ban we say "they don't acknowledge the ban!" and still decline. Well we can't have it both ways. They're a user whose past productivity on this wiki has been noted and who has remained active on sister projects throughout their block here, which is what WP:SO asks for. They're here committing to respect the topic ban even though they disagree with it, which is how topic bans work. They should be given the opportunity to comply.

Regarding the topic ban, which is not being appealed here; Darkfrog24: in each of your requests where you've noted the topic ban, you've made a point of also noting that you disagree with it. You need to refocus; saying you don't agree with the ban kills your appeal before you even get started. Successful topic ban appeals start with the sanctioned user acknowledging that their own disruptive behaviour led to the sanction, and that the sanction was necessary to stop their disruption; that's how you convince the community you won't just do the same thing again. It seems you've appealed many times already on the basis of the propriety of the ban, and each time those reviewing agreed that it was appropriate and necessary. You will not successfully appeal until you also acknowledge that it was necessary. Nobody here has any moral authority to demand contrition or apologies, and that's not how any of this works, but a successful appeal does sound something like "yes I did these things and I was sanctioned because I would not stop." Best of luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I recognize DF's name, but I don't know that we have had any substantive interaction; still, for me, this seems an easy support. They are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and should be given the chance to do so. I also don't mind a stance of "I believe this decision is wrong, but I am willing to abide by it" (but note I am not an administrator). I would however, urge DF to be less litigious in general--I think the original block was appropriate. That said, all the best, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• "I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [26] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised"--that led me to two comments by Thryduulf, this and this, and those comments are still valid. I also agree with comments by Cullen328. I'll add that the way this request is going, starting of vague and partly in denial and then moving into minutiae is exactly how earlier conversations/appeals went, and it's exasperating. On the other hand, Levivich makes a valid point and who knows, it's been a while. Putting all that together with my own memories (which bring back a sense of failure and frustration on my own part), I find it impossible to choose one option over the other, and will wait and see what the community says. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware of this until seeing Drmies' ping above. I still have strong memories of just how exasperated I was by Darkfrog24 (which is significant given that it was years ago), such that I don't wish to spend any time evaluating this request so I will not bold any opinions. However I will encourage not unblocking without a short leash such that, should they return to their previous behaviour or anything else disruptive that a block can be swiftly reimposed without wasting yet more of the community's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure if I should ping you or not: I know this was as much a time sink for you as it was for me. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    Just felt I should briefly chime in again to explain my thinking--which is mostly about the nature of DF's transgressions. They were, as far as I can tell and somewhat recall about being an administrative time sink and aggravation. I don't mean to make light of that as an issue; as I said above, the block was deserved. But it strikes me that if anything like that were to reoccur, it would be instantly obvious by its very nature. I think we all agree DF could be a worthwhile contributor, they just need to make sure their behavior doesn't make them a net negative. I believe they should have that chance, though, as ever, my information is only partial and I fully appreciate how others (especially admins!) could reasonably come to the opposite conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – I said I would not comment further, and I wish that I could do so, but it seems there is a real problem in terms of institutional memory here. Perhaps too much time has passed, as some others have said. I take Ivanvector's point that, in order for the topic ban to be acknowledged, it needs to be discussed. However, one must take care to note the specific way in which it is being discussed. Please see this comment that Darkfrog has added. I would like editors here to draw their attention to one particular remark, specifically the following sentence: In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia. This may seem to benign to anyone here who is not familiar with the dispute, but I can assure you that it is not. The initial topic ban was issued precisely because Darkfrog continued to advocate for a position that quotation style is an ENGVAR issue. Contrary to community consensus, and a pile of reliable sources that were brought up each time it was discussed, Darkfrog would argue that there are 'American' and 'British' quotation styles, and that Wikipedia needed to acknowledge this fact.

Because this argument was repeatedly rejected at the main MoS page, Darkfrog moved the dispute to a few subpages, one of which was subsequently deleted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External support, and one which was userfied User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register (please note the creator's comment at the top of the page). Darkfrog's reference to the 'Manual of Style Register' is in fact not benign at all. This page, previously at the title Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, was used by Darkfrog as a PoV fork of the MoS, despite the fact that it had no community consensus behind it. Darkfrog used the page to compile random stuff that Darkfrog deemed useful ammunition in disputes, and its previous shortcut of MOS:REGISTER gave it an air of legitimacy. Please note very carefully that Darkfrog linked directly to a section of this page that Darkfrog had compiled for this purpose, without providing any of the background information about the page, and with continued reference to it as if it had the authority of an actual MoS page. This is the exact sort of behaviour that led to the original topic ban, and is proof that Darkfrog has not 'dropped the stick' as people are wont to say here. The advocacy campaign, and the attempts to legitimise Darkfrog's position, continue...in this situation, how can an unblock be justified? This really will be my last comment, and I do apologise if my participation here is deemed a nuisance...but it seems like I am one of the few people that actually remember what happened here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My view on this as I said above is that Darkfrog is not appealing their topic ban which covers all of these past disputes, they're stating that they intend to respect it. Even though they explicitly disagree with it I see no reason not to believe that they're capable of abiding by it. It seems to me that has always been the case, with the exception of their nagging of a relevant administrator (which they now acknowledge was both "testing the edges" and harassment) and their crossing the line in an AC appeal. I think they also understand that if this request is successful and they then violate the topic ban again, the resulting block will be quite permanent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if, as Thryduulf says, Darkfrog is truly given a 'short leash', and Darkfrog truly intends to abide the restriction, then I suppose I can withdraw my opposition to an unblock. In order for such a 'short leash' to be enforced, however, it is important for administrators to familiarise themselves with the specific nature of the behaviour that led to the block. I will strike my oppose. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm very dubious about unblocking this editor. The response to my simple request to show why they were blocked/banned was not to provide a few links with a brief factual account but to give a rant about how hard done by they were, which is exactly the kind of behaviour that led to the block in the first place. If the editor is to be unblocked then I hope that those who want this are willing to take responsibility should anything untoward happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Apologies, but I was hoping you could clarify your message. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems you're saying DF has gone on a rant but, they're blocked. They literally can't participate here and have only provided a brief synopsis on their talkpage with links to the requested information others have asked for. I'm just confused about you talking about their behavior where DF can't actually participate? Operator873 ^connect 23:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This does appear to be their edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I copy/pasted that edit here. But, I think it's a bit of a reach to call that a rant. DF was specifically asked for all of that information. She provided as requested. Operator873 ^connect 23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's a rant. There's loads of self-justifying commentary there rather than just a statement of the facts that she was specifically asked for. That's exactly what she was blocked for. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is very clear sysop misconduct + one-way IBANs are a problem; unlike anything here. I was not familiar with the Arb matters at the time, but it does not appear to be necessary as of right now. Darkfrog24 can use common sense; even in times when many editor editors do not, and I hope to see good contributions from Darkfrog24 in the future, and improve the encyclopedia. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • NeilN isn't around to answer to that accusation, but I strongly disagree - this was a measured and appropriate warning to a user violating a sanction imposed under the authority of arbcom, who was in the process of talking themselves into a total block. NeilN warned them at least twice more after this to stop before pulling the trigger, and then their UTRS access was also pulled because they still didn't stop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Okay, I wasn't aware of that. I also didn't really have a problem with the talk access being removed when it was eventually, I was more concerned with the specific diff alone. I've also just now seen that NeilN is not around (ironically, their last edit is telling everyone they will be more active after a two month break, then took a 3.5 year break :/). I still think it was not handled perfectly, but I remove my statement about very clear sysop misconduct. Naleksuh (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, Naleksuh, that is not sysop misconduct. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This right here is why 1-way IBANS are a problem. If Editor X is banned from talking about or interacting with Editor Y, but Editor Y is not such restricted, and then Editor Y makes uncivil/abusive/inappropriate/baiting/whatever comments about Editor X, it's essentially a trap. If Editor X reports the abuse being directed at them, they are technically violating their restriction (at least by the letter), because it's impossible to report abuse from another editor without mentioning that editor. That what appears to have transpired here. It takes two to tangle - it doesn't matter who "started it" or who was more "at fault" - if two or more users are problematic with each other, then round robin ban all of them, or ban none of them. IBANS are relatively trivial compared to topic bans, so even if one editor was "more to blame" then the other, sanctioning them both with an IBAN is hardly excessive, and prevents this very situation. In this particular case, the "ridiculous suppositions" definitely didn't help their case, but the admin in question was also rather aggressive considering that the question appeared to essentially be asking for the ban to be made 2-way. Even if such a request is violating the letter of a ban, it should be allowed under most circumstances as a specific exception. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:C4E0:11CC:3658:77A0 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is being appealed here? The title says that its a block, much of the previous discussion was about a topic ban, but now you people are going on about an interaction ban. Can we get some focus here for us uninvolved editors who shouldn't be made to spend hours digging through histories to find out what this is all about? And I mean simple facts, not people's opinions about those facts, which can come separately. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of layered sanctions involved here, many of which resulted from DF24's problematic behavior while appealing existing sanctions. The inciting sanction was a TBAN from discussing quotation marks and quotation styles imposed in Jan 2016. This was later expanded to encompass the entire MOS, broadly construed: [12]. Shortly after, she was blocked for a week at AE: [13]. Finally, at the end of February 2016, she was indeffed for wikilawyering the TBAN: [14].

She was unblocked December 2017, but the MOS TBAN remained in force. In June 2018, she attempted to appeal the TBAN, but as a result of further wikilawyering at that appeal, she was blocked for a month and given a one-way IBAN with SMcCandlish (June 2018). This apparently upset her to the point of making the comments that NeilN admonished her for in the above-noted now-struck comment. Later that day, NeilN upgraded the one-month block to an indefinite block, as a result of the now-suppressed comments on her userpage. Other appeals via unblock request, UTRS, ArbCom, and a community request like this one in 2019, have followed and failed.

All three sanctions - the TBAN from MOS, the IBAN with SMC, and (obviously) the indef - are still currently in force. I believe the current appeal only concerns the indef, but naturally the other sanctions have come up in discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, ♠PMC♠ is correct in that this conversation is only regarding the indef and not any of the other sanctions. DF will abide by the TBAN and other sanctions while reintegrating into the community and rebuilding the trust with the community in general. Further, DF has fully acknowledged rebuilding that trust will be a lengthy process: I realize that will take time and work. Operator873 ^connect 21:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unblock - It appears that Darkfrog24 has not only complied with the indefinite block but has contributed to the Wikipedia project in the Simple English encyclopedia, where they have made positive contributions. It appears that Darkfrog has learned from their mistakes and is ready to edit collaboratively in the English Wikipedia, subject to the same restrictions as had earlier been imposed. (That is, I am supporting the unblock, not any lifting of restrictions.) (As I explained yesterday in another case, I have a particular strong distrust for anyone who engages in block evasion or sockpuppetry, and this is not such a case.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock...with conditions - I feel a bit qualified to speak about DF's unblocking request, as I have had substantial interaction in the past with the editor, all of it extremely negative. I was blocked due to my interaction with this user on an article (DF was blocked, as well), and at the time I considered them pretty much among the worst Wikipedian I'd ever worked with. In short, I fucking loathed Darkfrog with the heat of a hundred suns; very few other users have ever made me feel that way, or could make me lose my temper the way I did when around them. There was tendentious editing and - I am still positive to this day - socking. I was close to walking away from the Wiki-EN forever, all because of the user.

But that was over 5 years ago. It took a near indef block to get me to change my own problematic behavior, so maybe the block that Darkfrog has been subject to has changed them for the better as well. I am not saying that I am never tempted to lash out; I am saying that my desire to edit collaboratively has since outweighed my need to be right. So, in that way, I suspect that I have actually changed.

I suspect that DF is in this same position; the impulses are still there, but maybe the user has begun using the correct tools to interact with others better. They seem to have found a better place for themselves in the Simple Wiki (which I consider to be just as vital as the regular Wikipedia), and while I have not looked at Darkfrog's interactions there (though someone should if only to confirm that they are better at editor interaction), I want to believe in Second Chances; I am a better editor because I was afforded a second opportunity, and it follows that DF might be as well.

It is because of that history - and my own reflection on it - that I would support a conditional lifting of the block. The possibility of change does not mean the implementation of change. I think a second chance is warranted. If they mess it up, they mess it up. Give the user a chance at their own redemption. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The conditions to be what? I've looked into the archives and diffs at some length -- more than might have been wise or good for me, in hindsight -- but I'm still in two minds as to what to comment on it, or indeed even whether to. (And yet, here I am.) In particular it'd seem unfair to the user to get into the weeds of the MOS stuff when they're enjoined from commenting on that at all on this projecct; other than their several prescriptive-grammar userboxes. Frankly my heart sinks to read that they "will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before", "plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction", and their compliance is framed in terms of "until it is lifted". I know that Hiberno-English is if anything over-supplied by use of the subjunctive, but a "would" or three would go a long way here for me. But from their activity on both simple: and on wikinews, it seems like an issue they're still very invested in, and see it less as a style-guide choice, but as a great right to be wronged in the form of overturning the "ban" of "correct" "American English". (To SYNTH some descriptions they've previously used here, and more recently at those other WM projects.)

But surely if they're to have any further "conditions" (much less any sort of (IMO rather unfortunately phrased elsewhere) "short leash"), it should be something clear and transparent, not just something ominous-sounding but vague. And conversely, if they're not unblocked at this time, it would be a minimal service to them to indicate what they should do to be so in future. Rather than as seems to have happened in the past to be essentially told "you did it wrong this time, try again next year", which would surely be deeply frustrating for anyone. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User on Ku Klux Klan attempting to push his POV onto the article

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

---

• Total random nerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ku Klux Klan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i recently was checking on the article Ku Klux Klan and i saw that someone had put a bunch of stuff about the Ku Klux Klan being "pro-gun control", "progressive", "leftist", etc on the article, i have reverted most of the additions, especially the unsourced ones, its a clear attempt of the famous "what i don't like is literally KKK/Hitler/nazis", attempting to, as always, call the KKK democrats, leftists and progressivists, when its said, with sources, on the page itself, that the KKK is a socially conservative, anti progressivist group, about the leftist thing and "first KKK is not far right and progressives supported it", its clear that it was, and that these so called progressives and leftists were not leftists or progressivists at all, as, why would a progressive support a conservative organization, in addition, just supporting the new deal doesn't instantly make you a progressive, as the democrats at the time weren't really progressive.

anyways, i think that we should, in fact, protect the article with a higher protection, to prevent things like that from occurring, as vandalism was also recently reported in the page, thanks in advance. EpicWikiLad (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• For the peanut gallery, Total random nerd is the party he is referring to, and he did notify them (thank you). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s was most certainly a progressive movement. See this for starters. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 22:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect, Reason has something of a dog in this fight. To call the 20's klan "progressive" doesn't make a great deal of sense to me as we use the term today. My favorite (popular) history of this era is "Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan" by Nancy MacLean (forgive my dated tastes as I am old). While we can take the Reason article into account, I think we should be looking to more authoritative sources. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, per Ohio History Central: "During the 1920s, many Progressives also joined the Ku Klux Klan, a self-proclaimed religious group that was to enforce morality, based on Progressive beliefs, on other people." — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 23:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, the insinuation of EpicWikiLad here that the KKK opposed labor unions is another point I will provide a refutation to. This source explains that the the Klan favored labor unions and violently resisted strikes in the 1920s when certain unions were exclusive to benefiting the white Protestant working-class. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 23:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Which is referring to the Bull Moose Party sense and era of "Progressivism". Using that as a rationale for cramming a no-context, no-nuance reference to Progressivism in the United States into the infobox, with no supporting material in the article, looks like an ill-judged addition at best. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  "no supporting material in the article" It appears you did not sufficiently read the article. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  On the contrary, it appears you did not sufficiently write it. (Which given the nature of that writing, overall no bad thing.) I think the "at best" assumption of any good faith here is sailing rather fast. That you made other poor-quality "hahaha leftist KKK gotcha" edits at the same time to the rest of the text, while failing to stand up that one, is entirely besides the point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Klan most certainly took some left-wing positions, namely gun control (First Klan) and compulsory public education (Second Klan). The attributed label of "right-wing" to describe them relies on vague, often fallacious presumptions. Books such as "The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics" by Rory McVeigh outright admit that they arbitrarily assign a vague definition to "right-wing" order to deem the Klan as allegedly such. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 01:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  How is gun control even a 'left wing' issue? Yes, it is advocated for by the centre and centre-left of american politics, but in itself it has no political home, is not part of any 'side'. Just because one party advocates for something in any given country, does not magically make any issue 'left wing' even if the party would be on the left wing. And given how distorted the Overton window is in the US, it is arguable if the country even has a 'left wing party' and not just a centrist one and a (far) right wing one. Typical insular amerian view. This all reeks of alt-right nonsense that has been so normalised in the US, and by extension very much so on Wikipedia. Just sad that you lot let people play those stupid games on here, and it got so much worse over the last couple of years. The Paradox of tolerance could be a nice short read for some people. 80.228.130.74 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

For the short term: User:Total random nerd is also in breach of the ArbCom-sanctions at Margaret Sanger. He/she is clearly aware of it and choses to ignore the warning. The Banner talk 00:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Aware to the point of finding it "boring" that they've been warned "a zillion times", indeed. If they're not reading these notices before blanking them on their talk page, they certainly should be... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• TRN's Reason article looks sufficiently detailed to suggest this content should probably be in the article. It might help if the article were structured around these different phases of the KKK, even in the introduction. That said, why is there no talk page discussion regarding these edits? The most recent, non vandalism edit, was 4 March. I would suggest finding additional sources (certainly the Reason article provides some). The Reason article looks like a good source but, unless we have additional sources, it would have to be treated as a single source and thus have very limited weight. Get the sources, propose changes on the talk page. Springee (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  My edits do not constitute vandalism. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I was talking about the article's talk page. Look at the 8 March edit and you will understand my comment. Springee (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• This tarring by association has spread to American Birth Control League, Birth control and Margaret Sanger. - MrOllie (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, just imagine if more articles actually included the full factual substance instead of using omission to whitewash bigotry... — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

TRN is doing the standard 21st-century reactionary thing, of conflating the late 19th-early 20th century progressive movement and the Democrats of that era, with the 21st-century Democrats and the contemporary use of the term "progressive" to describe views actually closer to the 1920s Socialist Party of America than anybody else of that era. The goal, as MrOllie points out, seems to be "guilt by association" as practiced by D'Souza and others who call liberals fascists, antifascists fascists, BLM activists racists, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, the irony of someone hurling "guilt by association" charges toward me to insinuate I merely follow in the footsteps of D'Souza... I do not wholeheartedly subscribe to the argumentative points of D'Souza, which I view as frequently naive. And please clarify what you mean by "antifascists." Is the reference towards Antifa, which imitate fascist tactics in their overt mob violence/intimidation? And do the mass burnings of buildings in major inner cities by BLM activists in the summer of 2020 not merely serve the causes of white supremacists in decimating the livelihoods of ethnic minority residents in those areas? — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a shame that this clown been blocked yet. --JBL (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Exposing bigotry makes me a "clown"? I certainly see where you're coming from... — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 01:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Antifa, which imitate fascist tactics in their overt mob violence/intimidation AND mass burnings of buildings in major inner cities by BLM activists in the summer of 2020? Yup, somebody's been chugging the alt-right fantasy Koolaid, all right. (And I live in the inner city of a major American city, TRN.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm now purportedly "alt-right" in spite of my consistent edits which demonstrate an effort to point out and expose bigotry that numerous articles whitewash via omission? And I purportedly chug the Kool-Aid? The English language lacks enough words for me to sufficiently deem this laughably ridiculous slander. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 01:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to distinguish your comments here from those of a troll. ––FormalDude talk 06:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Srsly. — JBL (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Total random nerd, let me put this in plain Texas talk: I read through your edits earlier, some were a little problematic, but much of it was interesting and I can see where there is merit to including it. The problem is the sources need a little work, and the other problem is you. You come in with a sledgehammer in hand, breaking shit, so it's no wonder some people are going to get upset. What you are talking about is pretty radical change to the page. I'm not an expert, but some of it seems worthwhile and would get consensus. But you have already added it, it was reverted. Via our gold standard for editing disputes, WP:BRD, now is the time you stop editing and use the talk page to discuss your changes, calmly and politely show your sources, and try to garner support over time. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't, but if you keep editing this boldly, you're going to have a bad day. TheBanner points to where you are edit warring. If you do THAT again, you're going to have a bad day. I don't want to block you, but I can justify it easily if you don't pull back a little and use the talk page. If you do that, then all is well. Just be patient, this stuff takes time. People in general abhor change so trying wowing them them charm instead of beating them with your opinion. Serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Dennis, I do want to block them, and have done, for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the 1-revert restriction at Margaret Sanger. As The Banner points out, TRN has ignored a warning about it (with a yawn, so I guess they have become pretty blasé about warnings that have never before been followed up with a sanction). Also, the 1RR restriction is shown in a great big in-your-face template that comes up when you attempt to edit the article. 24 hours is a short block; I'm not sure some of the stuff above doesn't merit more; but this is what I'll personally do at this time. No prejudice to further sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 09:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC).
  • I think it was well earned. We will see if it has an impact or not. The goal is still to get them up to speed and get them to use the talk page. Having a few good ideas doesn't make you exempt from following the same rules as everyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

So many POV edits across so many articles, with so much edit warring from an account that's just a few months old... Presumably AE, not ANI, is the next stop should any of it continue. But that does raise an interesting question: are a rash of edits connecting the name of current political parties/movements with historic ties to racism covered by AMPOL? There are so many, and they're so on the nose, that the connection is clearly the goal rather than just an interest in each historical subject individually. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Having done some editing involving the Klan, to broadly call the Klan "progressive" (which is a loaded term with a lot of historical depth) without much explanation is disingenuous to both the Klan and progressives. It is accurate that the 1910s-1920s era Klan had progressive supporters (among the Eugenicists and most progressive southerners at that point), but the progressives of the Progressive Era are quite distinct from the progressives who emerged in the decades that follow. Plenty of progressives of that era, such as Al Smith, were also no friends of the Klan. The "Business Progressives/Progressive Plutocrats" of North Carolina that emerged in the 1930s were both white supremacist and anti-Klan. By the 1950s progressive becomes a label suited to people like Frank Porter Graham and Terry Sanford, who were pushing for civil rights for black people. The Klan adheres to a racially conservative ideology, and always has. It seems perfectly fine to mention the KKKs relationship with the Progressive movement of the 1910s and 1920s, but TRN seems WP:NOTHERE, only desiring to replicate the "gotcha" politically partisan pages of Conservapedia. If they are as familiar with Reconstruction and the Klan as they claim to be, they should know better. Topic ban at the least. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Back editing in a somewhat lower-key manner, but in exactly the same subject area, and pushing exactly the same POV. For example, adding Category:Left-wing populism in the United States to Theodore G. Bilbo (a big ol' Dixiecrat Klansman), marking it as a minor edit. Though as it was with one of their signature "yelling about leftists" edit summaries, I guess not the sneakiest ever such sneak. But if they were at least able to accurately mark and describe their edits, and deign to use the talk page as they're so keen for others to do if their edits get reverted, that'd be a marginal improvement. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that their editing of biographies, while lower-key, is riddled with POV-pushing. I think more sustained administrative intervention is needed. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Edits replicated from Conservapedia

• Aside from the hyper-aggressive POV-pushing concerning the KKK (and, relatedly, abortion: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]), I wonder if someone who knows something about copyright could take a look at the long series of their edits with summary "Adding content I originally wrote elsewhere": according to their talkpage, "elsewhere" is "another wiki", and that to me raises the possibility that these additions might be under copyright by the other place they published. (Such edits include: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36].) --JBL (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll: Several of those edits contain material copied from Conservapedia that was written by a Conservapedia editor called User:Liberaltears. Doesn't appear to be a copyright violation though as Conservapedia allows reuse without attribution. ––FormalDude talk 20:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm guessing we still prefer attribution. I went and check out their license, which really isn't a license. It isn't public domain, although similar. It isn't copyleft but similar. In many countries, that isn't even a valid copyright license, although I don't think they care what other countries think. Still, attribution is always best with material from other sites like this. No reason not to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  If it's their own material, it doesn't matter what the original license is, as long as they've never entered into any agreement preventing them from relicensing it. The moment they click "publish changes", they've relicensed it under CC BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. Same as when one takes a photo and then uploads it to Commons; in most cases that's an act of relicensing a previously all-rights-reserved work. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think there is another agreement -- or a purported one -- with The Other Wiki. Plus there's the issue of verifying whether our user is indeed the originator. Conservapedia have a 'copyright policy' that uses the word 'license', that was written by an allegedly qualified and practicing lawyer, so on the face of it this is supposed to be legally operable. It seems fairly laughable though. It consists of a statement that a licence is granted until they chose to revoke it for opaque reasons and on entirely vague grounds ("self-defense", and reuse of (the magisterially oxymoronic) "entire parts"). And of course, of ample amounts of boasting about how superior this is to Wikipedia's system, somehow. I don't know how we'd go about attribution: clearly not by citing Andypedia, which is a reliable source only to the extent of being an anti-weathervane. I'm not sure it's either reasonable or helpful to ask that editor to acknowledge that identity and those edits. The ideal solution might be if they rewrite their (let's suppose) own contributions in such a way as not to infringe the copyright that they've irrevocably signed over to the Schlaflywiki, that they then explicitly revocably allow us to use, until potentially they don't. Given this editor seems to be a fairly implacable POV-pusher, thinks use of talk pages are for other people, regards the 3RR as more of a target than a limit, and requests being unblocked on the basis that they didn't read the very clear 1RR warning they sneeringly blanked, I'm not holding my breath on fulsome cooperation on that score. But I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, so this is well above my pay-grade. Maybe this should be referred to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, if that's at all adjacent to the right place? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  • No Tamzin, it doesn't work that way. They don't use CC license, they have their own. Just because they are a Wiki doesn't mean they use the same license we use. And yes, 109.255.211.6, I got a good snicker out of their license as well, which is why I'm sure it won't hold water in some countries. I have dealt with copyright and trademark issues as part of my job for 30 years now, although I'm not a lawyer nor an expert. There really isn't anything to enforce, although they aren't trying to enforce anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown: Does part of their license take away someone's right to relicense what they publish there? Because if not, it doesn't matter what the license says. If you publish your own writing in two places under different licenses, then, assuming you didn't agree not to do that, both licenses are valid and the more restrictive one doesn't limit the less restrictive one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not really relevant what they claim to do. I've published the same images and text under multiple licenses for years, for instance I have some images that are under CC 3.0. If a company wants to use them somewhere without giving me attribution (like on the cover of a phone book, which really happened), they they have to license it separately, as CC3 requires attribution. So pay me a few hundred bucks, and I will license it royalty free for that limited purpose, without attribution. Lot of material is dual or tri licensed. Anyway, we really don't care about their license, except whether it is compatible with ours. This is why I said you should give attribution anyway, even if their license doesn't require it. And I say this because their license, again, really isn't a license. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  That'd be my assessment too, Dennis, but my meta-assessment is that my assessment isn't worth very much, and we should ask someone who's qualified and willing to stick their neck out on that. Other countries is the least of their worries if it doesn't even hold up in NJ. Maybe it's entirely void; maybe some reasonable interpretation of it might be held to stand, even though it's unreasonably badly written. As for addressing this by "attribution", again I'm not sure how that'd work. We can't sensibly tag the articles, and I don't know if it's appropriate or constructive to tag the account. But to Tamzin's particular point: Iunno, maybe? Let's assume that the extra from Mrs America at some point in the future does "revoke" Wikipedia's 'license' to use their (they appear to claim) copyrighted material. (Actually it's so badly written it's unclear if they're claiming to own the copyright oder publishing rights in their submissions. Honestly, we should be questioning this person's licence to practice law, never mind his wikilicence.) Would we undertake to comply? Fight them in court? Ignore them and assume they'll flounder in vain? And granting that they're not doing this at present, do we anticipate such concerns in theory, or just burn that bridge when we come to it? This surely must have arisen before, I'd had thought. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah-hah! Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Sources#Other Wikis, by name, and assorted outgoing links. "The revocable license is a no-go." And apparently we're at the least politely pretending that it is indeed a valid licence. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Good work Mr/Mrs IP. FormalDude, this means YOU must go back and remove each and every one of those. While it isn't directly a copyright infringing (so I don't think I have to revdel), we don't accept their "license" as being Free. That pretty much settles it. Failure to remove, well, trust me, you just want to remove those over the next day. Even tho it isn't directly a copyright infringing issue, we have to treat it exactly as one, because it could possibly be one if they revoke the license. Since you added it, it's your job to remove it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Btw, had you given attribution in the summary, this would have been a lot more trivial to fix, because it would be easy to search. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Just want to confirm before I proceed: you want me to revert all of their contributions that contain copied material from Conservapedia? ––FormalDude talk 04:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there's some targeting confusion here. FormalDude is just the person sleuthing these, alongside @JayBeeEll's initial reporting; the perpetrator was Total random nerd. Who can't be fixing them just yet, as they're still blocked for their 1RR vio (perhaps with 'other offences taken into consideration, m'lud'). Ideally they will when they get back, though given that they were fairly transparent about what they were going here, and were almost certainly unaware of these IP issues, for that at least they're not to be reproached. In principle anyone could, but no one must fix these, as the Anglicans might put it. Which could be done by reverting, or by rewording sufficiently if the general sense is a useful addition. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to note Conservapedia is WP:USERGENERATED, thus, any information copied from it should be removed whether there is a copyright concern or not. MarnetteD|Talk 04:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Content being usergenerated doesn't mean it can't be used here. We can't use usergenerated content as sources, but we can copy it here provided we comply with copyright since content here is clearly also user generated. And indeed we copy content from other user generated sites all the time, with content from other languages Wikipedias. Besides copyright, the issue when copying is whether the content complies with our policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Because many other Wikipedias have similar policies to ours, their material is often useful provided the editor makes the effort to ensure where there are differences between our respective policies, the material is modified as needed e.g. sources are changes or the material is re-worded or remove. It is unlikely this is the case for conservapedia, as their policies are often in fundamental dispute with ours, but this isn't because it's user generated per se. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I think you've misunderstood User:Tamzin's argument although the IP seems to understand it. Tamzin's argument seems to be that Conservapedia can say whatever the hell they want about what licence their content is under but unless they explicitly either require copyright transfer or forbid contributors from relicencing their content elsewhere, any contributors are free to relicence their work elsewhere including on Wikipedia. Since we on Wikipedia require dual GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0 as part of our ToU, any contributor who submits their work has licenced it under both these licences unless they're legally prevented from doing do, no matter where else they may have submitted their work. Therefore if someone from conservapedia comes here and copies the material they wrote here, there is no legal copyright issue as the material has been appropriate licenced here under both the GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0 whatever Conservapedia says. (Since they don't say anything which would forbid a contributor from doing so.) IANAL etc, but I'm pretty sure Tamzin is entirely right on this point. The problem with this as the IP has said is we have no way of verifying that the contributor here is the same as the one on Conservapedia. So as a matter of policy, generally if someone submits material from their personal website, we require them to either put their licences on their website or prove their identity Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online or we reject the material. In this case if the contributor on Conservapedia is the same as here, IMO they could either make appropriate statements on their Conservapedia user page about the licences of their contributions, or they could confirm their Wikipedia identity on their Conservapedia user page. If Conservapedia doesn't allow them to do either of these then they're pretty much SoL since I can't see how can link the two without something on Conservapedia. Separate to that we have an additional problem that Conservapedia is also a wiki. The contributor has to take great care to ensure they only submit content which is entirely their own work. In other words, they should not submit content which has been edited by others. Note if they are editing an existing article, it may be complicated whether what they wrote was influenced by others. On the whole, considering it's unlikely conservapedia content is useful here, they just shouldn't submit it given the great complexities involved. Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo of User:Tamzin username. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the identity issue is a further complication for sure. That'd probably be workable around, if the editor were keen to do so, and some sufficiently tooled-up Wikipedia official were on hand to verify. Perhaps as you suggest, or for example by the so-trusted person contacting them by email via the account on each site. Plus the derived work concern, indeed. But even if those hoops were successfully jumped through, we'd still have Assistant Counsel's opinion that the revocable licence would prevent wholesale reuse here. Now, they might be being extra-cautious here, as I doubt they're entirely sure what legal effect the CP "licence" actually has. If any. They're saying "irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information" in one breath, and "Content is copyrighted" in the next. Is that purporting to be a copyright transfer? Does it amount to a "binding legal document" at all, given the lack of any actual plain-meaning use of language to say what effect it intends to have on the other hand, or any signs of competently lawyered jargon on the other? Ah hae ma doobts. Now whether that advice is simply applicable to direct copying, rather than to re-submission of individual (non-derivative!) edits we might need to get further clarification on. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

To update on this, I asked over at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Re-use of Conservapedia edits, seemingly by their original contributor and a couple of people suggested that possibly/likely the original contributor does still own the copyright. Without necessarily going to far as to say the notice is clear, or indeed anything other than wholly defective. So it's fairly unclear if there's any admin action required here. Or indeed how best to advise the WP contributor (assuming they're indeed the same person) to proceed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Poking around a little more, I found a page on RationalWiki (I know, this turning into a wiki nostalgia tour) breaking down CP's Copyricence. I've no idea if their contributors have any expertise on this either, but I'm mildly comforted that their take is similar to mind, especially as regards it being a muddled mess. But interestingly, it points to a quote from Schlaf Jr himself, which strongly suggests that the intent of his cack-handed wording (and presumably consequent effect, if any, were this ever to be be litigated) is that the contributors retain copyright, and are free to relicence to other wikis (etc). "As a dual user, I suggest submitting to Conservapedia first because our copyright is less restrictive than other Wikis." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've asked TRN about this on their talk page. ––FormalDude talk 22:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

To which they've responded with a revert (gasp, shock, film at 11) linking to the Conservapedia article on the same subject. Which has only been edited by one user, so I think we can do the maths on their claimed identity without straying too far into doxxing territory. (Literally only one editor in the entire article history -- maybe helps explain why CP may not be the best training for playing nicely with others.) But these concerns may be rendered largely moot by the following section... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Post-block continuation

• Total random nerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today's edits: Special:Diff/1078338619, Special:Diff/1078339056, Special:Diff/1078339111. Of course the source doesn't support labeling the subject a "fascist". This is classic POV pushing. And here's another "Adding content I originally wrote elsewhere": Special:Diff/1078352579. Needs indef. Levivich 16:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Support, there's no getting around this POV push. An indef is the best way forward. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. WP:NOTHERE. ––FormalDude talk 17:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• (ec)It's definitely continuing the same POV pattern as before: Democrats, RINOs and "Progressives" are Klansmen and fascists, ah-hahahaha, there will be so many liberal tears (as it were) at these edits. The theme of 'I have a tenuous and tendentious theory as to how to categorise people politically on the basis of quote-mining from a cherry-picked source, so I'll embed that in infoboxes and categories where it'll be as opaque and contextless as possible, rather than properly discussing it with any degree of nuance or due weight' continues too, as opposed to . I also note that the large addition to the Aime Forand is another replication of the article on Conservapedia on that subject, which was written entirely by a single editor, returning us to the issue of, does Conservapedia have a copyright notice, a licence, and in either case, is it valid and operable? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, Conservapedia's copyright notice is here. I can't comment on "valid and operable", nor on whether a license which is "revocable only in very rare instances" is compatible with Wikipedia's license. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you comment on their continuing to restore the content without proper attribution? [37] ––FormalDude talk 00:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Your signature is ridiculously long - your comment started and ended on the first line of my display, and the following five are occupied just by code from your signature. As for attribution I think they did provide it - our license stipulates that a URL is sufficient - but I think the better question is whether republishing something here that an editor admittedly wrote themselves on Conservapedia constitutes original research. Conservapedia is not exactly known for its neutrality nor its adherence to reliable sources. I would question whether an editor who insists on copying material from such a website is competent to participate here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Apparently "revocable only in very rare instances" has been deemed to be not compatible; see the discussion above at #Edits replicated from Conservapedia, so copying per se isn't possible (much less desirable). But had they verified they were the original contributor and hence copyright owner resubmitting them here -- and had we wished to keep them! -- that's different. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef clearly just here to push a POV, best stopped ASAP. -- JBL (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Oh no, block TRN because he exposes fascists for who they are!!11!11!" Yeah, 'nuff said. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 19:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I need an indefinite block because I expanded a stub into a sizeable article with content I originally wrote elsewhere? Insane. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 19:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  This rather neatly illustrates that you need an indefinite block because either you have a complete lack of insight into the extremely real issues with your conduct here. Or perhaps worse, are intent on rather disingenuously and artlessly reframing them to suit yourself. As was the case with much of your editing, one way or another. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support continuing block/or topic ban from American politics - TRN is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, they're here to stir shit up with subtle POV-pushing. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I heavily expanded a number of articles, including Stalwarts (politics) and Half-Breeds (politics). It would perhaps do you some good to pay attention before thinking about immaturely antagonizing me. — trn ^{(debate me) • (my accomplishments)} 00:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I was going to suggest that an indefinite block was premature, but your responses make a good case that an indef is indeed appropriate. Best of luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Check out their recent edits, quite a few reverts demonstrating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, including reverting me on Hunter Biden where the edit referred to the laptop and their edit summary instead references emails. It appears this editor wants to edit war so much that they're not even reading what they're reverting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. In the source for Special:Diff/1078338619, the author says that while (in their view) was sympathetic towards Mussolini's economic policies, they still specifically say in as many words that Hicklok otherwise rejected Fascism on ideological grounds. There is no good-faith way that that could be parsed as a source that would support describing Hicklok as a Fascist in the article voice; taken in the context of their responses above and elsewhere, it seems reasonable to infer that this is an intentional misuse of the source and that they have no intent of stopping. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked I am presently issuing the indefinite block. There is a clear consensus that the TRN is editing disruptively, and that the block should be an indefinite block. There is the confounding problem that TRN's responses to these problems does not show that they are likely to improve their behavior. --Jayron32 12:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Shirshore (Horn of Africa General Sanctions)

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

Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Somaliland/Somalia space, more recently they have been edit-warring across multiple pages (e.g. Sool:[38], [39], [40], [41], also on Sanaag: [42], [43], [44], plenty more of this edit warring behaviour can be found in their history.

This editor has a history of disruptive editing, they were blocked last year for the same behaviour (edit warring about Somaliland versus Somalia on many articles) [45], here is a link to the last report to illustrate the scale of their disruption Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive431#User:Shirshore reported by User:Dabaqabad (Result: Blocked). They do not seem to care all that much for edit warring warnings: [46] as they persisted to continue the same disruptive behaviour within minutes of the warning.

It is important to stress here that the Horn of Africa section is under discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa caused by the same behaviour pattern exhibited by this editor. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a WP:NOTHERE<nowiki> ban, failing that a topic ban from Horn-related articles would also work. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Editing wars are not a good thing, but neither is the other party (User:Jacob300, User:Kzl55). It is clear from the BBC and VOA articles that these areas are disputed areas, and I think this issue should be discussed in RfC, not AN.--Freetrashbox (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• This block request I see as a disingenuous attempt to stop my contributions to Wikipedia. I have been on Wikipedia for over 4 years and in that time I committed to the community's guidelines and have been a constructive member. If you briefly browse through my contribution history you will see that I have consistently adhered to guidelines by all always citing credible sources for every edit I make. Despite this effort on my part, a group of editors have persistently frustrated my contributions and have made it impossible to edit certain articles over a long period of time. This group includes Kzl55, Jacob300 and others (I personally suspect that some of these users are sock-puppets). I believe the group who edit as a team have an agenda to project Somaliland as an independent state and are not interested in neutrality at all. If you see the cause of the current dispute in the Sanaag talk page, you will see that I have tried to reason with the reporting editor to try and understand why they reverted the edits I made despite the plethora of credible sources I cited. However, it was impossible to reach consensus with them as they continuously reasserted a subjective standard that followed their point of view. I hope that this decision is not taken lightly and it is probably assessed to render a fair result. Shirshore (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin, I hope the above filibuster further illustrates why sanctions are necessary in this case. Other than personal attacks and attempting to frame the issue as a content dispute, there is little acknowledgement of the persistence of the pattern of behaviour that led to their block last year [47], nor any respect for the fact that the section is under discretionary sanctions. There is a long history of combative tendentious nationalist style of editing in this section [48] which is what led to the general sanctions being enacted in the first place. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Kzl55: I think it may be against WP:NPA to call a discussion partner as a nationalist.--Freetrashbox (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• comment Apologies if this has been construed as a personal attack. This is not my intention. However, I do not think the reporting editor does this in good faith. Initially @Jacob300: reverted the edits I made on Sool and Sanaag. I informed that editor to engage on the talk page and they did respond at first but after the second time of reverting they ceased the disruptive behaviour and the reporting editor (@Kzl55:) instead supplanted them in reverting the edits on the third time. I believe if the reporting editor was acting in good faith they would of continued to engage on the talk page and not themselves revert edits on the third time. This is very similar to the pattern that was followed last year when I was blocked along with @Dabaqabad: as brought up by the reporting editor. Thus, I do believe @Kzl55:, @Jacob300:, @Dabaqabad: and @Gebagebo: who also displays similar patterns of editing might be sock-puppets. I could be wrong of course but this is worth investigating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirshore (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Shirshore: I have no proof, but I think they are different people as far as their thinking and what they post.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Note I might not be involved in this case but as an editor who has dealt with Shirshore (and who filed the last report that was linked here) it would be relevant to mention that Shirshore has earlier today removed significant chunks of sourced material since he sees it as "derogatory" ([49], [50]). This is very similar to when he blanked the Isaaq Sultanate article almost a year ago as mentioned by the previous report ([51]).

Overall he's displaying the very same behaviour as covered on the last report. Doubt he's here to build an encyclopedia to be honest given his blatant disrespect for the discretionary sanctions placed on anything Horn of Africa related, not to mention his personal attacks. Gebagebo (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Without any comment as to the merits of any of this, I will just note that because Horn of Africa is now an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction, WP:AE is available for reports. Reports there normally are resolved in some way (sanction, warning, no violation). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Gebagebo: Thank you. I've added the points you've raised to a new report at WP:AE, please feel free to add anything I've missed there: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shirshore.

@Barkeep49: many thanks for highlighting that, I've filed a request there. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

There is a backlog at WP:AIV. 2.55.21.45 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

On it. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the more creative ways I've seen to request blocking your own IP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed... and tagging admins in edit summaries after refreshing your IP... EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Did I... look cool? El_C 20:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Things I never expected to see referenced on WP:AN: a Twitch VOD. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

From the wisdeom of Twitch chat: fire is flammable. El_C 10:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Inflammable means flammable?! What a language! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

G11 or G12

hi

• I made an article (dotin)
• Removed based on G11 and G12 criteria.
• I asked the deleting user to return the text of the article to my practice page to correct it
• I asked the user to specify which part of the article has a copyright issue or includes ads
• Replied It won't be restored and you will not be allowed to post this advertisement again.

what's the solution? Thanks--N (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Part of the reason it was deleted was that it was alleged to be a copy of this page. That page is in Persian, so it may be helpful if an admin who reads Persian could compare it to the deleted text. For me, looking at an AI translation of the source, it doesn't look similar enough to be a copyvio, but I also have no familiarity with the Persian language whatsoever and a healthy skepticism of machine translations. I don't know if Deb or Praxidicae (who tagged it as a copyvio) know Persian or not.

Any admin is going to be extremely hesitant to restore something that was deleted as a copyvio, especially if they lack familiarity with the language.

As for G11, if that were the only grounds for deletion you may be able to convince me or someone else to restore it as a draft or to your userspace if they thought it could be made more neutral. However, with the copyvio allegation hanging over it, it might be better to start over. Assuming, of course, that you do not have a conflict of interest. If you do draft a new article, I recommend going through articles for creation just so that another pair of eyes can verify that it is acceptable before it gets moved to mainspace. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn I need the resources used and the infobox to rewrite. If it is returned in my sandbox, I will inform another user to check before sending it in the original name space. Thankful N (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@نارنجستان I have copied the sources used and the infobox to your sandbox. I took the company logo out of the infobox as it is fair use and unable to be used in userspace. I hope that is sufficent. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 12:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn thanks a lot N (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that even if I had never heard of Wikipedia before I would keep a copy of anything substantial that I wrote on my device. If you did not do this then please do so in the future, and you will never have to bother anyone with such a request again. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phil BridgerSorry N (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

User is Stalking My Edits and Undoing My Good Faith Work

User:Primefac is stalking my edits on Christopher G. Hollins. After completing some research as to rules and regulations, I usurped a page on entitled "Chris Hollins" and moved the old page to "Chris J. Hollins," while also redirecting "Christopher G. Hollins" to the old "Chris Hollins" page. After some back and forth, User:Primefac seems to have unilaterally determined that my edits were contested and overroad my edits by adding a protection the page. Then, I moved forward by creating the page "Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins" and redirecting "Christopher G. Hollins" to that page. User:Primefac maliciously deleted the new page, citing vandalism??? When it was a good faith effort to move forward without permitting the ongoing confusion. I have spent countless hours on this page, including working google to clarify the difference between the two Chris Hollinses and User:Primefac is determined to steamroll my efforts. His own efforts are clearly hostile and done in bad faith (period). This is volunteer work, it should not involve User:Primefac's ego. I wish for some intervention to resolve this conflict. ChristaJwl (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC).

Turns out Primefac also disabled me from working on the page Christopher G. Hollins for edit warring, when he is the one warring with me without explanation and without the three-revert rule having been invoked. He did so only to prevent me from recreating the Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins page and redirecting Christopher G. Hollins to the new page. I am allowed to retitled MY work. And I should not be prevented from working on an article I originated in good faith. Therefore, in addition to seeking some intervention, I am requesting that the block be removed. ChristaJwl (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You're quite clearly engaged in an edit war, which is never appropriate, even if your edits are correct. Your partial block is only for one week, and it seems that it is necessary to prevent you from continuing to edit war. If you are willing to agree to stop edit warring and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page, it is possible Primefac or another administator would be willing to remove or reduce your partial block.

You've also called Primefac's edits bad faith, but didn't provide any evidence. They're just following Wikipedia standards, and your accusations against them seem unfounded. ––FormalDude talk 00:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl: while we thank you for your contributions, per WP:OWN you do not own any pages here even if you are the sole contributor. We will generally allow you to request deletion of content for which you are the sole contributor (WP:G7) and sometimes like with reference styles and English varieties, we will follow the first contributor's preference if there's no reason to choose any other option. However in all cases our policies and guidelines are more important than any contributor's preferences. So if your preferences are not inline with our policies and guidelines like WP:Common name and WP:NCDAB, then we will defer to our policies and guidelines rather than your preference. Note I am not commenting on any the specific title dispute, simple saying that it's not correct that you get to rename an article without considering the disagreement of other editors just because it's your work. Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also even where your preference as author of a page makes a difference, it definitely does not allow you to usurp or take control over some other title. The other title is clearly not your work so trying to take control over it solely because you created some other article is not acceptable in any way and frankly doesn't even make sense. Nil Einne (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like ChristaJwl moved an existing Chris Hollis article to Chris J. Hollins. Then after another editor turned Chris Hollins into a dab page, ChristaJwl copied and pasted the contents of Christopher G. Hollins into Chris Hollins. Primefac stepped in and protected the page to reverse the copy/paste move, which I see nothing wrong with. ChristaJwl also copied and pasted Christopher G. Hollins to Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins, which needs to be speedied. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The last issue is another important point. WP:CUTANDPASTE is not generally an acceptable way to move pages any more per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The only case where it might be okay is if you're really the only contributor but in this case it's clear that User:David Tornheim and probably others have made significant contributions to the page so cut and pasting definitely is not acceptable. User:ChristaJwl please don't do that again or you may be blocked from the entirety of Wikipedia. It's not acceptable to have such disdain for the WP:copyright of your fellow contributors. They've agreed to freely licence their work but one of the conditions is that they must receive attribution (well with some differences between CC BY-SA and GFDL). There is no way anyone can know from the history of Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins [52] that there are other editors who wrote part of that work. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

To be clear this means even if your moves were otherwise completely proper and frankly now that I've looked into it in more detail I don't think any of them are, what you did would still be wrong since you didn't move them in the correct way. Note if you cannot make a move because an existing page is in the way, the correct process is to make a technical move request for an admin or page mover to do it for you. It's not to cut and paste the content around. I see when the article was originally created the content was partly copied from the draft. I'm not sure it why it was done this way but it was acceptable there because proper attribution was left both in the article history and in the article talk page (albeit non standard). Perhaps this confused you, but when Primefac told you what you were doing was wrong, you should have listened rather than making false accusations of bad faith. As Primefac also said regardless of whether you're right about the primary topic, once your undiscussed move was disputed, you needed to make a full WP:Requested move rather than edit warring to keep your version in place. You do not get to decide by yourself what's the primary topic when there is dispute. As I said above, this would apply even if you were the sole author of both the article and the title you're trying to usurp neither of which is the case anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The cut-and-paste move problem goes even deeper than that, as there is Draft:Christopher Hollins, which has edits by ChristaJwl and is about the same subject. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't look like ChristaJwl is responsible for that one though. I sort of indicated this above, technically it might be okay provided the draft isn't deleted since attribution was left in the article history, although not sure it was the best solution as I don't see a reason for the separate histories. By comparison, at least with the now deleted () article, I saw no indication the content came from anywhere else so AFAIK, it was not compliant with either licence so was definitely highly questionable IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I realize this is very much a minor detail in the scheme of this... incident, but the move from of the UK broadcaster from "Chris Hollins" to Chris J. Hollins was clearly incorrect. It's very much not his common name -- we've managed the remarkable feat of creating not just the top reference in google searches for that term but the only reference to this individual as such. (After all, people don't generally go by abbreviations of their first names with an initial -- real stylistic mishmash.) Could someone reverse this, or if the double-dab at Chris/Christopher is deemed necessary, to Chris Hollins (broadcaster), please? Or if this is remotely contestable, I'll of course take this to RM. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDudeYour response is inherently bias. First of all, there was a history merge request that was added to the initial change which I kept adding and which kept being deleted. Secondly, the rules do permit me to usurp a page which I diligently researched. Finally this is not my edit war. This edit war was begun by Primefacwho you chose not to reprimand or call to issue in anyway even though I’m the person who issued the complaint. Primefac also had a way of communicating in this forum which is unpleasant at best, and certainly rude as well as taking a tone that is intentionally superior. Regardless of whether he is, in this volunteer setting it is unnecessary - and leads me and probably others to understand him to be acting in bad faith. Note:

“It is permitted to usurp a page title for a new article, and it generally does not require administrative assistance, though good judgment should be used in determining if these are best positions for both the old and the new page.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Usurping_a_page_title

As a practicing litigator (and a fairly significant one), I more than understand how to read and follow some rules. What is against the rules is for you all to make your own rules in contravention of what the rules actually are.

If someone had a problem with my initial changes, they should have started a conversation about it. Rather they immediately decided to over rule my work without checking the rules themselves. And where edits were made with any respect or honor whatsoever, I did engage in conversation. That is not at all what Primefac did or event attempted to do.

It seems like although you say you appreciate my contributions, that’s not actually the case. I’m not getting paid to do this and I have no real stake in the fight other than to ensure the correctness and accuracy of the page, given the individuals pending candidacy and a desire to complete the work so I can move on to a different project that is currently underway. Unfortunately, the serious oversight and intensity of the editing war created by another, I can’t help but to believe is fueled by something derogatory or worse since moving the page was otherwise and entirely lawful act.

That all being said, I would like to elevate my complaint - and to the extent that is not done by virtue of this message - I will do it myself in another forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, why is there a dispute about retitling a page at all? That’s actually and honestly absurd given the ease by which a history merge request can be effectuated and was so requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think a page is improperly "named", and there is another page that has that name, the proper procedure is to open a requested move and explain why you think the page name(s) need to be changed. It is not correct to either copy and paste content into another page, or to create several redirects to new names. I don't think you are reading that section on "usurping pages" correctly, as this is for creating NEW articles. Natg 19 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because a problem can be fixed doesn't mean it's acceptable for you to create the problem in the first place requiring some other volunteer to fix it. Notably history merges are something only admins can do, and even for simple ones not all admins are comfortable doing them. Also, a problem can only be fixed it someone notices it. By making a cut and paste move and leaving no notice that you've done so, you've create a copyright violation until someone notices and fixes it. Since your a lawyer, you should be aware that a copyright violation is not acceptable. It doesn't matter when it can later be fixed, you've already violated someone's copyright and technically they could sue for the time when we were violating their copyright. As for the rest, I don't know how to make this any clearer but your understanding of the rules here is more or less completely wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I maybe should emphasise there are two issues which you seem to be conflating both of which are very important. One which I emphasised a lot is that the way you tried to move the page in two or more instances is wrong. You don't get to move pages by cutting and pasting the content around no matter that it can be fixed, our policies and guidelines make this clear so I suggest you re-read them if you think they allow it. The other issue is that even if you had performed the move correctly, it's clear that people disagree with your move because they are unconvinced about with your primary topic argument. To be clear, this means they don't just disagree with your move because it wasn't performed correctly but they disagree with the reasoning behind your move. When you make a bold move and it's disputed, as with any bold edit, it's perfectly fine for another editor to revert your edit. In fact especially in the case of page moves, it's completely the norm to return everything to the WP:status quo ante bellum which means all articles are returned to their original titles. If there's no status quo because it's a new page, then it will need to be moved to some interim title. What you then need to do is discuss your proposed change and come to consensus. In the case of page moves, the process is to start a full WP:RM. Technically you could move the page at an interim title around in the mean time to some other undisputed title, but it would generally be better to just focus on the RM. While all WP:Edit wars are disruptive, move wars are especially the case as noted in the earlier link. So you should never get involved in a move war and in so much as one may be said to already exist, they should always end with the reversion of an undiscussed move. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl: This is the highest forum to wage a complaint against user conduct. And where did you make a merge request or requested move? I don't see any such edit in your contributions. ––FormalDude talk 03:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've moved "Chris J. Hollins" to Chris Hollins (broadcaster) in response to the quite reasonable request above. ChristaJwl, be very careful about commenting on the "legal" aspects of this matter. Deb (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm much obliged. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm reading too much into some of these choices of wording -- "litigator", "lawful act", "elevate my complaint" to "another forum" -- but you should perhaps also be aware of WP:LEGAL. I would also strongly urge you to redact your numerous and frankly baseless personal attacks on Primefac. Starting perhaps with the entirely inappropriate section title. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude every reversion included the merge history requests that I very quickly thanked another editor for adding after he reviewed my revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 04:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Christopher G. Hollins going to be moved to Chris Hollins (Attorney and Politician)? ChristaJwl (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I would tentatively suggest a move to Chris Hollins (politician) given our naming conventions, and on the basis of a quick google search. And ignoring the much more numerous for me references to the UK sport chap, it must be said. If there's some objection or contention, you could make a request on those (or some such) lines at WP:RM. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Responding to ping by Nil Einne. Thanks for the ping. I haven't read all of this. In responding to the initial complaint by ChristaJwl, I would say, thank you for your efforts, and I hope the experience with this complaint does not make you want to leave Wikipedia in anger. You wouldn't be the first! I saw that you said you are a litigator and were following the rules. I'm sure you were trying to. Unlike law (I have a paralegal degree), for every rule here, there seems to be other rules that trump it. The hard part is that you haven't edited long enough to know what rules are the important ones.

For example, when you file a complaint here, you are supposed to provide WP:diffs, but you didn't. It makes it really hard for editors responding here to have any idea what you are talking about. We are not going to go on a wild goose chase looking through your edits, the page you refer to, or the other editor you are accusing trying to figure out what was happening. The burden is on your to provide that evidence.

In this case Nil Einne is correct that if you are going to do a page move or merge, you open up request and solicit input form other editors before doing the move or merge, unless it is a trivial move involving, for example, pages only you edited or pages with practically no content, etc. In this case, it seems you moved a page that had a long history without asking first. Not a good idea. As an editor with few edits, it's an understandable newbie mistake.

As for the tone of people responding you to you, I'm sorry if you experienced something unpleasant. Countless new editors experience it and leave. It's been a long-term problem on Wikipedia. I hope you stick it out. Because you didn't provide any WP:diffs for what you considered an inappropriate tone, it's hard to know what you are talking about. Lastly, I hope you take a look at the top of my user page under the "Advice to New Editors." I think some of it will be helpful. Feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, or ping me on a note on your talk page. Good luck! --David Tornheim (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Delightful thing to wake up to, not really bothered by what has been said (or by the section header).

As mentioned, Chris Hollins was moved to Chris Hollins (broadcaster) by the OP, and the content of Christopher G. Hollins was then copied there (diff). As the page had already been converted into a dab, that was reverted a few times but there was also a a histmerge request made. This is where I found the page, and upon recognising the older/dab history, I rolled back the base page to its dab form. After that it was mostly a series of reverts by the editors involved, including Mattythewhite (who I have notified of this ping as well). I left ChristaJwl a note followed by a warning, which I felt was appropriate given the other messages that had been left in edit summaries. After I protected the dab to prevent further disruption, Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins was created (a straight copy-paste of the CGH article), plus there were another couple of warnings on their talk page, and I determined that a partial block was the only way to actually stop the disruption. And here we are. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Primefac Your actions seem to me to be above reproach. Deb (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Since it looks like the histories etc have been fixed and it seems to matter a big deal to the OP, I've boldly moved Christopher G. Hollins to Chris Hollins (politician) as suggested by the IP above. As I remarked when moving the page [53], all sources I looked at seem to use Chris Hollins & the 2 Hollins are from different countries active in different fields so there does not seem to be any natural disambiguation per WP:NCPDAB and the US Hollins notability seems to come from their involvement in politics, so it seems to me to be the best disambiguation if it's needed. I felt I wasn't furthering the move war since that seems to be mostly about the primary topic with some unfortunate very poorly implemented attempts at parenthetical disambiguation that followed. My move isn't intended as commentary on the primary topic, that can be resolved via an RM if needed, instead my hope is that this will reduce the OP's apparent concerns about the old title and allow them to focus on whether they want an RM to establish whether either Hollins is the primary topic. I'd note that the same outcome could likely have been achieved without all this drama if the OP had simply asked on the talk page, and then sought feedback elsewhere if there was no response. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

My hot take is that of Hollinses, the UK one is likely somewhat the more notable, especially over time. But I'm also aware that I might be being biased by which one I'd actually heard of, and by google's fiendish algorithms second-guessing me too. I'm far from certain that he'd pass the standard of being much more likely to be the one sought, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The TX chap is conversely slightly the more recently newsworthy, and might be about to become more notable, or drastically less so, depending on his political fortunes. Nor are these two necessarily the be-all and end-all of all possible Chrises Hollins that people could be looking for -- I happened across two others while checking. So I'd favour not troubling RM at present, and find the status quo largely satisfactory. Glossing over the bumps in how we got there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@David Tornheim Thank you for the feedback, encouragement and advice. I'll leave this here and take you up on your offer to review the information on your user page. Best and, in good faith, thanks to @Nil Einne for the move. --ChristaJwl (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Block request concerning Varamin.metro

Hi, the user User:Varamin.metro has made vandal Edits.Karim185.3 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by LuK3. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Urgent revision for public information/health' sakes.

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

---

I refer to page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aconitum and any other wiki pages that may mention monkshood and wolfsbane.

Section: Color range A medium to dark semi-saturated blue-purple is the typical flower color for Aconitum species. Aconitum species tend to be variable enough in form and color in the wild to cause debate and confusion among experts when it comes to species classification boundaries. The overall color range of the genus is rather limited, although the palette has been extended a small amount with hybridization. In the wild, some Aconitum blue-purple shades can be very dark. In cultivation the shades do not reach this level of depth.

Aside from blue-purple—white, very pale greenish-white, creamy white, and pale greenish-yellow are also somewhat common in nature. Wine red (or red-purple) occurs in a hybrid of the climber Aconitum hemsleyanum. There is a pale semi-saturated pink produced by cultivation as well as bicolor hybrids (e.g. white centers with blue-purple edges). Purplish shades range from very dark blue-purple to a very pale lavender that is quite greyish. The latter occurs in the "Stainless Steel" hybrid.

This is, from observation, misinformation that appears all over the internet. I grow the real Monkshood, and am also familiar with Wolfsbane, which is not purple but white through yellow with different flowerheads, which you can verify for yourself. These plants are fully toxic and it is crucial to be clear that they are different.

Please research Monkshood under Aconitum napellus and Wolfsbane under Aconitum vulparia. These are two entirely disparate plants that do not cross-pollinate.

I do not think I should just edit, I would rather an experienced editor would verify what I've said and make relevant corrections in view of the risk to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.89.171 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to seek help with editing articles. I suggest you post this to Talk:Aconitum. However just to let you know that unless you have WP:reliable sources to verify any of this, we cannot add it to any articles as we cannot rely on any editor's WP:original research. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It's OK, visitor: on the face of it this does potentially look like a public health issue. Thank you for bringing it up, and I undertake to look into it and make any needful corrections.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes: I've verified this and added the requisite information to the article. This can be closed I think.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Move closed

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

---

A move discussion at Talk:LGBT adoption reached a consensus to change the name. Can an admin please make the change. (sorry if this the wrong venue) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: For future reference, the correct place is WP:RMTR. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Admin Reorientation

Are there any reasonably active admins who would be interested in conducting a reorientation for old admins such as myself who'd like to pick up the mop again? Many of the technical and/or cultural changes of the past years may be dissuading some old-timers from making a gainful return to the wiki they loved so well. Babajobu (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• I hope you can get back up to speed, but the mood towards long inactive administrators returning with their mops is not so friendly right now. You've made less than 500 edits in the last 15 years, so expect some push back. But welcome back and good luck. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• You can start here: WP:ADMINGUIDE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for showing interest in coming back! Which areas are you interested in? Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is good reading if you're interested in that. I'd recommend reading all the way through WP:CSD regardless, as several criterion have been revoked by the community over the last two years. A big debate is SNG vs GNG for notability on some topics (mainly sports figures right now); that can get kinda nasty at times so I'd encourage you to hold off on any AfD closing in that area until you've worked up a bit more active. If you're interested in main page stuff, WP:DYK always needs more admin help and would be willing to give you a refresher/crash course. What specific areas are you interested in working in? Hog Farm _Talk 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I could be of help in requests for protection. Many changes there, not the least the introduction of pending-changes protection. Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy to cover AfDs for those that have that as a focus area - while Hog is absolutely right regarding the current furor area, I'm happy to cover the field more broadly, whether for Babajobu or others.

  In fact, the idea in general is very interesting - perhaps we should have a page with volunteers broken into admin-action categories for those interested in getting reacquainted. More broadly, just getting out and doing the core mission of some content edits is good for picking up changed norms in that area. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  In 2019 I implemented pending pages protection for the article on Eric Reguly. If you have any feedback, positive or negative, on the manner in which I did so, my attention is yours. Babajobu (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Articles on the Middle East, the California Correctional System, and farm equipment would all make fine fare. Happy to hold off on closing any AfDs. Babajobu (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• You have made a number of uses of the admin tools, as recently as 2019. You are not as inactive as you think, or as others above think. ☺ You already know about pending changes, for example, because you set it on Eric Reguly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) twice. Some of the cultural changes are good things. We are nowhere near as willing to keep articles in the bands, businesses, and biographies parts of Wikipedia as we were in 2004/2005. But again, you know this. You deleted Deori Kalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) last year. Three simple principles will keep you away from lots of minefields: Don't use the deletion, protection, or blocking tools to win arguments in your favour. Be prepared to talk to people. Don't rush to closure. And since you were around in the early 2000s, you can tell Hog Farm what the schools notability debate was like. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for getting back to active mopping; we need all the help we can get! My suggestion is to pick an area to concentrate on rather than trying to do a little of everything. That way, you'll get up to speed on that specific area. In my own experience, I find I'm much more likely to do something stupid when I wander into an area I don't usually work in, thinking I'll just help out a bit. Often, it's more like a bull in a china shop.
  The big take-away from the recent crop of arbcom cases is that everybody understands that admins are human and make mistakes, but as long as you're quick to admit you goofed and revert your action, nobody's going to get too bent out of shape. It's when admins dig in their heels and refuse to talk about an issue that things go bad. If there's anything specific that you're unsure about, feel free to drop a question on my talk page, or if you prefer, email me. And, if I might do a bit of recruiting for the area I'm working in these days, WP:SPI can always use more patrolling admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • And, of course, always remember to sign your posts Nosebagbear (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • And date them, too... --Blablubbs (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• If the currently suspended recent admin conduct cases had proceeded, I would very much expect them to have centered around the admin in questions understanding of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT. Those are really important points to keep in mind. I'd add that coming here and asking this shows more clue than some other recently returned admins, so you're off to a good start. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you link me to those abortive cases? Curious where said admins got mixed up on WP:INVOLVED. Thanks. Babajobu (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Babajobu I think they are referring to Jonathunder and Timwi. The Signpost has a decent summary if you don't want to read through all the drama in the actual case requests. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  And the third one is Geschichte. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Heh I remember Jonathunder. He and I disagreed rather fervently in 2005 over whether Wikipedia should follow Chicago Style or AP Style in the spelling out of numbers in non-STEM articles. He seemed committed to the wiki's welfare, I'll give him. Babajobu (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wow,I really did show back up at a heck of a time to be a legacy admin talking about re-engaging with admin functions. It does seem like WP:ADMINACCT is taken more seriously than it once was and that some old-time admins have been bafflingly frivolous and flagrant in their breaches of WP:INVOLVED Babajobu (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for returning! Most admins don't bite and will probably be happy to answer any questions – it might be a good idea to watch areas of interest for a while, figure out which sysops are prolific in those areas, and reach out on their talk pages whenever questions arise. I'll also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators has some pointers that may be useful. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone for the input. Reorientation syllabus has been provided! Babajobu (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• A couple of more things I think that need to be brought up is that the mop has a lot more strands than it used to... 15 years ago, there was just block-delete-protect, but each of these has gotten significantly more complex. There are many more levels of protection beyond just full- and semi-protection, and they each have their standards for when to use them (see WP:PROT for all of the details). There are now revision deletions, which when I first starting adminning, were not possible, that are sort of a "suppression light" that allows admins to remove individual edits, much like oversight. We now also have the ability to block users from specific pages rather than just site blocks, which is probably the most significantly useful addition to the mop toolset in all my time as an admin. There is also a lot more arbitration enforcement procedures than their used to be... When working on adminning in Arb-Com sanctioned topic areas, use of admin tools needs to be logged (something I occasionally forget), and most of these areas also place articles under "editing restrictions", such as enforced 1RR and the like. --Jayron32 14:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I find the AE process very confusing. So much so that I just stay away from it, for fear that I'll accidentally do something terribly wrong. For somebody looking to pick up the mop again after a hiatus, that's not where I would recommend starting.

  Another new thing is that there's now a wide range of permissions which can be granted (and revoked in some cases) by any admin. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Along those lines, you no longer have the autopatrolled permission; it got unbundled from admin rights by RFC a little while ago. You might want to visit Special:UserRights/Babajobu and re-grant that to yourself, which odd as it may sound, is perfectly acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  The two things that make AE particularly difficult to work with is 1) The logging requirements (all sanctions in the area (protections, rev-dels, blocks, etc.) need to be logged and 2) AE sanctions have a built-in first mover advantage. Unlike other admin actions, which any other admin can undo, AE sanctions should not ever be undone unless the blocking admin agrees OR ArbCom themselves over-rides it. I understand why this exists (in the past, disruptive or harassing editors could build a cadre of admin friends who would rescue them and protect them from meaningful sanctions), but it does make it a bit of a minefield to work in. --Jayron32 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Along those lines, you shouldn't unblock somebody without first consulting with the admin who blocked them. Violating that is a relatively minor transgression, except in the case where the block log comment includes some variation on "checkuser-block". Unblocking a CU block is one of those bright line things that will almost certainly get you dragged to arbcom for a first offence. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  In the distant past I don't recall many wheelwars, I think most admins would not have considered unblocking someone without conferring with blocking admin. Non-admin editors thought there was inappropriate level of solidarity among admins and we were often referred to as "The Cabal." Sounds like there'd been change there. And honestly, AE and AfD now sound terrifying. Babajobu (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayron32 one of us is having a small misunderstanding - either me for what you'er saying or your for what you're required to log. You only need to log if you're using Arbitration Enforcement authority. So, to use one example, if you're doing a regular page protection of the kind and type you'd do anywhere, there is no need to log it. If, however, you're protecting earlier or at a higher level of protection that you would have were it not that topic then it is an AE action, should be noted as such in the log doing it, and then should be logged at WP:AELOG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  • While that is true in theory, Jayron32, WP:AE has migrated to be much more of a consensus board. Rarely does any admin just jump on a close/sanction. In fact, they often drag out until they are stale. This is one reason I've become more active at WP:AE, which isn't particularly enjoyable, but I'm one of those admin that isn't likely to wait more than a week to close cases. Most of the time, there is very clear consensus among admin (2 or 3 at most). If there isn't, I typically won't close at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Revision deletions seems like it would be very valuable in biographies of living persons. Blocking otherwise good editors from individual problem articles rather than sitewide...yeah, very good. I don't even remember how to log use of admin tools, will find out. Better that I probably not be autopatrolled for the time being, someone may catch something worth catching. Babajobu (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, and Babajobu, I expect to be fairly active for the next couple of months. I'm not sure I'm a good active teacher, but if you want some basic mentoring via email, I'm game. I think individual mentoring would be a good idea, rather than a system in place onwiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest you create yourself a test account (mine is User:RoySmith-testing). You can use that to experiment on. Block it, unblock it, grant or revoke privileges, etc, without worry of breaking anything important. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Babazilla would be a semi-traditional name. Though Bababish has quite the Sopranos ring to it too... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done thank you. Babajobu (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Spam whitelist is backlogged

I will appreciate if some admins volunteer to handle the backlog at the spam whitelist. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Another Nigerian hashtag problem

I came across Wikipedia:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights 2022 in Nigeria today because one of their members was violating WP:OVERLINK on a number of pages. This is far from the first time this has happened, with this ANI thread being the latest discussion on the noticeboards about the matter. I have handed out a number of warnings, and a couple of participants have been blocked for failing to respond to multiple reverts and talk page requests to stop, and I have also left this blunt message on the Meetup's talk page; they keep telling folks to just "add wikilinks!" without actually telling them how to do so.

Current hashtags: #W4HRNG, #W4HROWR, #W4HRLAG.

This is one part discussion on how we can sort this out amicably, and one part heads-up that over the next 24 hours (and then until April) we're likely to be hit with a ton of these hashtag edits. Tracking can be done with https://hashtags.wmcloud.org as well as edit filter 1017, assuming it gets updated by whomever said on IRC that they'd update it. Thanks for the vigilance. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear the organizers have followed up or followed through on my previous complaints and I don't think a filter is sufficient given the massive disruption at this point. CUPIDICAE💕 18:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this does look disruptive. I have never seen a competition with prizes have a beneficial effect here, but that just may be because I only see those ones that cause a problem. Can anyone show any useful such competitions? If not, then I would suggest that we ban competitions with prizes from the English (because that's the only one we have control over) Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Core Contest is a fine one. DanCherek (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is a chronic problem with edit-a-thons. The idea is supposed to be to get new editors but what tends to happen instead is a bunch of people making clueless edits for the duration of the event, admins having to block the most persistent ones, and then the event ends and the new users never come back. It's essentially self-defeating for everyone involved. The addition of hashtags is a new thing I don't think I've seen before. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  The addition of hashtags is a new thing... at least it makes it easy to track their edits. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would add that trying to ban such events is probably a bad idea as it would just encourage them to be organized off-wiki and we'd have even less of a chance to get through to the organizers. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  A previous hashtag asked users to add images to articles that didn't have them, which of course prompted people to add non-free images to articles, get reverted, get annoyed, and in some cases get blocked. I think a later one went less disruptively when it was made clear to users that the images should only be sourced from Commons. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, both years of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (identified by #WPWP) have been disruptive. The issue with was never non-free images (at least on the AN/ANI threads I was watching). The issue was Commons images being inserted by inexperienced editors at extremely high rates of speed resulting in numerous errors (compounded by their limited engagement with experienced editors). Many of the images didn't actually belong in the articles they were being jammed into, the captions were at best vestigial or at worst downright misleading, and the formatting was often wonky. Individual editors got blocked, and edits with the hashtag were throttled in 2021, but many contest editors continued to try to jam the edits through despite the throttle, so the whole thing continued to be quite disruptive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Filter 1073 generalised to cover this contest. No actions beyond tagging and logging, but of course this can be changed if needed and consensus is found. firefly ( t · c ) 20:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kluaynamthai

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

---

Personal attack. Can an admin please address it and do a revdel on please. scope_creep^Talk 19:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Took care of the edits. Will address with the IP now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Ripples at White phosphorus munitions

Moved to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ripples at White phosphorus munitions (diff)

Primefac (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I get some help on the article cripple punk?

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

---

I don't have rollback rights, and it's been a while since I've asked for page protection, but I'm having trouble with the consistent addition of uncited and unsupported material on the article cripple punk.

No source mentions the exclusion of mental disabilities, but one or two editors are very insistent that it be added in; the article could likely do with protecting and rolling back to the last revision that supported this. Thank you!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 00:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I dropped a friendly needs better sourcing note on BeeTheFae's talk page. Beyond that, this looks like a good old fashioned content dispute that probably should be sorted out on the talk starting with an examination of what the sources are saying. I'm not seeing a need for page protection right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Ed Krassenstein redirect creation request

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

---

Ed Krassenstein was deleted numerous times in 2018 and can no longer be created, except by an administrator. I created Brian and Ed Krassenstein about Ed and his twin brother, who jointly have had substantial verifiable coverage and multiple reasons to qualify them as notable. Brian Krassenstein redirects to the two-person article. Can an admin please create a redirect from Ed to Brian and Ed? Thanks! White 720 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Erledigt. El_C 09:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! White 720 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Revdel for some very boring edit summaries.

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

---

Boring revdel needed for boring edit summaries by boring IP hopper for the IP Special:Contributions/186.96.50.39. Summaries by other IPs have already been removed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I revision deleted the edit summaries in question. Just a friendly reminder to not post revision deletion requests at AN/ANI/etc. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion instead. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Can I safely block this IPv6 range?

There's a large amount of vandalism coming from the /32, almost certainly a school I'd guess.[54] And I never can remember, how should I have shown this other than as a link? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You can use this template: 2409:4053:d93:9bec::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). This is a rather well known type of huge dynamic range known as 'Indian' or just 'Jio'. Users will typically have access to several of them. If you've ever heard anyone say 'Indian ranges can be very difficult', they're referring to this type of thing. That's it for my analysis. I'll leave you to judge the collateral. There will be lots. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The first thing to mention is that if you look at any sufficiently large IP range, you'll find a lot of disruption. Second, mobile IP ranges can be a huge pain. Some mobile network operators have more customers than the population of the United States or European Union; see List of mobile network operators. Some of these companies dump their customers in huge IP ranges. Partial blocks are one solution. I've found it frustrating to deal with partial blocks. I sometimes use confusing features of MediaWiki to mitigate collateral damage, but this can cause massive collateral damage when done incorrectly. It's easier to just do a site-wide, anon-only block that allows account creation. People can still edit freely, but they have to make an account. This does nothing to stop sock puppetry, but it can seriously cut down on impulsive vandalism. You can also do an overlapping mix of hard blocks, partial blocks, and anon-only blocks with account creation enabled. For example, I might do a soft block on the /32 to disable anonymous edits but allow account creation, then do overlapping hard partial blocks on certain topics that are subject to sock puppetry. It's a nightmare to clean up these complex, overlapping blocks when other admins mess them up by changing the block settings, though. You have to know CIDR and remember what each block was designed to do. It can seem deceptively straightforward, but I've confused myself a couple times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both. I’ve decided to walk away from this one. And I’m running out of time, bowel cancer op Wednesday, so I won’t be around for a few days after that. But a soft block does sound as though it might mitigate the problems there. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Your standard "RFPP is backlogged" notice

I'm being pulled away from WP for a little while and can't handle it myself, but if anyone wants to take down a moderate backlog of ~15+ requests, it's a quick job for a few bored admins. --Jayron32 14:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Looks to be mostly cleared. Thanks to everyone that helped out. --Jayron32 16:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Dear administrators, I am a sockpuppet of User:Skh sourav halder. Faofln (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)