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	32	0	32
TfD	0	1	6	0	7
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	77	0	77
AfD	0	0	4	0	4

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 122 sockpuppet investigations
• 8 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 10 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 61 requests for RD1 redaction
• 44 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 30 requested closures
• 118 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 19 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Bericht

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (26 out of 8321 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Typ Summary Admin User talk:Magnolia677 2024-08-31 22:32 2024-09-10 22:32 edit,move Acroterion Draft:Terminator (fanfic) 2024-08-31 21:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Just Step Sideways Sergey Lavrov 2024-08-31 20:50 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Oleksii Mes 2024-08-31 20:46 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Pepe Julian Onziema 2024-08-31 03:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case Bryant & Stratton College 2024-08-31 01:06 2025-08-31 01:06 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts, long-term issue, possible gaming going on Just Step Sideways Dhahar 2024-08-30 22:26 2026-08-30 22:26 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Jordan Raskopoulos 2024-08-30 21:39 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case 2024 Red Sea oil spill 2024-08-30 21:30 2025-08-30 21:30 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Kurdistan Region 2024-08-30 18:45 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/KURD enforcement; topic is under an extended-confirmed restriction Firefangledfeathers Ranjith (director) 2024-08-30 13:43 2024-09-13 13:43 edit,move Persistent vandalism Jake Wartenberg Qing dynasty 2024-08-30 02:36 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: given recent edits to the talk page by an autoconfirmed sock belong to the same sock farm, ECP is still necessary here Sir Sputnik Rajbhar 2024-08-30 02:24 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Anousone Xaypanya 2024-08-30 00:19 2024-09-30 00:19 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Talk:Usuário(a):Luhend 2024-08-29 05:10 2024-09-05 05:10 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Palestinian traditional costumes 2024-08-28 23:23 2025-02-28 23:23 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Somali Civil War 2024-08-28 23:21 2024-09-04 23:21 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User:Dennis Brown/WMF 2024-08-28 23:20 indefinite edit,move Dennis Brown 2024 Israeli military operation in the northern West Bank 2024-08-28 20:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Kedarkheda 2024-08-28 20:23 2024-09-28 20:23 move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case Rescue of Qaid Farhan Al-Qadi 2024-08-28 20:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:R sect 2024-08-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:GHS exclamation mark 2024-08-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Netzarim Corridor 2024-08-28 15:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner exchange 2024-08-28 15:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Nori Bunasawa 2024-08-28 07:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Novem Linguae

Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request (reopened)

• Special:permalink/1097008915#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request reopened from archive per email request

---

Whatsupkarren is requesting unblock/unban, and is sock of Tariq afflaq . Roy Smith noted in the prior unban request that user no longer has the original account password, and that he recommended requesting unban with this account. User is WP:3X banned as Tariq afflaq. This is, of course, a checkuser block.

• Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Prior unban request
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq/Archive

Request to be unbanned

It’s been more than a year, I haven’t made any edit on English Wikipedia, used sockpuppets or anything like that since I was banned a year ago, I fully understand why I was blocked, and then banned, I admit my mistakes, I own up to my irresponsible reckless activities years ago, I apologize to all of Wikipedia community, and promise that will never ever engage in such activities again. the ban gave me a chance to acquaint myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I think the ban is no longer necessary because I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions. 2. Edit warring and vandalism, my approach to dealing with fellow users was rather barbaric, I now know that disagreements should be resolved through discussing the issue on the associated talk page or seeking help at appropriate venues. 3.I also know that I should remain civil and should not use improper language and should avoid responding in a contentious and antagonistic manner. I also want to add that I've created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias in the past year. I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns, if not, please point them out. thanks for your time.

Carried over from user talk by --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed for starters, as this is a CU block and can only be considered after a CU has looked at it. No comment on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

   Unlikely but it's a noisy range. @Mz7: had the most luck last time and I believe it's worth a second set of eyes here in case I missed something. To be clear, barring new evidence, my findings clear the checkuser part of the block and mean this unblock request may now be considered on the merits. --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this appeal too deeply yet, but it looks like at the previous unban request, I provided a decent summary of the background here and why I was opposed at the time: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request. I think at least this part of what I said back then probably still applies: If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Looking at the editting on other wikis, it appears to all be around Syria and people of Syrian decent, which appears to be part of the reason they were originally blocked. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm always up for a second chance. I do think that a TBan from Syria-related topics, to be appealed after a minimum of six months, would be necessary - on the understanding that they would need to demonstrate a capacity to edit constructively in that time, not merely wait for it to time out then appeal. There would also need to be an agreement to stick to one account. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, with a six month Syria related topic ban and a one account restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Accept under the conditions of a indef topic ban for Syria, and an indef one account restriction, with either restriction being appealable after 6 months of actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Decline until they show any interest in editing any other topic. When was the last time that Whatsupkarren/Tariq afflaq made any edit to a non-English Wikipedia that wouldn't have been a direct violation of their topic ban here? I mean, their most recent Wikipedia mainspace edits were a month ago on ptwiki, to pt:Moise Safra—where they were re-adding claims asserting Syrian nationality to a biography, as part of a slow-motion edit war on that article. For reference, he was trying to make essentially the same edit (since reverted) to enwiki's Moise Safra in December 2020, just hours before his original indefinite enwiki block. (And again as an IP evading his block less than a month later. And then as a sock two weeks after that. And then as another sock three months later.)
  This editor has not shown that they are capable of editing anywhere outside of their topic ban. Instead, they've spent their time outside of enwiki exporting the same 'Syrian-tagging' disputes to multiple other Wikipedia projects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Non-plussed by user's feeing that edit warring is not edit warring if they have a good reason for edit warring. An opinion shared by many of the edit warriors I have encountered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  edit for the bot to not archive before close --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Answered adequately. Comment struck Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

---

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Unblock per Girth Summit, Cullen328, and Dennis Brown above. Appealable-in-six-months TBan from Syria-related topics, agreement to stick to one account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Lift ban, unblock with Syria topic ban and one account restriction as suggested by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Kommentar (I actually started closing, thinking it was clearcut, before realising that it's only actually slightly in favour of an unblock at the moment). @Whatsupkarren: - can you point to recent activity on another project on a topic other than Syria? What would you do here if you were unblocked but TBANNED on Syria? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren emailing a response isn't the best thing to do - answering on your talk page with a ping is fine. Am I fine to post the content of your email response? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Drat, just when it was getting good --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Lift ban, unblock with a TBAN on Syria stuff. WP:STANDARDOFFER. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I don't exactly endorse unblocking, but I am not opposed either as long as the Syria topic ban is placed as a condition for unblocking. Am interested in reading the response to Nosebagbear's question above. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 18 admitted sockpuppets used to deceive, threatening off-wiki hacking, impersonating an editor, and a nationalistic POV pusher to boot. They had almost a week to answer Nosebagbear's question & failed to do so. Timesink 101, can only harm WP. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Reply to @Bison X: carried over by me.

  I didn't fail to answer, I emailed the admin on July 18th. Thanks for your time Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  As was noted by admin 1 week ago Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, thank you for that. I couldn't find it on-wiki so I didn't have much to go on. I don't see how a few dime-a-dozen vandal reverts (as noted on their talk page) counters the deception, the intimidation and the masquerading. Net negative. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren: Re: your response (copied from your user talk):

  They’re not really a few dime a dozens,

  per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback "While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Rollback is not for very new users: it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted.”

  i did more than 600 space edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Whatsupkarren&offset=20210222045519&limit=500&target=Whatsupkarren Whatsupkarren (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  That really doesn't clarify anything, other than turning "a few" into "600" and a quote from the rollback page. While looking into this, there are several pages of of tangled webs that were woven, what with the SPI page, the several sock contribution pages & talk pages, the last ANI, this ANI and your current talk page. Forgive me if I have overlooked anything, but I do not see where you directly addressed some concerns that were brought up by User:Mz7, specifically:

  You were accused of pretended to be Chris O'Hare, who had just been blocked, in order to try and trick administrators into thinking Chris O'Hare was evading their block. I could not find where you were doing this, but is this true? What is your response to this?

  You also also threatened to "hack" someone else's Facebook account. in this edit. What is your response to this?

  You continually say you didn't know the rules on Wikipedia, so you didn't know socking was prohibited. But, with the Sidoc account alone, you were trying to impose a chilling effect on another user so you could win a dispute. How can you believe that would be an acceptable action to take against another volunteer editor even if it wasn't against the rules?

  Again, since there are so many different discussions, and this was never directly addressed at the last ANI, it seems reasonable (even if you addressed these elsewhere) to address these here in this discussion. Please respond to the 3 questions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• User answered Nosebagbear's question on their talk. I asked them to chunk it down, and in a nutshell, "reverting vandalism."Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Reply to BisonX carried over by DFO

1) Yes, it’s true that I impersonated a user and I admitted that in my appeal.

“ I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions.”

2) Yes, I admitted that I threatened a user to hack their account, it was all talk i don’t even use Facebook, but now I know that threatening is completely forbidden on Wikipedia per WP:HAR

3) I wanted to say that at first, when i was using Tariq Afflaq, I didn’t know that using another account after being blocked is prohibited, I did know later, and continued socking using sidoc, oxforder, whatsupkarren, OhioanRCS and the other later accounts until the ban was palced on me, and I completely own up to it,

for example:

When my main account Tariq Afflaq was blocked for 48 hours, I immediately created a sock ( George51725w5218 ), and returned to the same talk page that I was arguing in using Tariq Afflaq, this is some of that I said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992247224

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992248330

If I had known that was wrong, I wouldn’t have come to the same TP and continued the discussion as if nothing happened, my point is, AT THE VERY BEGINNING, what I did was out of ignorance and not out of intended abusiveness, but I'm not arguing that I'm not guilty at all, it was my fault not informing myself with the policies.

Regards Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem sincere and open about your appeal, but to me the deception you used shouldn't have been excused by ignorance; rather it shouldn't have been done out of respect to the encyclopedia and, oh yeah, the other people editing in that area. I don't know, to me it seems like a deal breaker, but several admins above are open to a T-BAN and a one-account limitation — they are the ones who would have to deal with any further disruptions. My gut says no, but I don't have to deal with it. I guess the reviewing admin can consider me a weak oppose on an unblock, but if unblocked, support an indefinite ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed, and a one account limitation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Challenging the NAC at Talk:Technoblade's RfC

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

---

I wish there was somewhere other than WP:AN to bring this but according to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE this is the place to bring this. This is not an attempt to argue the underlying dispute, only to challenge the rationale of the closing comment.

There was an RfC on Talk:Technoblade about the use of various sources supporting a statement in the article. This comment was closed by User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers in this comment here. In this closing comment, he made the rationale that there was no consensus for PinkNews as a source because two editors were for it and two editors were against it. Nothing wrong there (even if he admits that he completely overlooked one person's comment disagreeing with SMH as a source). However, he then said that because two people were for SMH as a source and only one person was against it (again he overlooked one comment against this source) that this makes a consensus for its use. Later in his closing comment that number somehow became four supporters for it without explanation, and in his talk page comment the number again changed to three supporters. He then goes on in the closing comments to make a recommendation that the PinkNews source in the article should be replaced with the SMH source because PinkNews has no consensus for its inclusion, whereas SMH does.

As of his last talk page comment (I've already linked it above but it is here) he is saying that a 2:2 split over a source is not a consensus, but a 3:2 split over a source is a consensus, and therefore the article should use the version with the consensus for it and replace the source originally used. This last part was specifically his recommendation, something that I am not alone in being concerned about as the administrator BusterD also went to his talk page about this. There was no argument that the quality of the supporting comments for SMH were superior and based on policy or anything, just that it was a 3:2 vote, and that 3 is 1 higher than 2 therefore it's a consensus. When there's roughly the same amount of editors opposing and supporting something, that is not a consensus, and this is my issue with the close, is that because one additional person supported one thing than the other, it's being defined as a consensus and then being used at the closer's personal recommendation that the one source replace the other, something there was no consensus for, especially when taking into account that the closer overlooked one of the commenters when deciding his close.

I am asking that this close be reviewed as I believe that the rationale that a 3:2 split over a source creates consensus for it is a flawed argument inconsistent with Wikipedia's understanding of what a consensus is, as it is not a simple vote where the higher number decides the outcome, especially when the numbers are otherwise even but off by 1.

I have notified Iamreallygoodatcheckers and also BusterD since I mentioned him above. - Aoidh (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that if you're closing an RfC that has four different options but which only five editors replied to, you're going to struggle to find consensus on anything unless everyone agrees. Having said that, I don't see any consensus whatsoever to avoid using PinkNews. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: I want to be very clear, there is no consensus against using PinkNews. The last statement is what I felt would limit future contention; it's not supposed to be a mandate against PinkNews. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  The issue isn't the no consensus comment, it's that you're saying there is a consensus for the other source, and how you then lean on that supposed consensus to make your own opinion in a closing comment that the first source should be replaced, rather than sticking to a summary of the discussion. There was no consensus for what you claimed there was, especially when by your own admission you overlooked one of the commenters contesting what you said there was consensus for. - Aoidh (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I said SMH had a rough consensus because many people in the discussion spoke highly of it and believed it to be reliable; a total of 4 people in the discussion believed it to be reliable. Only 2 didn't want it's use. There was even one person who preferred a primary source being used but still expressed that they believed the SMH specifically was important for establishing WEIGHT. The only reasons PinkNews was ruled no consensus was because it got a little less support. I think the fact that 4 (a majority of the 7 total !votes) with literally 4 options believed this source was usable amounts to a rough consensus. I think that is reasonable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, the only editor who specifically suggested that SMH was a better source than PinkNews was someone who'd been summoned by a bot to a page that they don't appear ever to have edited... Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There were 2 who recommended it, but I don't that is relevant to this discussion because the closing should not be construed to say PinkNews should be replaced by anything. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does the number in support of the source change every time you comment on it? It was 3 when you last mentioned it on your talk page, and it was 2 when you first mentioned it in the RfC close. My issue with your close is how something that close is somehow a consensus which you then lean on to make your own suggestion, when the source that got literally 1 less comment in support of it is "no consensus". There was no consensus for anything in that RfC, and the close should reflect that. The close needs to reflect the discussion, that's my only issue here, because as it stands it's a suggestion, not a summation. There was no consensus for SMH, just as there was no consensus for anything else. - Aoidh (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's 3 on the talk page because you were not including the person who supported both PinkNews and SMH at one point in your count, so to keep it consistent with you I also removed. However, It's 4 when you include that person, and 3 when you don't. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I know this is annoying, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, but the whole thing was just a big No Consensus, and should have been closed that way. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yup, exactly. Overturn to no consensus per Black Kite.—S Marshall T/C 18:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn, No consensus Even for this rather weakly written and sourced article page, the RfC was thinly participated with little valid reasoning and no agreement that could support the close. I also note that the closing editor has been fairly active doing non-admin closes and has gotten into trouble with them before. I see little policy-and-sourcing based evaluation of the !votes and too much of his own POV, either one of which will undermine his efforts as closer. I'd suggest he focus on other activities for a while. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn - the SMH piece is an opinion column, as pointed out by several participants, so it can't be used to support a statement that a BLP subject has ADHD, per WP:BLP policy. Closer missed this. Levivich (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BLP doesn't necessarily apply here since the subject of the article passed away last month; however, I did object to using the Sydney Morning Herald column in the RFC because it's a WP:RSEDITORIAL issue. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Musashi1600: Recently deceased people are also subject to BLP policy. ––FormalDude talk 21:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• My two cents: not a trainwreck (as mentioned, we've all seen bad closures, and this isn't one), but the RfC was closed too early, before consensus could be established—the RfC was only open for 2 weeks. I commented in the RfC, but I believe a consensus was inevitable if it were to have gone on a week or two more. SWinxy (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to reopen Wouldn't reopening a RfC be a better solution? I think there is significant clash in the RfC, but perhaps more participation might lead to resolution. An RfC in which editors have made good faith argument shouldn't have their discussion short-circuited by one weak close. I hope the discussion in which participants already invested has a chance to more fully develop. BusterD (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn — I specifically object to the closure endorsing the Sydney Morning Herald column because it's clearly not a reliable source for any purpose on Wikipedia (BLP or otherwise) per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no-consensus; close was a WP:SUPERVOTE and not an accurate determination of the consensus. Link20XX (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to reopen; IARGAC, if you aren't seeing consensus but you have an opinion, just go ahead and !vote. valereee (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-open. There isn't a clear consensus there and the RfC had run for a relatively short amount of time (13 days) relative to most RfCs (30+ days). No reason to close it early. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

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

The C of E Tban appeal

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

---

Good morning everyone. This is an appeal against my topic ban from WP:DYK participation. Having had 6 months to consider what happened and think about the effects of my actions, I do recognise the drama that I caused and the harm it can do to the project and others. I apologise for what I did in creating articles crafted around creating controversial DYK hooks, I recognise that is not the right way to edit on here now. I understand the collection of credits is not the primary reason for being here. With my time away, I have been working on some WP:ITN articles and collaborating with others. I have helpfully been guided by advice given by @Floquenbeam: and kept to the tban (despite some users asking me to cross the ban). I would like to be able to return to DYK to help build preps and also to help contribute.

In accordance with a suggestion made by @Boing! said Zebedee:, I promise that I will not nominate any smutty, sweary or provocative DYK hooks and I also promise that I will not ever edit, adjust or add anything into an article solely for the purpose of making a DYK hook. I give my word, I will adhere to what I have promised. I would like to ask the community for forgiveness and for the chance to prove I have changed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#The C of E and DYK. —Cryptic 11:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Just a quick note that I got the ping, but likely won't be commenting on this. My only involvement was to read the clear consensus in the ANI thread Cryptic links above, and enact it. Apparently, I actually thought a lesser sanction would have worked, but I only know that because I read it in my closing summary, not because I remember coming to that decision. I have no special insight into this appeal, pro or con. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  One more note: When CofE refers to my advice, I made several comments between 13 and 21 Jan on their talk page, but to save people a little time, I'd say my "key" piece of advice was here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - You faithfully served the t-ban, sought advise during that time from administrators & so IMHO, the preventative measure is no longer required. PS - FWIW, you've never harmed me concerning the topic, in anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• I am inclined to support this request but I fear that the smutty, sweary or provocative DYK hooks is wording that may be too narrowly crafted and leaves the barn door wide open for other types of disruptive DYK editing. I supported the topic ban back in January. My concern is that this editor fancies themself as a provocateur who admitted The reason why I did the sweary hooks was partially out of amusement as I feel it can bring a little bit of fun to Wikipedia. I expect to see an overt repudiation of that disruptive attitude and a rock solid commitment to never get involved with controversial DYKs ever again, with an understanding that an indefinite block will be the result of any such trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• I think I can support this, with the pre-existing ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics, left in place. I share Cullen's fears a little, as The C of E has in the past had a tendency to take things very literally and fail to see beyond the words of a restriction and understand the core meaning behind it. But I can't really fault the commitment made here, and I hope I'm right in my understanding that it means there will be no more pushing of boundaries. This will, of course, be a last chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, I mean exactly what Pawnkingthree says below - revert to the restrictions in place immediately before the current total DYK ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

• Very qualified Support with the caveat the pre-existing ban stays in place per Boing! above, and that there's absolutely no skirting round the edges per Cullen. Just ... stay well away from anything that could be construed as a problem. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• The only way I would support a return to DYK would be if all the September 2020 restrictions were left in place; ie. a ban from British/Irish politics, religion and LGBTQ, a ban from editing his own hooks when they are in a Prep era, and the ability of any independent reviewer to veto any of his proposed hooks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, The C of E has done good work on-Wiki and he is an expert on many things. There are many topics where he's largely been been problem-free. On the other hand, I cannot forget the memory of what he used to do and what got him into this position in the first place.

I would be willing to support him being given one more chance, provided that his existing DYK restrictions (i.e. the ones about preps or avoiding anything to do with LGBT/Religion/Irish politics/etc.) would remain in place. I would also suggest that he seek out a mentor to collaborate with him on every DYK nomination to help ensure that he doesn't accidentally fall afoul of his restrictions. In fact, while I don't know if there's consensus for this, I would also suggest that his restrictions be expanded to British politics in general as well as anything to do with British colonialism, as there have been concerns regarding his hooks and interests in those topics before. Finally, it should be made perfectly clear to The C of E that this his last chance and any violation of the things that got him here would almost certainly result in him being banned from DYK again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I want the chance to prove I have changed from that. And I think it would be a little unfair to remove the total ban but then start bringing in new restrictions beyond what was already in place beforehand. I cannot demonstrate the difference if I am not permitted to edit in certain areas that I were not banned from prior. The main reason for the initial ban was predominantly based on the provocative stuff, which I have apologised for and I recognise what the consensus seems to be building to. Why would I throw 6 months of personal development and my Wikipedia account away in asking for unbanning just for the chance at 1 last risque DYK? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

This is really just to make sure you won't blow your chance. Many here are willing to give you another chance but we may not all be confident that you have changed. Like you said, you have to prove it with your edits and actions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I read the existing "British or Irish politics" ban as already including British politics in general. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he should be banned from British politics in general because he's done some useful work there. It's politics regarding the Orange/Green divide in Ireland that has been the problem IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe he shouldn't be banned from British Politics DYK in general, but as I read it he already is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, I think it's counterproductive to ban him from British politics altogether as I think he's written a number of articles on British politics that are useful contributions and which otherwise would probably not have been written. It's the orange/green issue where the problem has been IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding here, sorry. When I speak of British politics in general, I mean in the context of DYK, and as opposed to only DYK for Orange/Green issues (as DYK is what this ban is all about). I don't mean to suggest extending any such ban beyond DYK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Note to Gatoclass and others: The C of E's actual topc ban is The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed., and comes from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270. So far as I know, that's still in place, and isn't anything that can be undone here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

And that I know can only be undone by arbcom, not here. It's just the ban on DYK I am asking for to be lifted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Qualified support - I thought the previous ban was overkill as the user's behaviour was already under control after the earlier ban, but agree with Boing!, Black Kite and others that the earlier ban on certain political topics, religion and LGBQT topics should remain. As it happens I am also inclined to disagree that the user need refrain from hooks containing profanity as these can be vetted by the community like any other, but he definitely needs to stop arm wrestling with other users over the choice and/or wording of his proposed hooks, in particular, editing or substitution of his own preferred hooks in prep. Struck as already dealt with in a previous remedy. But I would also like to see him banned from approving April Fool's hooks submitted by other users, because his judgement there has over a long period of time proven at least as flawed as his judgement of his own hooks. Struck as extraneous to this discussion, see below. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Part of the thinking behind the total DYK ban was that the community can't be expected to keep crafting ever more finely-honed specific bans for individual editors. In the end it just has to come down to The C of E to get it right. So I'd oppose any further attempts at refinement, and just lift the total DYK ban - and it's up to The C of E to take it from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have brought up the April Fool's issue here, as it's probably not something the community as a whole need consider. It's probably an issue best left to the DYK community itself to deal with, so I might take it up there once this discussion is resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• • And if the community is kind enough to do so @Boing! said Zebedee:, I will endevour to ensure their faith in me is not misplaced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support with no restrictions. A second chance should not come with multiple caveats like some double secret probation. There are enough checks and balances in place at DYK so that no damage can come to the project. Hooks are often pulled and fussed with many times before they ever see the main page. Also, the participants in DYK will have a heightened awareness regarding the editor's contributions in DYK. We could use positive constructive contributions from The C of E. I came here after seeing a notice on the DYK talk page. Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Bruxton, I'm not weighing in here on either side, but I'd suggest maybe it's worth considering whether the restrictions that were already in place might actually be helpful to CofE in knowing where the boundaries are. This is a person who very much wants to respect boundaries but has a difficult time finding them without clear statements on where those boundaries are. The restrictions that were already in place are ones that most people detect and generalize from fairly quickly for themselves. I'm not saying you're wrong, but at DYK there will be very limited patience for CofE not detecting boundaries, and I'd hate to see removing those clear boundary statements turn into something permanent. valereee (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The restrictions were put in place precisely because the checks and balances failed. There is a reason why The C of E was prohibited from editing his own hooks in prep, from proposing certain kinds of hooks, and why the hook veto practice was imposed. All of these were responses to his previous actions. I understand that you're relatively new to DYK and Wikipedia as a whole and was not here at the time those restrictions were imposed, but they existed for a reason. Now, if The C of E is allowed to return to DYK, having those earlier restrictions imposed will allow The C of E to avoid doing the things that led him into trouble while still giving him a chance to contribute productively to fields where he had no trouble. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose @Valereee and Narutolovehinata5: Thanks to both of you for the messages. I thought I might point out that I have about 58 successful DYK nominations and I learned my way around the place. My own hooks are regularly pulled and stuck - and discussed etc, but I never intend disruption. It appears this editor has intended to disrupt for several years. I was not aware of the 2020 arbcom discussion. And I only became aware of issues when the op proposed a DYK that I commented on back in January. So based on the years long disruption and on the comments by @David Eppstein: and Narutolovehinata5, I withdraw my support for lifting restrictions. Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton, sorry to ping you again, but could you clarify whether you're still supporting lifting the t-ban, which was actually what CofE is asking for? The various editing restrictions at DYK were already in place before the t-ban was placed; people here have brought those up as a secondary question, some saying they support lifting the t-ban as long as the restrictions are left in place. CofE wasn't actually even asking that those be lifted, as far as I can tell. Just the t-ban. valereee (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: Oppose. Lots of other areas of the project to contribute as BD2412 has stated Bruxton (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The supposed apology and promise to do better does not address the much earlier and long-lasting problems that led to the earlier ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics. My impression is that the broader problems arose as a way to lash out against that earlier ban. Unless it is addressed, we still have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per David Eppstein. Even if the ban is lifted, a total lift without added restrictions - along the lines of what Bruxton is proposing - is completely unacceptable. I don't understand why CofE is determined to get his restrictions lifted on DYK hooks, considering that he can be productive in other areas of Wikipedia and especially considering the extraordinary disruption he brought to DYK in the past.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think he's asking to have all the restrictions lifted, just the total ban but with previous restrictions still in place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  • That is correct @Boing! said Zebedee:. I will be asking for some further clarification on them if the total ban is lifted to avoid any misunderstandings. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose absent both the pre-ban restrictions and ensuring that the set of restrictions going forward clearly and unambiguously cover past problematic behaviors, including the warping of articles that was the proximate cause of his total DYK ban six months ago. After that ban, in the discussion on his talk page, The C of E pointed out that he doesn't pick up on subtle hints or implications and needs direct, clear clarification on what is allowable. I would go further, based on past experience at DYK: if someone tells him not to do something and his interpretation of a specific Wikipedia policy is that he can do it, he'll ignore that person and go with his own interpretation, even if it isn't just one person telling him no. That's why he had all the restrictions prior to his full DYK ban, and why they need to be in place and clearly defined if the ban is lifted: The C of E has great difficulty seeing why what he wants to do would be problematic, and hasn't been able to refrain from testing—and blowing through—the boundaries. I agree with Cullen328 that the C of E's initial offer/proposal is too narrowly crafted (why "solely", for example?), though it does cover areas not in the original restrictions that I think need to be there. Otherwise, we're setting up a situation ripe for failure. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm having the thought of if The C of E could have some kind of DYK mentor if he's allowed back into DYK. Like he would have a co-nominator for all of his DYK nominations, who would tell him if what he's doing is right or not. The co-nominator could also serve as an additional check to make sure whatever he writes (article and hook-wise) either doesn't fall under existing restrictions (i.e. no Irish nationalism, etc.) or doesn't try to skirt around them. Also, a co-nominator could ensure that thinks like his "cock" antics before do not happen again.

I think my biggest fear here is that we could see a repeat of the incidents that led to the "cock" article incident. The comments made above regarding boundaries is a good point and I fear that The C of E could return to his old ways where he pushed the boundaries of what he was allowed to work on. His comments above seem sincere and he does seem to be trying to atone for what he did in the past, but given what he's done before, I'm not sure if his apology here is enough. I'm not against the idea of his total DYK ban (as opposed to merely the other restrictions) being lifted, but I wouldn't support the ban being lifted outright without checks or assurances to make sure that what happened before would not happen again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: After reading this again (showing how the problem is DYK for him), the admitted problem with boundaries, and knowing that C of E could not get the message operating under a more limited restriction, already: trusting again seems a very big ask, and this is not a second chance, it is, at least, a third. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Respectfully oppose. Wikipedia is over 6.5 million articles and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more needing to be made. There is a tremendous amount to be done without raising the specter of DYK drama, even if it is just in the form of lingering bad experiences. I would wait at least another half a year. BD2412 T 23:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support I thought the ban was heavy handed and overkill. --evrik ^(talk) 03:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support So they were banned for promoting the words ""fuck", "dick" and "cock" on the main page" (per the ANI case) via DYK?! And yet Gropecunt Lane was TFA once upon a time. Seems a bit heavy-handed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Some things need to be clarified here:

Firstly, the hook that actually did get promoted never used the term "cock". It ended up being a normal hook.

Secondly, what got The C of E into trouble at the time wasn't necessarily the use of profanity itself, it was how he did it. The article repeatedly used the term "cock" instead of "rooster" even though the sources for the article largely used "rooster". Indeed, at one point the article even had the phrase "Dick's Cock" which was never used in any source. Although many DYK editors are disinclined to promote hooks featuring profanity, they're not outright prohibited, but there has to be a good reason to use them and more often than not hooks that would have featured them are written in such a way to make the profanity less explicit, largely citing WP:GRATUITOUS.

Thirdly, had it just been a one time thing, The C of E would have probably have been given at most an admonishment. However, he had a previous history of trying to push DYK hooks that featured subjects with profanity and profane names simply for the shock value, rather than the encyclopedic value. For example, he had a DYK nomination where the subjects were New Zealand geographic locations whose names had the N-word and tried to make a hook out of that. Needless to say, said nomination was ultimately rejected. Another time, he tried to promote a hook that called Muhammad a thief. Regardless of your opinions of Islam, such a hook was obviously a ticking time-bomb and needless to say, the article ultimately ran with another hook.

And finally, The C of E wasn't necessarily banned from DYK just for the profanity issue. It was due to a pattern of pushing the boundaries of his existing restrictions, and rightly or wrongly, the community felt that banning him from DYK altogether was more effective than further increasing his existing restrictions. The "cock" article was the last straw, but it wasn't the only thing that led to the DYK ban. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts If it was just the profanity thing ... but that wasnt the original problem - see the links here and my comment in this AE. That's why I've suggested above that the CofE goes nowhere near any of these topics. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't see/know about that. Yes, going nowhere near those topics would make sense. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Closer request - I would just like the closer to spell out continuing restrictions, as it seems a little unclear. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've been reading closely with an eye to possibly closing, and yes, several oppose !votes seem to specifically be using the idea of lifting the restrictions that were in place when the t-ban was placed as one of their/their primary reason for opposing. The ones I've noted, besides Bruxton whom I've already pinged above, are @WaltCip, @BlueMoonset, and @Alanscottwalker. An edit to clarify whether you're objecting to the lifting of the t-ban from DYK (rather than being opposed to lifting the earlier DYK restrictions) or are opposed to both/either would be helpful to the closer, as CofE's actual request here is only about the t-ban, not about lifting the other restrictions. ETA: FWIW, right now most 'support' !votes are specifying that the support is contingent upon the earlier restrictions not being lifted. valereee (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think another thing worth pointing out is that some editors above are not confident about lifting the DYK ban entirely because there's the fear that, even if the total ban is lifted but the original restrictions remain, he would return to his old ways of pushing boundaries. If the total DYK ban is to be lifted, there probably needs to be measures to ensure that said boundary pushing would or could not happen. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which restrictions? Perhaps list them now, so everyone is clear.

But I brought up the 2020 AN, not for the restrictions, but because the statements there by CofE and others indicate a root of the problem of warping articles, of not being able to exercise good editorial judgement, pushing for main page ethno-nationalism, racism, ridicule based on sexuality, etc., is involvement with DYK, itself. And that somehow CoE, did not get the message, leading to another draining AN, which are not cost free for anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

To quote the prior ANI, The C of E is banned "from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics", from "editing hooks he has proposed or for articles he has nominated, created, or expanded when they are in a Prep area", and that any DYK hook he proposes can be vetoed by any independent review, where said veto cannot be appealed. In addition, there are also his restrictions relating to Irish nationalism, but as those are ArbCom-imposed they could only be overturned by ArbCom and not here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think AE restrictions can be appealed at AN.

And at any rate, my earlier comment was not about the restrictions themselves, it was that they did not stop the disruption. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

To respond to valereee's ping, I oppose a simple return to the pre tban restrictions, which were insufficient; at a minimum, they should be retained and additional restrictions included, worded something like you proposed last time, The C of E should be restricted from ever again suggesting a hook with a sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative content, along with something that states clearly that The C of E cannot skew what should be encyclopedic content to make hooks or articles unnecessarily or inappropriately provocative, as he did with changing virtually every source use of "rooster" to "cock", which ultimately led to his tban. (If he doesn't have the judgment to understand what's inappropriate and unencyclopedic, he shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.) His restrictions already prevent him from persisting when a hook is vetoed by a reviewer, instead being required to propose something substantially different. Absent something sufficiently comprehensive and clearly proposed and approved, I remain opposed to the tban being lifted. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Since it's extremely unlikely C of E has changed either their views or personality in any substantial manner, I see no reason to lift restrictions that are doing their job perfectly well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The point here is that the total ban from DYK was never necessary. The C of E had already been banned at DYK from all the topic areas where his behaviour had been problematic, namely, Irish politics, religion and LGBTQ issues. Those bans remain in place and there has been no proposal to lift them. He ended up getting a total ban from DYK for a hook with a double entendre on the word "cock" which he had submitted for April Fools Day - precisely the kind of thing that he and many other users have successfully submitted for the day in question on many previous occasions with little if any complaint from the wider community. He had, in short, every reason to think such a nomination was acceptable for the AFD special occasion, and I submit that it was manifestly unfair and a double standard for the community to suddenly turn around and impose a blanket ban for the very same kind of material the community has found acceptable on many previous occasions.

I have certainly had my own issues with The C of E over the years, indeed I doubt that anybody here has spent more time trying to get him to recognize the problematic nature of some of his nominations. But I also think the problems were well in hand after the first, limited ban, and that the blanket ban has probably achieved little else but discourage participation from an erstwhile prolific content creator. Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? You think it is helpful here to repeat yout failed arguments and rejected position from last time? You want a renewed argument about the already instituted consensus on the ban, in which the community rejected each one of your points including your blinkered view of the underlying evidence and problems. Your already rejected argument can only convince that problems will get worse and worse if the ban is lifted, there will be more boundary testing, more bad editorial judgement, more skewing of articles, more attempts to disrupt the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

My "failed arguments and rejected position from last time?" Sorry, but I did not even participate in the discussion "last time". And the fact that the hook in question was intended for April Fools got only one incidental mention in that discussion, with nobody pointing out that this kind of hook has long been par for the course for the AFD special occasion. The C of E was basically punished for something that he and other users have done many times before and that the community has found acceptable. The inconsistency in response is glaring, and must have been quite bewildering to him. Regardless of what one might think of the C of E and his contributions, users deserve better consideration than this. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You did make this failed argument last time. The consensus was that he created multiple points of disruption and not just in a hook, contrary to your claim. Most our systems only ever work when editors show good judgement, this editor, on multiple occasions and in multiple ways, demonstrated poor judgement and poor editing. If he is bewildered, it can only mean he is either not listening, or does not have the capability to listen -- which only raises the spectre of more disruption. If it is blame it on the system, it means he is incapable of working in that system. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Alan, please show me where I "made this failed argument last time", because I did not find the latter ban discussion until after it had been closed, and have no memory of participating in previous AN/I discussions on the matter nor can I find any diffs. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I was going from a memory of seeing you write that same argument at the time, perhaps it was on his talk page or at DYKTalk. I will strike, and again apologies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass Whilst I think CoE should be given another chance, it has to be clear what the issue is. He wasn't banned from DYK for a single April Fool's joke [1], it was a continuing issue of a number of things, and he didn't "get the point" even after the tban (see Joe Roe's comment at this appeal, for example). Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you are glossing over the actual reason the community tbanned him: it wasn't putting "cock" in the hook, it was deliberately warping the nominated article with a great many gratuitous uses of "cock" when all the sources used "rooster", which was disruptive to the article and the encyclopedia. He was misusing DYK to get this highly problematic article on the main page, and he paid the consequences for his actions. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, with respect, this is not a problem confined to the C of E, the fact is that we have had a number of contributors to the AFD special occasion over the years who erroneously think that AFDSO permits them to behave with a laxity toward factual accuracy and article content. Over the years I have had to struggle to impress this fact upon would-be AFDSO contributors repeatedly and it's been a very frustrating experience. The problem in my opinion lies not so much in the behaviour of particular users, but in the way AFDSO is run. Basically, the consensus model simply isn't adequate for the task, because there are not enough knowledgeable contributors participating there. What AFDSO probably needs is something like the directorate that FA used to have, where one or two experienced users or administrators have the power to veto hooks and enforce appropriate standards. Penalizing one particular user for the failings of the system is neither just or productive in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass I totally agreee about AFD, but the that particular DYK entry is neither here nor there, it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back - see my links above. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite Okay, but my point remains the same, which is that to suddenly turn around and slap a ban on somebody for doing the same things they've done without objection on many occasions previously is just plain inconsistent and hardly fair to the party concerned. Also, so far as I am aware, none of the said nominations made it to the main page unchanged, so no harm was done. So I maintain that the original ban - preferably with the modifications suggested by Floquenbeam - would have been more than sufficient, especially with increased oversight at DYK, which doubtless would now occur. Having said that, it's not going to bother me unduly if the community decides here to give him another six months in the cooler, indeed it would potentially reduce my future workload, but I still think the blanket ban was unnecessary as the issues were already under control. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The point of the pre-ban restrictions was to get him to NOT do what he has done in the past. To realize that there needs to be more self-control, more listening, better judgement, less provocation. The restrictions were certainly were not a license to skew article content, we have much more important policies than any DYK system that work to prevent that, and we always rely heavily on on any editor to do the right thing, always. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass At least one hook - a highly incendiary one because of the date it was posted - made it to the MP. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's what got him the original topic ban from The Troubles, and I've already said I concur with that ban and agree it should be retained. This discussion is about the later blanket ban over profanity and whether that should be lifted, and I maintain as stated above that that ban was neither justified nor necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The evidence is to the contrary, the ban was most definitely not over one thing, it was over a series of things, and it did not look like it was going to stop. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The ban basically was over three hooks proposed by the user that included profanity. I don't know how often I have to repeat this, but DYK has run many, many hooks containing profanity over the years, including a number from the C of E, that have passed by completely without controversy. So how is he supposed to have anticipated that this is suddenly going to be a bannable offence? Does it make sense that a particular action is perfectly fine one day and a bannable offence the next? No, it doesn't, and the ban that resulted is thereby unjustified. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

No. You do not have to repeat it, because it is not true. The ban took account of the entire record of participation incidences. Also, skewing article content is much worse than writing any single word in any hook. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It was still on the basis of actions that he's made on multiple previous occasions without any concern shown by the community, in which case he could have had no expectation that they would suddenly attract sanctions. As for the "skewing" of article content, none of it was of any great significance and there is no indication of a deliberate intention to mislead. People are entitled to make a few mistakes, I come across them all the time at DYK, and not infrequently from some of the encyclopedia's leading contributors. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Skewing of articles is always significant. And it's not a mistake when you skew an article over and over again, it is by design. He has attracted attention in the past for words and more, so there is nothing sudden, and if he did not expect expanded restrictions were and are always a possibility, it means he either will not, or is not capable of paying attention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, you've had your say, and I've had mine, and I think it's pretty clear at this point that we are unlikely to change each other's minds, so there isn't much point in continuing this. Others can read the above thread if they are so inclined and come to their own conclusions. In the meantime, thanks for the debate. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Are you saying CoE is seriously skewing articles outside of DYK? I thought the DYK topic ban worked because they mostly only skewed articles when they wanted to advance some dumb DYK hook but if you're right maybe rather than accepting this appeal we should IMO be looking at a site ban. AFAIK no one has suggested this so far, which makes me wonder if I've either misunderstood what you're suggesting or you're wrong. To be clear, filling an article with cock when almost few sources use that word to advance some dumb DYK is not some minor thing. It's serious and any editor who doesn't recognise it as such needs to stay away from anything which will tempt them to do that. As I've said before, I don't buy the 'it was the communities fault' argument. If no one told the editor before that it's wrong, for good reason few of us GAF at least in terms of the editor. It's the editor's responsibility to recognise it as such even if no one told them or even seemed to allow it, it's still not our responsibility that the editor didn't recognise how atrocious their editing was. And an editor who has already had a topic ban should be extra cautious about nonsense. As for the wider issue, if editors are regularly doing that at DYK, we have a serious problem, CoE may be only a small part of that. But again, there's nothing in what you've said which would justify lifting the topic ban. Instead, what you seem to be suggesting is that we should keep the topic ban, but either seriously reform DYK or topic ban a lot more editors. I wasn't planning to !vote in this, but what you've said about how serious the problems are make me think I should since even by your own logic, we can't let CoE back on DYK until we've fixed it up. According to you, the area has serious problems which we need to fix since they're seriously fucking up articles and treating it like it's fine and CoE was one of the editors who did that very badly in the past so as sincere as they plans for reform may be, the problems with DYK are very likely to me they'll be drawn back in to it. I'd note that while we have have allowed main page TFA blurbs to be written in a potentially misleading way, it's always been well recognised that that stuff needs to stay out of the actual article. It's extremely unfortunate if DYK editor's don't understand there's a big difference between a questionable hook and seriously harming an article. Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying the C of E is "seriously skewing articles outside of DYK" and I don't know how you got that impression. As for substituting "cock" for "rooster" in a DYK AFDSO article, I'm afraid I must disagree that this constitutes a "serious" offence. "Cock" is actually a legitimate term for an adult male chicken, that just happens to also serve as a double entendre. And in my opinion, the C of E's excesses in that article represent no more than a surfeit of enthusiasm for the AFD special occasion, along with a misapprehension of the acceptable boundaries. But if you think that such a misapprehension disqualifies somebody from participation at DYK, it might interest you to know that some years ago, the main page FA slot itself featured an extremely cringeworthy attempt at humour on April Fools Day - an experiment thankfully not repeated thereafter. But what it does demonstrate is that anybody can make these kinds of misjudgements, even our most distinguished content creators. In my experience, the vast majority of people have very poor judgement when it comes to assessing their own attempts at humour. Perhaps that's why good gag writers are always at such a premium. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The editor has not violated their topic ban in the past six months and shows a genuine understanding that there are no chances beyond the one that they are asking for. Topic bans are meant to be narrowly tailored towards preventing disruption. If the previous restrictions remain in place (which The C of E seems to clearly agree to), and The C of E understands that the community wants to keep WP:GRATUITOUS content off of the main page and will hold the editor accountable if they try to put it on the main page, then I would see no reason why a blanket ban is justified; the ability for any single editor to veto any hook proposed by The C of E is more than enough to ensure that only unobjectionable hooks by The C of E will actually make it to the main page. The only way that a blanket ban could be justified over that would be if such a high proportion hooks by the C of E were gratuitously inappropriate that it would disrupt the DYK review process. I think that the editor understands not to be pushy in this manner anymore, and a final chance makes sense to me. If the user were to engage in repeated bad-faith hook creation over the next six months, I would expect the blanket ban to be returned. But, if good behavior were to continue at DYK for another six months, I would expect the community to gradually release restrictions as the user demonstrates that they no longer will act disruptively at DYK. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the dissembling and "I didn't hear that" and "it's my autism's fault" arguments from C of E leave me no confidence this is a good idea. As mentioned above by Black Kite, this wasn't just one ill-advised joke, it was years of bad behavior that I see no evidence the user has actually learned from. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. I do believe that CoE is genuine in their comments above and they are aware that any attempts to take liberties with an unban will be met harshly. The worst-case scenario is that they propose an inappropriate DYK which will simply get rejected, so there's no real potential that an unban will cause damage. Of course, CoE should also be aware that this would be a bit of a "last chance" scenario; again, they should read WP:ROPE carefully. — Czello 09:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I am inclined to support on a good faith basis, but I am concerned that a lifting of restrictions might act somewhat as a 'trap' leading to boundaries being run roughshod again, and therefore to a potentially painful reimposition of the restrictions. The total ban came after a series of escalating incidents, and there are valid concerns above that such incidents may happen again. It has been barely more than six months since the ban, and while I'm not going to oppose on that basis, it does suggest DYK has not quite been moved on from in the interim time. If the ban is lifted, I would agree previous restrictions should remain in place, and would suggest a slow and very cautious re-engagement with the DYK system. CMD (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support the TBAN removal for smutty, etc. (while leaving existing TBAN in place, since I think that is what is being discussed). Six months have passed and he hasn't had any incidents and took guidance when expected to. Isn't that a valid reason to remove the TBAN? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The C of E has shown themselves time and time again to be a troublemaker and and frankly an enormous embarassment to the encyclopedia, whos joy at making fun of serious topics like the troubles and rhodesia was franky repugnant. They were already granted a last chance, which ended up in them being topic banned for DYK's entirely, which was the correct outcome. I'd personally prefer that they were indeffed, but that's not going to go anywhere. Why waste time going through the long and labourious banning circus at ANI again when the C of E inevitably decides to abuse DYK's again. He's shown his true character time and time again, and it's not going to change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think your comment crosses the line into NPA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree @Sir Joseph:, I find those sort of comments are against NPA indeed. I haven't even met this editor to my knowledge. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - 4,000 edits in 2020, 4,000 edits in 2021, TBANed in Jan 2022, about 370 edits Feb-Jul. Normally, ROPE and all that, but this editor was previously TBANed in 2020 and then went and found a new way to be disruptive in 2021, which led to the DYK TBAN in Jan 2022. I don't think the 370 edits since then is enough to demonstrate whether or not they've changed; you don't get a TBAN lifted by taking a vacation for six months and then coming back professing to be a changed person. I'm reading this as "keeping my head down and then trying to get back at it", and the Nov 2021 appeal reads the same as this one. Sorry, I'm not convinced, given that this isn't a second chance, but at least a third (or fourth? I've lost track). Levivich (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - per dubya nableezy - 18:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• All areas of Wikipedia are optional, but DYK is exceptionally optional. You can write 100 FAs, become the most active editor of all time, and spend a decade on ArbCom without ever once having to interact with DYK. It's a fun project to reward editors who create new content and show readers articles they might not have otherwise read. A TBAN from, say, BLP or American politics is an active inconvenience to an editor, because those are tough topics to avoid and limit their ability to create content. A TBAN from DYK has no such effect. The C of E is saying he could help DYK by working on preps, and I'm not seeing much discussion of that. If people do think he'd be helpful in that regard, then yes, maybe there's a benefit to the project in unbanning (perhaps a 6-month probation in which any admin can reïmpose). Otherwise, though, I don't see the point in removing a restriction that does not in any way impede someone's ability to create content.
  One closing note: Unless I'm misreading the last discussion, there's no restriction on other editors nominating the C of E's articles for DYK. If there's no consensus to unban, I could perhaps see the case for allowing the C of E to solicit nominations, in the form of a straightforward usertalk post like "I made Article X. I think it would make for a good DYK." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: See WP:BANEVASION. On the part of C of E, it would be blatant ban evasion. And scroll down to WP:PROXYING for whoever helps them do that. — Maile (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: I'm saying we could make it an exception to the ban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That exact idea was suggested by a couple of editors on C of E's talk page at the time, and the advice then was that it was a bad idea that could hurt his chances of getting the ban lifted. Of course we're six months down the line and it's possible if it was formally proposed here it might be something the community would support - if the C of E is interested in going forward with it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: I'd be OK with that. I had been asked a couple of times during the ban to do something like that, but I refused because I did not want to breach the ban in any way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose to this idea of posting for The C of E, @Tamzin:. For all intents and purposes, this would be a user-assisted ban evasion. I've seen it before when a disruptive user was prevented by ArbCom from posting on a given site. But ArbCom, in good faith, allowed that editor to post their suggested edits on their own user subpage. The result is that other editors made the suggested changes as indicated by the restricted editor, and the the only thing different was that it wasn't under the name of the restricted editor. Ban evasion, by any method or any other name, is ban evasion. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Rope was already given with the 2020 restrictions and ended with this year's ban. DYK already has a backlog of nominations - we don't need problematic nominations eating up reviewers' time. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• Maintain topic ban per Fuchs and Copic. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the restrictions. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Block of Willbb234

Hello all. I have recently been on the receiving end of User:Doug Weller's wrath. I have been blocked from editing two pages and have been accused of attacking other editors in a personal manner, an accusation for which there are no grounds. Doug also doesn't like being called 'buddy' and apparently this was an issue even though he didn't tell me he didn't like it. Tell me Doug, how do I know that you don't like it if you don't tell me? Communication is key. I wish to be unblocked and I have used the unblock template thrice but to no avail! I also request that Doug retract his accusations that I have attacked other editors. I also believe that I have been treated unfairly by Doug and he has abused his administrative privileges to impose his wrath upon me. Please allow me to explain.

Firstly at Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I was happily going about editing and improving the article ([2], [3] among others) when I suddenly awoke the science goblins from their cave. Next thing I know, Tim, Dave and Mr Gadling had logged onto their computers and began their onslaught. Tim was at the time an undisclosed paid editor with a fat COI, something for which he barely received a slap on the wrist from Doug. Mr Gadling threw around accusations and got rather angry and uncivil ([4]) and deleted the discussion as a result of his actions. Dave was alright I guess, he could have been better. Anyway, along comes Doug and bang he blocks me from editing the page! Despite the fact that other editors were engaged heavily in some nasty edit warring, I am singled out! Can you believe it! Doug declined to elaborate on his reasoning (User talk:Willbb234/Archive 5#June 2022) and was very short with me.

Secondly, I then edit Dnepropetrovsk maniacs and I have a little edit war with Ian. We both do three reverts and so do not exceed WP:3RR and once again out of absolutely nowhere, Doug blocks me! I ask Doug on his talk page why he blocked just me but not Ian and I am ignored. Ian didn't even get a warning. If this isn't considered inappropriate behaviour by an admin then I don't really know what an admin can't do now. Ian's edits then get demolished by consensus proving that I am indeed correct, and Ian and Doug are wrong.

I am asking that Doug's actions are brought under the microscope as they are clearly inappropriate and that my blocks are reversed. That is all. Thanks everyone and happy editing :)Willbb234 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Make an unblock request on your user talk page and it will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Take care to read WP:GAB. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this on my talk page with the message “ Hi Doug. I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions. here's the discussion. thanks”. I’m in bed planning to read a bit and then go to sleep. See their talk page. Also User:Deepfriedokra may want to comment as they posted their about the unblock request. I don’t think Ian has been notified. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Malcolm, please see the final statement of my reasoning. This isn't just about an unblock. Thanks. Willbb234 20:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm curious if "Doug and his Lego" is the snide comment I think it is; is there another meaning I can't think of? If it is, then let's just close this as a time sink. Also, I realize that eventually a bot archived them, but aren't declined unblock requests supposed to be visible if you make a new unblock request? Reading recent edit summaries and comments, I'm inclined to leave both page blocks in place, and caution Willbb234 that they need to change their approach or blocks could start becoming sitewide. Keep in mind I know about this because I watchlist Doug's talk page, and am friendly with him, so I won't be doing any of what I'm suggesting myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm bemused by the title of this thread (and fairly unamused by "I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions"), so would appreciate being clued in here.. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"The Lego Group estimates that in five decades it has produced 400 billion Lego blocks". Doug is the Lego Group. Willbb234 20:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Riiiight... well that doesn't make any sense does it :) I've renamed the thread. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

He's not your buddy, pal. nableezy - 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not your pal, buddy. Willbb234 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I declined an unblock. When OP complained on my talk page, I sent them here. I'll let the folks here decide if the partial blocks can be lifted. I think OP is overly invested in the articles in question. There are about 6,000,000 other articles to edit. I don't think the partial blocks are anything onerous.Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the vindictiveness, the seeming seeking of revenge noted by Doug in " I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions", inclines me to feel I was right to decline. It suggests a battleground mentality not compatible with this project. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with this comment. I believe Doug acted unfairly and used his administrative tools in a way in which they should not be used. Isn't it fair that I therefore believe that there should be consequences for his actions? Willbb234 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Now, what was I saying about inappropriate use of terms of familiarity? Ah, yes. It was OP's talk somewhere. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence or admission that Tim is paid for his contributions to Wikipedia? If there are none, you should strike that. I don't see much in Mr Gadling's comments that lead me to believe he is angry. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

On Tim's talk page, he says he works for the Climatic Research Unit which was targeted by the hackers. Also, I believe Mr Gadling's comments on his talk page sounded quite aggressive almost to the point that he was angry. Willbb234 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

working for Climatic Research Unit does not mean Tim is compensated for his edits (which is a much more serious issue). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that being paid by an employer regardless of whether it is for editing or not still consitutes WP:PAID. Willbb234 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Many editors are employed and receive some form of compensation for that employment. That does not mean we are WP:PAID because the compensation is not for the editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure whether the two of you are talking about the same thing, but if you edit an article related to the organisation you work for, intern for or even volunteer for, you are WP:PAID with respect to that article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No, that's WP:COI. You are only WP:PAID if your editing is directed by your employer as part of your employment. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a lot has changed on both WP:COI and WP:PAID since I first read up on them. Anyway, it's a distinction without a difference. You need to declare and you are strongly discouraged from direct editing, in both cases. Regardless, there's no call to call him a UPE in 2022 when he'd disclose his employment in 2011 (after, to my surprise, the most casual OUTING by an admin, ever). Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, now I'm confused but not overly. COI states (my bold underline): Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. How do you think it would pan out if your employer saw a comment by you that was out of line with their business philosophy? The financial part of COI is extremely important and could very well be what drives a person to assume a particular position. I have no dog in this fight, and what matters most to me is making sure we are all on the same page relative to PAGs. My question now is whether or not that COI creates an issue for the editor who commented on that article? I will also add that I did not see an issue in the diffs provided but if those edits led to PAs against the editor, then we have a problem. How it is handled is up to our admins to decide, and the latter is why I want to make sure my thinking is on the same page as our trusted admins. Atsme 💬 📧 15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a difference between "I'm going to clean up the article on my employer because I'm familiar with them" (COI) versus "My employer is literally paying me to edit the article towards a specific goal" (PAID). The former, while a conflict, is not necessarily in bad faith, while the latter is almost always meant to skew the article in favor of the employer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

+1. --JBL (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but I'm not convinced by that argument. It does not automatically make a COI go away. In order to eliminate a COI, it's important to have uninvolved editors approve/oversee what you've written, and if challenged, it can be discussed. Simply knowing someone does not make the relationship a COI, but earning a living from them most certainly does. People get fired for talking against their employer or the employer's philosophy. I don't think it applies in the same manner on Mars, or on the Starship Enterprise since they are out of the jurisdiction of WP:PAGs. Atsme 💬 📧 12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I decided to ask for a request for comment at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs because it was clear that we were going round in circles and going nowhere fast. However, I was unhappy about this edit summary. I would be happy to see Willbb234 unblocked, but only on condition that edit summaries and language like this are not used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Willbb234, you appear to have been blocked for edit warring as well as the use of intemperate language in edit summaries. Neither alone would be probably be enough for admin action but the two together is what has brought you to this point. I don't really see anything "unfair" in Doug's block and my suggestion is that you just fess up in an unblock notice, perhaps throw in a graceful apology to ianmacm, and see what happens. Complaints about "lego" blocks or leveling accusations of "wrath" are not going to be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  As I said on their talk page about an unblock, "The request doesn’t seem to show good faith and doesn’t deal with the personal attacks, so I wouldn’t. We need firm commitments on those issues and no attempt to suggest others may be to blame. " Doug Weller talk 07:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Willbb234 admits edit warring and even if comments like "what a load of shit, buddy. Are you capable of reading WP:ONUS?" [5] aren't personal attacks they definitely aren't civil. Would you use that kind of language in, say, a workplace with a colleague you don't know well? Probably not, and I imagine that if you did sooner or later your manager or someone from HR would tell you to stop. This block could probably have be lifted if Willbb234 made it clear they understood what was wrong with their behaviour and that they wouldn't do it again, but instead they reacted by claiming the block was down to the "wrath" of the blocking admin and opening this thread in an apparent attempt to get some sort of revenge [6]. I suggest the OP withdraw this, wait a bit, and then file an unblock request dealing with the issues in their behaviour. Hut 8.5 12:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• At Climatic Research Unit email controversy, the edits in question aren't egregious, and largely come down to some copyediting, removing "grossly" from "grossly mischaracterized", and swapping "climate change denial" framing for "global warming sceptics". These are recurring sorts of minor POV edits in the climate space on Wikipedia. The word choice of "grossly" is a perfectly valid conversation to have, but rather than have a conversation (Willbb234 didn't use the talk page at all), he edit warred against three other people. Edit warring isn't allowed here. When called on it, he went on offense: Or do you only ban users you don't like? I understand you might be a bit angry, but try not to throw your toys out the pram. You're a big boy now and we can all behave ourselves., followed by a couple pretty terrible unblock requests. Now we're here, and people are called science goblins, etc. Edit warring isn't allowed, even if you stay away from 3RR. Probably could've been a fixed-length block rather than indefinite, but it's the sort of thing that should be very easy to get unblocked from. "My bad. Shouldn't have edit warred and gotten angry. I won't edit war further and will use the talk page to find consensus" yada yada... bam, unblocked. Over at Dnepropetrovsk maniacs (oof, wish I hadn't looked at the content of the diffs), it doesn't seem like there's any POV issue -- it's mainly just edit warring again. You went past 3RR there. Being right isn't a good excuse. Doug would've also been justified blocking Ianmacm there, but i suspect what Doug saw was that you were engaged in edit wars on multiple articles, and even broke 3RR on that one. I'm surprised it wasn't a typical ~24h block at that point. Regardless, these are justified blocks. Just stop edit warring. Don't point at other people. If you see other people edit warring, that has nothing to do with whether you should be; just report them for edit warring and/or resolve it on the talk page. As above, this should be very easy to get lifted. Or, well, they should've been very easy. Now, with this thread and the lousy unblock requests, admins may want to see a more elaborate demonstration of clue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  👍 Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indefinite is not infinite. I could have unblocked yesterday had OP done as you suggest. Instead we are here. I find the bit about throwing toys out of prams to possibly be ironic. YMMV. Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree 99.9%. Is that a first for us Rhododendrites? 😀 Atsme 💬 📧 15:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  +1. JBL (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• This all could have been avoided if Willbb234 had handled it the right way. Instead, what would have been a simple appeal has exposed a deeper behavioral problem and a combative attitude that is inherently incompatible with a collaborative project. Trying to play the victim, using condescending language towards others, and essentially tirading around WP is not the way to handle things. They have clearly been around long enough to know better. If they had bothered to take the appeal process seriously, they probably could have been unblocked by now. If they seriously do not see a problem with the way they flippantly approached the appeal process, then that's an indication that there is no recognition of what has gone wrong here and behavior is not likely to change. Past performance is indicative of future results. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have been watching this post and it seems that Willbb234 has some issues with WP:CIV Seems to me the next action is to expand the block for the user until they can follow basic expectations of behavior on Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would hope that the frustration caused by the behavior Willbb234 encountered is taken into consideration because nobody's hands in this edit dispute are sparkling clean. Just my 2¢ worth. Make that $1.00 in consideration of today's inflation – which is really hurting folks on Bonaire, my little island paradise of inflate-the-price. Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I endorse Doug's actions and I believe Willbb234 needs to revisit their compliance with policy. Andrevan@ 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for no reason, won't be donating again

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

---

Not that bothered but when I've been blocked for trying to fix a page where solid facts have been removed by another user (who should have been blocked lol), I not only no longer want to contribute any more, but I also have less trust in the information on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.235.206 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Since there are six million articles, care to narrow it down a bit for us? Slywriter (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Innican Soufou

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

---

There's too much to cover. But the antics at Joe Biden's talkpage is the tip of the iceberg. Innican Soufou is clearly a WP:NOTHERE case. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Very curious to find out why legitimate discussion is such an issue for you. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusing two admins (Acroterion, Muboshgu) of harassment is not legitimate discussion. Neither is referring to the current US President as "the Resident" three times; [7], [8], [9]. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a sustained bout of trolling and boundary-testing. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this user seems here to be POV pushing and has an axe to grind. Andrevan@ 00:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The AP discretionary sanctions are an option if any admin wants to use them for a discretionary block, as I made Innican Soufou aware of them about 2 hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Also they just breached the 3RR limit at Talk:Joe Biden; [10], [11], [12], [13]. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Individual is still continuing such antics at the Biden talkpage. My guess, it's a sock of a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for one week for BLP violations and edit-warring. GoodDay, please don't accuse editors of socking without evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• The editor got off easy. I was preparing to block them indefinitely. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: I thought about it. Feel free to increase the block if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bbb23, thanks but I trust and respect your judgment, so let's see what happens in a week. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bbb23, I hope you're correct about my assumptions. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have no idea what that means.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I hope the editor is not a sock. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Talk page access revoked due to ongoing Biden "resident/former vice president" trolling which does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

moving article title

Hello, I am getting difficulty in renaming(moving) "Theological College of the Holy Trinity" to "Holy Trinity University" because the college has already been upgraded (classified) as "University" two years ago by the country's ministry of education. here is the link to university's page https://www.htu.edu.et/ I am looking forward for your support/suggestion thank you Fasil H. (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fasil H., I think you're talking about Theological College of the Holy Trinity? There's already an article at Holy Trinity University so the article can't be moved there. It could be moved to Holy Trinity University (Ethiopia). Probably needs a disambiguation page. valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Since both pages are completely unsourced it might be better to look at that first ... Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I use a techalt?

I have used both this account and my legitimate alternate account, NotReallySolak, to revert TheCurrencyGuy's currency-related changes which do not have consensus (a rollback precedent done by Kashmiri is here). I would like to get a go-ahead before I continue using NotReallySolak as a TECHALT. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This is of some significance since I have found around tens of these changes on a cursory glance. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging. I'd say, using an alternative account would be perfectly legit here – Wikipedia has no policy prohibiting multiple accounts as long as they are disclosed and not used for illegitimate purposes. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

My primary concern is creating an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: The NotReallySolak account was created in April 2021 (Special:Log/NotReallySolak). NotReallyMoniak (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Using two different accounts to make reverts that don't meet the exceptions for WP:EW could appear to be attempting to evade the 3 revert limit. You should use one or the other. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of when it was created, it (currently) specifically states "NotReallySolak is for reverting TheCurrencyGuy's edits", which is therefore (to quote myself) an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I never used both account at the same time. I made two reverts on this account before switching to my alt. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think using an alt for a mass revert can be reasonable if that revert is non-controversial (I am admittedly biased, having made about 1,500 such edits), but agree with Schaz and Primefac that it should be avoided in the case of a bona fide content dispute. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think User:NotReallySolak (and User:'zin is short for Tamzin for that matter) fall into that grey area of "Not something you're going to get blocked for, but still kind of dubious" Why are those accounts needed? What legitimate purpose do they serve?

I've got an alternate account, RoySmith-Mobile. My legitimate reason for having it is I use it on my phone. If my phone gets stolen or lost, not being logged into it with my regular (admin) account reduces the security exposure. What's your legitimate reason? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I used my alt to make those 1,500 reverts because I felt that doing them on this account would make it harder for people to look through my contribs and hold me accountable as an administrator. Imagine you're trying to get a sense of if the newest admin is acting prudently, you get a page back in her contribs, and then it's 30 consecutive pages of the exact same edit. That seemed unfair. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm having trouble following this logic. How is curating your edit history making it easier for other people to understand what edits you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Tamzin's alt, I can see the merit for that particular mass revert. Nothing controversial, just a large mopping up in user talk space. I'm not sure the same logic supports using an alt in mainspace for mass reverts unless community consensus supports the action and the alt is just serving as conduit(bot like) for the community. Slywriter (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith, I understand that my "legitimate reason"s might be weak, but:

1. TCG did not have the consensus before making their changes; ergo, my reverts only serve to restore the version with consensus.
2. As I said in the original comment, there's already precedent with rolling back TCG's changes.
3. I am not a rollbacker, but if I were one, then item 5 of ROLLBACKUSE would come to play.

Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Two separate notes:

1. A TCG RfC on Is it ruble or rouble? (and kopek or kopeck) has recently been SNOW closed with "no prejudice against opening a move request". The closer (HTGS) also left this message to TCG.
2. I see three main possibilities out of this thread:

1. I may continue using NotReallySolak to revert TCG. (see below - NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC))
2. I may revert TCG but I cannot use NotReallySolak for the purpose.
3. I must cease reverting TCG altogether.

I contend that my reverts themselves are legitimate (if Kashmiri was rolling TCG back, I should be able to revert without rolling back), but I have no preference as to the above possibilities. Either way, both this account and NotReallySolak will hold back from the reverts until there exists clear consensus for me to continue.

NotReallyMoniak (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There's three totally distinct issue here. One is whether the edits by TCG should be reverted. That's a content issue, which isn't going to be resolved at WP:AN.

The second is, assuming you do revert the edits, what's the best procedure. There's a few different ways to do that, such as manually reverting, using the undo link, or using the rollback tool. There's no huge difference between them, but rollback generally has the connotation of being used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism, and some people will object to using rollback for things that aren't strictly vandalism.

The last is which account to use. On that, I'll just repeat what I said above, but somewhat more emphatically. I suggest you use a single account for all of your edits. I don't see any legitimate reason to create a alternate account just to do rollbacks. You're being up-front about it, so there's no issue with it being considered socking, but I certainly wouldn't call it best practice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: My alternate account was created a year ago. Other than that, I agree with you, especially your suggestion that I "use a single account for all [my] edits". NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

English language versions

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

---

This website is a schizophrenic mess. All I was doing was pointing out the sheer pigheadedness of imposing the American English form everywhere. I sincerely believe we need to separate the English Wikipedia into American English and Commonwealth English versions. There are just too many variables to attempt to "compromise", invariably this results in a mere popularity contest based on the fact that most editors are American. American English and Commonwealth English are not nearly as mutually intelligible as is supposed. Any intelligibility beyond the most basic communication often proves difficult. There is greater distinction between Commonwealth English and American English than between, say, Norwegian and Swedish or Bulgarian and Macedonian, and those examples all have their own Wikipedias. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"American English and Commonwealth English are not nearly as mutually intelligible as is supposed. Any intelligibility beyond the most basic communication often proves difficult."

I've yet to encounter an American who was legitimately unable to understand "the colour green" and "fish and chips", nor a Commonwealth person unable to understand "the color blue" and "Burgers and fries".

But Hej älskling vs Hei kjaere... well you're literally speaking two different languages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You deliberately cherrypicked examples where they sound the same to the ear. I'm not going to argue because I don't care anymore. I'm just expressing my opinion that this site is a burning hot mess because of its refusal to even contemplate a split. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely believe we need to separate the English Wikipedia into American English and Commonwealth English versions.

Feel free to start your own fork then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy to provided I can get some help in doing so, my tech skills are not the best. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm... sorry.... I'm just extremely frustrated right now. I've had a catastrophic burnout.

I'm just upset that Wikipedia tries to bridge the gap between two extremely distinct linguistic forms. While many of the basic words are shared by both, some aspects of the grammar and meaning of words and turns of phrase, even when there are no spelling differences, are nonsensical to the other. The exact use of words is often more important than the words themselves. This is at its most noticeable in vernacular forms one would not ordinarily write down, while the words may have the same spellings, because of dialectical distinctions phrases which make sense in one form of English may simply be gibberish or imply a very different meaning in another. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Two"? Do you know how many national varieties of English are there on Wikipedia? A few dozen at least. So, while you are at forking the English Wikipedia, please don't forget about an Australian English fork, a Kiwi English fork, a Hinglish fork, a Nigerian Pidgin fork, and so on. Please also make sure that all changes in any national variety article are immediately reflected in the corresponding articles in other varieties.

Apart from that, I wonder whether what national variety of English you'd assign to the word, organization. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Another tranche of mass-created geostubs

In random-articling I came across a group of some 500 Bangladeshi placename stubs all sourced to GEONAMES alone and created in bulk over several sessions by one editor. I understand there might be the possibility of getting these deleted en masse rather either PRODding or AfDing each one. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not much use without details...? Which ones, who? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. Probably there will need to be consensus to delete en masse. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we need significantly more information before we can determine what is the best course of action. Unless they meet a speedy deletion criterion there will need to be a consensus to mass delete (but given Mangoe is an experienced editor I presume they would have just tagged them for CSD if they did), and that will not arise without a clear indication both exactly what the issues are and what the scale of those issues is. The first thing to do is to look at a sample of them and determine whether they are mostly correct or not (GeoNames' accuracy is best described as variable) - if they are correct then we should probably look to better source them rather than delete them, especially if there is potentially useful information in there articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to test behaviour of Irish judges

In Irish news today ([14] [15]) it was noted that a research project at NUI Maynooth created 75 articles about Supreme Court of Ireland cases in order to test whether Irish judges were using Wikipedia to research case law when writing judgments.

It appears that most articles in Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases were created in this project, coordinated by User:AugusteBlanqui. Most of the involved users can be found at [16] but this is not a complete or exhaustive list.

I'm a little non-plussed about Wikipedia being used this way, but the articles seem mostly OK. Just running it by my fellow admins to see if there are any views. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if anyone has questions. We had feedback from Wikiproject Law and NPP. I am familiar with WP:NOTLAB and these articles first and foremost are a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Before this project there were only about six articles on Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, could you post links to the discussions you say took place at Wikiproject Law and at NPP please? Could you also describe your relationship with the project - I'm not asking you to give anything away about your private identify, but was this work done as part of your job? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the Wikiproject Law outreach: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 23#Irish Supreme Court cases

NPP: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Irish Supreme Court cases articles

This project was incidental to my job.

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I guess I am not understanding what the issue is here? If we have decent articles due to the actions of this group, I don't see how their motivation is relevant. NOTLAB seems to refer to things like breaching experiments or test editing. It's also not our concern if Irish judges use Wikipedia for their research- it may be a concern to the people of Ireland, but not us. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the media coverage is missing a bit of nuance (shocker). The issue is not that the articles are poor quality, they are not bad to some quite strong; the issue is that the judges use the articles on Wikipedia for precedent rather than other cases that perhaps are as applicable/relevant but could lead to different legal conclusions or arguments but are not on Wikipedia. Regarding being immediately brought to Admin Notice board, I do find it peculiar. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, this experiment was based on the presence/absence of information, rather than putting potentially incorrect information up to see if it was used? That is probably the main concern here. If the intention included making accurate articles, which seems to be the case based on the Wikiproject and NPP discussions linked above, that seems fine. Perhaps the control group of articles may also see the light of day when no longer needed for research. CMD (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. The research looked at the impact on citations in legal decisions of a case having a Wikipedia article. The articles we created help fill a lacuna on Wikipedia--the almost complete absence of Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is an odd posting. If you read the newspaper article properly, the issue is that Irish high court judges – and/or their clerks – are quoting/paraphrasing from Wikipedia articles on historical major Irish legal cases. If anything, the Wikipedia editors who created these articles are to be commended for the quality of their work. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any problems here. I spot-checked a few of the students' user pages. They all seem to be totally up-front about disclosing the relationship (example: Chocolate2206) so no issues there. I can't find any policy that this violates. On the contrary, it seems like it was a net positive to the encyclopedia by getting some articles written about subjects we should be covering. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  So there was "AN-scope" in the sense that if there'd been a major dearth of disclosure then we'd have to decide to waive any concerns (or not) due to the net improvement of the encyclopedia. Especially since it could be a paid breach depending on how it was done. But Roy's noting that the relationships were noted. In which case we have better articles and no worries, the ideal combo. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Here's the preprint on SSRN fwiw — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• This is group academic use of Wikipedia done correctly. Ambitious undergrad college professors trying to organize miniature classroom edit-a-thons should take notes from this.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! We strove to put the encyclopedia first. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Many things motivate users to edit Wikipedia. This is one I’ve not heard before. However, there’s been no harm to the encyclopedia, we’ve got some quality articles from it and hopefully, we'll get more. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• This is great, thank you to the researchers for doing this project. I'm particularly pleased to see the team's transparency in the approach and the quality of the articles (good enough to be plagiarized!). Stifle probably should have talked to the researchers before asking for opinions at AN. Finally I'll add: how Wikipedia law articles influence Irish judges is absolutely something we should care about at Wikipedia, it's not just something of concern to the people of Ireland. For the people of Ireland, this shows their judges are relying on Wikipedia. For the people of Wikipedia, it shows the same thing: just how much influence these articles have on the real world. That's why our policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are so important. What we write here can change the world. It's paramount we get it right. (Non-administrator comment) Levivich (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Judges shouldn't be using Wikipedia this way, but it's outside of our realm. They should be using the existing law books, which take a little longer and is in the best interest of good law, but again, outside of our realm. As long as the articles are good articles, I don't see any problem with the creation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Similar to WaltCip, I'm wondering how we can get all the other universities to run their own even larger versions of studies like this. I learned about this from Ori sending me a link to <https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/how-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior>. It looks like there's also some coverage at <https://news.mit.edu/2022/study-finds-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior-0727> too, for anyone interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm just going to plug the proposal for a new multilingual sister project (WikiLaw) since it's incidental to this thread. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• There's very little written in the paper itself about conducting research via Wikipedia, the ethics involved, or about what apropos policies and guidelines we have in place about it. The authors do pay small service to saying they made sure the articles were notable and not plagiarized but this is just barely addressed and not within a dedicated section. I would have liked any person who reads that article to have a good understanding of what would be considered proper vs improper editing of Wikipedia and that this project operated within those bounds. E.g., It would have been good to have a link to m:Research:FAQ, Wikipedia:Student assignments, and any number of other policies and guidelines too. As it stands, I think it reads will encourage others to do research without much thought on the benefit or harm it might cause to Wikipedia itself, similar to situations in the past that caused large disruption. There's other issues as well. This kind of editing clearly has Wikipedia:Conflict of interest concerns and it seems to me that some of our best practices listed for WP:COIEDIT were not followed. E.g., the organizer was editing the pages themselves. Also, as far as I can tell, there's no "top-down" summary of the project on the author's page and Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases itself seems to be the primary method to find the edits related to the project. I do see the messages that students left on some of the talk pages but this "bottom-up" approach is an unsatisfactory way for other editors to know the scope of the project. There should be a super easy on-wiki way to answer the questions like 'What pages were create/edited as part of this project?', 'When did it start/stop?', etc, and a summary of the research itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon

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

---

First of all, being a volunteer or being a NPR here on Wikipedia, I give every day to Wikipedia. I tagged CSD on the page Madhav V. Nori because I think the page is not notable and had some strong thoughts that the user has some COI and that the user has operated or is operating multiple accounts previously, where the user accepted [17]and, as far as you can see, there is nothing bad faith here [18]. But without reading anything, this user User:Robert McClenon left a bad faith warning on my talk page where he mentioned I would be blocked. As he said, I did disruptive editing while making a "bad faith edit," which I never did. If you think it is bad faith to ask about the user's previous account, it is known as "bad faith." I don't have here to explain anything, but such tags discourage us while patrolling new pages. All I did was my job here as a volunteer.  DIVINE  18:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@DIVINE per the giant notice at the top of this page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, it's been a long time since I last complained to anyone here, so I forgot and was searching for the tag to notify the editor, but thanks to you, you did it.  DIVINE  19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

DIVINE, why haven't you waited for Robert to respond to your question on his talk page before opening this complaint? Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So you think we should have to wait for anyone superior or have to take permission from anyone to lodge a complaint here?  DIVINE  19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying that a matter that could be resolved with conversation between two editors should be resolved with conversation between two editors. But asking Robert to explain his actions then opening a complaint without waiting for an answer does not seem reasonable. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you should have made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before bringing something here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That was going to be my question, as well. Robert is all about the conflict resolution. They're someone I would actually expect discussion with to resolve issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@DIVINE: WP:A7 does not deal with questions of notability. It states This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event[9] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[10] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This page does assert significance. Once a CSD tag is removed, your optios ar WP:PROD and WP:AfD, after performing a WP:BEFORE Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So do you think asking about the previous account [19] is disruptive?  DIVINE  19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There are ways to ask that would not have been disruptive. If you had assumed good faith and asked in a respectful way, this ANI report would be going very differently. But what you did was accuse them of being a liar in your first post. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

And i never challenged the removal of CSD or anything here.  DIVINE  19:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Devine, on the talk page of the article you said "I believe you have a strong connection to the issue because you're pretending to be an article reviewer and lying about your article being accepted by AFC. " to the person that created it. That is worth the warning that Robert McClenon gave you, and then some. The article was clearly not eligible for a speedy delete, and the tag was removed properly, and you were warned properly. Saying his warning was bad faith was your third (or more) mistake. Do you really want to go down the WP:AN road were we examine the behavior of not only Robert, but of you as well? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Tagging CSD might have been my mistake, but giving warning is also my mistake here. What do you mean? Can't I ask about the previous account and how Robert tagged me as bad faith on the talk page and not on mainspace.  DIVINE  19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Look, I'm gonna be frank with you here. Your responses are indicating that you don't understand or know what you're talking about, which is a problem with an AFC and new page reviewer. I suggest you withdraw this complaint and learn from it, otherwise this seems pretty likely to boomerang. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi PRAXIDICAE, I appreciate it, but let me bear the consequences.  DIVINE  19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Calling a new user a liar when they may just not understand is clearly a WP:BITE issue. It was totally unnecessary, and worthy of a warning. You can ask about previous accounts, but you don't need to be an ass about it. If you don't understand this, you don't need to be patrolling new pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Where did I tell the new user liar? Can you please show me?  DIVINE  19:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  here and I quote: I believe you have a strong connection to the issue because you're pretending to be an article reviewer and lying about your article being accepted by AFC.

  Did you not make this statement? Or is your account compromised again? PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Nope, my account is not compromised again and i remember you as you're familiar. The part of the article showing that it was recently approved via AFC.  DIVINE  19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  You literally just said a few edits ago you never called anyone a liar. So your response makes no sense. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Like your response makes no sense that you called me, they just before.  DIVINE  19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Well, to begin with, putting a CSD on this article was clearly wrong, because it has multiple claims of notability ("CSD#A7 applies to any article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"), even before your bad faith comments about the creator. You should have used AfD. While we're here, can you fix that signature, please? Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm really not thinking clearly to day, but I wonder if pulling AfC and NPR are not a good idea. Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  You have my vote. Clearly, this is not the right person to judge CSD or deal with new users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  They never should've been granted the rights to begin with given their rather lackluster history, so I'd strongly support that @Deepfriedokra. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Who are they?  DIVINE  19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Who is Deepfriedokra? An administrator, 16 years 4 months old, with 137,996 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hello, Mr. or Mrs. Scottish, i'm asking MR/Mrs Praxi about Who are they? not about an administrator.  DIVINE  19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  See: singular they. Praxidicae is clearly referring to you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  So there's no confusion for DIVINE, I was in fact referring to them when I said I'd support removal of perms. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I never heard that they are singular words. Are you the author of the new Oxford dictionary from the MARS?  DIVINE  19:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you do not understand the basic concept of pronouns in the English language, you should not be editing, much less reviewing others work. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I follow the language not your personal emotions. DIVINE (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Glad we agree that I'm a goddess and my emotions dictate the entire English language. I'll be sure to update all you peons at a later date on some more changes. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  +1. Biting new users should be disqualifying for afc/NPP. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I never bite. I always help. How can you call him a new user when he has accepted that he has created multiple articles from his old account and he use to have a Wikipedia account previously?  DIVINE  19:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah yes, the "not new" user with a whopping 31 edits to English Wikipedia on both accounts combined. Clearly they are an expert. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Where did i even ask or question anything after he mentioned his account to him anyway. Can you please elaborate? [20]  DIVINE  19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  ...there is also a very obvious language barrier here. English fluency is probably necessary for reviewing articles. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Does the English Wikipedia also request IELTS score? Could you please ask them to modify the rules?  DIVINE  19:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  The rule is at WP:CIR. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Just a note: it's hard to focus on the content of this thread because WP:BILLBOARD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how to do the paperwork on this one, I mainly only act as a rouge admin or file paperwork at WP:AE. Could someone be so kind, perhaps Deepfriedokra? We all know where this is going. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Achieve consensus and unclick the NPR box. I believe primefac is emperox pf AfC Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  notified of this thread via IRC Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Of course he is; do you have any reservations about his abilities? You could ping him and ask him? DIVINE (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I've pulled NPR, if memory serves the revocation procedures for non-probationary AfC reviewers are more complicated for whatever reason. @Primefac may be able to weigh in there. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  You think I'm really much more into rights? Can you leave a message on my talk page about why you revoked my rights? DIVINE (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  "as per discussion at WP:ANI" is all the message would say. Blablubbs may have pulled the trigger, but there is a community discussion and consensus that decided the fate of that bit. This discussion. No further explanation should be required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm going to go out on a limb and say we have consensus here for removal of both. Whether that is sufficient for AFC, I don't know, but a consensus clearly exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • That is my interpretation at the moment, so I have removed their AFCH access. Should this subthread or the overall thinking change, feel free to ping me and I'll re-add. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Not something we often have to deal with, so not covered in the admin manual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• @DIVINE:, on another note, your signature is clearly afoul WP:SIGAPP, as the text is way larger than what surrounds it. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps yes, since I am unaware of it; if so, thank you for your nice information; please allow me to alter it.  DIVINE  19:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Divine for 31 hours for the personal attacks above: Are you the author of the new Oxford dictionary from the MARS?, I follow the language not your personal emotions. No prejudice to further actions if those are deemed necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Good for a first block. Will educate, Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is not their first block. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  😯 Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Since the user is doubting the consensus, I am voicing my support here for revocation their NPP and AFC user rights, per WP:CIR. Polyamorph (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Endorse block and removal of perms' Combativeness continues on talk. Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'll support block and perms removal. There's evidently an attitude issue here that isn't conducive to dealing with new editors, nor is their engagement with experienced editors much better. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• As Primefac has removed DEVINE from WP:AFCH, their new page reviewer bit has been removed, and they are blocked, I think we are likely done, and someone can close with a note of the obvious consensus that has formed. I would, but I'm a bit too involved in the discussion. Although it hasn't been said in so many words, it is clear that there is a consensus that Robert McClenon acted appropriately and within normal behavioral expectations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. They ain't listening Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree Robert handled this well (so well that none of us even spent any time talking about it). Levivich (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Thank you, @Praxidicae, Deepfriedokra, and Dennis Brown: and others. I don't have anything to add. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Update: The block was extended another 72 hours and talk page access was revoked by Donald Albury.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Liam wigley again

User:Liam wigley, who was blocked by User:Bbb23, is back. They have responded to messages left on their talk page, not by apologising or explaining their behaviour, but with uncivil comments towards Bbb23. If this continues it might perhaps be best to revoke their talk page access. JIP | Talk 11:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see anything that warrants removing talk page access. [21] and [22] are the only two posts. Asking Bbb23 to leave him alone is a (misguided) plea, but isn't a personal attack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• It now appears Liam wigley was a sockpuppet of User:Liam20102195. JIP | Talk 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, well that is a horse of a different feather. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information

I am concerned with @Epiphyllumlover's topic-specific and almost single-minded goal to add information to WP having to do with marriage equality bills amounting to polygamists getting married. These additions have been rejected by community consensus, including an RfC closed two days ago on the Respect for Marriage Act article. Epiphyllumlover's additions to the RFMA article included a section about polygamy, which the community agreed was UNDUE. The editor then added back the info to the lead, which I revered. They have been reverted on The Heritage Foundation's article just today by @Hipal, who said the info had "SOAP/POV problems" (with which I strongly agree). Other additions of polygamy information added to articles within the past few days include Mike Gallagher (American politician), Tony Perkins (politician), New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, the Wisconsin Family Council, etc. The list continues. WP should not be a soapbox for editors to add fringe views to multiple articles. Especially creating the perception that the Respect for Marriage Act will legalize polygamy, something that does not exist in the article or wording of the current bill whatsoever. While a long time WP editor, I don't hang out on the admin boards much and have never proposed a topic ban (at least that I can remember), but if this is the venue for it and is an appropriate discussion to have, I absolutely would propose and support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover on polygamy information related to politics. Any input appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(Also, a quick note: No ownership issues about the RFMA article on my end. I was notified of the RFMA RfC on a noticeboard I follow. I have made exactly two edits on the article, both from this week, one of which was a minor copy edit. --Kbabej (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC))

• Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs)

I hadn't looked into behavioral problems with the content being added to The Heritage Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Epiphyllumlover's revert to emphasize polygamy seems problematic [23].

Looking to other articles, I removed to Epiphyllumlover's addition to Tony Perkins (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There appear to be many more questionable edits. I think this should be taken to WP:AE. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal! I was thinking that might be a good place, but in reading the four bullets of topics they cover, that reads to me as if there needs to be a previous community consensus. That is where I'm having trouble - where does that consensus start? --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions Epiphyllumlover has been alerted multiple time on WP:ARBAB and WP:ARBAP2. The American politics sanctions certainly apply, with the remedy being WP:ACDS. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal Thank you very much, I appreciate that! If the behavior continues I will open a discussion there. --Kbabej (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover is currently notifying WikiProjects about this discussion in a way that seems to focus on content-related discussion rather than user behavior. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

I'm not sure which type of responses to this discussion here Epiphyllumlover expects from the WikiProject participants. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, I just saw the notice on a single WikiProject I follow, but didn't realize they were doing it to multiple projects. Would that be considered canvassing? The issue at hand is user behavior, so I'm also not sure why the widespread notifications are happening. --Kbabej (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If these talk pages have been intentionally selected to favor a specific type of responses to this discussion here, I guess that would be canvassing. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion too quickly, though; what seems more likely to me is that Epiphyllumlover genuinely believes that getting more eyes on this discussion increases the probability of a fair conclusion. And as they have recently been topic-banned from abortion, they may reasonably fear that a community ban would be the next step. Having an interest in a fair decision by as many experienced editors as possible about such a severe matter isn't canvassing nor necessarily disruptive at all. I just wanted to point this out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

They've notified a number of individual editors as well as WikiProjects. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As this has now extended to specific users' talk pages ([33]), I have asked them to stop for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Asking sadly didn't help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I closed the RFC, I haven't reviewed all of the contributions. I am neutral on the matters but there was a clear community consensus that emerged in the RFC. I think this user has been civil and thoughtful enough that simply warning them to abide by the consensus that this is fringe/undue material might be a good first step. Andrevan@ 20:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Andrevan. Thank you for the thoughts. I want to AGF, but I also think there's a concerted effort to push a specific agenda, especially as they're topic banned from other issues (abortion). The discussion on the RFMA was thorough, and they were notified many times about community consensus and about fringe material, but have simply ignored those notifications. --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Andrevan. We're not at a ban yet. If just pushing on the same subject repeatedly in a short space of time resulted in topic bans we would have orders of magnitude more topic bans in place. Same with leaping to topic bans just because an editor has restrictions in some other topic area. PS: Polyamory is not a "fringe view". The view that the specific piece of legislation under discussion would legalize polygamy apppears to be an incorrect one, though; it is at least not well-supported in sources. That's a good reason to exclude content about it from the article in question, but not a good reason to summarily remove someone from the topic area without longer-term and more serious problems in this topic area from that party.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish. Thanks for the thoughts. It appears I may have jumped the gun if that is your assessment, since it matches @Andrevan's as well. When I say "fringe viewpoint", I meant that in relation to the Respect for Marriage Act, which I still believe. To connect the RFMA and polygamy is a fringe viewpoint in my view; only a few extreme unreliable sources discuss it. I am not saying polygamy overall is a fringe viewpoint. I think the distinctions between the two are neither here nor there, however. I have a concern with the repeated POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint when it is connected to marriage equality; for now it seems editors will likely just need to keep cleaning up articles as edits are made. --Kbabej (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Incorrect" and "fringe" are not synonymous. Fringe viewpoints, in WP terms, are the subject of widespread organized PoV pushing, like the flat-earth hypothesis, or belief in healing power of inert crystals, and are by their nature anti-scientific, anti-truth, anti-fact. Being wrong about something is not the same as being inimical to the reality of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then, "incorrect" and "wrong" information. I don't see how that's any better to have a campaign to add incorrect/wrong information across a large swath of articles. --Kbabej (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The content added to RFMA after the RfC might not be the same as in the RfC and it might have come with new sources. This is what Epiphyllumlover says, but I have not checked, because I already given much of time to help the situation and I have no particular interest in this topic. (I was summoned by bot). If that is true, then it's not at all a disruptive edit that calls for a warn. What I have seen is that editors in this talk page seems more interested in warning people, talking of bans, etc. than actually discussing the subject. There might be things that I do not see. I don't know Epiphyllumlover and I don't know much about the topic. So, I cannot judge what's going on, but, based on what I have seen, Epiphyllumlover is not at all the one to blame. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers, the information is the same information. The RfC focused on the content of the topic, not the particular use of sources. The RfC question was "Should the article include a section on "Implications for polygamy legalization"?" The answer was a strong no from the community. The information was then added to the lead instead of a section. Perhaps avoiding the technical definition of a "section", but obviously against the spirit of the RfC. --Kbabej (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion isn't helpful. A topic ban is a behavioral remedy. This isn't the venue to discuss sources or dispute content matters of coverage. The question is whether Epiphyllumlover will agree to abide by the consensus not to keep adding this polygamy fringe theory to the article and related articles, since there is clearly a community consensus that it does not merit such weight as Epiphyllumlover is trying to give it. Beyond that, the discussion should be discussed at the article talk page. If Epiphyllumlover doesn't agree, then a community topic ban may be proposed or take it to WP:AE for further enforcement. Andrevan@ 21:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: I have't read the previous comment) I am not expert in RfC legislation, if that even exists, but I find it strange that a RfC is final even in the presence of new sources? This is especially strange given that much of the opinions in the RfC were based on the sources presented at the time. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers. The RfC is two days old, and clear consensus demonstrated the topic (including the sourcing) was UNDUE. That was brought up many times. Adding a paragraph to the lead two days after an RfC determined the information is not appropriate is not appropriate evasive of community consensus in my view. It should be taken to the talk page and discussed. It's not like any time has passed at all and things have significantly changed, either. --Kbabej (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict: I haven't read the previous comment) @Andrevan: but therefore one needs to know if Epiphyllumlover even failed to respect the RfC once. I don't think that he/she has, because most opinions in the RfC referred to sources and it seems that he/she used new sources. I cannot see how this is not relevant to this procedure that accuses Epiphyllumlover not to respect the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The RFC led to a consensus that the material was undue and not sourced appropriately. Epiphyllumlover could start a discussion about the new sources, but they should not just start adding the material to more places immediately after the RFC concluded. Epiphyllumlover must take to heart what the RFC result means for what they are trying to add. Andrevan@ 22:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dominic Mayers three separate editors called the topic "grossly undue" weight with that exact wording. Not a single editor voted in favor of the information remaining. I think the discussion of new sources two days after a topic has been deemed undue weight by 100% of participating editors could be appropriate, if a discussion happens on the talk page. Adding information back seems intentionally evasive. --Kbabej (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict: I did not read the last comment from Kbabeh) @Kbabej: We both gave our opinion. I don't have anything to add. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it would have been more appropriate to discuss the content in the talk page before adding it, especially given that the RfC was not against it, but indicative of possible oppositions. But, there is no rule that requires that to my knowledge. It was simply unwise I feel, but even that, it just my feeling. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the editor has a prior topic ban in another politically/religiously charged area, we should expect them to exhibit caution and follow the indication from the RFC was was indeed pointing out that this information was undue given the sourcing, new sources means a new discussion, not to disregard the RFC and community consensus especially given the other prior topic ban, Andrevan@ 22:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I will not comment on that. I speak about what I know. I don't know about the previous history of Epiphyllumlover. 23:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The ANI history of Epiphyllujmlover's topic ban issued this past May are archived here, here and especially here. Kire1975 (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed most of Epiphyllumlover's recent contributions re polygamy/Respect for Marriage Act. Is Epiphyllumlover repeating the behavior that resulted in the abortion topic ban? --Hipal (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I found this bit of soapboxing in a BLP particularly problematic. The edit summary used at Respect for Marriage Act [34], writing about both sides to maintain neutrality & better references to insure the addition is not undue demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of policy that is disruptive to topics under sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover, for the reasons stated above and the fact that other methods haven't worked to get them to abide by Wikipedia's policies and !votes. Moncrief (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree a topic ban is warranted here. All this seems incredibly WP:TE from Epiphyllumlover. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best for everyone as a whole to postpone these proceedings until after the bill is passed, or until after Congress adjourns for August.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover, I think folks were hoping for you to say that you will abide by the consensus to stop adding this material, not that you will postpone until Congress adjourns. Andrevan@ 17:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover, I'm confused why this discussion should not move forward "until after the bills is passed..." The issue I have raised is you adding UNDUE content against consensus; it has nothing whatsoever to do with if the bill passes or not. Whether the bill gets shelved or passed with unanimous support is irrelevant to this discussion. --Kbabej (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

... That isn't how it works here. That's such a nonsensical request that I am actually questioning your motives now. @Epiphyllumlover: You know that Wikipedia is not the place for us to share our opinions on pending legislation, right? Like.. whether this bill has passed or not really should have zero bearing on how we cover its contents. This really shouldn't be on your mind, and it gives the impression you are really here to stand on a soapbox. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you would make such a bizarre and unwarranted statement makes me think even more that you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you still even now don't understand the purpose and the policies of Wikipedia. We should wait until the bill is passed to write an article on pending legislation? What on earth are you talking about? Moncrief (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• For context, Epiphyllumlover was an incredibly tendentious presence on abortion-related articles. His agenda-driven bludgeoning stood out even by the standards of that controversial topic area, finally resulting in a topic ban ([35]). I would view the current concern about anti-LGBT editing not in isolation, but as an extension of their disruptive effort to push a partisan right-wing agenda on Wikipedia. A broader topic ban from American politics, including LGBT issues, would be the minimum appropriate sanction in my view, although their extensive track record would more than justify an indefinite block for disruptive and tendentious editing.
  I know that we typically focus these discussions narrowly on the "rights" of the editor facing sanctions, but I would implore you to consider the good-faith contributors who have to deal with Epiphyllumlover, and to attach some value to the immense amount of their time, effort, and goodwill that Epiphyllumlover has wasted. (For clarity, I'm commenting here as an editor, not an admin, as I've interacted with Epiphyllumlover on abortion-related pages). MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Given their comments here and the comment from MastCell, I must now support the topic ban for Epiphyllumlover. Andrevan@ 20:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am struck by the straight-up dishonesty in this discussion (on top of the initial coatracking). --JBL (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• I am highly concerned by the earlier edit here about waiting until passage of the bill. That edit seems to indicate that Epiphyllumlover is unfortunately interested in POV pushing here, and I would support a broad topic ban on American Politics as suggested by MastCell above. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 04:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Moncrief (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. —Kbabej (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban on whatever area is being suggested here. However, he already has one topic ban - see here, here and here - and is all but asking for a second one here. He is not willing to WP:LISTEN to anyone or change his own behavior. A topic ban as proposed will only be giving him what he's asking for. In order to prevent whatever agenda driven disruptive editing chaos he plans to inflict next, the only answer to the problem is a full WP:SBAN. He has been like this for years. A time limit on the sitewide ban won't be sufficient, imo. Kire1975 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please remove my access to AutoWikiBrowser

I have not used AWB in a while and I don't have immediate plans to use it for a particular task, so I don't see a compelling reason for me to maintain the pseudo-permission by being listed on the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 Erledigt. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting panel closure of an AfD

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

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender)

As has historically been done for other highly contentious and large AfDs, I would like to request a panel closure of this one. It is at 176 kb and rising, with dozens of 'votes'. It would be quite helpful I feel.

It still has about another day to run, but I'm posting it now to give time to make the arrangements and for people to volunteer. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads, but I think this request should be listed at WP:CR. ––FormalDude talk 03:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I forgot that there was a section there for deletion discussions, but they all seem to be old ones, and I thought previous panel closures had been requested here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The older deletion closure requests at WP:CR were only requested recently and haven't been actioned yet by the volunteers at the board. We have handled panel closure requests at the page before, so this wouldn't be out of scope. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that this should probably be a panel closure, but this is the wrong venue. Make the request at WP:CR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I listed it there too. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• In general we let contentious and active AfDs run longer than a week. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know if there's any official policy on this, but I agree that as long as useful discussion is happening, there's no reason to close the AfD based on the calendar. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Almost tempted to just relist it so it will run another week. And I'm not convinced a panel IS required, particularly if it runs another week. Letting AFDs like this run awhile often means they sort themselves out, and consensus is much more clear. I probably would decline closing it, but we have plenty of admin who excel at closing these types of discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Relisting may not be a bad idea, since the article creator keeps stating "It's just a stub". If after this time the article hasn't fleshed out or become more wiki-compliant or received more unimpeachable citations, that may impact the way new people !vote. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm fairly certain I'm not the only editor who is hesitant to contribute to that page while the AfD is in progress. Maybe I'm weird, but I think there's an entirely different dynamic at play than the usual discussions and/or copy-editing process when it's an article that's subject to deletion versus a sentence/paragraph/section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  ...and sometimes there is edit warring over the article during AFD. But most of the time, yes, editing is inhibited except for adding sources and prose by those trying to safe the article by demonstrating independent notability. That is one reason AFD lasts a week, to give it time to be "repaired" to a state worth keeping, if it is possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's not really very active if you discount the same few editors having the same arguments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Eyes needed at Recession

Urgh. Talk:Recession says it all — some additional, uninvolved (admin) eyes and watchlists would be appreciated — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 04:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Clocking out here after most of the middle watch and part of the morning watch (Eastern time). Notes for whoever takes over next (as I go to sleep, the rest of the East Coast wakes up; enjoy!): Some reverting and hatting; indeffed StarkGaryen (first month AE); a round of revdels over a nasty link; and I put related List of recessions in the United States under an AE consensus requirement for addition of new recessions. If people continue to try to add the same claim without sourcing at Recession § United States, it might be a good idea to add the same restriction there, or say more simply that it has to mirror whatever is at the full list. I commented at WP:RFPP discouraging protection of the talkpage, but intentionally didn't decline; would rather that be someone else's call. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Don't be surprised if you have to use full protection for a week (with a note that you will lift if there is clear consensus on the talk page), which tends to piss people off, but forces them to work together. Not saying it is there yet, but sometimes it takes a big hammer instead of a lot of little hammers. For the record, I'm not a fan of "consensus required" on most articles like this because it ends up causing more AE/ANI/AN reports than it solves problems. Not always, but it can. Some will get very petty about it and keep filing over any addition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Please also consider applying American Politics DS and its talk page header. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Interesting idea, but it's such a broad topic that I'm not sure if that is appropriate. Would want the input from other admin before doing that. I'm 50/50 on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks. The current disruption appears to have been driven entirely by political narratives and we have "...Brandon" comments and other political soapboxing on the talk page. We should only be so fortunate as to have this level of activity on any economics article, if it were directed to sourced economics content improvement. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully the RFC there, will calm the waters. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Eyes might also be needed at 2022 Recession and the associated AfD. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 22:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• BTW, word on the street is "Wikipedia changed the definition of recession [36] and then locked the page" (although technically the article was semi-protected 24 hours before that change). Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• The original version was quite accurate. Many countries, and economists, use two successive quarters of negative GDP as a "technical definition" of a recession but the US does not, and instead relies on the NBER to define it. Restatements of GDP, which can be big (and will be big due to the current levels of inflation), mean that the -0.9% for Q2 2022 could end up being anywhere between -2% to +2% within 12–24 months. However, these two approaches are not that different as there has never been a period in the US where GDP fell for two quarters (and it remained as such post revisions), which did not result in a recession. That is the one interesting fact that is missing from the article, but I cannot add it as the article and TP are locked. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the discrepancy between the definitions/approaches is purely timing. Yes, when all the GDP restatements are done, two subsequent quarters of negative growth is a recession, however, the need to wait the 12–24 months for the restatements (which are going to be big for 2022 due to high inflation), means that an "initial" print of two subsequent quarters of negative growth is not necessarily going to end up being a recession post all restatements. This is the nuance that is missing in the article. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No. We don't discuss the definition of a recession here. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Cribbins

I've just tried to revdel the copyvio versions of the article, only to get a message that they are revdel'd, but comparing article revisions shows that they aren't. Not my area of expertise, so if an admin more familiar with this can take a look, Bernard Cribbins can appear as a RD on the main page. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Erledigt. Primefac (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Likely new Fox News RfC

Two users, Andrevan and Awesome Aasim are intent on creating a new RfC for Fox News. If either attempt gets off the ground, it is likely to get hundreds of responses, be very contentious and to need another panel close like the last RfC in 2020. Discussions are being held at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Second_Fox_News_RfC in order to workshop the format in order to minimise disruption. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a draft here where I have tried to address all objections and this user reverted the addition[37] while no specific objection has been substantiated to it. I started a thread on WP:DRN but I self-withdrew after this reasonable request from another involved user[38]. I do not understand why this thread now has been posted or this one [39]. I guess it's not really WP:CANVASSing but the user is currently ignoring my question as to what was wrong with the draft I posted. Andrevan@ 18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I just opened the RFC. Thank you all for the help and feedback and collaboration on improving it. I think the work made it much better. Andrevan@ 17:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

AIV backlog

WP:AIV is currently backlogged. There's currently 11 IP vandal reports, and 1 user vandal report pending. Oldest report is currently around five hours old. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Everything is under control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Urgent attention - learnt of slanderous public remarks

I was recently alerted to these pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Entrepreneurs&oldid=915137123
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Entrepreneurs&oldid=915134690
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Entrepreneurs&oldid=915189108

where slanderous and unsubstantiated remarks were made of publicly listed individuals and are available in Wikipedia's history.

It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction. 116.15.75.19 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of IP block

I've temporarily blocked this IP for making legal threats. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I almost commented asking them to remove the one line, but I don't think it is really a legal threat. Note that the comments they were referring to where suppressed, not just RevDel'ed. I see their comment as poorly worded rather than a threat, but that is just me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The way it is currently worded, one might be able to claim that they are just "informing Wikipedia" of the situation, but it can also take the appearance of an indirect threat, along the same vein of "nice car, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it". Whatever the case, a full retraction of the wording is necessary and reasonable before an unblock can be made. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction" is not a legal threat. Some editors here take this concept way too far. Like anything that could in any way be construed as even a veiled reference to the legal system is considered a "legal threat". There is no point in blocking this editor. It's language policing gone amok. And this despite WP:NLT explicitly saying "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." Levivich (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think you'd struggle to justify a legal sanction anyway, since the removed material doesn't appear to make any mention of any "publicly listed individuals", merely suggesting that the society itself had been involved in some unnamed scandal (apart from the single diff in 2019 which was suppressed, and isn't therefore in the history anyway). Reading through it, "It might be worth removing these pages" might even be right - the whole article is borderline notable at best anyway, with 90% of the cites bing about its alumni, not the society itself. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a huge difference between "I, or a person I represent, will take action against you" and "I think you should be aware that some third party who I have nothing to do with has cause to take action against you". This looks to me more like the second type, not the first. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• What Levivich said. Also, one of the diffs leading to the linked revisions has been oversighted, so there may well have been something worth reporting here, and the wording used for the report may even have been accurate. Orangemike, I'd recommend unblocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Levivich. "It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction" does not mean "These pages have to be removed or I'll take legal action". Mentioning the legal system does not automatically constitute a legal threat. JIP | Talk 20:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The entire purpose of our "no legal threats" policy is to prohibit the creation of a chilling effect on proper edits by the use of threats of legal consequences. It seems to me (as WaltCip says) that the IP's use of the word "slanderous" (twice), the "urgent" tone of the header, and the general flavor of the post went beyond the informational to the threatening, especially given the rather broad U.K. interpretation of the concepts of libel and slander. I'd like to see a stronger consensus on this before revoking the block. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not warn before blocking? Why not advise before warning? Why not ask before advising? Levivich (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Tell me about your knowledge of "the rather broad U.K. interpretation of the concepts of libel and slander". -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m still curious about OrangeMike's understanding of U.K. libel laws. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

My writer friends in the U.K. have given me to understand that U.S. principles such as "truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel" and the "actual malice" rule do not apply in the U.K. Have I misunderstood? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The very short answer to this is that historically this was true, so much so that the U.S. passed the speech act in 2010 to make foreign defamation judgments (with those from the U.K. certainly in mind) unenforceable in U.S. courts unless they basically passed muster under U.S. law. As a response to that and other criticism, the U.K. heavily revamped its speech laws in 2013, and today, they are much closer to the U.S. approach (and more protective of speech) than before (a recent anecdotal example is the Depp/Heard saga--no judgment in the U.K., but judgment in Virginia). I will say that truth as a defense is certainly a concept in the U.K., but actual malice, coming as it does from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, is obviously not. I'm certain that's more than was actually wanted here, but cheers nonetheless. Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s clear you don’t know U.K. libel laws. You should not be using U.K. libel laws as (part) justification for blocking. I suggest you unblock now. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This was a bad block, per Levivich and Malcolm. The IP was not making legal threats, they were alerting us to the possibility that old revisions of an article may mean Wikipedia is liable to legal action by a third party. In 2019 the article included a full list of leaders of the society and the oversighted revision added unsourced, potentially libellous allegations of serious wrongdoing about three of those people. As WMF legal explicitly say that libellous material should be oversighted, and that revision has been, we have nothing to worry about there. I don't see anything in any of the old revisions linked by the OP that requires oversight. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This was carelessly worded by the IP but perhaps stopped short of WP:NLT. An inexperienced person may not know that anything that might be perceived as a legal threat on Wikipedia is a no-no.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Even so, WP:NLT blocks aren't permanent. As long as an opportunity is given to retract the legal threat, it shouldn't be a huge deal. This isn't like when someone got blocked for using the phrase "legal matters" in a non-legal context. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• When I read the comment I get the sense that WaltCip refers to("nice car......"). Maybe it's just the way it's worded. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, for me as well. No admin or Wiki-expert I, admittedly. And, I generally agree with Levivich's overall take here, but this one strikes me as a reasonable block because I too read it as a thinly-veiled threat. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all> Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's true reasonable minds may differ, but I think it's worth point out something crucial about the "nice car, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it"-type of threat mentioned by Walt. When that sort of threat is being made, it's being made by someone who is simultaneously demanding payment of "protection money" or something else of value (and who is usually a known criminal), which is what makes it threatening. The statement, by itself without the other circumstances, would not be construed as a threat. If someone says, "you shouldn't park there or you'll get a ticket", that would not be considered a threat by anyone... unless it's spoken by a police officer. It's the circumstances that define the difference between veiled threats and good-faith warnings (which I've written about in more detail elsewhere). Levivich (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously not a legal threat. Bad block. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• While it's not obviously not a legal threat, I do believe that it was not obviously a legal threat (very confusing phrasing, I apologise). In the absence of it being a clearly a legal threat, then it was not appropriate for the block to be issued directly. A warning with a "clarify or be sanctioned" effect would have been the correct action to take. The block should be overturned, and the warning then issued (rather than requiring an appeal first) Nosebagbear (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree. Blocks without any prior warnings should only be used in extreme cases, such as persistent obvious vandalism, which this is clearly not. Note also that this is only the IP's second contribution ever, the first one was thirteen years ago (and given that amount of time, it was not necessarily the same physical person). JIP | Talk 02:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• For comparison purposes, here's a recent and obvious legal threat by a different IP: ALL .. I.D.s HERE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE AUTHORITIES YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO THEM.. WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN JAIL... WHILE THEY SCAN YOUR HARDDRIVES Note the difference... Levivich (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking it down

Let us hope that the original poster was not making a subtle threat. It can always be restored. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on edits

• Furthermore, I find it peculiar that this entire discussion has only concerned User:Orangemike's block of the IP user and not the actual concern originally raised by the IP user. JIP | Talk 02:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Part of it may be the edits being from 2019, removed in the very next edit(s) made, and not being in the article at present so far as I can tell. Unless something is really wonky Google shouldn't be pulling up three-year-old revisions of articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It's similar to people on social media saying that Wikipedia changed the definition of a recession. It did in some vandal edits, but this is water under the bridge as the edits have been removed. Some of the edits to Oxford Entrepreneurs had NPOV and sourcing problems, so more eyes are needed on this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Dealt with by Thryduulf in his comment above of 21:24, 30 July 2022. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Geschichte has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in March to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Geschichte requested it within three months. Because Geschichte has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte#Motion:_Open_and_suspend_case_(1)_2.

For the arbitration committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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

PlanespotterA320 unblock request

• PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091 § User:PlanespotterA320 and WP:GS/UYGHUR
• utrs:61310
• User talk:NinjaRobotPirate § UTRS appeal #61310 (permalink)
• User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights § UTRS appeal #61310 (permalink)

PlanespotterA320 was blocked in February by The Blade of the Northern Lights for Belligerently pushing genocide denialist talking points, amidst an AN/I thread about her comments on the Uyghur genocide. Four unblock requests (permalink) were declined shortly thereafter, before her talkpage access was revoked by NinjaRobotPirate. She submitted UTRS appeals on 7 March, 31 May, and 11 June, all of which were declined, before submitting her most recent appeal on 28 July. Deepfriedokra and I both assessed this appeal as viable, and The Blade and NRP said they would not object to an unblock (with the former's support being conditional on a TBAN from the Uyghur genocide). EdJohnston, however, said that he objected, and I personally found myself on the fence as to whether an unblock would have a net-positive effect. Given that, and given that the original block was imposed during a community discussion, I decided to refer this to an AN appeal, and have downgraded Planespotter's siteblock to a p-block, conditional on only editing her talkpage and this noticeboard. If this appeal is unsuccessful, the closing admin should restore the siteblock (or I can).

Planespotter's appeal:

I do not dispute the gross and innapropriate nature of the comments I made in a futile attempt to "prove myself", I am merely pleading for a second chance - to return to English Wikipedia, to make positive contributions that would aid the Wikipedia's core mission - sharing of knowledge (in the many niche and overlooked/unrepresented in English topics under my areas of expertise, from Soviet aviation to Musical Theater of Central Asia). I don't expect forgiveness from everyone I've tangled with here, and I know I've made a lot of mistakes in the past, but I don't have anything to lose by asking for it and hoping you will give me a chance to turn over a new page in my work as a Wikipedian and allow me to return to make uncontroversial edits (presumably a China-based and topic ban and a 1RR). I strongly don't wish to be subject to a Soviet topic ban since that is both extremely broad and would prevent me from continuing any of my work with the Soviet Aviation Task Force as well as other subject areas where my work is uncontroversial (such as theater arts, adding the public domain photos I've found for Commons to biographies, etc). While I have engaged in edit conflicts in Soviet topics on enwiki, they were generally cosmetic/formatting/stylization based (not political) in nature (just simply happened to occur in the Soviet articles since that is my main area of editing, and could have occurred in a different kind of article if I had been devoted to a different topic). And with a 1RR, there won't be much risk of any controversy in editing anyway.

Regarding my current indef ban on ruwiki that some of you asked about - yes, I was banned on ruwiki, but for completely unrelated reasons. A while ago I filed a request for comment on meta about some of the very sketchy and seemingly coordinated behaviors targeting Crimean Tatar related articles (ranging from a deletion nomination of the article about the Yaliboylu people of the Crimean Tatar nation on the grounds that the very existance of Yaliboylu was a "fringe theory" (I wish I was making that up!), the deletion nomination of the Mubarek zone article accusing Crimean Tatars of making up the whole project as a hoax in their minds to make Moscow look bad (as if Crimean Tatars needed to contrive a hoax for that!), and general troll-ish behaviors that went widely tolerated by admins. In the course of the discussion I became the main subject of focus and was scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb despite begging for the discussion to focus on the issue in the title. Ruwiki then had a discussion about the existance of the discussion where many expressed dismay that existed "impartial observers" were being called in, and expressed desire to see be banned for something, accusing me of "inventing" the problem, "threatening Russian Wikipedia" by saying that Russian Wikipedia would be judged by non-Russian Wikimedians for how it decides to handle the situation. In the course of the ensuing drama where some Russian parties denied the existance of systematic bias against Crimean Tatary in general I found myself refering in a broad sense to some of the users involved in trolling Crimean articles as "chauvanist". The use of that particular word was used as the official grounds to permaban me for insulting other users. I doubt the behavior of the parties I used the word "chauvanist" to refer to would have been tolerated on enwiki for one minute, but such provocations were commonplace on ruwiki - which proliferated as such a hostile environment I realized it would be pointless to even suggestion creation of additional Crimea-related articles already existing on other wikis due to a certainty they would be targeted for deletion by nominators proclaims the well-documented respective topics hoaxes/non-existant. If something similar were to happen on enwiki, ex, some trolls nominate the article about a genocided, non-recognized, assimilated people for deletion proclaiming their ever existing was a fringe theory, I highly doubt ANYONE would be in trouble for referring to the person/people who did it as "chauvanist" or pointing to such pattern of behavior as an example of a manifestation of chauvanist attitudes.

In the meantime, I have still managed to make myself a productive and positive contributer to Wikimedia projects by finding numerous rare/hard-to-find public domain photos for Commons, creating lists of photos to calculate copyright expiration dates and help others find fair-use photos (shared via a google doc upon request), scouring archives for photos to use as fair-use on other wikis, reaching out to other wikis to share historic newspaper clippings with users who might be interested, and other uncontroversial, "boring" stuff.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Also courtesy ping Mhawk10 as initiator of AN/I thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. Depending on what others have to say, I could see supporting an unblock with the suggested 1RR + topic ban from China (or maybe just Uyghurs)... unsure how I feel about allowing edits about Crimean Tatars. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The editwars in CT articles I previously got into were cosmetic (formatting/stylization), not a content thing - so there is nothing to lose when I am constrained by a 1RR rule so I can just finish some of the stubs I started but never got around to finishing, plus letting me create a few new biography article (such as one for Midat Selimov.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support unblock. WP:1RR WP:TBAN Uyghurs. +/- China as a whole. meh. I don't think there will be a problem on ENWIKI about the Crimean Tartars as we have a different corporate culture from RUWIKI. At UTRS, appellant adequately pledged to WP:DR for me to agree with unblock.Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, enwiki has a VERY different "corporate culture" from ruwiki to put it mildly. Frankly I'm surprised more people aren't outraged that the Yaliboylu deletion nomination was treated with legitimacy and sat open until I noted it in the meta filing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment and Question. I agree that any unblock is going to have to come with a WP:1RR restriction and a WP:TBAN from WP:GS/UYGHUR, but there are an additional concerns I have based upon the block on RuWiki. PlanespotterA320, would you be willing to explain the content of the now-deleted User:PlanespotterA320/sandbox/Demonization of Crimean Tatars? I see that it was deleted per WP:U5 (Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) by Beeblebrox on February 2. I'm not able to see the content at this point given that I'm not an admin, but the U5 CSD criterion is used for writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: I barely remember that Demonization of Crimean Tatars page in my sandbox. I'll often put random stuff in my sanbox for convenience (ex, a commonly used infobox partially filled out to copy-paste) and take notes for things that didn't quite fit in the articlespace yet/wasn't ready yet. I do remember some of the things I listed out were examples of photos of Bosnian Nazis "accidentally" labeled as Crimean Tatar in Russian media (which I have a hard time beleiving to be a true case of mistaken identity due to the Unit insignia prominent on the hats clearly indicating a Yugoslav origin, accompanied by a searchable archive number for checking Germany's official records which supply the official captions for such photos). I also listed a few myths and facts (for example, listed names of deported veterans as examples to counter the myth that those who were Red Army veterans weren't deported) I had no opportunity to contest the deletion. Anyway, I now have a new Crimea-based sandbox, where I just have a bunch of lists of people who MIGHT be worthy of wiki articles, maybe or maybe not on enwiki (but certainly for crh wiki), a draft of the article about the CT civil rights movement that I still haven't finished, and a couple unfinished biographies (please don't delete it! I hope to finish that article someday)

  The information regarding the block on ruwiki is readily available and it is rather transparent in its retaliatory nature (for starting the meta discussion) based on comments from users saying gems accusing me of gaming the system, even blatantly saying "Что-то мне представляется, что из таких борцов «за свободу слова» почти каждый рано или поздно оказывается в очень неприятном для них положении." where the fact that I described a user as having "chauvanistic behaviors" was nothing more than a weak pretext to carry out the block sought to silence me. You can view the discussions and comments from the Russians for yourself - I guarantee you that if it happened on enwiki, I would not be the one getting blocked.User forum discussion Admin noticeboard. If my use of the word "chauvanist" was the only reason for the ban they would not have cited the NPOV rule in my ban (since they see creating the discussion as a violation of community consensus and a non-neutral creation, despite the fact that the very purpose of the meta disucssion is to discuss the lack of objectivity), nor would they have stated that I was "threats" against the Russian language section as a whole for simply saying that Russian wikipedia was subject to judgement from meta!. TLDR - I start meta discussion that ruwiki doesn't like. Ruskies want me gone. I describe somebody's behavior as chauvanist and say that ruwiki is subject to judgement from meta. Admin on ruwiki who obeys the cabal of users involved in trolling CT articles uses that as official excuse for the ban.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Mhawk10 That deleted page contained content about how the Soviet deportation of the Crimeans was a genocide, but the current Chinese treatment of Uyghurs is not. I was considering nominating it for deletion myself, but Beeblebrox beat me to it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've undeleted the page temporarily so people can judge for themselves. Note that most of it was written between September of 2019 and May of 2021, with one small addition in August 2021. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Tamzin, Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  • @Tamzin: Feel free to re-delete the page since it has been reveiwed by those who want to read it and I have no use for it (it's just a huge embarassment, now that I remember it more now that I see it and wish I had never written it - I was REALLY sick of being told to shut up and all the "be careful/don't be the NEXT Uyghurs" crap). As I have reiterated in this, I intend to stay on the straight and narrow once unblocked and just write "uncontroversial" stuff, certainly nothing like that page.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• As the original blocking admin, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. Whatever the community or any other admin comes to is fine with me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Decline This doesn't even begin to address all the other items that were [discussed at ANI] even before this all happened that you refer to above and would have led you to being blocked anyway. If there is to be an unblocked I'd like to see all the points raised at ANI to be tackled, not just the Uyghur area but all the ethnic group and nationality edit warring, ownership etc that would have gotten us to a block anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 00:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Canterbury Tail: As I have brought up in this, my editwars and editing in Crimean Tatar content was of a very fundamentally different nature than my purely unconstructive Uyghur edits. One stupid editwar over a hypen and some other cosmetic/stylization things does not negate my ability to continue to write quality content in Crimean Tatar history, where most of the articles I've created (on enwiki) have been accepted without problem (the fact that Russian trolls like to pretend that Mubarek zone and Yaliboylu people aren't real and provoke wikidrama as result of such absurd theories doesn't affect the content on enwiki). While the Russian objections (for utterly absurd reasons) to my Crimea-related articles are well known, and the issue of the hypenization in the one article title is settled, I do not know of any complaints about my many Crimean Tatar articles from the Crimean Tatar community - in fact, quite the opposite, so it feels quite wrong to lump my largely positive Crimea editing into the same basket as the stupid, unproductive, and impulsive pointy edits I made to Xinjiang-related and others for such reasons (like the talkpages of US states/disputed territories) that caused the block that was specifically for genocide denial. The blocking admin specifically said that I am blocked on enwiki for my edits in Uyghur articles, not because anyone (sans Russian nationalists) truly thinks I can't be a positive contributor in Crimea articles/wrote from a Tatarophobic perspective, or won't be a positive contributor other unrelated subjects like botany, musical theater, and aviation.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)