Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320

Good Article ban proposal
Currently there is a proposal to indefinitely ban an editor from contributing at the Good Article project (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations). The discussion is already underway there so it might be best for anyone interested to participate at that page regarding the ban. There was some discussion as to the appropriateness of deciding such a ban at the Good Article Nomination talk. I am not overly familiar with the history in this regard, but it might be worth getting some clarification on this from some editors here. If it is the wrong venue then we can move it here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Small note, I fixed your wikilink above. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that is not allowed, the banning policy says community sanctions discussions have to take place at WP:AN or WP:ANI.  Hut 8.5  08:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am seriously nervous about this. I should note that AfC has occasionally done reviews of AfC reviewers, and I don't know whether that would be counted as similar or different (as we also control giving our de facto userright etc). The editors might be right about previous decisions being made through here, but I'm not inclined to think the "it's basically just a wikiproject" is sufficient. If the football wikiproject had a purely internal "best of football" I might buy that, but GA is a project-wide descriptor, including marking every article awarded. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that this is the place to carry out such a ban. And who would enforce a ban made there anyway? Doug Weller  talk 09:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I too agree - this is the correct venue for a community TBan (which is what this would amount to) to be discussed. I have offered my tuppenceworth at the discussion there. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between the discussion being linked here and taking place elsewhere and vice versa? It just makes a difficult decision unnecessarily harder and more burdensome on the editors involved, and is absolutely not based in the quoted policy which does not mandate that community sanctions must occur only at AN/ANI. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the relevant bit of WP:CBAN, as I read it, is Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I guess it doesn't go on to say that they can't happen anywhere else, but nor does it say that they can - this venue is clearly specified as the preferred venue, with AN/I being the only other option given. It's less of a problem now that it has been linked - but why not simply move the whole discussion here? I do appreciate the difficulty involved in making a decision like that, it can't be comfortable for anyone, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that editors can be banned from taking part in community processes without wider scrutiny. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "May be discussed" is not the same as "Must be discussed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed - I acknowledged that, and I agree that it would be worded better, but when I read 'May be discussed at X (preferred) or Y', I see that as a choice, and infer that Z isn't an option. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not read it that way. I see no exclusion, only a suggestion of possible venues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do read it that way. Two options, one of which is preferred. P-K3 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've proposed updating the wording to clarify this. See WT:BAN.  Your input there would be appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Per GS, how about just moving the discussion here, where there will be many more administrative eyes on it, and generally of editors independent of the GA project (which is not implyng that members of the GA project cannot "police" themselves, mere that, on principle, distance is good). In any case, although the letter of the policy indicates that other venues are availble, in reality an appeal based on "It didn't take place at AN/ANI" will almost certainly suceed, if only because the reviewing admin considers WT:GA too narrow a venue. ——  SN  54129  12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure keeping it independent of GA is a good idea. Watchers of WT:GAN are generally pretty knowledgeable of the process and should be in a better position to judge if an editors reviews or nominations are up to the required standard (one which is pretty lenient) compared to editors at any other venue. A bigger concern to me would be ban discussions taking place here with no input from the GA project. To be perfectly honest most of our best reviewers are not admins. AIRcorn (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My experience with GA is limited (I've submitted 2 candidates, and happily both were accepted), so I'm not an expert there. I also have no knowledge of the particular editor in question here, so all this is in the abstract.  There's two issues here:
 * Can editors be banned from participation in GA due to WP:CIR? Surely the answer has to be yes.  There's a variety of administrative tasks (new page patrol, AfC reviews, various forms of clerking, OTRS, NAC, DRV, DYK, etc) which don't necessarily require admin rights, but do require specialized knowledge and skill to perform correctly.  Surely GA (particularly reviewing) is one of those.  In almost all ways, we bend over backwards to be inclusive, but we do have standards and as you move up the hierarchy, those standards get stricter, and there needs to be some way to enforce them.
 * Where is the right forum to discuss it? I think the current approach was correct.  Start with one-on-one communication, and try to provide useful guidance for how the editor can improve their work.  If that fails, a project-wide forum such as WT:GAN makes sense.  But, ultimately, WP:AN is where sanctions get imposed.  Basically, you're come here and say, "Look, these are all the lesser steps we tried, they didn't fix the problem, so now we're asking the community to impose a TBAN".
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * that's an excellent assessment of our "chain of command", and should probably be pag-inated. ——  SN  54129  13:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thoughts:
 * WP:SOFIXIT If you really think that discussion should be here, move it, and leave a 'this discussion has been moved' template. Now anyone can do that, but addressing specifically administrators commenting here who think it should move, here, you are in administration, which in part is administering process.
 * Keep in mind WP:NOTBURO, and what are the trade-off's, everyone here now knows about that discussion and can comment there if they want. If it's closed against the editor, there will be a record of a bunch of editors telling an editor not to do something, and if the editor continues doing what a consensus says they should not, pretty much prima facie disruption by the editor.
 * To me, that looks like a rather sad or embarrassing situation, perhaps ask the subject if they want it moved here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved topic ban discussion
The following content was copied  transcluded   copied from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Sorry to steal your post, Wugapodes, but I think transclusion is cleaner here. Please undo my change if you think it is not benificial. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As the whole idea was to transfer the discussion here and continue it, transcluding and closing it is exactly what we don't need. Primefac, Wugapodes, can this discussion and the !votes please be continued here? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: as no one seems to be around, I have restored the Wugapodes move so that the discussion can continue. I hope that I have done so correctly. The first section was the initial discussion that led up to the proposal to ban. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Consultation with Happypillsjr
Though I wouldn't particularly want to call-out a user, many past discussions, most recently here, suggests that the pattern of poor nominations and reviews by needs to be further (perhaps more formally) addressed. An attempt at mentoring by myself at the end of 2019 and start of 2020 didn't help much, and various requests for the user to slow down or stop have shown that they will wait about 2 weeks before going again.

In this open setting, I would like to invite to tell us all what they think 1. the GA process is for, and 2. what the GA criteria are and mean. Then, it may be helpful if other users could discuss these responses, and what the best way forward may be. Another concern that has been noted in Happypillsjr's reviews is poor communication skills, which could suggest a command of English that is not good enough to assess GA's altogether, but which I bring up here in case it seems comments are being misunderstood. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall a similar discussion only a few weeks ago regarding another review which you got involved with. From a glance, I must say that the quality of reviews may in part be attributed to what I see as a less-than-ideal grasp of acceptable English grammar. I think Happypillsjr has good intentions and I don't dispute that he believes to be contributing in good faith, but I can identify with the concern that he is perhaps not suited to be reviewing and passing judgement upon articles, particularly when assessing prose quality. On the review I mentioned above, the line "looks perfect, no confusion and bad grammars" is questionable and not just shorthand. I am always very mindful about being critical of those who, like many here, want to help out and contribute in the right way, but equally I fully take the point that in processes like GA, FA, PR etc, those passing judgement need to possess some degree of competency to do so. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say I think Happypillsjr should leave the GA process until they can demonstrate the ability to build GA-level articles. It makes me sad to see enthusiastic editors have their well-meaning hopes to contribute frustrated, but here I see no other option. Happypillsjr has been editing occasionally since mid-2014, very regularly since mid-2018, and has accrued several thousand edits, so newness isn't the problem per se. Early in their time here, they were asked to stop nominating articles for GA/FA, and were briefly blocked for non-compliance. In August 2018, has to again ask. June 2019, BlueMoonset again asks them to stop. December 2019,  asks the same. Same month, Kingsif kindly offers mentoring after more of the same. I see no sign things are improving with time. Just this month Happypillsjr nominated yet another article for GA after doing some cleanup (which included adding material directly copy-pasted from a source), and again it was quick-failed. I'm not aware of any example of a nomination or review led by Happypillsjr ending well (though some example may be out there). At this point, I think further intermediate steps are a waste of everyone's time. I truly appreciate Happypillsjr's enthusiasm, but they cannot seem to contribute constructively to the GA process, and so they should not. Perhaps they can re-build trust by contributing constructively elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. I must note there is a nomination that Happy is currently reviewing, which they previously nominated (that nomination was removed by because the article was far from the GA criteria). I think that, besides that nomination needing to be restarted, we need to consider whether Happy should be temporarily restricted from GAN reviews, since mentorship has had only a limited effect. I am hopeful that they could improve with time, but right now, it does not look like they should be reviewing good article nominations at this time. epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with those above. Happypillsjr should be restricted from creating GA nominations or participating in GAN reviews, and encouraged instead to just focus on improving article content, making sure that they do not ever copy text directly from a reference. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am just aware of having a consultation of me of considering temporary restricted from GAN reviews and nominations. I know my presence from nominating and review articles is troubling to you guys. I know you guys heard about my history of nominating articles. I wanted to apologize about that. I was thought being confident reviewing these articles but I thought wrong. I tried so hard of editing these articles work with. So that again, I wanted to apologize.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Although I appreciate the apology, I am disappointed in Happypillsjr's response. Not simply because they did not answer Kingsif's initial questions, but mostly because there was no offer to stop nominating and reviewing GA articles. As noted above, they've been asked politely many times to please not nominate or review at GA because their skills at assessing articles are clearly inadequate, yet they've ignored every request. Each time a problematic nomination or review has been made, other editors have to drop what they're doing to fix things. They have had five years to learn and understand the process, and still haven't. They were unable or unwilling to make use of the mentoring they were given several months ago.


 * Happypillsjr's problematic edits related to the GAN process began with their first nomination, made on April 12, 2015, the day after the expiration of a three-day block for disruption. They then opened a review of that very nomination, which had to be deleted, and when the nomination was reviewed two weeks later, never responded to the review, which was ultimately failed. In the five years since, they have yet to make a nomination or take on a review that was not ultimately problematic. I think we need to take formal action on the informal consensus that I see in the above comments: they need to take an enforced hiatus from GAN, hence the following proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Happypillsjr is indefinitely banned from GAN
As is clear from the above, Happypillsjr has, over the past five years, nominated articles that invariably do not meet the criteria, done reviews that do not adequately address the criteria, and otherwise displayed an insufficient grasp of the GA process and how it should be applied. Given this, and because they have not been willing to stay away from GAN despite multiple requests after problematic edits, it is time to prevent further disruption.

The proposal is to indefinitely ban Happypillsjr from nominating any articles to be Good Articles, from reviewing any GA nomination, and from editing in the GA space, broadly construed; this includes all GA-related pages. The ban can be appealed in 12 months, and only at 12 month intervals thereafter, but there must be evidence of attained competence in improving article quality to GA levels for the ban to be lifted. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support for the reasons mentioned above. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This community cannot be forever cleaning up after an editor who should know better. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose has anyone suggested they could work with Happypillsjr on either one of their nominations or a review they might be conducting as a mentor? That would seem to be an obvious first step before trying to ban someone?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stay neutral on this discussion, but I think already tried that. Username6892 21:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's great from . Perhaps a more direct "Let's stop all your GA activity right now.  Pick one single GAN and an experienced reviewer will review your review.  Do not attempt to review any other GAN or submit your own in the mean time.  Otherwise BlueMoonset will seek your indefinite ban from the GA process." would work?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While I tentatively support the idea, i'd similarly feel a little uncomfortable making a formal declaration supporting an actual community-backed ban on a user acting in good faith, even though it's clear this user should step away from GAN. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how an editor with such poor skills in using the English language can make any constructive contribution at all to an English-language encyclopedia ... and they certainly have no place assessing quality. Their good intent is very clear, but good intent is not enough. Since requests for self-restraint have been unsuccessful, a topic ban is needed as the minimum step ... but a siteban would also be justified, because I fear that a ban from GAs will simply displace the disruption to another art of the 'pedia. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: unfortunately, this has been continuing for years and Happypillsjr doesn't have the expertise needed to participate at GAN, which is a very demanding and highly skilled area. They have threatened to retire if banned, which is unfortunate, because they can absolutely learn to make useful contributions to articles. I encourage them to focus on improving articles without thinking about GA status for them, after reading more about copyright violations, so as not to make any more mistakes on that front. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support With notes: 1. a support for the ban is based on Happy's unfortunate history of ignoring requests to stop even when they've made it clear they understood the request. If this discussion goes stale, I would bet on another review/nom in two weeks. 2. the burden it places on other editors, not just myself, with the implicit obligation to double-check Happy's work is unfair; it is also unfair on nominators. 3. the rate of abandonment for both reviews and noms put up by Happy could be considered disruptive in itself - though I feel this comes from not fully understanding the project, which more experience (perhaps at their native language GA project) could help with. 4. that, should Happy return in a little while with more experience, I personally would be OK with them having some involvement (perhaps just watching and asking questions) when I review GANs, to help Happy get experience within this project for a ban appeal in 12 months. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Apears to be well-meaning but WP:Competence is required. Also WP:NOTTHERAPY. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Support Although the editor may have good faith, they are unfortunately causing too many issues and wasting everybody's time here. Their comments are bizarre. One of the biggest GA criteria is being able to assess prose and this editor is not in the position to do this when they can't articulate themself properly.  Cool Marc  ✉   22:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 *  Procedural oppose (n.b. partially duplicated from my AN comment) - I am seriously nervous about this decision being made here. The editors might be right about previous decisions being made through here, but I'm not inclined to think the "it's basically just a wikiproject" is sufficient. If the football wikiproject had a purely internal "best of football" I might buy that, but GA is a project-wide descriptor, including marking every article awarded. Depending on how urgent the project considers it, the "should GAN be allowed to handle the matter" discussion could be had first, or just restart the case etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Procedural oppose struck due to move Nosebagbear (talk)
 * Procedural oppose as this simply is not the correct forum. AN or ANI are the place, and it's easy enough to raise the issue there with a link here telling people here it's happening. GA is project wide as is said above. Doug Weller  talk 09:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose per Nosebagbear and Doug Weller and Josh Milburn. For this to be binding, it would have to be logged as a community imposed TBan, which be discussed at AN per WP:CBAN. That it has happened differently in the past isn't a reason for us to disregard policy now. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)  Oppose no longer relevant post-move  Girth Summit  (blether)  08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose per those above: this isn't the forum. Harrias  talk 10:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)  Oppose no longer relevant post-move.  Harrias  talk 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I encountered Happypillsjr about a year ago in another venue, and their use of English was so repeatedly poor that I assumed English was not their first language. Happypillsjr  insisted then that it is their first language, which troubled me even more, because such poor use of a first language is less likely to improve.  Their post above timestamped 19:00, 30 April contains these two sentences: I was thought being confident reviewing these articles but I thought wrong. I tried so hard of editing these articles work with.  That seems to me to be clear evidence that it hasn't improved.
 * TBAN with exemption, I considered a more limited response, but both my own checking and the consensus of the field experienced editors makes me inclined to agree that a straight TBAN is needed. However. Assuming the editor doesn't retire, an option for an experienced reviewer to do a review with them (if both parties are willing) at some stage feels like a positive. The experienced reviewer would need to sign off on the result, but it would be a helpful step for any future appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support partial TBAN, if carefully phrased. I wouldn't support a complete ban from the entire process; I'd suggest a ban from nominating articles to GAN, and from initiating a review, and from participating in a review where they haven't been invited to take part by the nominator or reviewer. If there is a third party who would be willing to work with them, that person could make a nomination, or initiate a review, and them work with them through the review process. Would that work? Girth Summit  (blether)  08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, I concur with BlueMoonset that most of the nominations mentioned were well below standards. Too much time is wasted from this. This user's contributions aren't bad on a whole, but he shouldn't be nominating any more good articles without doing far more work on them. Homemade Pencils (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support limited TBAN, something like 's phrasing - basically, let them work in the GA process if someone will supervise them. If the supervision works out, then they might someday show that they've learned and the TBAN can be lifted. If supervision doesn't improve things, then I expect they'll run out of people who will supervise and it effectively becomes a total TBAN in the GA space. creffett (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Happypillsjr has acknowledged dyslexia and problems with comprehension.  Those problems cannot be resolved by supervision, so it seems to me that supervision will almost certainly to be just prolonging the agony for Happypillsjr, for the supervisor, and for the community.  It seems to me to be much much kinder to everyone involved to simply say now that this isn't going to work out. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not willing to write someone off for those reasons. We can't mentor someone to not be dyslexic or not have comprehension problems, but we can still work with them on decision-making and learning when to ask for help. creffett (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting writing someone off. I propose redirecting them to areas better suited to their abilities. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with preference towards Girth Summit's proposal except unlike them I'd also support a full topic ban as third choice. Nosebagbear's suggestion which is fairly similar to Girth Summit's anyway, is my second choice. Like Nosebagbear, I'd emphasise that this is entirely voluntary. No editor should feel compelled to help out Happypillsjr and Happypillsjr should recognise this also means they are not allowed to go around continually bugging editors about a review. It may be that there is already no one willing to let Happypillsjr review and this will be a functional complete topic ban. I acknowledge even with someone else assisting, their participation may still be annoying to others in the review, and since I don't do GA reviews myself, I'm prescribing something that will affect others and not me. Still I feel it's worth giving that faint hope since I trust those who may offer to help won't keep at it if it's not working. As for BrownHairedGirl's point, IMO it's better to let any prospective supervisor decide for themselves if it's worth their time. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Comment: Is this the place for this discussion? Banning policy says that conversations about community bans should take place at WP:AN (preferably) or WP:ANI. I don't think it says that they can't take place elsewhere, but I think it would be advisable for this to be explored there rather than here. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, community bans can't just be implemented at some backwater. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * GAN has previously done its own banning with editors who were causing significant problems here, which is why I didn't see a problem with doing so here. Oakley77 was banned from reviewing and nominating in 2012, and was subsequently blocked for violating their ban. (Was Matisse ever banned at GAN, or is that a Wikipedia-wide block?) Nor is GAN alone: Billy Hathorn was banned from DYK in 2011 (in advance of his indefinite en-Wikipedia block later that year), and when the block was lifted and (the same day) they nominated a large number of DYKs, the DYK ban was deemed to be still in force, and the nominations were removed. The ban remained in force through their final en-Wikipedia ban in 2015. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would think that as long as the ban doesn't affect other areas of Wikipedia and there is a decent consensus then there is no real problem. We are after all just a glorified wikiproject and this is our main talk page and where most editors familiar with the issues hang out. I would like to think the affected party should have a right to appeal at AN or ANI though if they so wish, although I see it unlikely that the community would overturn a ban from a wikiproject if most of the other members of the wikiproject support it. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that community bans are supposed to be implemented by the community as a whole, not just the community of a particular corner of Wikipedia. Like it or not, the noticeboards becoming the focal point of the community as a whole for matters like this. (I don't like it; the noticeboards are not pleasant places. But that's not the point.) This all feels a bit grotty to me. At the very least, make sure an uninvolved administrator is the one to close the discussion. But I've said my piece: I'll take no further part in this. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand and you may be right. My fear is that theoretically someone could be banned at ANI from this wikiproject without members of this wikiproject even knowing about it and I don't think that is right either. As BlueMoonsets research shows this doesn't happen that often. What about if we put a neutral notice at WP:ANI informing editors there of this discussion. That way it keeps it in house, but allows wider community input. I imagine it would stimiulate some discussion on how to handle these in the future which could be useful (although it is ANI so who knows). AIRcorn</b> (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is a good idea - and if a discussion here genuinely is a no-go, then I'm sure someone from the noticeboard would let us know. I can't speak from much experience, but, years ago, I got the impression that AN wasn't as bad as ANI. You (or someone else) could post there again to seek an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise. There is absolutely no harm at all in making the attempt to community ban this user available to a wider audience.  After all, they may have some other suggestions to resolve the situation.  Keeping it "in house" is subversive and inappropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I have left a note at AN Administrators' noticeboard. "In house" might have come across a bit strong. I more meant that it is still hosted here. Either way we will get some clarification on this hopefully soon. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: * If you seriously want to banned me from GAN then, I will be retired from Wikipedia.-- <b style="color:hotpink">Happypillsjr</b> <big style="color:Red">✉  21:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Happypillsjr, I think the point is that your reviews aren't good enough and are creating more work for others. I suggest you take a step back from all GAN reviews, and maybe do what  suggested in December, which is to be mentored through a review so you know what you're doing?  No-one is asking you to retire, some of us are just trying to help you improve your reviews.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to retired. I thought I was confident for editing articles hard but I was like editing random articles for nomations. Maybe I deserve that.-- <b style="color:hotpink">Happypillsjr</b> <big style="color:Red">✉ 21:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that English appears not to be your first language and that's causing problems with your review comments and your comprehension of the advice you've been receiving from a number of good faith editors for several months. Don't retire, just ask for (or even accept offered) help.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another way of making this work could be to take part in the GA process at the relevant Wikipedia for your first language. You could gain experience and a better understanding of the criteria on that wikipedia instead of the English one. I'm afraid to say that, given some of your review comments have asked people to make perfectly fine sentences incomprehensible, you might not be up to reviewing the prose of English articles until language skills improve. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think the issue is a language barrier per-se, if you look at his userpage (native speaker of "American English") and one has to consider that there may another reason why the language issues present in this way (there may be many reasons besides the one I am thinking). I think this discussion has diverged into something I am not comfortable with, as it seemed clear there was consensus for Happypills to step back from this and he seemed to understand and accept there was consensus. I feel sorry for him here - I don't think we need this additional humiliation but I hope he accepts the position the community have taken here, albeit in a less than ideal manner. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree you, language is not an issue but dyslexia is may not the only reason. Sometimes I have problems with comprehension.-- <b style="color:hotpink">Happypillsjr</b> <big style="color:Red">✉ 22:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you have been subjected to this process - it isn't how the GA community tend to act. I do sense there is frustration surrounding your participation though and I can accept the reasons why; I can even accept that you should focus your efforts away from the GAN process and hope that you will take on board the constructive suggestions being offered. I am mindful many people have various difficulties in learning, understanding, comprehension etc that is entirely of no fault of their own and considered this may be a factor in your case. That isn't for us to speculate or discuss though, if that's your business. I do hope that despite this, you accept and understand that well-intended contributions to wikipedia are welcomed, yet at the same time you must take heed of (i.e. accept) community feedback and respond accordingly (in this case, unfortunately, you must step away from GAN). Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, and I suggest this as a genuine way to help, simple English Wikipedia and their more simplistic GA process could be useful experience? Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In response to the drive-by admins asserting a procedural opposition, active WikiProjects like this one have every right to manage the functioning of said WikiProject, including banning activity from some editors. WP:GA isn't imposing a siteban or anything beyond their remit. Political maneuvers insisting that the issue has to be handled at WP:AN shows disrespect to the editors here improving the encyclopedia because your clique thinks it has the monopoly on community consensus. Your opposition is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not some drive by sysop though I am a sysop. I'd said nothing when I saw this yesterday but I also think this is the wrong forum. GA isn't a Wikiproject, it's a community process. Topic banning from a community process should be done by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Like Barkeep, I am a sysop but not a driveby sysop, and I think this is the wrong forum. "[Managing] the functioning" of WikiProjects - not that this is a WikiProject - is one thing. Banning is another. To use a real-world analogy: private clubs can certainly manage their own affairs, but there are some things they can't do without getting others (e.g., courts, lawyer, accrediting bodies, accountants, insurers...) involved. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my "drive-by" comment, which was unfounded. Still, is Category:WikiProject Good articles a misnomer? WP:PROJ seems to intone that DYK, GA, and FA are all WikiProjects. The only thing I see about "community process" is blocking an editor, which isn't under discussion. Any WikiProject can set rules for participation and refuse edits from an editor under that WikiProject. No one is imposing an IBAN or any such sitewide prohibition outside of GA upon the editor in question. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would feel differently if the proposal was about topic banning from say this page. That feels akin to a Wikiproject managing itself. But there is a reason Good articles is the home of GA not WP:WikiProject Good Articles. There is a Good Article Wikiproject but that's not where Happy faces a ban from. It's from The Good Article process and that is a community process - it's why unlike WikiProjects GA appears on the article itself not just on the talk page.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd actually go further and argue that even Wikiproject topic bans shouldn't be discussed on their talk pages. While Wikiprojects are allowed a fair degree of self governance, once you start talking about topic banning someone it should go to the community. Other editors are free to ignore any posts of someone to the Wikiproject if they wish. But once they start talking about a topic ban which can be enforced via blocks or reverting the editor IMO it should be handled like any topic ban. That said, even if others disagree on this aspect, I think it's hard to argue against Barkeep49's point. If I visit Talk:Joe Biden I see Talk:Joe Biden, a transcluded assessment. Any member of the (en.Wikipedia) community should be entitled to take part unless sanctions prevent it. It shouldn't come via the Good Article Wikiproject imposing it without involving the wider community. Likewise if I or an anon visits Polyethnicity, we see the green good article plus symbol. Clicking on it takes us to Good articles. The good article status is being promoted on the article itself. It's clearly something the wider community has an interest in and so again anyone should be allowed to participate unless the earlier requirements were met to prevent them. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Request: Since a number of people feel there are procedural issues that prevent the WT:GAN page from being the proper venue for this proposal, even with a link back here from AN, pinging those admins (Nosebagbear, Doug Weller, and Girth Summit) in the hopes that one of them will move this proposal and discussion to AN (or whatever venue is best), perhaps with a pointer back here to the outer section (Consultation with Happypillsjr) to give context. Or perhaps one of the admins in the most recent thread (Barkeep49 and Josh Milburn) can take care of it. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that the move to AN has taken place (after a few missteps), the discussion can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Creation request
Please create R/shitniggerssay and /r/shitniggerssay with
 * 1) REDIRECTControversial Reddit communities

and also append  to the first one. Thanks. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Does everything mentioned need a redirect? Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, since this redirect is clearly unintended collateral of the title blacklist entry. If you think this redirect, and the redirects for the other 3 communities mentioned in that section, shouldn't exist, feel free to RfD them. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 13:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * how to you see this as "unintended collateral" - the blacklist entry is fairly specific to include titles with this phrase in them at all, it was not a scunthorpe problem. This is basically an edit request, and it was clearly being at least questioned for further discussion; why did you feel using your template editor access was appropriate here? — xaosflux  Talk 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because one doesn't ususally need special privleges to create redirects, and the appropriateness of these redirects has nothing to do with the fact that they contain the N word in them. Either none of r/hamplanethatred, r/neofag, r/transfags, and r/shitniggerssay should exist, or all of them should, and the correct venue for that discussion is WP:RfD (as I said earlier), but the situation in which this request is not fulfilled, and all of the controversial subreddits banned on 10 June 2015 have redirects except for the one whose name happens to be on the title blacklist, makes no sense. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One does require special privileges to create pages that violate the title blacklist, specifically because they may be controversial - that the page is a redirect doesn't make it special. I'm not arguing if these pages are actually appropriate or not, just why you didn't allow for the discussion to continue before acting. The TPE usage standards are fairly clear and it is quite a stretch to extend that access to this use case in my opinion. — xaosflux  Talk 16:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you actually look at the history of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, you can see that this term was added in 2012 due to current, ongoing abuse, not due to controversial creations of pages whose titles legitimately include the n-word. 1234qwer1234's request was clearly made in good faith, so is in that sense not within the scope of the title blacklist entry. I disagree that my action constitutes blocking the discussion, merely redirecting it to the correct venue for challenging the existence of redirects (if anyone wishes to do so). * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't address how you think your action was in the scope of template editing - the use case for TE's is "templates, modules, and editnotices" - and no xFD is not the correct venue to request a page creation. — xaosflux  Talk 17:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , out of curiosity, are you a) intending on continuing this line of discussion as a formal review of 's actions as they relate to the Template Editor permission, and/or b) intending a discussion about what constitutes a potentially contentious creation where the title blacklist is involved? I ask mainly to see if the above discussion should be put into its own sub-section or the whole thing can be closed off. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * my main concern is the Was this inappropriate use of the template editor tools by Pppery? issue. Feel free to section however it will best drive discussions. — xaosflux  Talk 19:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Endorse action. This is the first sentence of Template editor, with emphasis added: "" I don't see how one can claim that Pppery answering this reasonable edit request is abuse of template editor privileges: it's a reasonable request obviously in good faith, it improves the encyclopedia, there's no apparent consensus against creating descriptive redirects to this target and it's a thing we do very often (see WP:RNEUTRAL, WP:RFD point #3, or WP:NOTCENSORED). The request was simply correcting an inconsistency in our coverage, and Pppery had the ability to respond; had I seen it first I would have done so. If an editor objects to the existence of redirects from these banned subreddits to the article subsection where they are described in encyclopedic detail, then that editor should list them for discussion at redirects for discussion, which is the correct venue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get in to a silly argument about comma placement, but my reading of the spirit of the TPE guidelines is that the emphasis there should be on the to templates, modules, and editnotices part. — xaosflux  Talk 13:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we endorsing and not endorsing this? Seems like a backward idea to create something that's on the blacklist and tell people to vote for it to be deleted if they don't like it. Natureium (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia mostly works by allowing people to create things and letting people nominate them for deletion. For the record, if it adds any clarity, as an admin I would probably have accepted this request and created the redirects (and pointed complainers to RfD). Though I agree that Xaosflux probably has a point about TE permissions. Maybe this should be brought up at the TE page (it certainly isn't currently sanctionable for one instance). -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking to revoke ppp's TPE access here as a "sanction" - as an admin I wouldn't have created the pages as the request was at the time, since it was bring questioned - until there was a chance for the discussion to come to an end. Now that the pages are created, RfD is a good place to deal with them for anyone who doesn't want them there. When we select TPE's at WP:PERM we don't currently look to strongly review their non-technical consensus determining and content-related contributions to see if things like using the override titleblacklist permission on non-template related pages is something they would be good at, the same as we don't expect them the use tboverride to create borderline usernames; that access is primarily to extend the ability to manage edit notices to the toolkit. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept the request was being questioned, but with all respect to Johnuniq this is not a policy-based objection. It's also an objection which doesn't really hold up, as was later shown. As an admin I would have the leeway to exercise this discretion at some point, and I probably would have assuming no massive consensus developed otherwise. I hope this puts to rest the question I was responding to. At the same time a template editor probably does not have this discretion, either with or without an admin objecting. I don't think anyone here would want any sanction, but this noticeboard's slogan, "what admin action is being requested here" springs to mind. What I mean is that I find the policy a little weak in this area, and the policy's own page might be a suitable venue to clarify it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If "what admin action is being requested here" is necessary, I suppose it would be to review to determine if a notice/caution of this permission use should occur - as the revocation guidelines calls for a "pattern" to occur first, however notably the pattern is only about "protected templates", this use-case seems to not be supported by the guidelines at all. — xaosflux  Talk 23:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse Should TPEs generally go around answering blacklist requests? Probably not, but per WP:NOTBURO I really don't see a reason to raise a fuss over this. I would have done it if Ppperry hadn't. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Factman67
User:Factman67 (talk) is an account primarily used for disruption/vandalism and refuses to engage in any sort of civil discourse. I'll leave what (if any) actions should be taken to address this to the reviewing administrators, but I wanted to at least get his editing tendencies on record.


 * Vandalism and disruptive editing examples
 * (these last two examples clearly go against the consensus on the article's talk page)


 * Name calling, violations of CIVIL, etc. examples
 * 

... Actually, upon reviewing his editing history, 100% of his edits (literally) at the time of my post have been unconstructive, vandalism, and/or derogatory. I don't see any value in allowing him to continue, but again that's not for me to decide. Administrators, please review this user. I'll alert him to this noticeboard post per guidelines. Thank you. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report, although this qualifies as an "incident" which should be at WP:ANI next time. I blocked indefinitely, particularly for diff but also I checked a couple of their minor edits and they were blatantly wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, next time I will use ANI, got it Thank you for reviewing and taking action! SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

RIP Ronhjones
For those who may not have heard the news, I am very sad to report that it is believed User:Ronhjones has died. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have some even sadder news that I can now share publicly: Ron and his wife Sue died together in a house fire, as noted in their obituary from the London Inland Waterways Association newsletter. The friend of theirs who confirmed his passing also told me this info, but I didn't want to say it here without confirming that it was publicly available or getting permission. Graham 87 16:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no words... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh my goodness, how sad. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What a terrible way to die. I hope they succumbed to smoke inhalation first. Doug Weller  talk 09:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg
Can someone undelete this file? It was deleted as unused but a copy of it is used in ms.wiki: ms:Fail:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg / ms:Batu Pahat (bandar). --MGA73 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This one was uploaded by User:Jason 8837, who identified themself as author and licenced is as PD-self. The date of upload (and tagging), which may not correspond with the date the photo was taken, was 16-12-08. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

These files are used as source for files in ms:Pengenalan kerelatifan khas. Sadly there is no information about uploader/author etc. Can you undelete these so I can check?

--MGA73 (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Coord8.GIF
 * File:Coord6.GIF
 * File:Coord5.GIF
 * File:Coord3.GIF
 * File:Coord2.GIF
 * File:Coord1b.png


 * For this group, all the .GIFs were uploaded by user:Loxley~enwiki (with no further information). That user has been inactive for many years. The .png was uploaded by user:Keenan Pepper, who remains active now. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If you're asking about the licence for the .GIFs - we don't know. Back then it wasn't mandatory to put licence information on uploads. I don't think it's safe to assume these GIFs are really licenced with a Wikipedia-compatible free licence. The .png was tagged with GFDL - if you're concerned about it, Keenan Pepper is still around to ask. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Okay so the GIF-files are not really good. But the 2 x png should be fine. Can you undelete the png so I can move it to Commons? I prefer to have the direct source. --MGA73 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay it is perhaps a bit confusing with the png, jpg and gif so let me clarify. Can someone undelete So I can move to Commons :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg
 * File:Coord1b.png

novopagea
novopangea has disappeared and I think think the continent template has been vandilised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:46a7:6a00:3944:26bc:d5e5:b806 (talk)
 * Novopangaea still seems to be there and unvandalised, and Template:Continents of the world also seems to be intact. If some vandalism's occurred somewhere else, please give more details. Thanks ~ mazca  talk 12:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 6
Seems to be a fault with text sizing in todays list, can't see how to fix it know. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a missing ‹/small› tag closure on Articles for deletion/1200 Micrograms which was continuing to make all the following AfDs small on the main page, I've fixed it. ~ mazca  talk 13:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought as much, but couldn't see where, Cheers, Govvy (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing by Jeh
This message is regarding the user Jeh, who died in 2019.

I have recently been in an email conversation with a user who is "familiar in the IT industry" (which, juding by his compitence I have no reason to doubt). He informed me of Jeh's death, along with info about his "paid editing" for both Intel and Microsoft. These also are not my allegations, I am simply relaying the allegations of another user.

Here are some key points from our email conversation:
 * Jamie is listed as an author for a Microsoft Press book "Windows Internals" (ASIN: B01B98M8W4) (Amazon listing)
 * He "has been paid editor since 2009."
 * Jeh "worked for both Intel and MS"

These points are essentially the same as 2 previous COI investigations (both from IPs in New Zealand). I suspect the user making this report now is also the same one who made them as the IP is both in the same range and the email is from an NZ based business.

You can review the conclusion of these threads here and here. It could be likely that the user simply may not like Jeh, but why bring this up again nearly three years since the last COI report? Is there something more to this?

I am leaving this here as, clearly, this is an interesting one and needs discussion. Thank you all for your time, and don't forget to ping me if you need more info. Ed6767 (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this presumably contains a boatload of private / CU-only info (real-life identities, NZ-based companies (!), etc.), then the arbcom are probably the best recipients of the info. Since this also seems to involve undoing—even if unintentionally—the reputation of an editor who has been dead over a year, I'm not quite sure what profit there is in it. At all.And I don't like paid editing. SERIAL  # 15:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As someone who is very, very aware of our UPE problem and very active in fighting it, I'm not sure what possible value this discussion could have. It's not like there is possibility of continued disruption and it just seems tasteless to drag a dead editor through the mud well after their death. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Closures need review
I noticed that a relatively inexperienced user returned from over a year-long hiatus and has over the past three days closed about a dozen move requests and RFCs. While their activity seems to be in good-faith, I found some of their closure to be problematic, especially since their closures often lacked the explanation of how they reached the conclusion they did. For example, I will be offline for about the next 12 hours, so can some admin (or experienced NACer), review these and other closure by Kraose to see if my concern is merited/overblown. I have asked the editor to pause such activity for now. Abecedare (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Move request of a BLP from Mustafa Muhummed Omer → Mustafa Cagjar based upon a Google News hit-count even though all the cited sources in the article use the 'Omer/Omar' name, and most of the Google News hits for 'Cagjar' are not in English
 * RFC at Adolf Hitler would have IMO benefited from some closing statement more detailed than "There is no consensus as of now to remove or modify the existing text.", especially since removal of number of Jews killed was not even suggested as an option by anyone.
 * RFC at Indigenous Aryans Ditto for this discussion.
 * It was not that urgent to come here since you could discuss on my talk page beforehand per the guideline.
 * Talk:Mustafa Cagjar: Sources are inconsistent not only between "Omer" and "Omar", but also "Muhummed" and "Mohoumed". "Mustafa Cagjar" seems to be more consistent and it is also supported by third party sources. If a better alternative circulates around then the renomination would be welcome.
 * RFC at Adolf Hitler and RFC at Indigenous Aryans were listed on WP:RFCL for weeks and both discussions saw split between users who were supporting modification and those who preferred leaving the text as is. I could expand the explanation but the range of argument was limited and the closure has to be concise. Kraose (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see a particular problem with any of those closures, including some of the unlinked ones (which were mostly uncontroversial moves). Mustafa Cagjar was clearly at least fairly uncontroversial given the complete lack of any opposition, and while Google news hits is far from the best indicator in the world it's not like someone else came along with a better indicator. If there's significant issues with this in terms of how he's referred to in reliable sources, then that's a fair objection to the proposal, but ultimately that was a move that any confirmed editor could potentially have made. A requested move that sees no objection may as well be performed unless the closer sees a tangible issue with it.
 * The two RfCs were clear no-consensus closures, to me. I personally prefer to try and detail what, if anything has been agreed when closing spicy discussions as no consensus, and maybe Kraose could have elaborated a little more - but in principle, these are perfectly reasonable closures of fairly stale discussions that didn't seem to be achieving anything. ~ mazca  talk 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the Indigenous Aryans RfC was no-consensus? Because the last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so what matters it not the number of !votes, but the quality of discussion therein. Have you actually read through the discussion, and can you really say that the oppose group actually made a cogent case, enough to say that there was no consensus? As user Joshua Jonathan pointed out, there was a repeated pattern from the oppose group of unsubstantiated claims and failure to provide any evidence when requested. Additionally, I must point out that several of the oppose responses either have been rescinded, or they have been posted by users who have been blocked indefinitely.
 * I also agree with that the cookie-cutter response was inappropriate and does not accurately assess the Indigenous Aryans RfC at all.  BirdValiant (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't carry on your misleading bludgeoning+canvassing episode here and don't allege an uninvolved admin of having comprehension problems. You need to really find something else to edit. Yoonadue (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please respond in a polite manner. I agree with BirdVaillant|BirdVaillant that the arguments provided should be weighted; none of the opposers has provided relevant WP:RS which establish that the Indigeous Aryans-theory is part of the mainstream scholarly discourse, wheres sufficient sources have been provided which state that the IA-theory has no support whatsoever in mainstream scholarship, e.g. is fringe. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that "Have you actually read through the discussion" is polite, especially when you are trying to distract the discussion on RfC by bringing up your unrelated disputes with other editors. None of the supporters were able to verify their arguments per WP:VERIFY for their proposed changes. Whole story ends right there. To say one should ignore a core Wikipedia principle only for a petty tagging makes zero sense. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If my question "have you actually read through the discussion" to Mazca came across as rude, that certainly wasn't my intent. It was a serious question. Given the cookie-cutter response that Kraose put on the RfCs, I have serious doubts that the closure was done with the care and scruple which is needed for closures in contentious cases like this. Therefore, if someone thinks that the closure was appropriate, then I think that deserves some explanation. When considered in its totality, and in consideration of WP:NOTDEM, what about the RfC actually looks like no-consensus? I think it's a legitimate question. BirdValiant (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I did not take it as rude. My participation here was primarily in the function of checking if there was anything egregiously wrong with the closes Kraose performed. Certainly the Indigenous Aryans one mentioned here is the most potentially problematic one because of the clear amount of effort that went into the discussion compared to the cursory nature of the closing statement, but please appreciate the context of my participation here.
 * It's a discussion I'd have personally felt very uncomfortable about closing as a consensus: On the 10-15 minutes of skimming I actually gave it in reviewing the close, I'd already come to something of a personal conclusion as to what the right answer was (and in general I agree with the proposed text), but I felt that there wasn't necessarily a super solid consensus in the discussion to support that, and it ultimately came across, both in formatting and in content, as two entrenched sides. Obviously other admins that also like closing difficult things may have reached a different conclusion, but I'd consider (a) the length of time the discussion had been sitting there, trickling along, without anyone actually closing it and (b) the sheer scale, measured in years, of previous discussion on the talk page dedicated to slight variants of the same rough argument. This is a contentious article, and in my initial gauging of Kraose's closure, I think it was reasonable. There is a fairly uncomfortable bar for converting the lead of a contentious article from "this is a debated area" to "this is a fringe theory"; I'm not saying Kraose was dead-on right in closing it so briefly, but I was initially here to defend in general that most of the closes they'd done were sensible enough. I think a request for review of that particular closure might be perfectly reasonable, but I was less in agreement with the initial complaint here, which is that Kraose's closures were more broadly problematic. ~ mazca  talk 18:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine; then let's keep it this way, and unlock the page. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and dropped the article protection back to semi, if there's other productive editing to be done. ~ mazca  talk 20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review of the closures . I am satisfied that there is no general problem with 's closures and they can resume work in that area if they wish, although I'd recommend them to provide more explanation on how they reach their conclusions for non-clear cut RFC closures. As for the Indigenous Aryans' RFC. any objections to that particular closure can be handled in the normal manner by asking Kraose (on their talkpage) to offer further explanation or to overturn their close. This AN report can be marked as resolved. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, I agree that it's completely reasonable to follow up on that particular close. ~ mazca  talk 20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

DRV: Request for closure
Request admin to close Deletion review/Log/2020 April 30. The article, which has undergone significant changes since last AfD discussion, has been put up for deletion, rendering the DRV moot. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The DRV has only been open for 6 days. Let it run its course.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t see a point in this case since as mentioned a new version had been created which is now at AFD. With the new version there is no reason to restore the original deleted version and since it appears to be different enough from the original deleted version a consensus not to restore that version wouldn’t affect the one that is currently at AFD. In other words keeping the current DRV open appears to be a waste of time.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the DRV in light of the current AFD, where all discussion regarding the article should go.  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring POV on EverQuote article
This person edits from a shifting IP address, but these recent edits are likely from the same shifting-IP person reported by  in the past.

If you semi-protect the article for a few weeks, the edit-warring on the article can be replaced by discussion on the talk page. I will notify the talk pages of those two IPs though I doubt the person in question will see my messages. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP is back today inserting the same material with edit summary "WP:BRD is a guideline while WP:OWN is policy. Then on talk page argues that it doesn't matter what RS say because Online marketplace says something different. I don't want to revert his change a third time, but can somebody here take a look please? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, but I reverted and chimed in on the talkpage; the edits are obviously in violation of what the sources clearly and explicitly state. Grandpallama (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For any admins that want to look at this, disruptive editing by various Virginia-based IPs, likely the same person, focused on the removal of the term "marketplace" goes back to November 2018. Grandpallama (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for taking a look at this IP, who is probably also this IP and this IP. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

((restart indent)) the comedy continues at the EverQuote article as IP makes same edit for 4th time. I am trying to figure out how to move this to ANI. I had thought I was posting at at ANI in the first place but I made a mistake. Apologies! HouseOfChange (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You may want to let know that the same editor has returned and is again edit warring as they were the blocking admin in the 3RN report linked to in your first post above.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Adam Riess
Administrators- Urgent help is needed please. See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard - Thank you Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 02:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that administrative action is necessary. I do think that this is a matter for some combination of the COI and BLP noticeboards. IMHO, a legitimate case can be made for removing the controversy section from the article, though I'm not opining on whether it should stay or go. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi c.fred - I only listed it here because no one has touched it on the COI board and he left a message on my talk page (of which has since removed). I just needed someone to act on it for me so I can stay neutral. Thanks Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 02:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, the IP is starting to get into some territory where it may become necessary and prudent to block them. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Requests for summary judgment, with admonishments
The most basic role, or one of the most basic roles, for administrators is to fight bullying and maintain some semblance of fairness. Wikipedia should not, cannot continue to be tolerant of intolerance/bullying. Probably the worst action a bully can take is to bring a victim to ANI, with weak or nonexistent arguments, but putting the victim up for attack, and achieving some chance of getting the victim blocked or banned. At ANI it seems nothing is out of bounds, that supposed policy on personal attacks is ignored, that any accusation or assertion of fact, no matter how wrong or unfair, is tolerated, without moderation. I don't know how Wikipedia can clean up what goes on at ANI more generally, but I think the starting point is to allow a separate process that can cut off clearly invalid proceedings.

Specifically I see a need for occasional civil side discussions of wp:ANI incidents in progress, where the bringing of the ANI itself can be regarded as inappropriate. Meaning for this to be akin to entertaining requests for summary judgment in a U.S. courtroom setting, where judges can and do take rulings instead of allowing jury deliberations to go on, e.g. when the prosecution has clearly not made a coherent case or is just clearly wrong. (IANAL, i hope real lawyers could comment on the analogy.) I would hope the polite tone and relatively restricted participation of wp:DRV discussions could be maintained. wp:AN appears to me to be the correct place for such discussions, in the absence of any other. This role seems compatible but different from the requests for closure that are handled in a subpage of wp:AN, because, like at DRV, some discussion of the facts/evidence/behavior would be needed.

To be more tangible, I see two wp:ANI discussions right now (one involving me) where I think (what should be) basic requirements to have an ANI proceeding are simply not met, and where IMHO the proceeding should have been closed early on. And where the party bringing the ANI should be admonished. Everyone must recognize that, in the free-for-all of an ANI proceeding, it is simply not possible for a person targeted by an ANI to achieve any decent discussion of whether the ANI proceeding itself is valid. Where they simply need help, and asking in the ANI itself will just be interpreted and denounced as wiki-lawyering, and used against them. I request that administrators participating at wp:AN take on this role, of considering, like a judge, the fundamentals of a case. Please advise me if I misunderstand existing processes, but I think this would have administrators taking on a new role, in a new but constructive and time-saving way, partly addressing the big problem of bullying. --Doncram (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to me to be an end-around by Doncram to avoid the ANI discussion, which involves the same kind of behavior that previously got him sanctioned in an arbitration case, only in a slightly different subject area. (The arbitrationwas about NRHP articles, and the current complaint is about Historic Hotels of America articles, but the underlyiing behvaior is essentially the same.) Such forum shopping in search of quashing an ANI complaint should not be rewarded.  This report should be quickly closed, and Doncram warned not to engage in this sort of tactic again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not so. I have replied fully at the ANI proceeding opened against me this morning, and then I see Beyond My Ken asserting there, and here, that I have done something wrong by basically asking a process question here.  Goes towards proving the need for a separate process like I suggest. --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Complete and errant nonsense, Doncram. You posted the above   at 18:07, and didn't reply to the ANI thread until this edit at 21:52, almost 4 hours later.  Further a "request for summary judgment" is a request for an outside entity -- like a judge --  to throw out a complaint instead of having it decided at a lower level, so, yes, this was an attempt to get around the ANI report by asking admins at AN to shut it down.  I can't imagine how you thought that would work, consider that the people who hang around AN are pretty much a subset of those who hang out at ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's see: you're asking for the person starting an ANI discussion about you (that would be me) to be admonished, but you don't even follow AN rule #1, i.e. let the person involved know that you started this discussion? For someone complaining about bullying and fair process, that's pretty rich. Fram (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

revdel request
Please RD3, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and this edit summary. There's a person vandalizing TFAs and every time finds a way to avoid the filters. Now it's "recycling" non-deleted edits. © Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ (en-3). 00:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Think I got them all. Let me know if there's anything outstanding. Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. © Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ (en-3). 01:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User :أمين moved a page after someone else moved a page after a two year hiatus of another page move
At, now, Wadi Qana, moved the page on October 22, 2018 calling it the "official" name (which is disputed, considering the river flows through a couple of territories), moved the page on May 5th, 2020 claiming the prior move was made without discussion and no "official" name. then moved the page back less than 12 hours later with no edit summary.

I believe the last move was in violation of Moving_a_page, specifically the part of "'If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section 'Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves' in Wikipedia:Requested moves'" Sir Joseph (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was obscure page so no one looked it received few edits before moving back to original title --Shrike (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It needs to go to a requested move, rather than just moving it back and forth. The sources in the article call it Nahal, but they're almost all Israeli sources.  Meanwhile there are more Google News hits for Wadi - even excluding those like Electronic Intifada - including sources like where even the Israeli Defense Minister apparently calls it "Wadi" (though I am aware that my Google News settings aren't picking up Hebrew-only sources).  I found two Haaretz sources, where one article calls it Nahal, and the other Wadi. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)] 09:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I see the move to Wadi Qana was made as long ago as October 2018, and nobody appears to have disputed that until now. It does appear to be a reasonably obscure article with not many participants, but I think that name should be seen as the status quo ante now. I think the correct thing to do now for anyone who thinks the name should be different is indeed to request a move and seek consensus, and in the short term it doesn't really matter what name it is at. I don't think there's any admin action needed unless there's any further move warring over it (which there won't be now that both movers have been notified, right?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, that's why I brought it here. I'm a Page Mover so I just wanted clarity over this since a move after a move is usually not allowed, especially when it can be seen as controversial, and I don't think anyone would think a 2 year lull as the same thing. I just wanted to get more eyes on this for more input. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto to Boing - I don't think there is much admin action required. An WP:RM finding consensus for a particular term is what's required. If things escalate, then things may need to be looked at Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And this utter bullshit filing is why Sir Joseph needs to be banned from anything related to Israel/Palestine. This was an uncontested move nearly 2 years ago. Uncontested. No one raised an objection. Now two years later its an issue? When Sir Joseph has never made an edit to the article or the talk page? And yet feels the need to threaten to report Nableezy for correctly pointing out that you cant contest a move 2 years down the line? Its more ideological battlegrounding from Sir Joseph in his ongoing pro-Israel POV pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I didn't threaten to report Nableezy. There's no need to get all excited. All I did was point out a move less than 12 hours after another move that can be seen as controversial. An almost 2 year space isn't the same thing. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dont talk crap. Thats an overt threat. And no, a move less than 12 hours after another move is not "controversial", THATS CONTESTING THE MOVE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , 1. Maybe learn how page move policy works. 2. I suggest you strike your personal attack. 3. Learn how to read, I never threatened to report Nableezy. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you go read WP:RM again but I doubt it will enlighten you. I see you were merely threatening to report someone else in discussion with Nableezy. Fair enough. Since you like to use threats of noticeboards to get your way in discussions, next time I will not be engaging with you directly, I will be going straight to AE looking for a complete ban on all editing in the IP area or a community discussion to ban you from editing any topic even remotely associated with Israel, Palestine or anything related to Jews. I will present evidence of your extended battleground behaviour (which can be easily provided with a bit of tedious edit-history and noticeboard archive searches) in the area, your extensive block log for similar issues, and you are more than aware of the discretionary sanctions that are in place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , 1. You still didn't strike the personal attack. 2. What part of this don't you understand?
 * ""If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves"" If you continue to attack me, as you've done here and at prior AN threads, I will seek an IBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Only in death does duty end, regarding this edit. You can not express yourself the way you did, especially not regarding other editors. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA apply. Please do not repeat such behavior and please strike the offending parts of that post. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Debresser. Personal attacks, threats to go to AD, etc., are not helpful. Please stop. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no reason for admin intervention here. I do have an opinion, based on the fact that 6 out of the 7 sources call it by one of the names, but that is for the talkpage discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ideally this is solved by somebody reminding Shrike that pretending something is uncontroversial when they know it isnt shouldnt be done, and hopefully by somebody dealing with Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. An RM has been created out of that bogus "uncontroversial request" and I dont think anything else is needed now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jeh
Per section above and WP:DWG, please remove his all user rights and protect his user page.--GZWDer (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , is there confirmation? Primefac (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See Deceased_Wikipedians/2019. Reported by .--GZWDer (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I assumed 2020. Done. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * His reviewer right should be removed too.--GZWDer (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A message to administrators about UTRS
UTRS is in the process of moving over to UTRS 2.0 of the software. We needed to do this because several users were unable to file proper appeals due to IPv6 IP addresses not being accepted by our severs. Therefore, we made the decision to move over to a rudimentary beta software instead to allow everyone to appeal properly.

Please note: Please cross-post this message as needed
 * In doing this, please understand that there will be bugs and issues. We will try our best to keep up with those issues. You can get assistance at the UTRS talkpage (preferably) or by placing "UTRS help me" on your talkpage.
 * New features are not being considered at this time. Though your idea may have already been thought of and be in development.
 * Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0. The only thing that needs to match is your Wikipedia username. You should receive a confirmation email to verify your account within 5 minutes. At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons).
 * Temporary tool administrator status can be requested on WT:UTRS, and will be granted liberally at this time to help create templates from the old version. All bans, user management, and other tool administration functions are only available via the database or automated scripts already running on the server at this time.
 * More information will be available in the days to come about the features of UTRS.

We appreciate your patience in advance, For the UTRS Development Team, -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Is there a phabricator ticket or project associated with this? Is it looking for volunteers to contribute to the software? — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We are on github. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Here. Though I guess there are still a few problems. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 11:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0 ... At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons)" - that's the end of my contributions to UTRS then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm same question, even ACCtools does not have OAuth and OAuth is much more mature now. There's mwoauth for Python and mwoauthclient-php for PHP clients which are pretty stable, doing most of the work behind the scenes. It's probably more ideal to onboard more people into the development process and do it, if the workload is the issue. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 14:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We've been trying to onboard people since it's inception in 2012 - we've only gained SQL and lost 2 others. No one has expressed an interest - or if they have, it missed my desk. I did not know about the PHP client, but I still struggle to understand OAuth and how to properly integrate it with Laravel as the login system is pre-build in there. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not that used to PHP but I can take a look into the OAuth integration. Maybe can help as well. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk  ( t  愛  c ) 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the comments below, I'd also be willing to pitch in to at least get OAuth working. Depending on what other tasks need done I may be able to lend a hand elsewhere as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone wishes to pitch in, they can via pull requests, just be aware, we don't just use PHP, we use Laravel on top of it, which is the complicating factor. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not small enough to resolve via pull requests, can you set up a development instance or if you already have one, grant us access. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've asked the Wikimedia Cloud team if I can limit access to one instance I create that would allow you to do that. I think the answer is yes, but I'll have to get back to you - because I can't blanket hand out access because CU data exists on the server. In the mean time, if you don't have one already, you'll need to create a WM Dev account and tell me the name. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have asked the team, and there is no way I can limit access to only one instance. Also, if I understand you correctly, you just want to go in and code on an instance, and then have me integrate it back with whatever changes I've made in the meantime. That's a lot of extra time that a PR can solve while still allowing code review to make sure security remains intact. There is no limit to the size of a PR, in fact ACC has one here. The code is able to be ran on a local computer, and it only requires one install. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 16:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will try but I have no experience with VPS (I work with Toolforge) and even if I could get it to work locally, there's no guarantee it will be usable at all in production. The ACC pull request is still open from 2017, so can you really say it's helping, either way, is it possible to get an instance up at Toolforge, or is it some VPS feature that is required, even a barebones instance is fine as long as we can test the flow in production, just saying it because it's known be finicky. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 21:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's something we can't put on toolforge. As far as I understand it, rules 2 & 5 would be violated to put it on toolforge. Beyond that, I would have to request individual pieces of software to be added which would not be guaranteed to be added and would take time. When we created UTRS, we were specifically told to stay away from toolforge (what it was at the time) with it. So the two options left would be that myself or could push your changes to a test server when we have the time, that or I have to request (if it gets accepted) a separate wikitech:Help:Cloud VPS project and rebuild everything from ground zero. Speaking to personal development, if you google "how to install a lamp stack", it will tell you how to install all the things needed on a virtual machine that can run off your computer in any flavour of linux. Google is great for how tos on setting these up, and they don't need much resources at all. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's always been a struggle to get admins to monitor requests at WP:UTRS. I think the OAuth made it easier for admins to pop in and check requests since it was introduced. I'm worried that adding extra layers for access will really drive down interest in participating and we'll lose any ground gained in this regard. This is absolutely not a criticism of all of the work that goes on behind the scenes in maintaining the system, just a concern from someone who has been active there pretty much since its inception.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with those above that ditching OAuth isn't desirable, I've popped in to UTRS occasionally when asked, but now will be more likely not to. — xaosflux  Talk 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree on all points with Ponyo. Back when there was a separate UTRS login, there were at least several admins I know who were confused by the faff of having different logins for different bits of admin work (including me). I also had concerns about the security of the UTRS login at the time, and I refused to use it - I don't know what the security of UTRS 2.0 login will be like. When it changed to OAuth and just two clicks to get in and no new password, that made it a lot more accessible. Very easy to click through UTRS notifications on user talk pages, for example, and then perhaps review a couple of others when there. It made it so that every admin could see it easily, not just those who went through setting up a special UTRS account - and I remember a number of "No, it's easy now, just click" discussions I've had with other admins. Going back to a separate login again, I will simply not be bothered with the complication of the extra faff and I'll just give up on it, and I'm sure I won't be the only one. (And, as per Ponyo above, that's not criticism of the people working on it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * login difficulty = 1/likelihood of my usage. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Update There are four requests in queue and I couldn't stand it, so I longed in. So much easier than beore! -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How did you do that then? The links still take me via OAuth to version 1.8.5 which says "UTRS is down :(" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)
 * The registration form at is trying to POST a password to an http:// (insecure) URL. ST47 (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And there's no Strict-Transport-Security header set, so passwords are actually going over an unencrypted connection. ST47 (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything should be forced https, unless you specify you http for a page, the next page, you will still get redirected. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like you fixed it, thanks. ST47 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But how do you create the login in the first place? It's OK, I see ST47 has just linked it above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "The information you have entered on this page will be sent over an insecure connection and could be read by a third party" is not a good start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is all being straightened. And once you are logged in, you can go to individual appeals from the Category:Requests for unblock page w/o bothering with OAuth. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say my first impression is that it's a horrible user interface, with important elements separated by vast areas of white space wasteland, and with enormous pointless icons. A good UI should take your eyes straight to the parts that matter, and this doesn't do that at all (at least, not for me). Anyway, I'll say no more - I'm walking away from it, but I might take a look in the future to see if it's any better. (Various parts of the UI contain spelling and other errors, if anyone fancies fixing those - they should be obvious). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OAuth definitely made life a lot easier. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand OAuth made life a ton easier for everyone, I poured over the relevant documentation for days, and still couldn't figure out how to get it to work with our system. Some people have offered to try and help above, and if they can do it, i'll put it back in. I just simply don't have the ability to do it. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Wish I could help, but it's way over my head. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I do have some experience with OAuth (IPCheck uses a very hacky client to accomplish it - the very same that the original UTRS used). I cannot make a firm commitment of when I would be able to look at integration due to off-wiki circumstances at the moment, but I will try to do so in the near term. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made a pull request to implement OAuth authentication. – Majavah (t/c) 07:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sensitive/private information

 * Is the new UTRS open to everyone to register an account and not just admins? UTRS is supposed to be used when unblock requests contain sensitive/private information (like IP addresses or real-world identities) and therefore surely needs to be admin only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that the reason I ask is that I just saw a note on a non-admin's talk page denying their request for an account, but only because they don't have a registered email address. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I've just seen at the login/register page, "For users that are here to comment on, process or assist with appeals, please select the button below. Please note that only user accounts over 500 edits are allowed to participate in this form." FFS, come on, there can private and sensitive information in UTRS requests. At WP:UTRS it says "UTRS access is limited to users who have undergone a community vetting process for higher tool access such as sysops, bureaucrats, and stewards in addition to Wikimedia Foundation Community Advocacy staff" and blocked users using it to request unblock will expect confidentiality - not exposure to anyone who's made 500 edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That bit was inspired by the existence of ECP, wasn't it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the relevance of that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno, it just seemed to me that since ECP has been introduced this 500edits thing has been spreading everywhere on Wikipedia, including places where it doesn't belong either because it's too strict or (in this case) too lenient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. Extended confirmed should, of course, have no relevance here, and the ability to view UTRS requests should be restricted to admins, crats etc. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that non-admins can't actually unblock them anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And aren't allowed to decline unblock requests. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So UTRS does not give out private information nor does it allow non-admins to review requests. In the old system, and still even now, we see multiple people who appeal basic blocks that do not contain private information at all. There is a system in place where the user can flag their appeal as having private information, and have it either just visible to administrators or oversighters. It is then reviewed to make sure it has private information. If not, it's released for public view so appeals that don't need to be hidden aren't. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And what happens in the situation where the person does not flag it for private review but it contains private information anyway? Is it automatically released to every UTRS user? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, just like it happens here on Wikipedia. There is an option for admins to defer it back to privacy, and other users can still use WP:RFO. -- Amanda  (aka DQ)
 * I've gone to review a UTRS ticket and been denied access due to "privacy". Is that a bug, or am I just less special than I thought? On the 500 edits issue, I really feel only admins and so forth that have been vetted should be seeing UTRS. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a benefit to admin-only UTRS access that hasn't been mentioned yet: Spam, vandalism and harassment. Users who have been denied even talk page access by the community should not be provided an official new platform for reaching Wikipedia users with advertisements, insults, outing and libel. Not even for the thirty seconds or three hours until someone notices and removes it from public view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Improper closure at NPOVN
Regarding an NPOVN thread regarding content as Democratic Socialists of America. A user alleged that inclusion of certain material was an "NPOV violation." I believe this user's justifications, which have in large part offered political or personal/subjective reasons rather than ones based on policy, are in fact not in compliance with NPOV, and the material is well-sourced. I brought this to NPOVN for resolution, but I believe the discussion was improperly closed, as it doesn't bring resolution to the issue. I am opening this thread to request the close be re-opened.

read the last sentence of the discussion where I mentioned "content issue," disregarded the entire rest of the discussion, and performed a non-admin closure, saying that "content disagreements are for talk pages." This is obviously ridiculous, because every matter at NPOV is at heart a content dispute. However, this specific disagreement centers on NPOV based on assertions by both sides, which is why I opened the discussion. This was an improper close and should be overturned, as it was unproductive and brings no resolution to the matter. The only two issues this user should've addressed were whether 1) the content was compliant with NPOV and 2) whether the reasoning offered by either side was compliant or non-compliant with NPOV. Instead, this user took personalized accusations made by another editor (which I refused to engage with) at face value and closed the discussion. I request this discussion be re-opened to bring closure to the underlying disagreement, regardless of whether it's the outcome I would've preferred or not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Why isn't this on AN/I?
 * 2) As "this user" is me, why wasn't I notified?
 * 3) If you are going to bring attention to your self on an admin noticeboard, perhaps you should strike the WP:PA you made six minutes before posting this.
 * O3000 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You weren't the one who closed the thread. This is about a thread closure. The closing user has been notified. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The closer is correct here when they say "the editor perhaps least helpful in resolving anything was you [Wikieditor19920]". Multiple editors in that thread complained about wikieditor19920 repeatedly mischaracterizing their arguments, and the thread quickly devolved into a filibuster which was rightly closed. Based on the thread, the best way to resolve this issue is to remove Wikieditor19920 from the article to prevent bludgeoning, strawmanning, and forum shopping. I'd recommend a temporary ban (~1 month?) from the DSA article or a one-way interaction ban unless the editor agrees to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate you not taking bad-faith accusations like "mischaracterizations of arguments" at face value and I reject that I, at least intentionally, mischaracterized anyone's arguments. One user, O3000, repeatedly denied making statements that diffs and quotes prove they made. I have not engaged in any form of "strawmanning" and I resent the accusation. Perhaps I should have disputed these accusations more strongly, but I chose to ignore them and stick to content. It's obvious that I responded directly to users and identified flaws in their arguments based on policy and the sources available, and the responses were typically "Oh, that's not my argument." Why would I participate in a discussion only to misrepresent their arguments? If I'm wrong, I'll accept it. These accusations, and the behavior by these editors, was ridiculous. I'll note that Toa Nidhki observed exactly what I was talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also appreciate if the admin above would address the issue at hand: improper closure of the discussion. There were two NPOV issues here: the comments by an editor and 2) the content itself. The closure addressed neither. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that the above admin just accused me of forum-shopping, for seeking input on a single forum, NPOVN, over an NPOV issue. The only other forum I have raised it on is here, to challenge an improper closure that singled me out for criticism with an out-of-context quote and did nothing to address the substantive NPOV dispute. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some friendly advice: Law of holes. No, I'm not being snide. I'm being serious. You were offered an out and doubled with yet another WP:PA. If you continue along this vein, eventually someone will bring up WP:CIR. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of the "friendly advice," it'd be better if you would behave with a baseline level of civility, and not make repeat false accusations of personal attacks paired with combative, personalized criticisms (See Golden Rule) in about every one of your posts, including this one above. WP:CIR is basically a roundabout way of name-calling in this context. This is exactly the kind of filibustering that O3000 engaged in at NPOVN—trying throw out bait with combative/insulting posts and taking the conversation hopelessly off-track. If I wanted to deal with that directly, I would've raised a thread at ANI, which I may do at a later time, but I think it's proper to ask for review of this closure. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is this LTA?
I know that one of you knows who this is:,. And if you do, maybe you know what else we might could do besides just blocking the IP--is there a range we can do something about? a filter we can introduce? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See the logs for Special:AbuseFilter/1050 and Special:AbuseFilter/2 where some admins have been working to address this. Yesterday, Enterprisey was blocking IPs that triggered the filter before the LTA could adapt. I'll use the new misses to try and fix the edit filter. Thanks for bringing this up here as more eyes on the problem would be incredibly helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've updated them, hits on 1050 should be immediately blocked. 2 is used for testing, so it may pick up problems the first one doesn't catch. If other admins see similar postings somewhere, let me know so I can update the filter. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No User:Wugapodes, thank you! I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, you may be interested in this. ST47, you dropped a one-week block on one of the IPs; is there any point in extending the ones I placed? BTW I revdelete this shit as a matter of course. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * assuming you pinged me here so I can globally block the IPs, both are done :). 188.240.208.105's /24 for 3 years as an open proxy, and 114.134.189.16 for 1 month as a possible one. Best, — Thanks for the fish!  talk •contribs  02:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Tks4Fish, actually, I pinged you really just to keep you informed, but yes, that will work! Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Special:Diff/953991014 :/ Enterprisey (talk!) 03:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The silver lining is that the filter is preventing human readable rants. made a wonderful edit that fixes the false positive problem caused by the growing filter, so that was a huge help. I've updated 1050 to account for the issues in the recent diff. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is reason to suspect cross-wiki abuse - (presumably) the same vandal has also been affecting en.wikt. It is probably safe to assume that any IP they are using after their main range got blocked is a proxy. &mdash; surjection &lang;<tt>??</tt>&rang; 11:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what I am smelling too. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure who this is, but with this and other recent vandalism, it unfortunately seems that wikipedia is finally facing the dreaded "tea spillers". Mostly teenagers, they've been ravaging social media for the past few years, obsessing over social media based controversies. They mainly congregate around beauty youtubers, and find power in constantly spamming gossip everywhere. Look at the history of James Charles (Internet personality) for examples. Be careful in blocking them, they may cancel you on twitter..... (#Drmiesisoverparty) Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 16:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * According to my daughter, that's not trending yet, but she looked up "Drmies" and said "it's not good". #blockedbydrmies apparently is a thing. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone notice any activity on this today? I didn't see anything in the logs or at RFPP like I usually would, and we're past the time they're usually active. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone can set up an LTA page for this user, that would be appreciated. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  06:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone discussing this IP hopper, it is not an LTA. I can positively identify the IP hopping as block evasion by User:CGFSH, who got indeffed for posting similar kinds of BLP violations on the Connie Glynn page and for socking  Java Hurricane  10:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant User:CGSFH, sorry.  Java Hurricane  10:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI active again today – Teratix ₵ 06:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , ., what do you mean "not an LTA"? Is it not "L" enough? , you blocked that a-hole account; what else can we do? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already set up something in filter 2 to catch this, and testing it on those edits shows that it hits, but nothing showed up in the logs? Any thoughts? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Stranger still, the text on the filter says it matched these edits, but they aren't in the log... — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Revdeleted (and oversighted) edits are always hidden in the EF logs. The logs for disallowed edits can also be oversighted separately. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I meant that this is a relatively new vandal rather than a long-term vandal.  Java Hurricane  03:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is watching the logs and thinks I've gone mad, this vandal has started linking to previous revisions that haven't been revdeleted, so I'm trying to track them all down to prevent that. Plus it's for the best anyway per BLP. The good news is that the edit filter is working well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed anything today; has anyone else? Enterprisey (talk!) 00:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Molokele
I put this user at the COIN Noticeboard but as no one as answering and it seems like he is editing it more I thought I should bring it here. Please see the COIN post I made for more info. Thanks, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 04:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations needs help
Calling all admins: WP:SPI needs some assistance to work through the backlog which is growing quite quickly. Most of the cases with "open" status are pretty obvious and simple to deal with. Clearing out these SPIs quickly has some of the biggest impact as generally this is the type of socking that is making consensus building hard. Dealing with these simpler cases also allows admins who are more familiar to deal with the difficult ones. There are comprehensive instructions available at Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions but that level of response probably isn't needed. Just block the accounts appropriately if there's abusive socking occurring, make a note of what you've done and change  to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The “green cases” where CU has also returned a result and it needs someone to decide how to handle is also chronically backlogged. Also, if someone’s not socking but they’re being disruptive in another way that would lead to a block, block them for the other thing :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

IP block
I blocked this IP for this followed by this. The same approach is visible here, repudiating WP:RS, and trolling at talk:Plandemic.

I have no involvement with the Waldman article but an involved at Plandemic, so if anyone wants to modify or undo this, I'm fine with it. A partial block on the Mikovits and Plandemic articles with their talk pages would be OK by me but the Waldman edit indicates a more substantial WP:NOTHERE/trolling issue. Guy (help!) 16:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me and it's also been reviewed by 331dot as part of a declined unblock request. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Squidwerd frequently adding unsourced/poorly sourced content to articles
Squidwerd (talk) has been adding lots of unsourced content to articles such as The Office (American TV series), MrBeast, and others seen in his edit history. When it is sourced, it’s often a bad/primary reference used. They have stated on their talk page "not to send them messages" and he does not respond to or acknowledge any. Thanks SK2242 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Revdel IP request
Hi, Emailed OS but still no answer 2 hours on, Could someone revdel both of my IP addresses at Mercedes-Benz Vario please?, Thanks, Regards, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Enterprisey (talk!) 23:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that Enterprisey, Many thanks for your help :), Thanks, Kind Regards, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , and now they've been oversighted too. Sorry for the slow response on list - usually it's much quicker than this. – bradv  🍁  23:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, No worries, Tbh I thought it had actually been declined as it was my own stupid fault anyway, Anyway many thanks for oversighting and replying - Both are much appreciated, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to lift Topic ban
Per this ANI discussion, I was banned from sorting, relisting or closing discussions at AfD. That was my big mistake not to follow the instructions. I must apologize for that. The main problem was relisting the discussions with no keep votes. Now I am familiar with the policy. Please accept my apology and remove the Topic ban. Thanks! ~SS49~  {talk}  07:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple of questions, I'd say you were TBanned for two main reasons (noquorum and relisting bias are extremely common for nacs) - can you identify and then expand upon the second issue? Secondly, do you plan on editing in the area after removal (not a trick, TBAN removal could be warranted either way), and if so, what types of editing would you be doing that are currently prohibited? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removing TBAN on relisting or closing discussions but sure to removing it for sorting. I would say there's been general consensus at WT:NAC that NAC at AfD is unnecessary except in a few cases including in a discussion spurred by this ANI thread. There is no need to expand our pool of potential closers to someone who has had issues doing this in the past. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , My understanding on this area: If all points have been debated with no chance of consensus, the discussion should not be relisted. If new information shows up late in the discussion, relisting is suitable. It is important to participate in the discussion than relisting or closing. If the ban is removed, I will sort the discussions and will relist and close discussions if there is a clear reason to do so. Thanks! ~SS49~   {talk}  08:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The other concern I wanted noted was your lack (or hostile) communication to those who tried to raise the issue. Most nacs (including myself in the past) get the issue raised at least occasionally, but so long as they're engaged with it isn't an issue.
 * Like Barkeep I support sorting being reallowed, but I am currently neutral on the other aspects, I'll need to think further. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm all for second chances, but I have a problem with supporting this. Your interests and motivations are none of my business, and I'm certainly not trying to imply anything improper, but I can't understand why someone would be so keen to clerk discussions that they so rarely take part in. I just looked at your contributions to AfD, hoping to find that you were engaging actively with the process, and evidence that you had a good understanding of policy, outcomes etc. What I see is that you have only participated in a dozen or so discussions since your TBan, and all your !votes/nominations are accompanied by a very short 'Non notable X' rationale. The only grounds for lifting the ban would be 'time served' which, when not accompanied by evidence of development of greater understanding, doesn't cut it for me. Can I make a suggestion though? We don't really need more hands on deck to help with closures, but we always need more people willing to review articles, evaluate sourcing, and actively take part in the discussions. Why not do that? Cheers  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , My username in topic ban list really discourages me. I want my username removed from that list. ~SS49~   {talk}  13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I guess I can understand that. Have you actually read through the list though? Yes, some of it is a bit of a rogue's gallery, but you'll also find some very experienced and widely respected editors on there too - you're not in such bad company, it shouldn't feel like a mark of shame. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for understanding. Much respect. ~SS49~   {talk}  13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Barkeep49. I don't see any community benefit in having another potential closer, and I don't see evidence of SS49 having learnt since the ban was imposed. The communication failures noted by Nosebagbear are a strong red flag for me. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose. The brief statement does not convince me that SS49 understands the problems with their editing. If they urgently want to close AfDs they should run for administrator.  Sandstein   13:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wanting your username cleared of a badge of shame listing at WP:EDRC since March of 2019 is good motivation to change your behavior. However, by expressing you want to return to the same arena doing the same or similar things is cringe-worthy to me.  If wanting to clear your name is a priority for you, never return to your old haunt ever.  Then request the tban is irrelevant because you have moved on.  With what you have stated here, I would have to oppose because it seems to be serving its intended purpose of keeping you out of trouble and conserving other editors' efforts.  Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, I would really want to see a good amount of actual, constructive participation in AfD debates if you want to demonstrate you're now competent to clerk and relist them. AfD needs editors looking at articles and sources closely rather more than it needs more non-admin clerking. ~ mazca  talk 17:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Topic Ban Appeal
This is an appeal of the topic ban on Japan-related articles I received in July of 2016: In the topic ban proposal, my behavior in this thread was cited as the reason for my topic ban: ​

In the future, I will take additional time to seek consensus for the edits I make, and, whenever necessary, will post edit proposals on the talk page before adding new information to an article. I will also make more frequent recourse to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Furthermore, I will make sure to include a broad range of scholarly perspectives in any articles I edit.

I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article. Furthermore, my account contribution list shows a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I feel that my topic ban can now be lifted.TH1980 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support User has been active since 2016 and hasn't had any other issues. No concerns.--v/r - TP 00:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see any issue. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support no current issues, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not seeing any issues. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 04:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, shows awareness of the issue and commitment to fix it; clean block log and steady activity also indicate the capacity for productive collaboration. Guy (help!) 16:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

AIV backlog
Resolved Hello all, it looks like there is a backlog over at WP:AIV. Some bot-reported requests have been there for more than 12 hours. Thank you. --   LuK3      (Talk)   22:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now cleared. ~ mazca  talk 00:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tons of userpages in MFD catagory but no MFD relating to them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Miscellaneous_pages_for_deletion what should be done 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This was down to Template:User campus ambassador being nominated for deletion, the MfD notice was displayed on every page which transcluded the template. I've fixed it so these pages should disappear from the category soon.  Hut 8.5  11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

TFA vandal
As most probably know, there is a person that is vandalising TFAs. I checked a few of today's IPs and they don't seem to be open proxies yet their geolocations are all over the planet. Do we have any idea as to how this user is operating w.r.t. IP addresses? (Pinging, who might be able to help.) --MrClog (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These are definitely open proxies, with the possible exception of any IPs geolocating to mid New York State, whence this appears to originate. I've seen a mix of obvious colos and some of what I would carefully describe as publicly accessible VPNs on broadband. Some of these may not be open, in the traditional sense, but might belong to some 'app'. At this time I don't know for sure which network this might be - I have some suspicions though tbh it's not going to be that important. Also, while I'm here I'd just recommend to carry on blocking as you've already been blocking, plus whatever else needs doing, picking out the web servers for possibly a longer block if you can. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Their behaviour does indeed suggest that the IPs are open proxies, but some are owned by ISPs like this one, that doesn't seem to be the kind of ISP you'd expect when looking at VPNs (I couldn't find any indication they even sell internet packages for companies). MrClog (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The distribution of IPs suggests to me some P2P thing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Hopefully the IP gets bored soon. It's a bit sad that the TFA has to be protected every day; we want to invite new people to edit it. --MrClog (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pending changes, maybe? Enterprisey (talk!) 17:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a smart idea to me; should take the fun away from the vandal while allowing new users to edit. --MrClog (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been advised by that PC works better for lower-traffic articles, so the current approach of edit filters and semi (if it gets bad) should continue. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We appear to have had an edit-conflict - I PC'd the TFA four minutes before this comment, so (unless anyone wants to revert it which they're welcome to) we now have a forthcoming experiment. TFA is not always heavily edited, although this one might be a bit busier than usual. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pending changes starts to fall apart once we have edit conflicts, so it works best when the article isn't edited very often and has few watchers. That's not to say it can't be used for articles linked from the main page, but if they start to receive a lot of bad edits then semi-protection is a better defence. – bradv  🍁  20:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add the TFA to my watchlist and accept/revert new changes if they appear. --MrClog (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like the PC protection worked like a charm. --MrClog (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, however I think they slinked off to do a couple of recent deaths. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The vandal just came back again after PC expired. Page is now semi-protected. --MrClog (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone mass-rollback Special:Contributions/50.26.172.216 ?
Block evasion of who's just had AWB priviledges revoked. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which likely means that needs to be blocked too. Will notify soon. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * as the blocking admin. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just rolled back the latest 500 contribs of that IP based on the (incorrect) assumption that Hmains was blocked. This may not be as straightforward as it looks - are these CatAutoTOC additions at all useful? – bradv  🍁  22:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's less that having the templates isn't useful than that they're in the wrong place. Pinging User:BrownHairedGirl, who has been cleaning up the mess (and has forgotten more about categories than I will ever know). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC) -- Actually no, they're in the wrong place, but they're also for very small categories for which they additions are apparently not useful. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Already a tangential discussion here. She says there was probably no need to roll back. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

basically everything in category space can be reverted. If there's a need for this, bots can do it properly. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Headbomb the IPs' edits are OK. Possibly un-needed, but well-formed.
 * It's Hmains's malformed edits which should be rolled back. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about this IP address, do not know how to use an IP address in lieu my WP user name, and would not even consider any such evasion anyway. Please check it out.  Thanks Hmains (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose that this is some sort of framing then?, do you know of any user who can check into this? (Yes, I know that CUs cannot publicly connect accounts with IPs, but it could be worth checking privately anyways). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not checked. I believed the block reason as well as the statement at the beginning of this thread, both of which are erroneous. Hmains is not blocked, so this cannot be block evasion, whether or not the IP belongs to them. That is my mistake. – bradv  🍁  22:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If they now check and subsequently block Hmains, the connection is obvious as well. Private checks are useful if the issue hasn't been raised at a public noticeboard before. --MrClog (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * (ec) @Mdaniels5757, the TOC should be placed below all category header elements. It works fine if it's immediately above the parent categories, or below them, or (as with some of this IPs' work), in the middle of them.
 * The IP has been doing this for 3 or 4 weeks (see e.g. this discussion at User talk:50.26.172.216), and mostly seems to be doing it right, adding them at the bottom of the page. That's different to the Hmains style of consistently adding them at the top.
 * So I am unsure about the accuracy of Headbomb's assertion that the IP is Hmains. When Hmains was using AWB, they set AWB to add CatAutoTOC at the top of he page, but since the default mode of AWB is to append rather than prepend, it would have required a conscious choice to prepend. It would be odd for Hmains to have switched from doing it properly when editing manually as an IP, then screw it up when logged in and using AWB. So unless there is some other info linking the two, my guess is that Hmains is not the IP. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going off the block log. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) PS I have been a long-term critic of Hmains's reckless use of AWB, and glad that their AWB access was revoked again (hopefully permanently). But from all my engagement with Hmains over any years, they seem like a thoroughly nice person, and socking just seems out-of-character.
 * Plus, as I noted above, the nature of the edits has enough subtle differences to make me doubt that it's the same human.
 * So I don't think there is socking here, and I also don't think that IP should be blocked. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Headbomb, how is the block log connecting the two? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see the IP's block log, and the note by Primefac. I think Primefac was mistaken in linking the two. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I just went back and checked the IP's contribs for late April. I chose 26 April, and those contribs show the TOC being correctly added at the bottom the the WikiCode, e.g.. Now look at Hmains contribs in the same period, e.g., where CatAutoTOC is added at the top. It doesn't seem likely to me that when Hmains had set up an unauthorised bot to this, and taken extra steps to misconfigure the bot, they were all manually editing as IP and doing it correctly. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your in-depth look at the situation. I saw an IP editor making similar edits (en-masse and relatively quickly) that had recently gotten Hmains in trouble, and jumped to the wrong conclusion. My apologies to the IP for the block (which I've now lifted) and to for the assumption that kicked this whole thing off. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Should I be reversing the rollbacks I did? – bradv  🍁  23:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the conversation here and elsewhere, I think it's best to just leave things be for now. Pages that need the template will (eventually) get them re-added. Primefac (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with leaving Bradv's rollbacks in situ. And I think that was right act quickly when they saw what seemed to be disruption. Best to be precautionary, and check the details later. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of CatAutoTOC is that it will generate a TOC if needed, otherwise do nothing. So it is used on lots of categories which don't yet reach the threshold, but might grow, to save editors from manually adding or removing a TOC as categories grow and shrink. The folly of Hmains and the IP was adding it indiscriminately to whole sets of categories which will almost certainly never reach that threshold. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and will the IP block log be corrected to remove my name, improperly associating me with this IP address.  Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A log entry was placed, (case of mistaken identity) in log entry 107994469. The prior log can not be "edited". — xaosflux  Talk 01:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks anyway. Hmains (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I agree with leaving the roll-back. Most people seem to think the template should not be applied when all the entries total fewer than 100, and the ip was doing lots like the ridiculous case here, where nearly everything begins with the same letter, and the TOC is useless.  Do/should we have any formal policy or consensus on when this template is appropriate?  Is it more helpful for mobile viewers than desktop?  Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod, I dunno where that "most people seem to think" comes from.
 * Well, that's how the template is set up, and for example here and elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I don't understand your point, and I think you may have misunderstood the way CatAutoTOC operates. (I conceived it and built it).
 * The template remains as I set it up, to adjust its output to the current state of the category. It does nothing when the category falls below the threshold, but it the category size grows to exceed the threshold, then it will start displaying the TOC.
 * The whole point of CatAutoTOC is that removes the need for human intervention, which allows it to be added as a one-off action to categories which might reach the threshold. So my rough approach is to:
 * add it to categories which have over about 50-70 items, and which have some potential for growth
 * add it to category header templates, so that any of the cats which used that template will generate a TOC if needed. That's much more maintainable than having an individual entry on every page in the set. Category:Templates using CatAutoTOC contains over 400 such templates.
 * Any notion of not adding CatAutoTOC to a category just because it currently has less than 100 pages is missing the point. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And where, exactly, has that point been set out by you for me and others to "miss"? You designed a rather dangerous toy, which has attracted puzzlement (template talkpage also) and now abuse. So there's no need to take that tone. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see BHG taking a "tone" here. Might want to just let it go. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess, also, that it's testament to pleasantness as a person (cited above) that they haven't demanded apologies left-right-and-centre for the multiple, repeated assertions that they were/may have been socking, even with 14-years' tenure and a million edits.  serial   # 12:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We need a double link to Commons?
As we know since Wikidata exists the link to Commons appears in the left column. However it happens that some users occasionally roll back if I delete the second old link (useless and unsightly), added to the External links. How should I behave in these cases? --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They're right and you're wrong; removing Commonscat and its variants from the External Links section is straightforward disruptive editing. Not only do the Wikidata categories not necessarily tally one-to-one with the most appropriate Commons category, by removing the links you're disrupting the experience of anyone using the mobile site and any downstream reuser, neither of whom will see the cross-wiki links in the sidebar without considerable effort. &#8209; Iridescent 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well in the articles I create I am sure that the Commons link is appropriate. Ok, thanks for the future I will know how to behave, but if what you say is true it would even be more useful to put a second link in the External links, which is rare to see due to the fact that the links to Wikidata were made later. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you're saying, but if I understand your question as "if an appropriate category at a sister project exists, is it correct to add a link in the EL section?", then yes, absolutely; that's literally the point of these templates. The chapter-and-verse is at Manual of Style/Layout with more details at Wikimedia sister projects. &#8209; Iridescent 17:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you're saying, but if I understand your question as "if an appropriate category at a sister project exists, is it correct to add a link in the EL section?", then yes, absolutely; that's literally the point of these templates. The chapter-and-verse is at Manual of Style/Layout with more details at Wikimedia sister projects. &#8209; Iridescent 17:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you're saying, but if I understand your question as "if an appropriate category at a sister project exists, is it correct to add a link in the EL section?", then yes, absolutely; that's literally the point of these templates. The chapter-and-verse is at Manual of Style/Layout with more details at Wikimedia sister projects. &#8209; Iridescent 17:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I wonder, per chance, if Kasper is refering to this edit? The issue here is this user STILL does not understand WP:CATVER, something that has been raised with them recently. They even brought my reverts to AN, which resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG. Maybe there's a bigger WP:CIR issue here.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't fill me with confidence, it has to be said, but WP:AGF and all that… &#8209; Iridescent 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't fill me with confidence, it has to be said, but WP:AGF and all that… &#8209; Iridescent 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting. My Italian is a bit rusty, but I got the gist of "stato bloccato" and "infinito" before hitting translate!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * w:it:Wikipedia:Check_user/Richieste/Archivio/Utenti/Kasper2006 is the equivalent of their SPI archive, which is not the best of signs. However, it's worth noting that that was a long time ago (2009-2012). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting question. I have been thinking the same for Danish Wikipedia but I have not raised the question yet. My thought is that we should not need to have link 2 places. But if it is better to have link in 2 places then why does that not also apply to interwiki links? Perhaps the long term solution is to make it easier to visit interwiki and sister projects on mobile devices. Good night everyone! I should not be up this late :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Requests for permissions/Rollback - High backlog
Requests for permissions/Rollback has a high backlog (14 unreviewed requests with the earliest dated May 3). Thanks! Juliette Han (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism on pages
Hi,

Recently found disruptive editing as editing contents without proper source happened in some pages.Tried rollback but the user keeps changing contents again and again.Suspecting sock puppetry edits.Please look into his edit history and find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlander07 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've looked at a random sampling of edits from that editor. I don't see anything that meets the definition of vandalism.  Can you please explain the problem; also please do not EVER use the word vandalism unless it is clear that the person in question is editing in bad faith, or trying to harm or damage Wikipedia with intent.  Which is not to say there are not other behavior issues such as sockpuppetry or edit warring, but I don't see any actual vandalism from that account.  If there is a problem other than vandalism, can you please provide some details so we can help solve the problem?  Also, you are required to notify users when you mention them here.  Can you please do so, post haste?  Thank you.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Apology from my part for using the word 'vandal' so loosely. Just informed user to stop disruptive edit on pages by sending warn message on his talk page. He blatantly removing contents which are cited and replacing with some other. This is what happened. Outlander07 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RfPP is backlogged
Again. I am going to start at the top. If someone wants to start at the bottom and work up maybe we can knock this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like we met in the middle. El_C 02:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Hi there, I just wanted to bring attention to this edit in which I removed copyrighted content, and I noticed that it was kind of standard for admins to make the previous edit unavailable for viewing. I already warned the editor here, by the way, so I don't think there should be any more warnings addressed to the editor about this situation. lullabying (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ DrKay (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , for future reference what you are referring to is called Revision deletion; more information about requesting revdel is available there, and there is a script that can assist in such requests. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs closing
Articles for deletion/Priya Singh. All the best! serial  # 08:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Image
Yes hi i am trying to make a image for Lauren London for her Wikipedia page can you assist me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahshion1 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. The best places to ask for help with things like this is at the help desk or the teahouse. Try reposting your question there. Ed6767 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

My original account
Dear Meta-wiki administrators, I am requesting any of you to unlock my original account Bishal Khan which is globally locked, please unlock it, I am a Bengali and primarily I edit in Bengali-Wiki articles. ফেমিন টি. (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked. If this account is indeed Bishal Khan, they are evading the WMF ban. If it isn't, they are lying and impersonating a WMF-banned account. Imma notify the WMF folks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

New SPA publishing false biographical information

 * is publishing false biographical information on Nassim Nicholas Taleb page and being reverted. The statements do not match the source. Looks patently like an account created to put negative information. I reverted and asked to discuss on talk page. He also violated the 3RR. Limit-theorem (talk)

is deleting a section that includes well-sourced news articles. The section may be amended, but suppressing the evidence is outright misleading. I understand that has an economic interest is protecting Taleb's reputation, but facts should prevail. Qwerty3141592654 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The comments posted do not reflect the sources. This is the problem for me, not the subject of the biography. Further User:Qwerty3141592654 explicitly created the account to post the strange information. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've notified Qwerty3141592654 about our edit warring policy. Qπ, you've been reverted by two other editors, please follow WP:BRD. Patient discussion at the article talk page, and following WP:DR if that doesn't work, are the way to address the disagreement.  Also, don't cavalierly throw around accusations of having an "economic interest in protecting Taleb's reputation".  You can't just assume stuff like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @ Floquenbeam Qwerty3141592654 keeps reverting all changes (in spite of your warning) although what he intends is now mentioned in the article with correct reference to the source. He violated the 3RR even 5RR after your warning. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lift bans
Please can I ask for the following bans to be lifted: TBAN covering the ARBPIA; TBAN covering Zionism; TBAN covering the Western Wall. Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * More likely to be successful if you:
 * Link to the discussion where they were imposed
 * Explain how you are going to approach the subjects differently
 * This contextless one-sentence request is almost guaranteed to be rejected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not know where to find the relevant links. I do not recall why these bans were given. Chesdovi (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Link to WP:AE section where the tobic bans were imposed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=711870151#Chesdovi. That thread contains a link to the original ARBPIA topic ban. You may also want to check your block log to refresh your memory on what the problem was. Sir Joseph is correct below; simply not editing for 4 years, and then asking to have the topic bans lifted on your return, is hardly ever successful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I told you on your talk page, you need to ask at WP:AE, and I did suggest that for someone to reappear from a long hiatus, it might be worthwhile to edit in another area for a little while and then ask. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sir Joseph and Floquenbeam. Would need a period of time editing w/o difficulties to show readiness for end of TBAN. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

History merge needed?
One of the articles I moved to draft space as a result of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is Draft:Phoenix Park Hotel. That draft contains some deleted revisions that apparently are an artefact of a deletion by User:Anthony Bradbury on 26 April and restoration by User:Primefac on 27 April. There are, however, other, interspersed revisions that were made on those dates that remain in the draft's regular history. I admit, I can't figure out what exactly went on there. Not being conversant with history merges, I'm afraid I'll mess something up by simply pressing at the "View and restore deleted pages" page. Would that be the right thing to do, or is some more-complicated action needed to ensure that the deleted revisions are restored in the proper chronological positions in the draft's history? Deor (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not wait until it is time to move Draft:Phoenix Park Hotel to main space? Then you could file a WP:RMTR and leave a note in your request that a history merge with the deleted Phoenix Park Hotel is needed. WP:Requests for history merge is available but WP:RMTR is simpler. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm feeling somewhat embarrassed because when I moved the article to draft I deleted an existing draft at that title to complete the move. What I can't figure out is why some folks were editing both the draft (as the deleted revisions indicate) and the article at the same time. I'm not sure whether restoring the deleted revisions is even needed here, since all the revisions to the actual article I draftified are apparently in the current draft's history. I'm getting too old for this shit. Deor (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In my view the main concern is that all substantive contributions ought to be saved in the history to the degree possible, whichever place they were made originally and wherever the resulting article ends up. If things get too confusing you may be able to satisfy the attribution needs by leaving some note on the article talk page to list the contributors. If there is anything worse than a history merge, it is having to undo a history merge. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if the only thing you did was delete Draft:Phoenix Park Hotel before moving Phoenix Park Hotel to its place, then you're all set and you don't need to do anything; the draft was (more or less) a duplicate of the article anyway. Everything that needed to be dealt with prior to the draftification was dealt with (long story short, there were parallel histories, a histmerge, a page split, an improper G7, and a whole bunch of other nonsense). Thanks for checking though! Primefac (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, and I'm only saying this because it's the third or fourth time I've seen it in as many days, NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS A HISTMERGE. I've seen a few editors who will ask for it any time there's even close to shared history, and (worse still) I've seen in the past a few admins who will blindly jump into a histmerge whether or not it makes sense. If there are parallel histories then the pages should not be merged. Primefac (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Primefac. It's good to know that I didn't screw things up in a major way. Deor (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

another LTA whose name I keep forgetting...
...this went on for 12 minutes, with none of the usual "vandal fighters" noticing, apparently. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the culprit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Was about to say the same thing. It's Angela Criss.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, but that wasn't really the reason I posted. We got dozens of editors hitting "rollback" with every IP edit, but this, with all the obviously stupid edit summaries, goes unnoticed. BTW I just dropped a little rangeblock. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no filters that work for this? And isn't this one of the cases for the WMF could take some action. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * is my go-to for edit filters.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I created Special:AbuseFilter/1058, log-only for now until it is tweaked more. I'll be monitoring. This gave me an idea for a nifty long-term filter, too! See the notes. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:MusikAnimal, you get an extra cookie with your coffee. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , On that idea for a nifty filter, I note the existance of . Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Hi! Can someone undelete: So I can move to Commons :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg it is used in ms.wiki: ms:Fail:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg / ms:Batu Pahat (bandar)
 * File:Coord1b.png is used in ms:Pengenalan kerelatifan khas
 * Why do you need File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg restored when there's an exact copy at ms:Fail:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * because the original should be moved to Commons and not the copy to make sure we keep the trail intact and attribute the right author. --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * you also work on Commons. Perhaps you wanna comment? Do you agree that the original is better than a copy from another project? --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've transferred File:Batu Pahat skyline dark-small.jpg to Commons. Not done for File:Coord1b.png, because it is missing a source, making it eligible for deletion both here and on Commons. -  F ASTILY   05:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you . No source? I think the standard action for that is slapping the uploader with a trout? ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Appeal of E-Stylus


Per their request, I am copying the appeal of E-Stylus to this board. I offer no opinion about the merits. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I am seeking your input regarding my unblock request. My account was blocked for "Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services". Per my paid contribution disclosures, I have previously contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork, however I have never advertised paid Wikipedia-editing services nor is there any evidence to the contrary. My Upwork profile is set to private and is only viewable by prospective clients when submitting a proposal to a job posting. I have not contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork since September 2019 (1, 2) and I have never misrepresented my Wikipedia account.

After my account's block, the WP:PAID policy was expanded to require link disclosure for external accounts outside the scope of advertising. The amended policy was implemented by the proposer with 3 votes and 1 comment. It was then retroactively unfairly applied to support the blockage of my account. As the amended policy now requires disclosure of personally identifiable information that is not already public, I am asking that the community review this policy change with a standard of participation that meets the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Also, I am asking that the resulting PAID policy be added to the Wikimedia Foundation's alternative disclosure page with the other local community policies that "strengthen or reduce" the paid disclosure requirements of the Terms of Use. While these procedures may not remedy the questionable blocking of my account, they would at least offer wider consideration and documentation in line with community policies and the Terms of Use. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem in this case is that E-Stylus is saying that their information is not public, because their profile is not publicly viewable. On Upwork, if you set your profile to private you don't advertise your services and no one can see your details. When you apply for a job the person you applied to can see your details, but you have to make the application.
 * So in this case, what we are asking is that E-Stylus out their personal details in order to engage in paid editing, which creates a bit of a conflict between WP:Harassment and WP:Paid. In a more typical case the profile is public, so they are only linking to information they have already chosen to publicise, but according to E-Stylus that is not the case here. - Bilby (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Decline unblock this is not an unblock request. More of a manifesto or a complaint.  -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * rationale update per Yunshui et alia. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Decline unblock. If people are unwilling to declare their paid editing accounts publicly, they can not edit Wikipedia - at least, that's the way I read WP:PAID policy. It says "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services." Even if having a private Upwork account does not amount to advertising, it is still being used to "solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services". It might not have been a requirement in the past, but it is a requirement now. And an unblock request is not an appropriate venue for requesting changes to policy or to policy documentation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, E-Stylus' concern is that this wasn't the case until two weeks ago. They were editing under the older rules, which only refered to advertising. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. Even then, what constitutes advertising is still open to debate. Is contacting a client to offer a service in response to an Upwork request advertising that service? I think it is, and I see the recent change as really just clarifying the original intent (and trying to head off exactly this kind of Wikilawyering). It's clear to me from numerous previous cases that the Community requires paid editors to disclose their Upwork accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I always disagreed with that decision. While I'm not objecting to the block, and informed E-Stylus that they had to link to their account, what we've done is made it more and more favourable for paid editors to sock rather than try to be upfront. I don't know what the answer is, which is why I wanted to clarify things here, but we still don't have a handle on the problem. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the conflict between controlling undeclared paid editing and driving paid editors underground, but that's not an issue for this unblock request. All that's relevant here is current policy (and its intent), and concerns regarding the effectiveness of that policy belong elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If that was the case, then this would be simple - E-Stylus couldn't link to a profile, because there was no profile. But instead we're looking at intent. - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is simple - E-Stylus makes their Upwork account public and links to it, or they don't do any paid editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I said as much, but it is unfortunate. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify the timeline: E-Stylus was originally blocked under the old wording of the page; I subsequently opened a discussion about changing the wording to avoid the Wikilawyering taking place on E-Stylus talkpage in the future, and since there was no objection after a reasonable length of time, I updated the policy accordingly. E-Stylus was blocked before either the discussion or the change took place, however, and so it is largely irrelevant to the block. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Decline unblock User who edit for pay effectively waive their right to anonymity, since such anonymity makes it impossible to check that they are in fact operating under the rules. You can make fat stacks, or you can be anonymous, but you can't have your cake and eat it. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline unblock per Yunshui. A paid editor follows the letter of the disclosure policy while undermining its intent by having a Upwork private account, just like they follow the letter of our content policies but undermine the nature of Wikipedia as a volunteer curated encyclopedia. No. MER-C 12:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline unblock Just because he's advertising his services in a private manner on a freelancing platform doesn't make it less WP:PAID. The fact that much of his work is negotiated privately makes it unaccountable even if he provides off-wiki details. The community will never know which edits are the result of paid services and which ones represent a genuine interest in a subject. That creates a difficult situation in policy making because it means that providing personal details doesn't ensure transparency.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: As my block has been called "questionable", I'd like to share my reasoning. The profile that a PE has on Upwork is their 'advertisement', and that is what they are required to link to. If they choose to use software settings so that only certain people can see it at certain times, that simply has the effect of attempting to circumvent the version of WP:PAID that was previously in force. However, I don't accept that hiding an advert until you want to use it makes it any less of an advert. As I said on E-Stylus' talk page, if I were to put an advert in the entrance hall of my house, so that it could only be seen by people that I invited into my house, would it then stop being an advert? I believe not. In my opinion, the defining nature of an advertisement is in its form, not in its visibility at any particular time. --RexxS (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock - good block with sound reasoning, . --MrClog (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTTHEM. serial   # 18:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The acceptable options are: editing for free, as almost all of us do; or full transparency. Choose one. Guy (help!) 20:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline unblock per everything I said at User_talk:E-Stylus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline unblock per the points raised above, WP:PAID is being infringed upon. The editor in question openly disclosed they were paid via Upwork to edit Wikipedia articles. Upwork's system works by having a client post contracts that are then bid on ("proposals" in Upwork terminology) by prospective freelancers. The client then interviews these bidders and decides which applicant(s) the contract will be extended to. In my view, any freelancer who bids on a contract to edit Wikipedia for pay is unambiguously advertising their ability to edit Wikipedia, and as such those who refuse to make their Upwork accounts publicly visible are in violation of WP:PAID. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle misuse
I know this comes up periodically, but the archives are a pain to navigate. Is there a way to block an editor from using Twinkle without blocking the editor themselves? Or, alternatively, can admins or the community topic ban an editor from using Twinkle? has been using Twinkle to post inappropriate warning templates, they've started incorrect AfD nominations, including nominating the Main Page for deletion yesterday, and has now reported the user warning sandbox to the edit warring noticeboard. I've asked JTZegers to seek a mentor as they seem determined to dive in to all areas of editing regardless of their ability to do so, but in the meantime it would be helpful to restrict their use of Twinkle entirely until they can demonstrate they've gained the competence required to use it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that it's a gadget, I don't think there's a blacklist anymore. Just block them for IDHT and incompetence if they use Twinkle inappropriately after being told by - what, 4 different people? - to slow down and be more careful. This is a common path that a lot of young new editors go down, and I've noticed that many do not understand that they actually have to back off until they get blocked. I think they've had enough notes and warnings.  Block on the next screw-up. I wish new editors couldn't turn on the Twinkle gadget for a month or two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, because this is ancient history, but I remember there being a Twinkle blacklist back in 2010 as I recall helping mentor an editor (whose name I can't remember) who had been Twinkle blacklisted for similar reasons, and I also vaguely recall being able to turn on Twinkle through preferences back then which would imply it was a gadget. I may just be misremembering, feel free to disregard. CJK09 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's basically correct. I can dig out the conversation about removing the blacklist if you like, but the general consensus was it's more hassle than it's worth.  My belief is basically in agreement with what we have here: disruption is disruption, and can be handled through the typical means. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 18:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Twinkle could be tied to extended-confirmed status? I've seen this over and over again even in just the last few days. CJK09 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to mentor JTZegers. I was an overeager new editor a long time back and I feel I can offer good advice. Feel free to look for someone more experienced though. CJK09 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I say take up on their offer; for what it's worth, there's a danger in getting someone too experienced because they'll either be old and grumpy or just teach 'em bad habits  :)  and CJK09 strikes me as neither. Of course, you may wish to block while the mentoring is in place, to avoid temptation; can it be enforced via the WP:PB mechanism?  serial   # 18:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made an offer on their user talk page. CJK09 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * what say ye? Although I support the mentoring (since we have a lucky volunteer for the job), but as the whole point of this thread was to save volunteer's time rather than add to it, perhaps it may be best if they do so without the tool. That way, they learn with their mentor while avoid tying up those who may follow. serial   # 18:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the mentorship and definitely thank for taking it on, but this is pretty much a last shot. I'm not convinced that JTZegers will be able to resist the lure of Twinkle due to an unfortunate mix of over-enthusiasm and lack of editing competence, which was why I was hoping for a way to restrict access to the gadget entirely. We shall see.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How does a new editor start using Twinkle very early on in their wiki-career? I know WP:AGF and all that, but the flags being raised suggests they've been here a while, and this isn't their first account.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They could've just screwed around with their settings. It should be pretty clear that they don't know what their doing with it. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The Community obviously could TBAN someone from Twinkle, but in 99% cases where there'd be evidence for that, we'd already have acted, probably via a block as mentioned above. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't ask me to provide diffs, because it would take me too long to find them, but I know that I have quite a few times seen new editors encouraged to use Twinkle because it makes it easier to tell others what they are doing wrong. New editors should not be bossing others around, but finding out about Wikipedia by improving articles manually. I don't know the technical details of how this can be implemented, but we certainly shouldn't have editors with access to semi-automated tools before they have demonstrated that they have a bit of clue. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Phil Bridger for God Emperor of Wikipedia! (well, Co-God Emperor) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick protection action for Deandre Baker please?
Could an admin protect Deandre Baker please? is doing their best to keep up but it's a major onslaught (Miami PD just tweeted about an arrest warrant for Baker...) Schazjmd   (talk)  23:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The day after I add a recent changes alert to RedWarn is when I need it most lmao Ed6767 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , also ty Ed6767 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Will work on warning all users when done Ed6767 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, although as I type this I realize I forgot the stupid icon again. Will add momentarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Phew, thanks Ed6767 (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Banned editor with diacritics as a hobby
I'm sure some of you remember that indef-banned (blocked?) editor who was all gung-ho about diacritics--it's been a few years, I think. I have the feeling that is of that ilk, and a CU might have something to add here as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This may involve cross-wiki abuse. Every redirect this user removed and subsequently restored was also added to Wikidata. Jalen Folf   (talk)  17:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the best I could find. I remember several editors who had this particular editing tic, but that was the most obvious I could find.  Maybe that one?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is Dolyn. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RFPP backlog
Hello all, it looks like there is a bit of a backlog over at Requests for page protection. Some requests have been there for more than a day. Thank you. --   LuK3      (Talk)   12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll start at 45 and work upward. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Striking comments from banned sockpuppets and modifying archived comments
In the past day, was blocked as a sockpuppet of the community-banned user, who has created dozens of sockpuppets in the last 12 years and is documented in a long-term abuse page. The JungerMan Chips Ahoy! account was created in 2011 and had posted hundreds of comments in talk and project spaces in violation of NoCal100's 2009 block and previous ban (under WP:3X).

I struck a large number of these edits in the manner described in WP:SOCKSTRIKE with the understanding that it was supported by the WP:BANREVERT and WP:BE policies, which state that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a" block or ban. However, three editors expressed concerns on my talk page at, and I've halted the striking to bring the matter for feedback here. The feedback I receive will determine whether I revert any of the strikes, and how I strike comments going forward.

The first three of the following questions relate to the striking, while the last two are on other practices that I had assumed was okay, but would like confirmation. My questions are:
 * 1) Is it acceptable to strike comments from blocked sockpuppets of previously blocked or banned users on talk pages and noticeboards, with a signed note explaining the striking?
 * Examples: Special:Diff/956644206/956649466, Special:Diff/956673092
 * 1) Is it acceptable to strike comments from blocked sockpuppets of previously blocked or banned users in archives of talk pages and noticeboards, with a signed note explaining the striking?
 * Examples: Special:Diff/956654215, Special:Diff/956669192
 * 1) Is it acceptable to strike comments from blocked sockpuppets of previously blocked or banned users in closed discussions or RfCs, with a signed note explaining the striking?
 * Examples: Special:Diff/956672048, Special:Diff/956664506
 * 1) Is it acceptable to add the unsigned template to unsigned comments in archived discussions?
 * Examples: Special:Diff/946143889, Special:Diff/955489265
 * 1) Is it acceptable to fix formatting issues in archived discussions?
 * Example: Special:Diff/876885117

Thank you for your help. —  Newslinger  talk   21:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment I am generally OK with all of these. While I appreciate the desire to keep archival pages frozen as, well, archives, the fact that we refer back to those archives for purposes like WP:RSP means that we should have the same information available for old discussions as we would for more recently-live ones. (Freezing archival pages in place is almost always the right thing, but that can't be absolute. Surely we'd remove BLP violations from an archived talk page, if they weren't discovered until after the archiving.) I think I would prefer the notice of the striking to be up at the top of the archive page, for clarity. A possible alternative to striking would be a template that says, e.g. "One or more participants in the discussion below were blocked sockpuppets", with appropriate details and links, for use at the top of the page. As far as formatting errors go, most are inconsequential, but misplaced markup can interfere with transclusion and are best tidied up. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am just not a fan of editing archives. Per WP:TPG in the "Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets" section, There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived. Which I believe to be the case here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm with PackMecEng in this case, and about those posts on RSN, I'd be OK with simply removing them (unless they have been substantially addressed). Socks are disruptive because they poison the atmosphere, and that's the kind of poison we simply should not allow on boards like BLPN and RSN, where important decisions are sometimes made. Socking racists have no place on this project, and their comments should not be allowed anywhere. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to not amend the archival pages, even in sock cases, for most instances. I'm sure there are some cases where it should logically be argued they should be struck, and in instances where their (!)vote(s) led to a different decision being made, it should be both struck and probably restarted as a discussion. However, I would say the general view should be not to change. I'd be fine with the template XOR offers. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a one size fits all solution. I think it's fine on active talk pages - strike through that has a reply, delete text with no reply. Leave at least an edit summary explaining what you've done, if there's time a note at the bottom of a discussion. XOR's template looks good with archives and I'd probably delete any racist comments - if there has been a reply, maybe add something about racist comment by sock redacted. On archives it's a judgement call, and definitely if an actual decision was made that would not have been made without the sock(s), it might be a good idea to reopen it with a link to the original discussion. Doug Weller  talk 08:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, I think striking archive comments by a sockpuppet of LTA account is needed especially in the reliable source noticeboard.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sockstrikes on open discussions is fine but I would say no to editing archived discussions. Except in the case of removing libel, outing, etc, going back to mess with closed discussions seems like pointless unproductive fussing. Furthermore it erodes confidence that archives actually reflect the state of the discussion as it was when it was closed. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 08:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment there is no policy that says we should not strike sockpuppets of blocked editor comments. SO there is no basis for any editor to complain about striking a sockpuppet comment. Newslinger should be allowed to do that without anyone complaining his/her talk page.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I crossed off multiple comments by the same editor who was using another sockpuppets in a closed RfC. Later an editor asked for changing the outcome of the RfC since there were lots of socks of this editor in them and it was change. . Again, no rule or policy that says you shouldnt strike sockpuppets comments in archived discussion. If Newslinger stopped because of the editors who argued that it displease them, I am going to do it.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Spiting people is a bad reason for doing anything. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 09:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with striking them in active discussions, but doing so for long-inactive ones just seems pointless. I definitely don't think editing closed discussions or archived pages is a good idea; if a comment is struck post-close, it may appear that the struck !vote was ignored in the close (I appreciate this can be partially resolved by noting the time/date of the striking, but I still think it's probably not a good idea). If a non-struck comment from a sock is ever relied upon in a future discussion, it can easily be point out that they were a sock. Separately, the striking of JungerMan Chips Ahoy!'s comment at Talk:Mtanes Shehadeh has created a bit of an issue, as they were the only editor to respond to requests for input on a dispute over an infobox image. If anyone else wants to weigh in (on what should be a relatively straightforward issue), that would be great. Cheers, Number   5  7  09:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's not pointless. Those of us who have had debates in talk page discussions know exactly that archives are effective and important. Imagine that there was a RfC about including content in the article. 90% of those who particpated in that RfC were sockpuppets of the same editor, just imagine. The RfC was closed and the sockpuppets got what they wanted. The RfC was archived. After months the sockpuppets were exposed. After 2 years, an editor comes and tries to remove the content that was added. Another editor reverts him and tells him that there was a RfC and the consensus was to include the content. The poor editor doesn't have time to check if there were sockpuppets in that discussion, and he also didn't install the script that shows him who is blocked(. If Newslinger had stricken the comments that were made by the sockpuppets, that editor would have noticed the sockpuppets and argued that the RfC was full of sockpuppets and therefore it isn't legitimate. This story is not real but it can happen.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I heartily support the striking of sock comments (and the deletion thereof if they have not received replies); less so the busy work that is adjusting archives. Although it is theoretically possible that a sock may have tipped the balance in a previous discussion it is unlikely to go unnoticed by those engaged contemporaneously. By the same token, it is solely contextual as to whether (struck or not) that earlier discussion will need overwriting. An RfA? Of course not. An AfD? Certainly. An RfC? Probably. For everything else, there's common sense. And common sense dictates that editng old archives tends towards the unnecessary. For the record, If SharʿabSalam replies to this message as they have replied to so many above, it should be considered bludgeoning, and a continuance, effectively, of the same behavior that has already earned them a topic ban from Iranian politics, broadly construed. serial   # 10:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also in agreement with PackMecEng and Drmies here - No objections to their comments being striked or deleted on active-unclosed pages, But their comments on closed or archived pages should be left, Like PackMecEng I'm not a fan of people messing about with archives either and would obviously rather they be left be. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Socks have lost their right to many portions of WP policy. As much as I like objective rules this needs judgement call rule. The sock made a random talk page point or discussion, don't bother.  The sock weighed in on making a decision (RFC, XFD, Nomination, etc)  should be struck and called out as a sock. Hasteur (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There was discussion of archive editing in June 2018 in a WP:TALK thread Editing talk page archives. Perhaps Rhododendrites who made this edit remembers who originally came up with the WP:TALKO wording "There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived." Anyway: I believe that Newslinger should have asked on WP:TALK talk page not here; I believe that the guideline is against making such changes; I believe that guidelines matter and essays (e.g. WP:SOCKSTRIKE) don't. By the way Newslinger incorrectly struck a comment by me, and although that was quickly corrected I do worry that some similar errors could get archived, so there is one possible reason for an exception: "If a comment was struck in error, and was archived, it is okay to change the archive to remove the striking." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While its often very *useful* when browsing archived discussions to know who has subsequently been banned etc, there isnt a huge need for it. Even in areas which attract a lot of socks like IP etc. The most useful of course, is when people refer to previous consensus discussions in order to shut down current discussion and it turns out half the previous participants were socks (not that unusual an occurance sadly). So I have no real issue with striking (not removing or editing) comments in archives that were posted in violation of sockpuppetry (they were clearly and proveably socking against policy at the time of the comment) - the full discussion can still be seen, no ones comments are removed, and the context of the discussion is clear. But archives should not be touched for any other reason. Thats pretty much the only benefit to altering archives to clearly identify sock comments. And as Number 57 points out, there are downsides to that - as the close (if it had a formal one) will then not reflect the visible appearance of the discussion. Personally I would prefer an easy and quick way to just tag on "Users X, X and X were subsequently found to be socking in violation of policy" to important discussions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * A couple years ago, while cleaning up after a sock I saw a little disagreement about how to handle it. I noticed that the language of WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:TPO were ambiguous and seemed to conflict, in some ways, with actual practice (see discussions here and here). The "There is not typically a need..." language began with the WP:SOCKSTRIKE advice about not being "nitpicky" translated for actual practice. It intentionally doesn't say doing so is prohibited -- just that blindly striking everything doesn't help anyone. I could see cases where striking and/or redacting comments and/or leaving a note at the end of closed or archived discussions would be appropriate. For example a first RfC intended to lead to a second RfC, or purely disruptive material, or to leave a note where the sock may have influenced a close, etc. To respond to Newslinger's direct questions: (1) yes, but I agree with Doug that removing is often preferable if nobody has replied; (2) only with good reason; (3) if it's recent enough that it's still being discussed, then yes. Otherwise, only with good reason. With a formally closed discussion I think it's probably better to leave a note outside of the hat; (4) yes. I'm surprised this is controversial. We should be able to look back at a discussion and know who said what; (5) only if they make the page unreadable, like some of the linter errors did, and in a case like that it's usually better to use a bot. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From the above comments, the only area of real dispute seems to be comments in closed and archived discussions. Leaving those comments alone just because they are over and done with is not helpful to the project. In areas such as noticeboards and talk pages, archived discussions are vital records of decisions and leaving a racist troll's comments as they were is not useful to the project.  The answer to questions all 's questions is "yes". Although question five's "yes" is somewhat moot if the comment to be re-formatted is already struck or deleted. The examples given all make what has happened and why clear. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My only recollection, perhaps only interaction with the Junger sock was the wp:bludgeoning comments on the World Health Organization discussion at RSN. Regardless of whether that has been archived, those comments should be struck in case we need to go back to review that discussion on an international organization.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO I don't think it's right that archives should be altered in this way – they are supposed to a record of the discussion at that time. I agree with User:Number 57 that it may give a misleading impression of how the discussion appeared to the closer.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also of the "changing comments from long-dead discussions is a bad idea" mindset. I'm not sure what would define "recent enough", but if I catch a blocked user commenting actively, and their comments are recent, I will remove and/or strike the recent comments.  But if we're at the point of combing through years-old archives in search of a damnatio memoriae solution, that seems like overkill.  We've had a recent case of a sock being undetected for 2+ years (see User:DroneB) that was recently blocked; it is SO not worth going through years of archives to deal with those discussions.  Block and move on is my attitude on something like this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Active discussions seems like a no-brainer. However, striking out comments from archived or closed discussions just seems like unnecessary work. But... if someone actually wants to do that, go ahead. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of striking old comments, a template along the lines of Template:Single-purpose account could be made, so that a statement after the remark would say "— Example (talk • contribs) has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Template:Csp. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js installed for precisely this kind of situation. It strikes through the name of users that are currently blocked, which is a big red flag to check their page & see why. I don't think we should manually go through and change archives like this, but it'd be nice if something like this script code was part of the default user skin file or something. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00
I am carrying over the unban/unblock request of from UTRS

User was CBANned for persistent socking under WP:3STRIKES. A recent check user check did not reveal any recent socking.

There are extensive talk page discussions to sift through.

Thanks, -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose unblocking. There's not enough here that demonstrates the user knows what they did was wrong. Yes, they created accounts because they wanted to edit here, but that is inappropriate. Yes, they are sad when they are caught by administrators evading their block, but that's their fault. They've repeatedly asked for an unblock while simultaneously evading their block. See for example, the unblock request from 2019-07-03. Note that there's no evidence of block evasion this time around, so my opposition is based on prior behaviour and no demonstration of understanding. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblocking - Although I believe in second chances, there's not enough in this appeal that they are ready for it just yet. In unblock requests, I look for indication that the user understands what they did wrong that got themselves blocked and a plan for how they want to contribute once they are unblocked. I recommend that this user takes contributing to this project seriously and that Wikipedia is not a game. They should also walk away from Wikipedia for a significant period of time (maybe 6 months or 1 year) and take this time to think about what they did wrong and figure out how they can convince us that they are worthy of getting unblocked. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblocking - An extensive history of socking, and the unblock request does not show any understanding of why what they did was wrong. Wanting to edit Wikipedia is not enough: all Wikipedia editors want to edit Wikipedia, but when one has a history of abuse of editing privileges, some presentation of reform must be shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblocking: Per above, I also see a history of socking and a lack of understanding. That's enough for me to oppose. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 13:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblocking: User lacks understanding of why they were blocked in the first place, nor why sockpuppeteering is wrong. Also, it sounds like they are trying to argue that four accounts listed as sockpuppets are not, it makes me think that they are trying to sow confusion or have accounts that are likely sockpuppets as determined by CheckUsers unblocked. Either way, this is immature. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  18:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Question - I'm a bit confused at the sentence "They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned." Did the user sock less than 6 months ago, but figure they didn't want to wait the 6 month period before appealing? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what they mean. Seems like a bit of an English language mistranslation here, but I suspect the user was frustrated that each of the reviewing administrators provided a similar response (basically "not good enough") and told them to wait 6 months per WP:SO. Eventually, the reviewing admins got sick of the repeated appeals and told him to stop. I think he interpreted that as a requirement that he must not appeal the block for 6 months. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 23:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Per your comments below, I also support unblocking. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking though what we're really talking about here is removing the CBAN imposed by 3STRIKES. Honestly, I sympathize with this user's predicament. They made a mistake, and they were blocked. All of the issues on their admittedly long rap sheet stem from a desire to edit despite the block. Clearly, English is not their first language, but that doesn't mean they can't make effective contributions to the project. I'm looking at their most recent sock from July of last year, and I don't see any serious issues with the contributions. The edits they made on that sock are live on the pages to this day. For this user, I subscribe to the WP:ROPE school of thought. Maybe we unban them, and suddenly all of the ban evasion issues are a moot point and they become a useful contributor? Maybe not, and then we just ban them again. They've been good for almost a year. If they're ever going to get another chance, now is the time.  Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 23:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking per AlexEng. "WP:ROPE school of thought."  starship .paint  (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Unblocking  per AlexEng. Watch the users contribs and block again if there is problematic behaviour. WP:ROPE! -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 21:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblocking I believe in second changes but, they seem to not understand what they did was wrong per all the unblock requests on their talk page. Also per all of the opposers. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 01:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Welp, the !votes so far are 4-6, and this has been open for ages. Does that mean the unban request is unsuccessful? Foxnpichu (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do believe that's what it indicates. The user should be informed they could make another unban request where they demonstrate an understanding of what lead to the block in the first place and address the other concerns raised here. That is, this is not the end of the line for them. --Yamla (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, more people are supporting now! Foxnpichu (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support unblocking - Although they created multiple accounts, I'm not seeing that they used those accounts in an abusive way. For example, User:MagicJulius might be a sock of User:MagicJulius00, but honestly, that's not an attempt to avoid scrutiny. User:WowMagic18 posted a bunch of retired templates on other accounts' user pages - not exactly trying to get away with anything there, either. User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio, and User:Mycadaniellabacar have made zero edits. User:UnitedPhilippines02 made one edit, creating a user page.  User:GoodLife123 made 6 edits, none of which seem malicious (or incorrect). I'm not seeing any damage caused by this user. Seems more misguided than malicious, and reading the user talk page, I think their previous requests should have been granted, and more explanation given. Simply repeating "you have not shown that you understand what you did wrong" is ... it's that thing we do sometimes where we set up hoops for other users to jump through and then we fault users for not jumping through those hoops. I support a second chance because this user has not been given one yet. (I also see that some of the people opposing unblocking have, themselves, gotten into trouble for socking, and were given a second chance. Kinda poor form to deny that to other editors, IMO.) Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To add: I think one thing we forget is that the people who want to sock, can just sock. It's so trivially easy to sock without being detected, and I mean so fucking easy, that whenever someone who is blocked for socking asks to be unblocked and commits to using one account, we really should lean heavily towards doing that. It's way, way better for a sockmaster to be open and to use one account "publicly", because the alternative is that they use other accounts we don't know about and can't track. I have a hard time believing that anyone who asks to be unblocked from socking has malicious intent; people with malicious intent will just keep socking. And I think setting up hoops for those people (who request unblock) or treating them with suspicion is misguided on our part. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking as per Levivich, second chances shouldn't be too hard to get, also they have made productive edits in other projects since their block, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking I just looked through Julius' global contributions and they've been contributing constructively to tlwiki and wikidata as they state in the unblock request. I think it's really quite obvious that they want to be unblocked so that they can help build this encyclopedia too. It boggles my mind that this is so controversial, and I agree with Levivich, especially, when they say it's that thing we do sometimes where we set up hoops for other users to jump through and then we fault users for not jumping through those hoops...people with malicious intent will just keep socking...setting up hoops for those people (who request unblock) or treating them with suspicion is misguided on our part. Plus we have CU evidence that the editor hasn't socked recently so unblock seems the best choice for the encyclopedia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng. I read a lot of the unblock requests and it seems that a few of the admins just responded as if they were robots (and also not dealing with someone with English fluency) which didn't help the matter. Perhaps in another place there should be a discussion about unblock requests and how groveling shouldn't be the requirement to get unblocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking per Levivich and AlexEng - Their unblock requests are pretty atrocious however as noted above English isn't their first language and given they've not actually harmed the project I see no reason to decline this, I'm sure this editor won't mess up the only final chance here, Also supporting per ROPE. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking as I see useful global contributions and no recent socking. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Balkan matters at Bookocide in Croatia
Those of you active in Balkan matters, and experienced with WP:BALKANS, please have a look at Talk:Bookocide_in_Croatia. That section title is already ridiculous, and the first post, "...obscure enough, or simply invented completely, and nobody suspect that such junk could exist in the project at all... referenced claptrap...", indicates that we are dealing with a problematic issue. That the article isn't made up or some propaganda thing is established well enough, even in that discussion (look at the sourcing provided by Antidiskriminator), and the editor who started it just posted a very long screed whose purpose (and, frankly, content) is just not clear to me. But it's not helpful. I have a few things to do right now and frankly I don't know what to do with this editor--I'm actually thinking that a partial block from that article is a possible outcome, if the editor thinks that what they're doing is OK. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, what certainly should be an outcome here is banning the author of the article in question, User:Antidiskriminator. The person who complained about the article may well have missed the mark, but it's obvious that the article as it stands is a ridiculously POV-laden piece of junk editing, full of unreliable or blatantly distorted sourcing. The title alone is a crime against the English language (needless to say, it's a complete invention by the article's author). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not my area of knowledge, but a two minute Google search easily established that the title is not "a complete invention by the article's author". The phenomenon is called 'knjigocid' in Serbo-Croatian which would literally translate as 'bookocide' in English. Yes, it is a travesty against the English language, but no, it is not fabrication. An example of an RS discussing the topic in English: Mr rnddude (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it "would" literally translate as that, if English worked that way, which it doesn't, and none of the reliable sources use this (included the one you just cited, which is just another review of the single Serbocroatian study that has dealt with the issue). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fut.Perf., I really don't give a flying fuck about the title, but I do care for the topic. I also don't care much for Antidiskriminator, who likes to come by my talk page to bait me, but again, the topic is real enough. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say anything about the topic not being real. Even though I'm not convinced it's really one topic; it may be either two topics conflated (illegitimately, because the sources take care to distinguish them), or a part of what is a single larger topic illegitimately factored out. But that's not really the point; the point is that the quality of the tendentious POV writing by Antidiskriminator is so crass and so obvious that it should earn him an immediate ban for disruptive editing, on the evidence of a mere cursory reading of the article. I honestly cannot understand how any competent administrator could possibly spend a minute reading the article and not immediately come to conclusion of pulling the ARBMAC trigger. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin, or advice
Hi all. A minor edit war has occurred over this article, where and I have disagreed over a content addition. I'm looking for an uninvolved administrator to handle the issue (or to give advice on how to proceed), since I am the article's creator. A third opinion has been provided here, but his/her recommendation was not accepted by Linn C Doyle. Linn C Doyle's latest reversion was accompanied by this this comment, but I don't feel comfortable intervening further. Should this conflict be handled via page protection, to force talk-page discussion? Or should additional opinions be invited? Or discussed at greater length elsewhere?   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As you got a third opinion on the talk page that agreed the content should not be reinstated, and Linn C Doyle continued to revert it into the article, I have blocked her from editing the article for two weeks. Number   5  7  20:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Unblock appeal
I am appealing the block which I received for "repeatedly violating [my] interaction ban after warnings". The cited violations occurred while I was appealing and asking for clarification on the talk page of the administrator who imposed the IBAN. In my appeal and clarification requests I had repeatedly asked that my IBAN be modified from a one-way IBAN to a two-way IBAN. In order to request this change it was necessary for me to discuss the other editor. The administrator repeatedly stated that the other editor was not responsible for my behavior, and that trying to convince them otherwise is not covered by WP:BANEX. I was not claiming that the other editor was responsible for my behavior; I was asking that my IBAN be modified to two-way because the other editor was also at fault (and due to the admin's procedural errors). The administrator did not state that it was improper to discuss the other editor in the context of this request; the administrator did not follow WP:ADMINACCT by answering my specific requests for clarification, instead the administrator repeatedly told me that the other editor was not responsible for my conduct, something I never claimed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC) copied from User talk:Kolya Butternut per request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Overturn and unblock - I'm glad Wugs became an admin and respect them a lot but I've been watching this unfold and I think it was a pretty bad 1-way IBAN and a pretty bad block. I also think 's unblock decline was rather unhelpful. The background is simple: a week or so ago KB was partially blocked from an article by for partially reinstating a bold addition, violating 1RR. There was a long conversation with many editors on brad's talk page discussing what counts as a revert, etc. Specifico lobbied very hard on Brad's talk page for KB to be TBANed completely.Next, Specifico did the same thing: violate 1RR. This was pointed out to Specifico on his talk page and they were asked to self-revert. They didn't. Brad was pinged; the question was asked-by KB and others-why Specifico was being treated differently than KB. Specifico hasn't edited since this happened (May 10). Brad didn't partially block Specifico like he did KB. Then Wugs came in-who I think has not been involved before in this-and partially blocked Specifico from the article and unilaterally gave KB a 1-way IBAN against Specifico. KB went to Wugs' talk page and lobbied for it to be 2-way. Wugs blocked KB (full block) for that, saying it's a violation of the 1-way IBAN (it's not). Yamla declined KB's unblock request because Yamla didn't think the chance of success was high enough (whatever that means). I think every single admin action in this little story I've described was improper. What should have happened is simple: KB should have been given a chance to self revert before being partially blocked. Specifico should have been treated the same by brad as KB was and should have been pblocked also, without a bunch of editors claiming hypocrisy for a week. No IBAN was necessary at all, and asking for it to be 2-way on the issuing admin's talk page is not a violation of the 1-way; BANEX is clear about appeals. So I think KB should be unblocked and the IBAN rescinded. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The background is not simple and leaves out the previous month of interactions I've seen and tried to mediate. I've been following this issue for a month at this point, starting with this discussion on Kolya's talk page where I declined to block her for 1RR violations per AGF. I was then pinged by SPECIFICO about a week later in that post's subsection, and in response I left this message on SPECIFICO's talk page to try and deescalate the situation. A week ago Kolya pinged me to this discussion where, once I saw it, I topic banned SPECIFICO for the violations noted. Editor's didn't claim hypocrisy for a week, it was 2 days: Kolya pinged me 10 May 2020 and I issued a topic ban 12 May 2020 when I returned to activity. Given what went on in that thread and the month long effort I've spent trying to deescalate their interpersonal feud, I gave Kolya an IBAN. I disagree that lobbying for sanctions against the editor you are banned from interacting with is within the bounds of WP:BANEX since our guide to appeals says Do not complain about other people, such as editors you may have been in a conflict with, or the blocking administrator. Disagreements with others should be addressed through dispute resolution after you are unblocked, but your unblock request is not the place for this and I said that to Kolya at least three times here, here, and here and linked her to that guide which she later quoted from. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Overturn per Levivich. I was involved in the previous discussions and do not find it helpful when the standards are not uniformly enforced. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Overturn per Levivich and trout to all admins involved. 1-way IBANs are pointless.  Two way or no way.--v/r - TP 17:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the further history of this, but must point out that lobbying for the other editor to also have an interaction ban clearly violates WP:IBAN, which says, "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: [...] make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly", and was linked in the initial edit on the plaintiff's talk page informing them of the ban, so the statement at User talk:Kolya Butternut saying, "I was not given a blanket instruction not to discuss the other editor's conduct, and I was not told not to ask for a ban on the other editor" is incorrect, as is Levivich's, "(it's not)". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that interpretation. Asking the issuing admin to issue a 2-way IBAN instead of a 1-way IBAN is a form of appeal. It would be nonsensical to treat this as a violation of the 1-way IBAN. If we treated it as such, then nobody subject to a 1-way IBAN could ever request that it be turned into a 2-way IBAN. This of course isn't how it works here. There are many instances, for example, of someone asking for a 2-way to be turned into a 1-way, and this is not considered a violation of the 2-way. BANEX is clear that appeals of sanctions do not violate the sanction. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what interpretation is needed here. The banning policy says what I said it says very clearly. This editor is perfectly entitled to ask questions about their own ban, but asking for the other editor to be banned is obviously a violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , interpretation isn't needed because asking to change a 1-way ban that you have with another editor to a 2-way ban is discussing the ban itself and is an attempt to appeal the ban as it is being enforced. Nihlus  20:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Overturn and unblock looks like a no brainer. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - There seems to be some misrepresentation above. It is not true that Kolya merely went to Wugapodes to ask about the iban or to request turning it into a 2-way iban. The first comment didn't even mention the iban, but said [of the person Kolya has an iban regarding]: "his comments on his talk page are evidence of incivility in the form of civil POV-pushing, particularly WP:CIVILITY 2.(d) lying." Wugapodes then explained that these messages could be an iban violation and advised dropping the stick. No sticks were dropped, and so it escalated. I'm not weighing in one way or the other as to whether a block was merited or whether the iban should be there or whether it should be 2-way. I'm only commenting because to read this section you'd get a different idea of what happened than if you look at the section on Wugapodes' talk page. YMMV. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * At User talk:Wugapodes, KB started with, to which Wugs replied, Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The operative words being to the extent that it is necessary to appeal or clarify the ban itself. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Overturn and unblock - I'd propose unblocking now, since this will all eventually become moot if the block expires. Unblock because an interaction ban should not remove of the right to seek relief from actions taken by the other editor, so long as such requests are made in good faith. Given the time frame, I am inclined to see the talk page comments in that light, even those not directly seeking a change of the IBAN. Overturn, because 1-way interaction bans are never justified. I haven't investigated sufficiently to have a position on whether no interaction ban, a two way interaction ban, or a full ban would be most appropriate. <i style="color:darkgreen">Prodego</i> talk 18:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanctioning admin note Since this has also come to include a discussion on the IBAN itself, I want to note that the conduct I sanctioned Kolya for is not an isolated incident but a long term pattern. At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut SchroCat advised her to not insult other editors, and to report concerns at the appropriate venue; she doubled down and made clear she was trying to carry on a personal rather than content dispute with Betty Logan. At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut Flyer22 Reborn raised concerns with multiple diffs that Kolya was wikihounding them, to which Cullen328 said I advise you to take that editor's talk page off your watchlist. That would be to your benefit, in my opinion, since you are clearly displaying some hounding tendencies. This is not a new pattern, and it is clear to me that neither Kolya's interactions with SPECIFICO nor the editing environment at Joe Biden would improve without intervention. Concerns about this pattern of behavior have been raised multiple times, by multiple editors, and about multiple targets, so in considering the IBAN, I suggest editors look at Kolya's pattern of conduct over the last few months and consider whether she will engage collaboratively without it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Overturn and unblock - A 1-way IBAN for an alleged long term pattern of attacks is an odd way of handling things. 1-way IBANs are also never a good idea, as demonstrated here. Finally, blocking someone trying to discuss and appeal their IBAN is unconscionable. Nihlus  20:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash
Relevant accounts:

Recently, one of my NPPSCHOOL students,, made an unprompted confession that they had previously been blocked on two other accounts, and. A few days earlier, they had made unblock requests on their originally blocked account, which were declined by and  (see here). Other than these requests, they do not appear to have made any edits between when the first puppet was blocked (July 2018) and when the most recent account was created (January 2020), and prior to that had also taken a long break between September 2017 and July 2018. On the most recent account, GargAvinash appears to have been editing productively in good faith, and has even received autopatrol permissions while also training for NPP. With all that said, I'll leave it to this noticeboard to determine how to proceed with this case. signed,Rosguill talk 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be an overreaction to apply WP:G5 and WP:BE where applicable, indefinitely block the sock account and insist on a proper unblock appeal in no less than six months? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a very minimum measure I insist on, I have removed the trust-based autopatrolled flag from the account. Ping who had been tricked into adding it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Holy hell, thanks for revoking. I was on the fence about this one and I went against my gut because I couldn't rationalize any strong reason to decline. But this makes two in a row uncontentious, "academic", single-focus, minor article creators who I tried to trust in spite of my doubts and had to have the tool revoked almost immediately due to their being revealed as apparent paid or promotional editors. Lesson learned, no more putting trust above security concerns in these cases. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , minor side note, but what do you mean by "academic" in the above comment? signed,Rosguill talk 01:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean that the creations appear to have a straightforward "academic" focus and intent, which gives the user the appearance of being credible, benign and here to contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith. I generally would not grant Autopatrolled to single-purpose stub creators, but a perceived "academic" motivation would make me more likely to trust them. In this case, Garg was focused on academic institutions. In the other, the user was a supposed astronomer who merely wanted to work on the backlog of celestial bodies lacking articles (I don't recall their name, but I will dig up the case if you want me to; they immediately created a promotion piece after being granted Autopatrolled. This was explained to me by someone as being a known sock tactic.) ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Deleted: Krishan Nandan Prasad Verma and Shailesh Kumar (politician) had just one single revision created by GargAvinash, unambiguously qualifying for speedy deletion per WP:G5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the rationale for deleting the pair, how do they stand on their own merits? As I view them in their deleted states, they're so amply referenced that they're hard to read; but my impression is that this is conscientious referencing rather than refbombing, that these were worthwhile if unremarkable articles, that their loss is a (minor) misfortune, and that (if we put aside the history for a moment) this is an editor who's an asset to the project. I'm open to being corrected. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In those unblock requests, or on talkpage of GargAvinash, I did not see the statement stating the two other accounts belong to them. Could you please link to it? Or was that statement made off-wiki? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the admission that Rosguill is referring to.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to create a timeline, but the amount of diffs to compile for the eight failed unblock requests alone made me give up. The confession has been made 2020-05-04 in Special:Diff/954768512 at User_talk:Rosguill/GargAvinash_NPPSCHOOL. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I don't see how blocking the GargAvinash account would be WP:PREVENTATIVE, on the other, blocked users circumventing declined unblocks by creating new accounts is probably not something to be encouraged even if they are entirely good faith and helpful. This isn't the first case of that I've seen on this board, so maybe it's worth looking at broader patterns to resolve this. To this specific request, I'd say let GargAvinash continue editing as GargAvinash, and leave the two previous accounts blocked with a tag stating they are former accounts of GargAvinash. I just struggle to convince myself that blocking Garg would be preventative. I trust Rosguill's judgment, and he's clearly keeping an eye on the account, so I'm not very concerned that disruption will return. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not sure what to think for this case. On the one hand, I agree that there isn't anything really preventative about blocking now, I have yet to notice any significant issues in their editing since the block was lifted, and the most recent unblock requests seem to be reasonable explanations for past editing behavior, and they seemingly had very little to gain by confessing out of the blue. The argument could also be made that the break between 2018 and 2020 could be taken as "time served" for a standard offer unblock. On the other hand, the unblock requests in 2017 and 2018 strike me as less good faith, in some cases clearly deceptive given more recent confessions, and I'm at a loss as to why they requested an unblock on the old account about a week ago. That the original block was related to promotional editing is further concerning for an editor that's beelined to requesting NPP and autopatrol, even if they haven't done anything to suggest abuse on the new account. The reasons for my not immediately revoking autopatrol were that it seemed like it would be cleaner to just implement whatever decision was made at the end of this discussion, with the knowledge that any attempt to use the permission disruptively in the meantime would be quickly caught and make our decision much more straightforward.
 * Right now, I'm wondering if the best way to handle this would be to allow them to continue editing, but to indefinitely ban them from requesting additional permissions such as NPP or autopatrol. This would allow them to continue editing productively, while also keeping them away from giving them tools that are reserved for trusted editors. These bans could be reviewed down the road in a few years if there's strong evidence of committed good faith editing. signed,Rosguill talk 01:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all very weird, especially how the COI concerns play in with NPP. I think the ban on permissions other than autoconfirmed and extended confirmed is a good idea. To the extent that they may have a COI or are an UPE, obviously we want to limit the damage, and I think the ban would do that effectively without losing potential positive contributions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add a checkuser needed here, as checkuser evidence was used for declining at least one appeal. The user is practically evading a checkuser block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CU isn't very useful here. Range is very active so all I could look at was the last two weeks. I can confirm they are who they say they are, but a sleeper check is without knowing what I'm looking for. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We really aren't sure what to do with these as a Community - I've seen longer cases basically just be ignored, while shorter cases are obviously rejected. I don't have a clearcut answer myself - we are currently squashed between "in no way preventative" and "sets a terrible example" Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Right then, a clear-cut answer. He did wrong, but he long absented himself (we think), and if he did then in effect he pretty much served his time. He volunteered that he had done the dark deed. He's penitent. Blocking his current ID would not prevent anything that should be prevented. He seems a worthwhile editor; more than that, he seems to be a scrupulous, level-headed editor who understands Indian matters and who can read Hindi; and en:Wikipedia strikes me as terribly short of such people, much needed in the face of energetic and tiresome boosterism. So let his current ID be. No extra permissions for one year, but if he applies any time after that, view the application on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? A COI editor who has evaded his block on multiple occasions (no-one seems to have mentioned here, but that was him too) and we're willing to give him a free pass on that because he can speak Hindi and might contribute to Indian topics? This guy is part of the problem, not part of the solution; I recommend we deal with him the way we always deal with such editors: indef block, standard offer. If this discussion wasn't already underway, I would be implementing that block right now. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水  13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've slept over the issue and agree with . Eight failed unblock requests, two of which have been made in April 2020 with the intentional omission of the active sockpuppet. In July 2018, the user lied "I know the account ADPS. It is of a friend of mine."; in October 2019, they created their newest sockpuppet; in March 2020, they requested and received a trust-based autopatrol permission; in April 2020, the user requested an unblock twice at User talk:Kumargargavinash, both times including the reason "I didn't know that creating a new account by a blocked user is against the policy", as if they had learned from the mistake, not speaking a word about having knowingly repeated it since. Only when two appeals had been declined, the user decided to write Special:Diff/954673728 with their sockpuppet GargAvinash, yet required a very friendly inquiry by Rosguill before actually admitting which accounts this is about. A chronic case of dishonesty, this is. As the user is still blocked, and there is clearly no consensus for an unblock here, WP:CBAN applies. Someone uninvolved should close this after at least 24 hours, per "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'", implementing a site-wide ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess this is a bit late now, I wrote it before anyone had replied but because I also wrote a bunch of other stuff and I wasn't sure if I wanted to say it all, I didn't post it. But "If I were Kumargargavinash, I would not wait for a decision or to be blocked on the GargAvinah account. I'd stop using it straight away and wait (at least) 6 months and ask to be unblocked on the Kumargargavinash account." Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also wrote: This sort of seems to be a case where maybe if Kumargargavinash had tried to get unblocked in January with full honesty, they would have a fair chance of getting unblocked. But even taking WP:CLEANSTART into consideration I don't think we can accept the socking while blocked, especially given the historic problems were both socking and paid editing concerns. No matter that they seem to have been confessed without prompting. Adding now that I've read the other responses, I think it's preventative since it's difficult to trust an editor in these circumstances. While no one has identified any clear problems with their recent editing, it's difficult to be confident they won't re-occur with an editor who feels it's okay to pick and choose what parts of policy they want to obey in a manner way beyond that allowed by IAR i.e. completely ignoring a block. And as others have pointed with the benefit of hindsight, we also see they were misleading us very recently with the April 2020 unblock. They said they understood they weren't allow to sock, but didn't mention they were still socking until confessing to Rosguill later. (I also feel that if we just allow this to pass, this means they and others are more likely to just do the same thing but appreciate some may feel that's not a valid block reason.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm with Yunshui, ToBeFree, and Nil Einne: we shouldn't even give the perception that we will tolerate block evasion. I also vote for GargAvinash to be community banned for sockpuppetry and block evasion; failing that, a indefinite ban of this newest account, and maybe the standard offer. If the editor stays away for at least six months. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor has demonstrated a long-term trend of dishonesty that continued up to this past month. A block is just as preventative here as the policies for WP:SOCK intend. If someone cannot be trusted by the community due to a history of dishonesty and sock puppetry, then they aren’t given editing privileges until they are believed to be trustworthy again as a preventive measure against future dishonest editing.In this case, their honesty started . Whether they weren’t dishonest from July 2018 – January 2020 is irrelevant if they were dishonest from January 2020 to yesterday. — MarkH21talk 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignore it - I don't see any benefit to blocking him now. Redirect the old accounts to the new account for transparency, but, other than that, this violation of WP:SOCK isn't particularly significant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Allowing a user a free pass encourages them and others to evade blocks/bans. --MrClog (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, I think I'm now in the block camp. I'm swayed by comments made here, but the clincher is a comment made by GargAvinash. Following comments from ToBeFree that included rhetorical questions and a specific request that GargAvinash not respond to them, GargAvinash responded anyway and among other things, claimed that their block evasion with the current account was due to ignorance . This really stretches the limits of my ability to assume good faith, given that the second account, ADPS, was explicitly blocked due to socking. While I can believe that someone may have simply walked away after getting blocked a second time without reading the relevant policies, coming back with a new account a year and a half later is at best negligence, and less charitably could be seen as contempt. I find it difficult to take someone seriously when in the same comment they say that they didn't mentioned that GargAvinash is a sock [while requesting an unblock for Kumargargavinash] because this account could also be blocked for no reason but just for sockpuppetry and that they nonetheless never intended to...mislead, deceive...or circumvent a block ban or sanction. I'd be willing to entertain a standard offer further down the line, but at this time even that strikes me as being lenient. signed,Rosguill talk 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oof. The latest comments suggest that this needs a WP:CIR issue at best, with continued misunderstanding of WP:SOCK. — MarkH21talk 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (I assume that they started writing their answer before I added the note about the questions being rhetorical, so I wouldn't hold the answering itself against them. It's just the content of the answer that is concerning, as Rosguill and MarkH21 describe in detail. I recommend Kumargargavinash to have a look at this discussion and the whole situation in a few months again.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think the ban on advanced permissions is better, on balance, but I will agree that since my last comment here Garg has not been helping their own case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The section had been archived after 6 days without messages. We need a formal closure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't take measures against this account - if this user hadn't admitted previous socking, the account wouldn't have been blocked. Admitting it was a good thing, you shouldn't punish for it. 46.117.17.7 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Amnesty Made a fresh start-- leave the past in the past. -- Deep fried okra ' User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regardless of how people feel about the substance of the main question, I feel the bare minimum is an Account restriction indefinitely banning GargAvinash to one account (logged at WP:EDRC). What done should not be taken lightly. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've filed a request for closure at Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure. signed,Rosguill talk 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here to close based on Rosguill's request - I think it's clear there's no consensus for unblocking (distinct from a consensus against) at this time and that's how I'd have closed it - but realized I wanted to make a statement beyond what I could as closer. We now have ample evidence that this user can edit productively for a sustained period of time. There are also ways to read good and bad intent into their actions here - I read good faith but can't claim with any sort of certainty that the bad faith readings are wrong. The history of half-truths and deception means I think there will always be reasonable concerns about this editor. And so at each unblock request it will be possible to find a reason why we just shouldn't do it now. And then it never happens. I think each one of those declines would be justified - as it would be here. But I don't think that is the just outcome in the longrun - in this instance. I'm not here saying this user should be unblocked now - I'm genuinely worried about an editor with a history of UPE attempting to gain NPR - but I also don't think never unblocking is just and right now the lack of consensus leads to them being blocked. So I would like to see that presumption flipped and would suggest in 3 or 6 months that if this user has not socked (again) that they be unblocked. I would also support the 1 year prevention of any PERMs beyond confirmed/extended confirmed from the time they're unblocked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a good take.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. signed,Rosguill talk 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, what I support is after X time a SO appeal can be made. If there is no consensus about a SO appeal, I am proposing that it would default to accept rather than default to decline. If there is consensus at that time against the SO it would be declined and if there was consensus for it would be accepted. But my proposal is in the case of no consensus that it would default to accepted + 1 year of permission restrictions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal
Noting that, with blessing I have opened back up part of the discussion to see if there is consensus for my proposal. That proposal is no unblock now, but in six months (or more) if there is no consensus at an unblock request that GargAvinash would be unblocked, with a further ban on holding any advanced permissions for a year after unblocking. Should that unblock discussion reach consensus (for unblocking, against it, or something else) that consensus would obviously hold. This merely changes the result in a no consensus at that time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I support most of the proposal, but would rather that the block on further permissions be left as indefinite with possibility for appeal on the basis of good contributions. signed,Rosguill talk 04:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Now, recent
There is a noticeboard on here as well as this pg. The fact that I was told there is zero chance that a deletion review would be successful is indicative of the problem or occurrence. Angelina Green is a teenager. There seem to be biases on this site against AGT (America's Got Talent) artists, young performers in general especially new ones, golden buzzer artists on the program, artists from other tv shows or sitcoms for example, and other personalities in business and entertainment. Further "vendettas" in a sense are held, users piggyback on others' misshapen or formed ideas. They track, "spy" using the watch functions on the site, and seek to keep people's names and art unmentioned. Said users don't even know how to properly edit, often are involved in new page patrols and the like. Something should also be done about the ineptitude of admins closing and evaluating AfDs correctly. Finally the throwing out of votes in AfD cases is improperly done and used incorrectly. That's not to say that sometimes it should be utilized. Thanks. Momentum7 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "America's Got Talent" is or what a "golden buzzer" is. But don't give up hope.  We've got an article on Gene Gene the Dancing Machine, so maybe you can have an article some day, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Supposedly Wiki is your friend, look up AGT and the buzzer. While you're at it look at how many AGT contestants have articles on here and how many won a golden buzzer. Further you could research GGtDM. No one tried to delete his page. Also explain how Wikipedia is full of non-serious strange people who can't be reasoned with. Momentum7 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is clearly in response to this discussion on 's talk page. You have been told the proper place to proceed is WP:DRV, which is correct.  This is not the place to hash out a page deletion, and should promptly be closed as such.  Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the "ineptitude of admins" is a reference to my close of Articles for deletion/Angelina Green (2nd nomination). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good close, weeding out the IDLI-ADTs is something too often overlooked. By the way,  has anyone asked User:Momentum7 to clarify their conflict of interest regarding the article subject?  serial   # 10:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It would make a good collective noun, "an ineptitude of admins" :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See? Classic tricks going on here, look. Now look away, nothing to see here. We're all carny workers and this is a sideshow. Now to get back to things. Some of you aren't taking much seriously. There are biases going on. Sometimes when editors are shown that they are less than civil they use Wiki-speak and say that they didn't mean anything by it. They don't really keep track. Tell that to the people that follow topics for a few years. It's not one teenager that performs for huge audiences being slighted. This happens all over the site. Momentum7 (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not suggesting that non-notable subjects are being deleted all over the site? You are? Great news, thanks :)  serial   # 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not thoughtful or well expressed dialogue. One of the posters on here doesn't even know what show AGT is let alone the golden buzzer. I am resisting getting drawn into your charade. We aren't talking about one tv show. The biased opinions on here are affecting many individuals and bands. It is a sport, new page patrollers are sometimes wacko. Momentum7 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll talk in basic terms for you not "wiki-speak". She's not notable. Period. We have guidelines that an individual needs to meet to warrant an article, she doesn't meet them. When she DOES meet them, by all means come back and repost an article about her. Just being on a national TV show doesn't warrant an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding your avoidance of Wikispeak, their replies further down suggest that the WP:IDHT is strong in this one. serial   # 13:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I mean, you are quite possibly wrong. Not an expert. Do you know a 45 from a 78? That's another thing why do admins talk about things they don't know about? Maybe stick to topics you do know? Tell me which artists won a golden buzzer and then won the show in reference? Also tell me why tv, entertainment, this show, other performers, and in particular young performers are being discriminated against? Younger performers deserve coverage and have rights. Momentum7 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure why it went to AfD to be honest, as it was (bar a couple of words) exactly the same as the version deleted by the first AfD and should simply hve been deleted G4, as it already had been once. Momentum7 is welcome to take this to DRV, but the second AfD was closed completely correctly and so I don't really see much point to it.  Incidentally, though possibly irrelevantly, the article was also created by the sock of a banned user. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has minimum notability requirements for musicians and performers, and just appearing on a TV show is not sufficient (nor is getting a golden buzzer - and yes, I do know what that is). Whether something is deleted is decided by consensus, and admins can not overrule a consensus. As for the close at Articles for deletion/Angelina Green (2nd nomination), in my opinion it is correct. A consensus is based on the policy-based arguments made, not on the number of votes. Those who believed the article should be deleted made valid policy-based arguments (based on notability policy). Those who argued to keep it did not offer any policy-based reasoning whatsoever (and they appear to be single purpose editors with no other contribitions), and thus were correctly discounted. The closing admin judged the consensus correctly. If you disagree with the close and wish to contest it, you need to make a request at WP:Deletion review. Coming here and hurling insults around will not get that article undeleted, but it might get you sanctioned if you continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not an admin. Sanction yourself? Momentum7 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. The very definition of consensus is unanimous. Consensus is unanimous. That's not the case. You are incorrect Momentum7 (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, he is an admin, and consensus does not have to be unanimous. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing: you refer to "expertise", Momentum7, but what is relevant here is in fact knowledge of Wikipedia and how this specific web based encyclopedia works. That's what administrators (such as Boing! said Zebedee) have to demonstrate, and that is the only thing they should consider when acting in the capacity as administrators (such as when closing an AfD discussion). You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that you are not quite clear on some important concepts, such as how consensus works ("consensus" is not synonymous with "unanimous" outside Wikipedia, and in Wikipedia it has a specific definition), or the fact that whether someone "deserves coverage" is never a consideration – Wikipedia can only take into account already existing coverage. Again, you are free to seek to overturn the decision at WP:DRV, but doing so without first understanding exactly which policies were involved in the closing will almost certainly mean that you won't be successful. --bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not kindness which you feature prominently. Seeing that you have a PhD one would think you could be reasoned with. Explain to me how I can show you bias and you won't see it. Momentum7 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And I won't be kind here. Drop the stick and take this to deletion review to have this looked at there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Have done so, requesting you to stay out of it since you seem to have piggybacked off a non-admin post. RiB, if deletion review is not conducted properly and users are more interested in intrigue, arguing without points, and not addressing biases and other topics expressed then this site is hopeless. Personal opinion, most of you appear to not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Momentum7 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like there may have been some sockpuppetry going on in that AfD discussion, too. Grandpallama (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that the OP was a CU confirmed sock. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior in the Ritual (film) article
Wikipedia administrators,I tried to insert the name of the second screenwriter (Joe is the first), but another person (Juliete) blatantly deleted it. There is a link after her name, totally fine and clickable. Please tell Juliete that this is not OK to delete names of people, who worked hard on this film. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ritual_(2017_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Actually, I was AGFing and hoping OP would discuss their proposed changes on the talk page. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OP has been repeatedly reverted and asked to provide a source. I protected the page with a note that they discuss. I have given them a warning for edit warring. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have thought,, that when two editors, one registered and confirmed, and one unregistere4d, are reverting back and forth, that protection to mrequire auto-confirmed, which stops one but not the other from editing, was not the best tactic. Is that what other admins would do? I posted to the article talk page, pinging the registered editor, and was about to warn the non-registered editor, when I saw your protection edit. I would add that the IP did not notify the registered editor of this thread, as should have been done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's appropriate to stop the edit warring. It's not like one side loses and the other side wins. They can now discuss on the talk page. ALso, I think SP is the least restrictive action. WOuld it be better to allow the disruption to continue? WOuld it be better to prevent anyone from editing? Also, I believe it was more than one editor they were warring with. Please feel free to remove protection if you think it inappropriate. What would you have done? -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is a true edit war, then you have advantaged one party by your choice of protection. See Protection_policy particularly Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e. in cases in which full protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I left a message in response to DESiegel's comment on the relevant Talk page. Since you protected this article and left a note, I would be glad to hear your opinion on my explanations of why I don't believe it was an edit warring case on my end. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Inviting Izno and other interested administrators to express their opinion. Thanks. Juliette Han (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would have warned both editors, first on the article talk page (with a ping to the registered editor), and then on the IP's talk page, threatening a block if the reverts did not stop. Thew history looks to me like only two editors involved. The registered editor has already responded at the article talk page, BTW, and says that the edits were hoax-vandalism, and so, reverts were not edit warring. I tend to disagree, but no more reverts are happening, so ... DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks clearly to me like disruptive editing by an IP who is adding false information into articles and citing sources that do not support the content. The IP is now also doing the same with Midsommar (film), and probably needs to be blocked soon if they continue with this vandalism. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally I'm opposed to semi-protection when there is an edit war between confirmed editors and non confirmed ones or IPs. As said, it effectively favours the non confirmed ones in the dispute whereas per WP:WRONGVERSION etc, neither side should be intentionally favoured or both should be sanctioned. However I have a hard time caring when a said below, the editor is adding info in manner worse than without providing a source. They are providing a source but it doesn't support what they are adding. Such editing is IMO far worse then your run of the mill addition of unsourced information, since I think we all know that when there is a source provided, often editors will just assume it's correct. At least the editor seems to insist on drawing our attention to the fact they are doing this but still..... Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that the other problem is semi protection disadvantages all non confirmed editors even over edits which aren't in conflict and where it may not be needed because those who are actually causing the problems could simply be blocked. Anyway as I said considering the major problems with the IP's edits combined with the fact the article is fairly obscure so there probably wasn't any other non confirmed editor likely to edit, it's not worth worrying too much about what happened. But it is worth remembering that in a case that is more of a wash where it's clearer both sides are edit warring over a change which is arguable either way, semi protection only stops edit warring because it ensure one side "wins" rather than stopping it partly randomly. (Although it is true that despite WRONGVERSION, in reality even just protecting whatever you encounter can mean you are more likely to favour the editor who is faster on the draw and therefore potentially more aggressive in the edit war.)  I mean I guess if you visit an article and find it's currently at the version preferred by the confirmed editor, functionality it's fairly similar to full protection or just blocking everyone (or semi protecting where both sides are non confirmed). But if you visit an article and it's currently at the non-confirmed preference version and semi-protect then what may easily happen is the confirmed editor reverts one more time then it ends since the non-confirmed can no longer edit war. If you plan to block the confirmed editor if they do that, then I guess that is okay but in practice I think the confirmed editor simply gets their last edit in without consequence.  I agree with DES that in the general case, the best bet is probably just to warn both editors and block anyone of them who continues. In most cases a partial block for the article will likely be sufficient ensuring they can take part in the discussing the dispute while not being able to edit war.  Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User wallyfromdilbert threatens me and actively deletes my contributions without any reason
Wikipedia administrators,I’m sorry to bother you again ,but now user wallyfromdilbert says that I vandalize Wikipedia, threatens me with blocking from editing and deletes my contributions without giving a reason. I didn’t vandalize Wikipedia, I mentioned a proving link. I ask you to open the previous page- I want to re-add the screenwriter with a new link. Why didn’t wallyfromdilbert give me a reason to delete my good quality contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been explained on your talk page. You must provide a reliable source that supports the added material. Unsourced material or material that is not supported by the source can be removed. The material you're adding is not in the sources you've provided. It can therefore be removed. DrKay (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC) Are you bored because of some lock down and trolling or something? I don't see why else you'd make such of an effort (2 AN threads and one help desk one) to draw attention to the fact you are going around adding names to the article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midsommar_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=956337045] which were mentioned no where in the ref you provided [//a24films.com/films/midsommar] and warned because of it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It must be some sort of trolling because I cannot find any evidence of the name being added ever writing anything or even existing. The fact that the IP has started multiple threads about it leads to be believe they are just trying to waste our time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia is free ,and everyone can participate. This screenwriter (Eve) is simply shadowed by other people, involved in her films. I want to add her credits, but Juliete and Wallyfromdilbert are deleting everything good I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:46EE:3015:ED38:A238:A416:ED9B (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not paying attention. All material added to wikipedia must be verifiable in a published source. This content cannot be added unless it is verifiable by looking in a published source that states she is the screenwriter. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * At this point, I would suggest that the WP:BOOMERANG should come full circle, and this IP should be blocked. They are either willfully trolling, or lack the WP:COMPETENCE to meaningfully participate. BD2412  T 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Edit warring to promote a supposed writer, with refs that don't even mention her, and then complaining at the Help desk and AN. CIR or trolling. Either way block and move on. Meters (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OP Blocked x 24 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The OP has returned, see . Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Asqueladd being problematical (declined by reporter user)
User is in an obvious bias in her country (evidence) article (, showing personal conduct difficulties, more, more, ), please take advice. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pickespitlizyr has been reported here per WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:CIV. The report above these lines is a case of WP:GAMING--Asqueladd (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is same your "report" link. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of what kind of "problematical" "evidence" of "bias" is changing "15 Day" by "15 May".--Asqueladd (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I remove my report, whole it probably are by medical causes. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Drmies abusing administrative privileges.
User:Drmies suggested that I come here after he taunted and insulted me, and then locked the page down so that I couldn't respond.

This is part of a part of a pattern of abuse, starting when he threatened to block me for a completely legitimate edit, while falsely accusing me of vandalism and trolling.

It turns out that he had mistaken me for some other editor who also happened to have an IP instead of an account, which is why he thought I was edit-warring. In fact, I made a single change and then immediately opened a discussion about it. While not everyone is going to agree with the merit of the change, it was based on three reliable sources that directly supported it, so it would be unreasonable to call it vandalism.

On that talk page, Drmies accused me of trolling and of being a sock puppet. Ironically, he sided with User:Nigel Abe, an actual sock puppet troll who was subsequently blocked.

So, the short version is that Drmies abused his power to WP:BITE me by being extremely hostile, insulting, and threatening at every turn. He was mistaken about my identity because he couldn't tell two completely different IP's apart, and instead of acknowledging his error and backing down, he doubled down with more threats.

In my opinion, this is not acceptable behavior for someone who represents this project. I would like him censured for this and demand a public apology. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I just attempted to serve notice on his talk page, as the instructions require, but he's locked it down so that I can't! This is just more of the same indifference to the rules he's supposed to be enforcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.116.79 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're taking things out of order. He started off with the assumption of good faith but then noticed you sounded like the other IP he just blocked.  Whether you were lying or mistaken, such a screw up gives little reason to bother with the rest of your report.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not great behavior all around, but nothing actionable here. BD2412  T 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm looking, but I can't see any edits of the IP that are troublesome. I do see several edits of Drmies that aren't very nice. Also, accusing an editor of being a sock is not within policy. If you suspect someone is a sock, either do an CU open an SPI, etc. Also, the tone of the edits is not the way an admin should act. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP's edits to the referenced user talk page seem to me to have a sharply negative tone - beginning with "don't darken my talk page again or I'll report you for stalking". BD2412  T 21:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , he's talking to a sock. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, but he clearly didn't know that at the time. BD2412  T 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern about context, but I did know that he came to my talk page and falsely accused me of having "been reverted multiple times and have not yet come to the talk page". I think that explains my unhappy reaction.
 * Now how do you explain the abusive behavior by Drmies, which is actually what's under discussion here? No amount of blaming me can make Drmies' behavior more acceptable. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect to the limited protection of the user talk page, I can see no legitimate reason for an IP to be editing the talk page of an indef-blocked sock. If there is a dispute with respect to an article, the discussion should take place on the talk page of that article, and not spread to numerous other pages. BD2412  T 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , That doesn't sound like a great AGF to me. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He didn't even protect his talk page himself. Regardless, I served him a notice of this discussion. Do note that if you know enough about Wikipedia to tell someone not to bite you, you aren't a newcomer. With regards to the accusation of sock puppetry, I would say that the location of both IPs here - for privacy purposes I won't list the locations - are sort of similar, though still a reasonable distance. You also became active after about a month of near radio-silence - just one edit - two days after the other IP (72.86.138.120) was blocked. I can see where Drmies suspicion was coming from. MrClog (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was a little surprised to see his talk page protected for over two years. Isn't that against Protection policy? PackMecEng (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, if you ever run for admin and you get those magic glasses, you'll see why. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , still goes against the blocking policy though. I don't see any exception there for admin pages being allowed to have indef protection. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * God help us all if I ever think that is a good idea. I have seen the crap your kind has to put up with. PackMecEng (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'd make a better admin, and I know I'm an asshole. <b style="color: gray;">Half</b><b style="color: black;">Shadow</b> 22:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, his first two comments on the Brothers of Italy talk page preceded the threat on my talk page by a few minutes, but they were already hostile. He hinted at equating me with a blocked troll ("I don't think you're the same person as the IP I just blocked, but I could be wrong.") and then falsely accused me outright ("drop it: it's trolling. Funny--you write just like that other IP editor. Y'all related?") Seven minutes later, he came to my talk page to threaten me.

As Sir Joseph pointed out, none of this looked like assuming good faith. For that matter, neither is insisting that I was "lying or mistaken" and therefore we should ignore what Drmies did.

In response to BD2412, I suggest that my behavior cannot rise to the credible threat of blocking because I don't have that ability. With more power comes more responsibility, so we should hold Drmies to a higher standard. In addition, my "sharply negative tone" was in direct response to his abusive behavior addressed at a now-blocked troll, yet never rose to the level of abuse, so you're blaming the victim for being angry about being victimized. He falsely accused me, insulted me, and threatened me. How is that ok? Why is my anger the problem here and not his behavior?

MrClog, we've seen that Drmies completely failed to notice an actual sock puppet right in front of him but loudly accused me of the same without any evidence. If he really thought I was a sock puppet, I'm sure he knows procedures to verify this. (BTW, please feel free to apply whatever procedures you want; I'm not anyone but myself.) So his accusations served only to intimidate. That's not acceptable and it's entirely actionable.

Also, MrClog, Drmies did protect the talk page of that sock puppet, as I said. I don't know if he's the one who protected his own, but that's also unacceptable. How can someone be an administrator while making it impossible for people to contact him on his own talk page? What is going on here?! 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

One more correction: the comment about not darkening my doorstep was not made to Drmies. It was on the talk page of the sock puppet that Drmies backed and was not addressed at Drmies. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I did really think the IP was a sock puppet, and I do know turned out not to be the case. And yet I think anyone will see the resemblances between the sockhopping edit warrior and this IP, who picked the matter up so quickly and in the same passive-aggressive tone and with the exact same argument. That I "failed to notice" this other sock--meh, I'm not familiar with the master. There's hundreds of socks editing these pages every day, and some of them are sometimes right, as this one was in this case. The meat of the argument is very simple anyway: the IP sock and the IP editor want a general statement in the article that proclaims something as fact, whereas the provided source clearly marks the supposed fact as one person's opinion--maybe a very worthy opinion--and thus it should be properly ascribed in the proper place in the article--not dropped as a fact in the infobox, which is the essence of POV pushing. And Sir Joseph, if someone is POV pushing, it's silly to continue to apply AGF. Not a death pact. If anyone wants to unprotect Nigel Abe's talk page, that's fine with me, but the IP will turn it into a soapbox to taunt me and to discuss things with a sock editor who has no interest in responding and is probably back with a new account already. It's all very useless. And here we are, wasting more time with an editor whose edits may have displayed an intent to improve the project, but by now it's just trolling. Someone should tell them to stop pinging me; I'm feeling harassed, and that's harassment by ping. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Drmies, was it acceptable for you to accuse me of vandalism and threaten to block me, given that all I did was make a single change that you happened to disagree with? Was it ok to publicly call me out as a sock puppet just because I also happen not to have an account? Was it ok to block edits to your own talk page for two years? Was any of this ok?


 * Do you intend to accept any responsibility for your actions? Do you have any regret at all, except at the inconvenience that this has caused you? Are you going to do this all over again to someone else the next time you have the opportunity?


 * Those are the questions I'd like answers to; from you, or from those who are responsible for punishing abusive behavior by fellow administrators. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Additional request: I would like Drmies' talk page to be immediately unprotected unless there is actual, ongoing vandalism. This is what policy demands, and it's especially egregious for an administrator to use their power to silence those who would respond to them. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, he did not protect his own talk page. Please stop casting aspersions w.r.t. to the protection of his talk page. --MrClog (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He protected the sock puppet's talk page, which is what led to this. He also kept his own page protected. I don't know if he's the one who first protected it, but there's no reason it should be protected now. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Clear boomerang. The issue starts from here when an IP (72.86.137.151 ) added controversial content, which was reverted here by User:Checco. The IP then reverted Checco with this edit summary Checco being Checco, edit warring because he is always in the right. The IP was reverted again but this time by User:Nigel Abe. The IP was blocked later for personal attacks e.g and editwarring. Just 2 hours later Nigel gets reverted by a new IP 68.197.116.79 who is the OP. Then Nigel reverts the IP/OP here. Nigel then made a warning to the IP/OP saying Hello, your edits at Brothers of Italy are becoming disruptive. You’ve been reverted multiple times... the IP/OP responded by saying That turns out not to be the case. I edited that article exactly once... and You owe me a retraction and an apology, good sir.. then made a post in Nigel's talk page asking him to apologize saying You slandered me on my talk page.. A warning by Drmies was sent to the IP. IP accused Drmies of "threatening him" The IP 72.86.136.17 shows up the next day and reverts Nigel here, the IP gets reverted by Drmies. Recently Nigal was blocked and the IP/OP started telling Drmies that he sided with a sockpupppet and that Drmies should apologize which is IMO stupid, no one knew that Nigel was a sockpuppet and no one actually sided with the sockpuppet himself but with the correct content. There was no threatening and I suggest that the IP should stop demanding an apology from other editors with that attitude. Also, when there is a disputed content you should not reinstate the content unless there is consensus read WP:BRD.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a definite case of blame-the-victim. Whatever you think of me, Drmies' actions are still unacceptable. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was wrong. This isn't just blaming the victim; it's blaming the victim by bringing up irrelevant stuff. I'm not responsible for the behavior of User:72.86.137.151 and nothing they did is any excuse for Drmies to threaten to block me for "vandalism" when it was a good-faith edit.
 * Nothing I did excuses Drmies' actions. Nothing you brought up, no matter how irrelevant, excuses Drmies' actions. He abused his administrative privileges and he abused me. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour has been disruptive, you are treating Wikipedia like a battleground. Instead of playing the victim card and demanding an apology, consider... apologising yourself? --MrClog (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As much as you might like otherwise, my behavior is not at issue here. Nothing I did forced Drmies to abuse their administrative privileges.
 * Simple question: When they accused me of vandalism and of being a sock puppet, was that acceptable? Yes or no? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is quite posibly one of the greatest WP:BOOMERANG moments I've ever seen. Ed6767 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * On a side note, I see the bickering going on at maybe it's best if you both ignore each other and stay off each other's talk pages. 194.247.60.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Different issue
I am not certain if this is going to get me into trouble, but I would like to lodge a small complaint against User:Drmies for leaving a summary on my Talk page, saying that I had been "Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons", in relation to an edit I made on the Arbery article (I had not known at the time that a dispute was being waged on that article's Talk page). Regardless, what I added was not about a living person, and I cited three different references (NY Post, Graham Media, and CNN). So, Drmies' chastisement of me was false on not one, but two counts. Drmies then appears to have gone through edits of mine from months ago, nominating for deletion one article about a South African law firm that I had tried to help Wikipedia by adding references to, and deleting a paragraph from another article about a law firm that is active in the Innocence Project (an action I would not really object to, were it not for the creepy factor that the deletion seemed personally motivated by the admin's "hunt" against me). Is there any function or protocol on Wikipedia where admins are counseled to maybe not be so aggressive when they act alone in meting out their interpretation of the wiki-law? (A bit ironic, is it not, considering what the McMichaels did?) - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , BLP relates to people who are "recently" deceased as well, and defines "recently" broadly. BLP still applies to Arbrey based on the recent nature of his death and its coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , What about the policy here? It prohibits "the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."  In the course of just 11 minutes, the above-mentioned admin warned me about adding "unreferenced" references that link to NY Post, Graham Media television, and CNN; then killed off references that I added to an entirely unrelated article on February 26th, then nominated for deletion an entirely different article that I added some references to.  I would love to hear an explanation for how that is not "hounding". - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this strikes me as weak tea. Your evidence of hounding is a templating, which can certainly be annoying, but happens.  Then we have an AfD nomination and an edit with which you don't seem to particularly disagree.  Now if this were a part of a larger course of conduct, you might well have something, and it may get there yet.  But as it stands, in my non-expert, non-administrator opinion, this doesn't even come close to Wikihounding.  Reasonable minds may differ, however.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Taken with all due respect, I appreciate you weighing in, and I can understand your points. Maybe some others will chime in, too.  Now, how would you have felt if I had rather said, "I don't give a flying fuck about weak tea"?  Before you answer, see this reference from just minutes ago.  It seems to me there is a good time and a place to treat other human beings with respect (and that's just about always and everywhere), and a very rare time and place when the heat actually needs to be turned up.  Since January, I have been enjoying working on Wikipedia, and then this one admin causes me to question whether I'd every want to smile again when clicking the Edit button.  It's human nature.  Nastiness begets a desire to retaliate. Maybe I made a mistake on the Arbery article.  Maybe it was a terrible mistake.  But nothing prior to that was any indication that I wasn't here to collaborate, which Drmies is now accusing me of, on top of the insults he previously leveled.  A flying fuck, indeed.  How professional. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You may do as you like with my weak tea! I try (and occasionally succeed) to be both collegial and civil, but there will always be sharp elbows on Wikipedia.  Here's hoping you have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Suffice to say, this does not rise to the level of hounding. It's quite common, when an editor finds a problem edit, to check the contributions of the editor. If the subsequent changes were baseless (ie. just reverting everything you'd contributed for the last several days), you might have an argument for targeted editing. That does not appear to be the case here: Drmies made a valid BLP edit, and then found one edit in your contributions they thought was inappropriate & one article they felt qualified for deletion discussion. These actions do not IMO rise to harassment or hounding.
 * Further, tacking this complaint onto another completely unrelated thread, just because Drmies was involved in that thread, is not a good look.
 * Overall, I'd say this isn't going to go anywhere. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleting JavaScript pages
Hello, could an admin please kindly delete the following pages under CSD U1 User:Krett12/common.js User:Krett12/twinkleoptions.js, as CSD templates may not be applied to JavaScript pages. Thanks. Krett12 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Bad edits
According to the edit history of this ip, he/she seems to make unhelpful and disruptive edits including this harmful encouragement for other editors to commit suicide by telling them to "just do it". 194.247.60.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a public or shared computer at a school or other educational facility. They haven't made such edits too recently, but if they do again, it can be blocked. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In most cases I would agree with your conclusion if it was just a regular case of vandalism, but I think an exception should be made here because of the addition of promoting harm. Someone could read and possible be tempted or convinced into killing or really badly hurting themselves trying. Basically, that damaging suggestion could have lead to someone actually acting that out. I recommend an immediate infinite ban.194.247.60.2 (talk)
 * That stupid and unpleasant edit was very sensibly reverted back on 28 March 2020 by . Whilst a warning at the time could have been issued (and a block made if such edits continued) this was clearly a silly one-off edit by a schoolkid on an educational network, and there's really nothing that needs doing now, two months later. When concerned about an editor's motives, just add them to your watchlist and report if disruptive or unpleasant editing continues. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Xanthi Carnival
I created this article more than 90 days ago and as this page refers, new articles older than 90 days get indexed automatically, but this doesn't seem to be happening. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnslps (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have no control over when Google indexes our articles. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Crosswiki abuse
Please protect User talk:WikiBayer --WikiBayer (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've indef semi-protected it, since you don't really use this account, but if you have the global sysop bit, why didn't you just do it? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Global sysops are not sysops everywhere, only on projects which have opted in and only within a subset of those that meet activity criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for that concise explanation. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (3rd nomination)
Dear Wikipedia administrators, Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (3rd nomination) - please see this, this was nominated by a sock and this was edited by so many IP and vandals, please close the nomination immediately (6 days have passed since the nomination). ChokLador (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am reasonably certain that this user is a sockpuppet of WMF-banned User:Bishal Khan. ST47 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Flagicon
I wasn't sure where to post this, I just wanted to put this out there, I asked at the beginning of March on the talk page there if we could have a complete list of all the country names, with the short three letter code as a reference guide to be added into the template description. I was wondering if there is a template editor around who could add that for the community. It would be much appreciated by me for sure. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , this isn't an admin issue - I would suggest putting links to the discussion at WT:WPT or WP:VPT if you're not getting discussion at flagicon. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

revdel request
Please RD3 the IP edits from 1 and 2, and both edit summaries. Further explanation here. © Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ (en-3). 06:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅  Eagles   24/7  (C)  13:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:ContentTranslation
I can't use translation tools. Please take a look at the matter. I have the Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Extended confirmed users. My Number of edits:730. Thanks-Shahadat Hossain (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7
There is an edit filter to prevent addition of the name of the supposed Ukraine whistleblower, including preventing links to Rand Paul's speech naming them. Log hits are suppressed by WP:OVERSIGHT. It's filter 1033 (previously 1008).

Kendrick7 is, or should be, aware of this, not least because he triggered the edit filter while restoring content added by an IP to. He uploaded the content of Rand Paul's statement, including the name, to Wikisource. He also removed the redaction of the name from another article uploaded by The Devil's Advocate there (see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kendrick7).

He pipe linked the text [Rand Paul] criticized YouTube to the text of Paul's statement on Wikisource, added a link to the opriginal floor speech, and restored the redacted content at Wikisource. So: two links to Wikisource which both included the name, in both cases with the name specifically included by Kendrick7. He also added or restored links to Paul's Senate page with the statement including the name, and to the PDF of the congressional record of the original speech including the name.


 * 2020-05-18T21:14:37 - restore removed content at Censorship of Google
 * 2020-05-18T21:26:32 - remove redactions from original Wikisource document
 * 2020-05-18T21:34:58‎ - create new Wikisource document
 * 2020-05-18T21:38:38 - edit filter hit when attempting to add both Wikisource links (original Wikisource link is filtered)
 * 2020-05-18T21:39:20 - add link to new Wikisource file

Given that the content of the web links is word for word identical to the content of the Wikisource documents that Kendrick7 uploaded / un-redacted, it's really hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate effort to publicise the alleged whistleblower's name. Four separate links to only two original sources, both by Rand Paul, both naming the alleged whistleblower in the context of content addition discussing Google removing the content because, as the third-party source included for this content says: "The whistleblower's identity has not been revealed or verified publicly" (it goes on to add "which is why The Courier Journal and USA TODAY are not publishing the person's alleged name or Paul's question").

Withholding the name appears to be the position of all reputable media, and my reading of the numerous debates where this has been discussed (notably Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) is that Wikipedia should not include it until after it is in reliable independent secondary sources.

I understand that Kendrick7 is probably motivated by a dislike of "censorship" (this comes out in other edits) but using WMF resources to do something that, as the content itself makes clear, reputable sources are explicitly not doing, seems extremely ill-judged to me. I would ask that an uninvolved admin give Kendrick7 a warning not to repeat this. Guy (help!) 09:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC) I was completely unaware of any edit filter, and was surprised that adding a link to our sister project Wikisource triggered it. I did verify that a ref I added months ago to Paul's full speech, the one Google/YouTube/JzG has been censoring, on Congress.Gov was still present at Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump (currently ref #168), which is why I couldn't imagine restoring a deleted reference to Paul's comments about YouTube on Senate.gov would violate any ArbCom sanctions. I admit to having some dealing with Guy on this topic before, but I thought it was some weird pet obsession of his. I don't see any valid reason not to restore this primary source. What do this AP2 sanctions say, and how are they relevant to all this? -- Kendrick7talk 20:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, I wouldn't have thought that people, particularly established editors, were still engaging on this particular issue. I can hardly call myself uninvolved here since I have been on this tip since the beginning, but then again, this is such an obvious BLP violation that any admin should block for this--if not retroactively, then the next time they pull a stunt like this. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm involved too (I created the first version of the edit filter) and I am trying to AGF here, but as you say it's pretty difficult. Guy (help!) 20:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Rand Paul's statement was a statement made by a Senator and then censored by Google. He didn't put it in the Ukraine article. I think it raises an interesting question considering that Wikipedia isn't censored and Google censored a US Senator. Wikisource has transcripts of speeches or videos and if a Senator made a speech and it's available on the .gov server for all to see and view, is it really not publicly available anyway? Wikisource's role is to be a source for speeches. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , well done for entirely missing the point. Guy (help!) 12:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , No, I didn't. Wikisource's job is to transcribe speeches of Senators and the article of censorship of Google is to showcase censorship at Google. Your job is to be condescending towards anyone who doesn't think like you. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , and you willl note that this is about Wikipedia not Wikisource, though in passing you will also note that a Wikisource admin has redacted the documents there, in one case reversing Kendrick7's edit. And no, Wikisource's job is not "to transcribe speeches of Senators" - the Rand Paul speeches are included, but most speeches are not. This is a deliberate act first by TDA (who you will recall is banned here) and hten by Kendrick7, to publiciose a name that responsiblke sources are excluding. Guy (help!) 14:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , While the media may be censoring the name, it is widely known, and Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of censoring, especially a US Senator's speech. Wikipedia isn't censored. Paul's speech may be important because it was censored by Google, therefore it does make sense for Wikisource to include it. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia includes only that which is covered in reliable independent sources. "The whistleblower's identity has not been revealed or verified publicly, which is why The Courier Journal and USA TODAY are not publishing the person's alleged name or Paul's question"
 * This is pretty much as WP:BLP as it gets. Guy (help!) 18:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, "Google censored a US Senator"--that sounds a pretty dramatic, and NOW WE ARE CENSORING A SENATOR TOO??? *clutches pearls*, as much as you seem to want to make a free speech issue out of this, admins (the people you claim are, by profession, here to be condescending to you) here seem determined to consider the senator's outing of a whistleblower to be a violation of our own rules. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , just to clarify, he didn't out a whistleblower. He named a couple of names and asked two questions. Outing a whistleblower is a crime, and you just violated BLP by claiming Paul violated a crime. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kendrick7 hasn't edited since this thread opened, so may not be aware of it. It would be helpful to see if they respond before acting, but on the evidence I'm willing to give them a warning for a BLP violation. --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, please do. Guy (help!) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've given a warning. I'm sorry I'm not aware of any backstory, but does this fall under the auspices of WP:AC/DS, and if so, should it be logged somewhere? --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely falls under AP2, of which I see they've received notice. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it does, and also the BLP case. Hopefully the warning will be heeded. Guy (help!) 18:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll log it as a warning at WP:AELOG/2020 under AP2 for now. --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For avoidance of doubt, I based my warning on WP:AC/DS, as authorised by WP:ARBAPDS and arguably WP:NEWBLPBAN. Of course, the standard WP:BLP would certainly be relevant as well, if a normal, rather than discretionary, sanction were to be considered in the future. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , It is almost axiomatic that any claim of censorship on Wikipedia is indicative of POV-pushing. And so it is here. This is not "censorship", it's following the sources. Example, fomr the source cited in that content: "The whistleblower's identity has not been revealed or verified publicly, which is why The Courier Journal and USA TODAY are not publishing the person's alleged name or Paul's question" (emphasis added).
 * They don't, so we don't. That's how Wikipedia has always worked. Guy (help!) 21:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! Yes! -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The only person's name included in my edit was Ron Paul's, . You might have even noticed with your hawk-like all seeing eyes, that when I put most of the information back that the IP editor added originally (which I only noticed had been entirely removed as I was adding information about different YouTube censorship), I left one or more names out. But the idea that we can't link to primary government sources which happen to mention the names of certain government officials seems quite absurd, and such links already exist on the Impeachment article -- I seem to recall you weren't happy about that either, but I suppose you lost that argument at some point. As such, I don't believe your position has any general consensus, and you could certainly have taken the opportunity to discuss any of this with me before dragging this whole thing to AN/I. -- Kendrick7talk 21:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , dude, you removed the redactions in the Wikisource document and would have linked it in the article if the edit filter hadn't stopped you. You also added the second Paul document to Wikisource, complete with the name. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Guy (help!) 22:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you have complaints about the primary sources I add or repair on WP:Wikisource, that's fine, but don't WP:FORUMSHOP those complaints over here, and act like Wikipedia's rules and Wikisource's rules regarding content are remotely the same — most obviously, WP:SECONDARY doesn't apply to Wikisource. -- Kendrick7talk 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the complaint here is about your edits here, which linked (or attempted to link) two instances each of two documents that include the name of the conjectured whistleblower, something that reliable sources do not do, in the context of article content describing the way that responsible sources have redacted this information. And it wasn't an accident, because you removed the redactions on Wikisource.
 * I assumed good faith. You have done a fine job here of proving me wrong. And with that I think we are done. Guy (help!) 22:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, . Very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

WMF Village Pump
The new Village pump (WMF) is up and going. So far I think it has been a hub for useful discussion and notification. A WMF staffer recently replied to one thread asking someone to post on meta. While that statement is true today it doesn't have to be. I hope more people will join me in watchlisting, visiting, and participating at the WMF Village Pump. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive re-re-reopening of the same RM over and over again; needs another speedy close
Talk:Syrian civil war should be speedily closed. It presents no new arguments, evidence, or sourcing, only unhappiness at the earlier speedy closure of Talk:Syrian civil war because it presented no new arguments, evidence, or sourcing and was just rehash of Talk:Syrian civil war. This is basically WP:FORUMSHOP / WP:TE / WP:WINNING via the WP:CIVILPOV tactic of "slow movewarring". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - User:SMcCandlish I've gone ahead and closed it and also stated further RMs should be done in January if need be, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Spam / vandalism magnets
There are two Wikipedia pages that attract a slow drip of spam and vandalism, and are otherwise stable, seldom needing any actual updating. The disruption is seldom high enough volume for a WP:AIAV request, and would likely result in either "not enough recent disruption" or possible a short semiprotection, leaving us where we were once it expires. But it is ongoing, and will no doubt continue at the current slow rate for the indefinite future.

Pretty much every website that gives advice about Search engine optimization tells the readers to use robots.txt and sitemaps to control what the search engines index, and creating online tools that scan a webpage to generate these files -- and then, all too often, spamming them on Wikipedia -- is popular among new programming students.

I would suggest these two pages as being excellent candidates for indefinite pending changes protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. You make a persuasive case. Guy (help!) 16:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

UTRS and/or unblock requests on-wiki
There us a discussion taking place over the preferability of UTRS being the sole venue for unblock requests instead of such requests being handled on-wiki whenever possible. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Unblock Ticket Request System. It has been said that WT:UTRS might not be the best place for such a discussion, so I'm posting here so that the conversation can be continued here or there with greater participation. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Too right the Wikipedia talk:Unblock Ticket Request System page isn't the correct place for it. It's the community that gets to decide on unblocking policy, not the new UTRS clique. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not sure if it's similar, but I had talk page access revoked because I told someone I no longer wish to discuss the issue anymore. That was then called being disruptive and my block was reset and my TPA was revoked. I put in a UTRS and the blocking admin supposedly was the one who answered the UTRS, which I don't think is acceptable, regardless of TPA for saying you no longer wish to discuss an issue on a talk page now being considered disruptive, which of course is ludicrous. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, blocking Admins should not decline unblock requests, even on UTRS. But that is the purpose in UTRS-- to provide an avenue for those w.o TPA or hose who have PII in their request.17:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the specific case as I don't know the details, but yes, the blocking admin should absolutely not be the one to decline a UTRS request. If you wish to appeal the revocation of TPA, it should be an absolute rule of accountability that you can appeal to someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Happy as a pig in muck"
Could we have a review of a rather questionable block for someone who said “I bet XXX is as happy as a pig in muck at this”. I’ve seen some heavy-handed decisions made in the past, but this one is just baffling. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, it is a punitive, rather then a preventative block. Recommend it be repealed. GoodDay (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That was an unfair block. Unblock please.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If said with affection, or about oneself, then it is an unproblematic idiom. Using it disapprovingly of a third party so obviously carries the potential to cause offense that somebody who does so needs an opportunity to disengage and reflect. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was a good block. It's not a helpful comment, but neither is it a "72-hour block personal attack" kind of comment. There are a fair few pieces of grumpy behaviour from many people in that in that Levivich discussion, and I really don't think that one stuck out as being uniquely blockable. "Happy as a pig in muck" or it's ruder variant are commonly-used pieces of English idiom that don't necessarily imply the target is a pig; if anything I'd say the previous part about "Wikipedia's most drama-loving editor" that wasn't redacted is more of a personal attack. Overall a comment that probably didn't need to be made, but also not one that I think justifies a block - particularly six hours later when it starts to look increasingly punitive. ~  mazca  talk 12:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know this is a "round where I live" kind of thing, but for me the phrase "Happy as a pig in muck" (more common here as "Happy as a pig in shit") only means "very happy", and the pig part is in not generally considered offensive. (cf: "Happy as a dog with two dicks", etc). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How shocking! Round where Cassianto lives, you'll find that's usually tails. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He's not that posh. ——  Serial # 13:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Need a mortgage, Bruce? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Boing - I wouldn't parse this as offensive in and of itself. Is it a personal attack? Eh, maybe... is it exceptionally offensive, of the type that would require a 72h block? In my view, no. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 12:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s still a personal attack, saying without any evidence that Levivich is someone who enjoys seeking out drama. It’s within admin discretion. Cassianto hasn’t appealed the block, and Lourdes hasn’t asked for a review – I thought we didn’t allow third party block appeals? P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. This block can be reconsidered on appeal in an unblock request. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 13:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems mind-numbingly crass to wikilawyer and insist that people must appeal a block, (and if you insist on a formal unblock request when it’s a dumbass block is as good a definition of wikilawyering as I’ve ever seen); Cassianto doesn’t appeal them as a matter of course (neither do I, really). I haven’t asked for an appeal: I’m pointing out a ridiculous block on spurious grounds. The original comment is not a personal attack, unless one applies some utterly farcical standard, and it’s embarrassing that it was applied I. The first place. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * one could cogently argue that in this case, it is not the block itself that is being reviewed (which is, indeed, a matter for the blocked party), but a review of an admin action: and that is very much to the point of this noticeboard. ——  Serial # 14:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Unblock - I have seen much worse slide by. 72 hours over this for a prolific editor?--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 13:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * what a silly block!!! (note three exclamation points.) -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unblock - An abysmal use of the tools, in a place where there is an even more abysmal failure to use the tools. It's rather horrible,, that you blocked Cassianto for their mild comment, but protected – explicitly – BMK from consequences for repeatedly and without evidence accusing another editor of sockpuppetry and several other personal attacks. That is pathetic adminning. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked per community agreement., I'm sorry, but there is broad agreement that this comment did not rise to the level of a block. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude, there is more to civility than just using blockable words or violating AGF of whatever--"pathetic adminning" is also a rude remark and while probably not blockable, it is entirely unhelpful. I have no doubt Lourdes made the block in good faith, and while they were generally agreed here to be wrong, there is no need for this kind of accusation. Adminning, like writing, is alot much harder than it look's. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - You're a professor, no? In one corner of your class you have two students engaged in fisticuffs, and in the other you have a student fake-coughing. You have two remedies, and you can apply each remedy to one situation: 1) verbal warning and 2) expulsion from class. To which issue do you apply which remedy? Adminning, like writing, is alot much harder than it look's - executing either task is trivial, doing it well is a different matter altogether. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support block. Given the long term issues with the editor it is not surprising to see them blocked for the same exact thing again. If it was out of character for them that would be a different issue, but sadly it is not. I am always surprised at seeing "broad agreement" within three hours of an event even when several people disagreed. Though I must say what a silly block!!! (note three exclamation points.) is quite the convincing argument so it is understandable. PackMecEng (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any time PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * it is not surprising to see them blocked for the same exact thing again" - Could you point us to where this comment was said before ?, If you cannot I would suggest you strike that bit. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to their multiple blocks for civility as shown here. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , genuine question - would you have supported the block if the message was something like "I bet [user] will be really happy to see this"? To what seems to be a fair few people, myself included, that comment is near-identical to the one that's made. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 15:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be better certainly, but it is not what they said. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I fear, in which case, that this may be a case of linguistic misunderstanding. The phrase used is common in British English, as seen in these mentions in dictionaries. Indeed, if you take a look at Google Books' Ngram viewer, you can see its relative popularity (with the phrase "incredibly happy" as a benchmark) is significant. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 15:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling Cassianto is smart enough to know the differences between what is acceptable in different parts. Something came up not long ago similar to that here where, in my opinion, it showed that to not be a relevant distinction. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't think that comparison is a reasonable one to make. The word discussed in the discussion you linked there is one which is indisputably offensive, even if it is used as a term of endearment in some circles in the UK. "As happy as a pig in muck" quite literally is not offensive in any context to most Brits, and frankly, I would never have considered that it might be to anyone else really before this discussion. It carries no negative connotations whatsoever, at least to me. I would feel totally comfortable using that phrase with my family or a stranger on the street, in a way I would never in a million years do with that other word, because of the huge negative connotations it carries outside of a close relationship of some sort between the speaker and the target of the word. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 15:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is if you check out the conversation, several of the same people in this one were disputing that it was offensive there. While I certainly can agree that this is much less offensive, I can still see how it could be taken as such. PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I get that - but the fact that someone said something in one instance doesn't change the value of their opinion in a different argument. Linguistics is a wacky field, and I tend to be minded to think that we shouldn't police wording, we should police intent - I don't see an intent to cause any sort of injury in these words. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem there is we can ONLY police wording since you cannot know intent. What you do is more important than what you mean to do. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, wording is indicative of intent. I take it the user we're discussing is a British English speaker, in which case I think the phraseology used does reasonably indicate to us that there was no harm intended. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did the person named view the remark as a personal attack against them? Did anyone ask? Not a required admin action, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know I'm late to the party and will have little effect on what happens, but I must say that when I saw this comment I thought that it's good that Cassianto didn't use the more common form of this idiom because then some officious admin would come along and block him for using a naughty word. It never crossed my mind that he might get blocked for it anyway. Can't we just talk like normal human beings without these ridiculous blocks being handed out? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah. Can't trust that radical suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with all those who see this as a bad block. But it's much easier to talk like normal human beings if we don't call each other officious. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That rather exemplifies my point. I didn't call anyone officious, but just said that a hypothetical person who might block someone using the word "shit" as part of a normal English idiom would be officious. Such a person would have to be an admin because only admins have the power to block. It's very difficult to hold a normal human conversation when you know that the other party will take offence when there was none. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good unblock. I know we've had discussions of semantics here before, such as the variable amounts of offensiveness of the word "twat", but the difference there is that if you use a word like that you know that someone will find it offensive.  This isn't offensive, it's not an PA, it's a standard English figure of speech.  Blocking for it was a poor decision.  I'm also a little unimpressed at a fairly inactive admin making what was obviously going to be a controversial block and then disappearing again. Black Kite (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Being blocked for 72 hours from a website for suggesting an editor was a pig who enjoyed wallowing in shit does not seem excessive to me. Of course, Mr. Cassianto used a milder word for the murky swamp this noticeboard seems to be, suggesting that he knew calling X a pig was over the top, and so decided to tone it down a bit on the surface.  Maybe the WMF could cook up a plush & cuddly peacebot to demand confirmation via edit filter whenever Mr C types "pig" in notice-board space to ensure he is talking about pig pages and not about people. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ”for suggesting an editor was a pig who enjoyed wallowing in shit” perhaps you should read simile, meataphor and a dictionary. A better grasp of English may assist in understanding what was being said here. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Meatavore. 🐷  💩 --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 17:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the editors calling for an unblock above has standing. The only one with standing in this situation is Cassianto and the editor has not asked to be unblocked. This unblock request and the above thread is frivolous wikilawyering. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest you are in the perfect place to start a new thread requesting the undoing of an admin action which undid an admin action... ——  Serial # 15:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah. This has been a waste of 4 minutes editing time already. We could all be building the encyclopedia. Cheers! Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you're making, but at the same time, it seems a brave decision to accuse other people of wikilawyering whilst... literally citing a principle of law, rather than of Wikipedia? and yes I know we have analogous principles, but we also have WP:IAR for a good reason, which mainstream law very much does not Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I do not consider it brave, SchroCat raised the Wikilawyering claim. I was reading through the thread, and I am not aware if there a policy in Wikipedia fwhich allows others to demand an unblock of a person who is not fussed by their own block. Lightburst (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And that, again, is still Wikilawyering. ‘Oh no, it must be the person who is blocked that needs to appeal against a block’ is wikilawyering. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hell-oo...that sounds like a pig fainting! Or Wikipedia imploding on itself.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone should just close this thread? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why we're going to end up with a WMF-imposed code of conduct. Certain editors get special privileges and whenever someone tries to hold them accountable, their friends have a collective tantrum. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 16:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 🤦‍♂️ That’s a rather crass connection to make, and assumes that Wiki can’t tell the difference between metaphor or simile and insults. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Crass, eh? That seems to be your favorite label for comments you disagree with. I guess you didn't see my comment below in which I clarified which portion of Cassianto's comment I considered to be block-worthy. There's no metaphor or simile involved in explicitly calling someone WP's most dramah loving editor. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not my favourite label at all, just one that seems more appropriate, unfortunately, than it should be. Anyway, sorry this has all turned out disappointingly for you both; anyway, I’m off to do something you may not be familiar with: write some content. You should try it - it’s great fun, and much more fulfilling than hanging round this cesspit. - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think it is a correct assumption for the community as a whole. I am sure we could both find dozens of examples of the community disagreeing on those very subjects. PackMecEng (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, to the very best of my recollection, I've never interacted with the user we're discussing here, and if I have it would have been to an extent so immaterial that I've completely forgotten about it. The question here is one of linguistics and translation, effectively, which is something I take an academic interest in - and the effect that it's had here is notable. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That was more a general observation regarding the oft-repeated phenomenon that happens every time an unblockable is briefly blocked. And for the record, I don't think the 'pig in muck' part was block-worthy. But it's definitely a personal attack to characterize someone as WP's most dramah loving editor and it's pretty lame to follow that up by trying to twist Levi's innocuous comment into a personal attack. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 16:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Jihad000123
Hopefully this is the right place to take this. Edits very concerning asking for money at several articles and talk pages. Probably deserves outright ban. Regards, <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 14:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Not much more to say. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Question
Any checkuser, Admin or editor who know about IP addresses can help me. I am not familiar with the internet. The first time I used internet was in 2016. I have a question about two IP ranges that I think they belong to the same person. There are lots of evidences, I brought some evidences here. These two IPs are from Pakistan lat. ≈ 31 long. ≈ 74 . I am not here to make a sockpuppet investigation. I am just asking if they truly belong to the same person. The reason why I am asking is because I know two editors who use these IP addresses and behave exactly the same.


 * >119.154.163.30 edited Omer Shahid Hamid at 12:30, 15 August 2017
 * >2 days later, 103.255.5.83 edited the same article
 * >103.255.5.83 edited Persecution of Ahmadis trying to say that the Ahmadis are not Muslims
 * >119.153.178.172 edited the same article and also tried to imply that Ahmadis are not Muslims. Also another IP from the same range (119.153.130.71) edited the same article trying to say that Ahmadis are not Muslims.
 * >119.153.224.106 edited Beaconhouse National University
 * >103.255.5.83 edited the same article


 * These two ranges clearly belong to the same person.- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * So what? IP editors are allowed here, and dynamic IP addresses- where the final few digits change- are reasonably common. There is nothing wrong with an anonymous editor using Wikipedia on two different computers, and at different times, such that they get assigned a number of different IP addresses. They're allowed to do that. It's only a problem if their actual edits are problematice, or they present themselves as different epople to rig our decision making processes. That would be equivalent to socking. I have no opinion on the edits you linked to. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 09:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am just asking. I have said the reason why I am asking. I believe that there is a registered editor who is using two accounts. In both accounts, he accidentally exposed his IP address. Both accounts pushing the same POV edits and making reverts in favour of the other.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:Drmies, what do you think? Do you agree that they belong to the same person?-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Trying to avert edit war with IP user on two articles
An IP user is continually editing two articles, altering information so that it no longer matches the cited references. The articles are List of epidemics and 2017–18 United States flu season. At issue is the range for the death toll, which is provided by two CDC references as between 46,000 and 95,000. The IP user is editing the upper limit to 80,000. One of his first edits shows this as the reason "The CDC says the upper range limit for deaths was 80,000. Someone keeps changing it to 95,000 and no source supports that," but it's clear that he didn't read the references in question, he's not looking at the comments in the revision history (or he would see that I changed and explained why), he's not looking at the article talk pages, and he's not looking at his own talk page (where I tried to leave a comment in the vain hope that he would see it. The CDC references in question are here and here (they are the only CDC references given that show estimates for the death toll); The CDC's estimate for the death toll range that season is between 46,404 and 94,987. I have no idea where he's getting the idea that the upper limit is 80,000 (it's nowhere in either of those references). I want to adhere to guidelines per WP:EW, but I don't know what to do next because we have no way of communicating with this person. Please help. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have partially blocked the /64. They do cite a CDC source as 5B73 (unlike more recently as C938), but unless I'm missing something, the data still seems to align with Global Cerebral Ischemia's upper limit of 95,000 rather than the IP's 80,000. Either way, the IP is encouraged to engage in actual discussion. Repeating the same sentence while edit warring in multiple articles is obviously counter-productive. El_C 07:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! I think I know the reason for the misunderstanding, but unfortunately it seems the IP editor is oblivious to the talk pages. Oh well. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental issue with IPv6s that a single person is often allocated an entire /64 range, and may switch within that range dynamically. That makes the talk pages of IPv6s a needle in a haystack (more like a needle in a pile of hay the size of a mountain), so the chance of being able to leave a message that is actually seen is vanishingly small. In addition, a mobile user may be completely unaware of the existence of any talk pages. It's frustrating that the only tool we have for attracting the attention of an IPv6 user's entire range is a (partial) block, and maybe we need to think about what other solutions could be developed. --RexxS (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:HPIM0335.jpg
Hi! This file was deleted as orphan but a copy is used in id.wiki (id:Berkas:HPIM0335.jpg. Could someone undelete so I can move to Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Restored. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Could you also undelete these 3: That is also in use in id.wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * File:CR_Plat_1.png
 * File:CR_Plat_3.png
 * File:CR_Plat_4.png
 * , ✅ - Can I leave it to you to clear out the prod templates? S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you! Of course. Fixed and moved. I can see admins have lots to do. I might have thousands of files to move so I'm afraid I will add to the pile of work. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks
Following my protecting of a template at template editor level, another editor has complained that the rest of the ordinary editors are "being punished" for the actions of an individual editor. He has pointed out that an alternative way to prevent the disruption which caused the implementation of the editing restriction exists - simply to block the editor in question from editing the template. I've never done a partial block, but accept that the complainant has a good point. There are no admin instructions listed at WP:PB, so I have no idea how to do this. Can someone explain the process please? Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Open up Special:Block as normal, and click "Partial" instead of "Sitewide". This will open up an input box for you to enter the pages they're blocked from, so enter Template:Whatever.  The rest is the same as a normal block. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And by all means have a practice with . -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, have now issued a partial block and unprotected the template. My only concern now is that said editor can log out and repeat the edit. If that should happen then it's indefinate semi-protection. Difficult to prove it was the editor in question and thus unable to block for the offence as far as I can see. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this happens the article must indeed be semiprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If that happens, rangeblock the IP's whole range from the template as well. The chances of someone else from that range wanting to edit an obscure template are approximately zero. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, now that is a block log. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One tiny little quibble, . Editors are allowed to remove block templates while blocked; it's only declined appeals that need to remain while the block is in place.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another editor expressed that opinion on my talk page. I've struck through the statement and apologised. I notice there's an unblock request. Am mulling it over, but background info at WT:UKT if any other admin wishes to respond to the request. Mjroots (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Simple solution: boycott partial blocks. They cause more disruption than they solve. I installed CSS to prevent me from seeing them as an option :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Strange post on my talkpage
Hello. Could someone have a look at User_talk:Rehman please? Is there something I should be doing regarding this? They seems troubled by something, but I'm unsure on what to do... Reh man  03:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Email the address listed here? Could be a misreading or false alarm but just in case (esp. considering their age). Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. Reh  man  10:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Two possibly inappropriate revision deletions of user names
On Monday, 2 accounts were created calling a specific living person gay. This person, according to a sourced statement in his own article, is "the first openly LGBT person to be appointed as a minister in the Israeli government", making this statement not a BLP violation. The log entries are:
 * first
 * second

Was the redaction appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.12.209 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, they were oversighted and we do not normally discuss or debate oversight actions at WP:AN as they are too privacy-sensitive for this board. BTW, I am fairly sure that such an username would be questionable even if it's not a BLP vio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer the question, absolutely the redaction was appropriate. For the record, thank you for not linking to the individuals specifically, but rather to the logs (meaning I don't have to redact anything here). Primefac (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * SOunds to me like an attack user name, without delving deeper. I agree, the redaction was appropriate. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If these names should be redacted, you should also look at this page, which has other accounts with the same issue. 147.161.13.38 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC - Future of UTRS
There is currently an ongoing RfC about the future of using UTRS for block appeals. You may be interested in commenting. Please cross-post as necessary. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

WMF Board Authorises Universal Code of Conduct and non-local sanctions of those who breach them
Interested editors please consider taking a look and participating at the Village Pump on this notification by the WMF Board. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Article about a biological species/genus: renaming it from Linnaean name to English name if that species is the only species in its genus

 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=957148417 :: if an article is about a biological genus which has only one species: a user is asking for such articles to be renamed from the Linnaean Latin name to an English name, with the reasoning "Use the common name for the only species in a monotypic grouping to avoid using genus name". That policy about monotypic genera :: is it established practice? I know that the species name should be omitted, leaving only the generic Latin name, but that is different from the user in question's requests. If there needs to be an article G about that genus and a separate article S about that species, surely (to take the first example listed at that edit-link), the article about the genus can be named Zaclistius and the article about the species can be named Zaclistius elevatus, if there is a situation that prevents all the information about that genus and that species from being all in one same article. What happens if the species/genus has no vernacular name? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally favour using common names, if they're well established and unambiguous, per wider policy. In general though, it's probably best to treat such cases as controversial and subject to a full RM discussion and not just wave them through at WP:RMTR, as each case would be considered on its own merits. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. The request is in line with what we normally do with monotypic genera: if there is an established common name for the species, put the article under that and redirect genus there, otherwise put article under genus name and redirect species names there (common and scientific). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any indication in the requesting user's edits (100 goes back years) that they have a familiarity with how botanical articles are treated and I do not think a technical move request should be performed unless someone with a clue (e.g. from a relevant wikiproject) has given an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Watch edit history of economy of Iran
To the kind attention of WP community,

There is an individual ("user:Sir Joseph") who assumes that content was removed by vandalism or else while it is the EXACT OPPOSITE and clearly explained in the edit histories. Please revert him as I know how the Israeli troll farm and their puppets have recently acted around this article. 99.203.25.183 (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternative hypothesis: there is an IP who claimed vandalism in an edit summary which removed a large chunk of text, but who has made no effort to discuss it on the article's Talk page. Guy (help!) 17:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There may be an Israeli troll farm with puppets on Wikipedia, and there may be an Iranian troll farm with puppets on Wikipedia, and there may be any number of other troll farms with puppets on Wikipedia, but we shouldn't accuse anyone of being a member of any of them without very strong evidence. There's no problem with asking editors to watch articles, but accompanying such a request with unsupported accusations is a problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is exactly my point, Sir. I have made edits and explained why in all my edit summaries and here comes a troll farm who has undone all my edits and others WITHOUT A WORD OF EXPLANATION and refuses to justify it on the

article's talk page either. You should read the history of edits again carefully from start. You got it all BACKWARDS...All my edits and others' edits have a justification which nobody disputes so far. Meanwhile, there are those IP edits from different countries who do the same UNDO-edits and one of these IP was blocked. This is a sensitive article but people need to stay neutral. Your equivocation is so off the mark and facts, Sir.

99.203.24.165 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I repeat: 126.26.148.33 and the Israeli IP 79.183.5.96 are one and same person. Eventhough one is located in Japan, the other in Israel. 99.203.24.165 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of us don't really give a flying flip where the IP's geolocate to unless it matters for some reason, and zero reason has been given anywhere in this thread why it matters. Also please demonstrate where you edits have an explained "justification". This edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Iran&diff=959053636&oldid=958662945] calls stuff WP:Vandalism which clearly is not vandalism. Vandalism has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia, and if you misuse the term you're likely to be given a short shrift. In fact it could be called a personal attack and so you could be blocked. Note that looking at your actual edit, some parts of it may be justified. I have no idea WTF truenewssource.com but the name is enough to set of major warning bells that they aren't RS. theusbreakingnews.com isn't much better. Russia Today (rt.com) is a recognised problem per WP:RSP especially in controversial topics or those that involved international politics since it tends to parrot the Russian government. And although it's true Russia tends to be favourable to Iran (which I think is the opposite of what you're complaining about), it's still a potential problem. (The detail it supports if fairly innocuous, but by the same token surely a better source could be found.) If you had removed those details for lacking reliable sources you may have a justifiable reason although you'd still need to discuss it on the talk page if there was dispute rather than WP:Edit warring. But that wasn't why you made your changes according to your edit summary, so your complaint falls apart completely, plus there are the changes which don't fall under this banner. (Although even if you had removed those edits for lacking an RS and been reverted, your complain would still be pointless since this still seems to be a WP:Content dispute requiring discuss on the article talk page and dispute resolution, not the attention of AN.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No clue what you are talking about. One thing I can't help you with is "to READ". This is my first edit which has been reverted by the troll farm. The second is here and so forth (one after the other). The IP location matters since a person is likely using cross-country proxies (possibly government-sponsored) to evade a block and sockpuppeting. Finally you make false assumptions about the reason behind all my edits. They were all quite benign (like quaterly clean-up of this article and many others) and explained in ALL my edit summaries. 99.203.25.179 (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Besides there is NO "content dispute", but anonymous, verified trolls, who you defend against the interest of Wikipedia. 99.203.24.185 (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did read, and what assumptions did I make that weren't reasonable? This edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Iran&diff=959053636&oldid=958662945] was from the exact same IP as your first comment in this thread [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=959078715]. Therefore I'm assuming it was made by you the person who wrote the initial comment in this thread. This seems a reasonable assumption. I therefore made another reasonable assumption namely that you must be the one who typed in the edit summary"". Making a false accusation of vandalism is not benign, nor is it a valid explanation for you edit. If you want people take you seriously stop making false accusations. As I said, vandalism has a specific meaning on wikipedia, and I see zero evidence it applies here. If you continue to make false accusations, don't be surprised if you are blocked. Since your explanation for your edit was that you were removing "vandalism", yet as I've already said there was no vandalism as defined on Wikipedia, I cannot know why you made your edit. If you want people to know why you made your edits, you need to properly explain in your edit summaries and/or by opening discussion on the article talk page. If you only offer invalid reasons in your edit summary, you cannot reasonable fault people for being unaware of the reasons for your edit. As for the IP stuff, frankly I'm unconvinced that the edits are by the same people i.e. socking. It admit I'm not inclined to investigate because you've given me zero reason to since as said, the only justification for your edit was invalid (a false accusation of vandalism). Also Sir Joseph is an editor here in good standing, which means whatever faults there are with the IP's edits, there is a content dispute since they're disputing your edits. (Unless you're suggesting you are not an editor in good standing and Sir Joseph is the only one.) P.S. In case it's unclear to you, in my eyes whatever valid edit summaries you may have had in earlier edits, I don't care. Once you've destroyed your case by making a false accusation of vandalism, I'm disinclined to investigate further. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep defending these anonymous trolls. That's a FACT. You misrepresent my edits and report here. You try (unsuccessfully) to bully me into silence for reporting the Israeli-troll farm by making repeated veiled allusions of edit-blocks. For your info, I don't edit WP. Only for fun every year or two when I get a chance. Godd bye! 99.203.24.185 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Page move request
Could someone please move Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/MKCheserek to Sockpuppet investigations/MKCheserek. Making this request here since WP:RM is semi-protected. Thanks. 2601:1C0:5:E41D:F878:DB05:C690:971E (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mark SPI as closed
Sockpuppet investigations/Mir Qurram Ali

Hi, this SPI has not been marked as closed but the suspected has been blocked and tagged. Can someone mark it as closed so that it get archived.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I closed it. It might be easier to post SPI-related stuff to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations or Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks, so that a clerk sees it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It didn't cross my mind to ask in the talk page of sockpuppet investigations. Next time I will ask there.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Interaction ban appeal
I would humbly ask the community to repeal the sanction placed upon me in 2017 which is recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community#Legacypac and Godsy. Two reasons in support of this as a seemingly a reasonable request: Moreover, I have had a lot of time to reflect on the situation. I realize that the community found our interactions to be unproductive. Though I have not had as much time to contribute as of late, I have kept the lessons learned from that experience in the back of my mind when doing so. That being said, it would be nice to return to full "good standing" within the community. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 06:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The scope of G13 has evolved since the placement of the editing restriction, rendering good portions of the underlying cause of the ongoing disagreements between the two parties largely moot.
 * 2) The other party has been indefinitely blocked for over one year; as long as that remains the case, the sanction serves no practical purpose.


 * I support the removal of this clearly obsolete IBAN with the proviso that Legacypac be allowed to, at his/her own discretion, effect its immediate reimposition should s/he ever successfully appeal his/her indefinite block and return to editing. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That provision would be a quasi-sanction in itself; it would allow the recondensation of the metaphorical storm cloud at any point in the future. Worse, it would be unamusingly whimsical. I think the community is capable of quickly reimposing any sanction should they ever deem it necessary upon evidence that an issue is reignited, and that is where I would rather the fate of the matter lie. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 11:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. If the sanction is lifted, the other party should not have a right to reimpose it unilterally. That should be for the community to decide, should there be any complaints made. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Given LP's been indeffed for over a year now this IBAN is moot and I see no issue with it being lifted, I do however Oppose this being reimposed if LP ever returns - As Boing says that should be for the community to decide. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was one of the worst and longest running feuds on en.wiki at the time. Unlike some other indefinite blocks where the person who was blocked has about zero chance of being unblocked, if Legacypac were to appeal there’s a good chance it would be granted and we’d be back at them fighting again. There is zero reason for Godsy to be discussing Legacypac especially now that he’s been blocked. I see no point in lifting what was probably the most needed IBAN in my time on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's absolutely no reason to lift this. Legacypac is not banned; he could be unblocked by any admin tomorrow if he makes a reasonable unblock request, and if he does return to editing, the IBAN will still be needed. I understand that Godsy doesn't want a black mark against him, but the two of them earned those black marks with their time-sinking feuding.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanctions against editors should not be punitive. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 14:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just explained why I felt it was still needed, ie. why it is preventative. P-K3 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support- So if two people have an IBAN against each other, and one of them disappears from Wikipedia, the other can never under any circumstances ever appeal for the IBAN to be lifted? What a disgusting notion. No violations in the three years since it was imposed? Check. Dispute no longer relevant due to the G13 having substantially changed? Check. It does not seem as though this ban is accomplishing anything right now, and hasn't for a long time. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 16:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Largely per Reyk. No violations in a long time, reason for ban no longer relevant with changes to G13, and Legacypac is gone. So a clear record with the ban and nothing the ban could possibly be preventing so no longer preventative. I understand the argument that if Legacypac comes back there is a possibility for disruption to continue. If that does happen it would be a no brainier to reinstate the IBan. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - No reason to keep this on file. LP is indeffed, there's been no issue in years, and I don't like the idea of having no possible path to clearing sanctions just because "the other person might be unblocked someday." Godsy's main fault in that dispute was not dropping the stick when the community asked and focusing too high a proportion of his efforts on addressing a single user's pattern of problematic edits. Part of that is Godsy persisting past the point of disruption, and part of it is the rest of the community being too willing to ignore/dismiss a prolific user's long-term tendentious behavior because the user is also the only person willing to spend a ton of time in an oft-neglected part of the project. Regardless of who's "right", however, if you find that most of your edits are in response to a particular user, that's a very bad thing. At bare minimum, it's going to make for an easy claim of hounding/harassment. Better would be to step back from direct engagement and seek sanctions. If you get clear signals from the community that you should stop, it's important to do that, hard as it may be. My assumption is this is one of the points Godsy has reflected on in the time that's gone by. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There is no present need to keep it and no disruption for years, so it seems much more punishment, than prevention. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Godsy has, in the past, definitely shown a tendency to keep hold of sticks long after they should be dropped. And the Godsy/Legacypac fight really was a bad one. Saying that, I do think Godsy has learned from previous issues, and I don't think we should ever insist that a ban can never be removed. Should Legacypac ever be unblocked, and should there be any future problems, we can revisit it then - but I really don't see Godsy getting back into that situation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to emphasise, I oppose any automatic reimposition of the ban should Legacypac be unblocked. That would not really be lifting the ban, it would be saying "You're still actually interaction banned, but we're just pretending you're not". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per TonyBallioni and PK-3. In general, I do not consider it to be a good idea to lift IBans simply because one party is blocked.  We've all seen editors who have been blocked, even indef blocked, successfully appeal and return to editing, and when that happens, it's protective of the project to have those IBans still in place, so that the issue doesn't have to be adjudicated all over again when it (almost inevitably) flares up once more.  Since Legacypac is not editing, the continued existence of the IBan cannot be said to be inhibiting Godsy in any practical way, so there is no practical reason to remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No present need. If LP returns, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.  Mini  apolis  22:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – It's no longer needed because it's no longer preventing anything. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 01:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dumb Question Is it beneficial or burdensome to keep Godsey from commenting on Legacypac since they are indeffed? As far as I can tell, that is the only part of an IBAN that remains intact if one party is no longer active.  Some comments could be considered GRAVEDANCING I guess.  If Godsy does comment excessively, does it harm anyone/anything regarding an indeffed user?  I leaning "support" for removal, but the commenting aspect causes me to hesitate.  Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this? - Lift the sanction now, with the proviso that if Legacypac is unblocked, the IBan (which is two-way) is automatically reinstated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not really seeing the need for the automatic reinstatement to be honest. They were clean for years with no issues. Just left the meaningless ban and move on with life. If problems arise then it would be easy to reinstate. PackMecEng (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My experience is that it's never as easy as people seem to expect it will be to reinstate a sanction which has been lifted. It generally takes the same amount of discussion, if not more, to bring it about as it took to impose it in the first place.  But that's just my view after 15 years here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why people keep saying that there were no violations or they were clean for years with no issues. To my mind, "years" generally implies at least 2 and probably close to 3, at a minimum. In February 2019 i.e. about 2 months before LegacyPac was indeffed i.e. about 1.3 years ago, there was this blow up Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002. (Some minor additional discussion here Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306.) While not everyone agrees that is was a clear violation, there was at least concern from a fair amount of the community who participated that even if it wasn't a clear violation they were testing the limits. Note that although I participated in this discussion I did not remember it until now. The only reason I'm again aware of it was because I checked Godsy's block log and saw that block by Ivanvector and the unblock and so I investigated. There was also this Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985 in June 2018. No one in the community seems to care much either way so not a clear violation but also not a clear "acquittal" i.e. this is nonsense/no problem with Godsy's editing. I only investigated discussion on these noticeboards from 2018 onwards not anything that may have happened on talk pages or elsewhere so I'm not saying this is an exhaustive list. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't this just what Iaritmioawp proposed above, which Godsy responded to (re: a sanction in itself)? If Godsy doesn't want it, it doesn't seem like it makes sense to be on the table, as it doesn't do much for anyone else, either. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Iaritmioawp proposed it be predicated on LegacyPac wanting it. While we often taken on board the views of all parties to an iban, we are never bound by them. So it gives a fairly weird power to LegacyPac especially since this was a 2 way iban, and I agree with others it's not really in line with community norms. BMK's proposal is different, it's the community saying they still feel it would be unproductive for the 2 of you to interact but you're right it's largely moot when one editor is blocked. Therefore we will lift it as long as that remains the case but reimpose it automatically when it isn't, rather than wasting our time discussing whether to reimpose something we feel is needed. Or worse, a successful admin only appeal, which by itself is perfectly fine except it means the community doesn't consider whether to reimpose the iban and then there's a blowup we'd already put measures in place to stop. Whether that's useful, I don't know. Especially considering that we don't know if LegacyPac will ever return and I think most accept that eventually the iban should be completely lifted even if LegacyPac doesn't return, so it would probably simply be better to wait for that time. But "moot due to block" was given as a reason for the appeal. I'm fairly sure automatic reimposition has been discussed before with other appeals although I can't recall if it was ever implemented. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * predicated on LegacyPac wanting it - Ah. Indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to say though without actually being here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC) The fact that people are talking so heavily for reinstating the ban if Legacypac comes back should be simple evidence alone that very few individuals trust Godsy not to renew the old dispute if it ever has the chance to arise. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose when one party is gone and the other party is still around it's always a bit tricky to deal with ibans. The only actual likely effect of the iban is to stop the active party from discussing the inactive editor. (And maybe to stop the editor targeting stuff the inactive editor created or whatever.) If the editor is truly gone i.e. not socking, it's often unadvisable to be talking about them much anyway and while it can arise in various contexts, given the history an editor talking about someone they're ibanned from is IMO rarely productive. However having an iban "hanging over your head" even if it has no effect can be a negative. I consider the February 2019 stuff to raise sufficient concern that Godsy has only been clean since then (AFAIK). ~1.3 years is a reasonable time for no problems but there was only ~2 months before LegacyPac was indefed. And with a highly disruptive history, even 1.3 years isn't that long. As others have mentioned this seems to really be an indefinite i.e. one that could be lifted at any time rather than just a "let's not waste time banning them" indef. I'm therefore only willing to support lifting with the proviso it's immediately reinstated without discussion if LegacyPac returns to editing. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I'm inclined to think it should be removed on several grounds, and without authorisation of a "if unblock, reimpose" caveat. It has been a significant length of time, and while yes, only a short amount of that was with LP still around, that's not Godsy's fault - they can't fix that. I wholeheartedly reject the "only no issues, because it exists" approach, and thus IBANS/TBANS should never be removed approach. If we went for that it would functionally be impossible for editors to ever be able to appeal sanctions. The caveated approach would itself be a quasi-sanction, and so would also make it harder for Godsy to return to full good standing than if LP were still active. If we are going to accept the principals that any sanction must be appealable and sanctions must be preventative, then a removal of the IBAN is in order. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm wondering what the other user would think of the appeal. Would they agree with it? Foxnpichu (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Legacypac valued this sanction, and I could only imagine it being lifted would be an added barrier to ever coming back.
 * My guess is Lpac would oppose this if he were here, but if he were here, I'd be opposing this, too. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So Legacy would have likely opposed the block, but they are currently inactive right now? Well then, under these circumstances, and having read through some of the other !votes, I'm going to say Weak Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, seems genuine, and there's always that WP:ROPE if it turns out to be an issue still. Guy (help!) 17:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I do not see how its continued enforcement is impairing your ability to edit; however, I can easily envision the amount of extra work it would take the community to reinstate this restriction were it to be removed prematurely. Nihlus  18:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - the ban is currently moot. There'll be plenty of opportunity to discuss reinstating it if LegacyPac ever requests - it's not like they'll ever be unblocked without a community discussion, so little extra work. Nfitz (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Reyk and Rhododendrites, and very specifically without requiring this be reimposed if the other party is ever unblocked; that proviso would seem to be flying in the face of AGF. happy days, LindsayHello 05:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am in full agreement with Tony on this one. This was a really vicious dispute. Surprisingly, I still remember the February 2019 dispute. I see no reason why we should removed this restriction, and it only makes me concerned that this community has not reviewed this request thoroughly enough. I refer folks to the analysis provided by above and  during the previous thread.
 * Support; seems rather pointless, now that the other party's been blocked for more than a year. When you've been editing productively for more than a year (which I assume is the case, or all these other people familiar with your case would instead be calling for sanctions against you) while the other party's been blocked, it sure seems to me that you're more trustworthy than the other party, and a 1-way interaction ban (him banned from you) wouldn't be a problem if he were permitted to return.  We can always reimpose the ban if he returns AND you behave inappropriately.  As is, this ban would be preventing you from editing something he wrote years ago, and if it would be okay for someone else to edit that writing, I can't see why you shouldn't; it's not like conflict will happen.  Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. There's no reason to lift IBAN simply because one party is blocked, especially considering how OP has historically had a lot of difficulty letting things go.  Also noting that a sizable percentage of supports !voters are conditional: if Legacypac was unblocked this very moment, then they would not be supporting.  -  F ASTILY   01:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - The IBAN clearly no longer serves a legitimate purpose. If it becomes a problem, this can simply be brought right back here. There's no point in keeping a sanction in place which serves no meaningful benefit to the either of the editors or anyone else. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IP block review
For years now, I've edited chiefly under various IPs. This inevitably results in blocks but I'm typically able to resolve them quickly. Not this time.

There's currently a block on Special:Contributions/78.28.44.111 that reads "If you wish to get into disputes with editors please log into your account" which was the result of this edit. As requested, I promptly logged in and made this edit which I believe resolved the issue. The blocking admin disagrees.

I'm bringing this here for review because, since I only partially grasp the idea behind the block, I'm at a loss to know how to appeal it via the template. What would I say? "The block no longer prevents anything (and in fact never did prevent anything worth preventing, frankly) and is seemingly just there to force me to log in to edit, which I find unreasonable?" That sounds like the kind of request that gets shut down without a second thought.

I'd like to hear some opinions from uninvolved editors; am I missing something here perhaps? Was that a good block? Is it still a good block right now? Were my edits unhelpful? Were they unhelpful to the point where an emergency one-month block was required which needs to remain in place for its full duration as the blocking admin would have me believe?

I think an important side question to answer is whether enacting blocks of that nature is something we want to encourage at all. Personally, I believe that, at minimum, a talk page request should come first in case the person we're about to block can be reasoned with. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  10:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. You are coming across as avoiding scrutiny. Just make sure you log in whenever you involve yourself in disputes, so it is immediately discernible which account said what. El_C 08:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse block The block was 10 hours ago and correctly indicates that it is necessary to use the account under circumstances like that. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse per El_C, and I'm tempted to suggest blocking the registered account. Since your "preferred mode of editing" is supposedly logged-out, you don't need this account. Even though you've made >4K edits with it. And this comment was trolling: its getting difficult to see your preferred mode of editing as being anything other than also being your preferred method of winding us up.   ——  Serial # 08:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I missed that. That has all the hallmarks of a returned user with attitude. That, and wasting everyone's time over a time-limited block of their favorite IP may add up to net-negative. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do need the account for the occasional file upload/new page creation/project space participation, few and far between as they are. And the comment you linked to, which I made on my own talk page, and which is unrelated to the block, wasn't "trolling." It was just me expressing my genuine thoughts on a matter that directly affected me. If it's enough for you to think I should be blocked, then oh well. Such a block certainly wouldn't be any less reasonable than my previous two and in many ways, it'd be more reasonable. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. If you alternate between editing logged in and logged out, and you edit logged out in disputes with other editors, you are evading scrutiny. And that scrutiny seems to especially needed after this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't alternate; I simply don't log in unless I have to. The link you provided is to an unrelated comment I posted on my personal talk page while logged in two months ago. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I linked to that an hour ago :D but you've forgotten to point out that removed it  as gravedancing.  ——  Serial # 10:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That you did. And then your colleague was kind enough to link to it again so I addressed it again. Everyone can read that comment, which I posted on my own talk page as I've already mentioned, and judge for themselves if it constituted gravedancing or not as well as assess the scope of disruption it caused. Seeing how my talk page experiences very low traffic, if any at all, due to the fact I mainly edit while logged out, I actually don't think it caused any disruption at all because, quite frankly, there was nothing to disrupt in the first place. Do take a look at my talk page and see if you can say with a straight face that I'm wrong. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse block - Stay logged in and don't evade scrutiny by logging out, Doing so makes people trust you a lot less. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocking admin comment Figured this was coming. I came across the IP after we were discussing something on the oversight list that had raised (IP has no suppressed contributions, just giving backstory.) I wasn’t sure who it was, but obviously it was someone with an account who was very experienced at Wikipedia to the point where they were getting into a dispute with a CheckUser over the nuances of the socking policy. That’s usually an LTA. I blocked anon-only because if they’re a good faith user, they could log into their account and tell Ponyo and me how abusive we were with a name and a history for people to scrutinize. It worked. The IP is relatively static, but if you look at the range contributions it is clear that it changes over time. If someone wants to give other users warnings about policy and argue over policy nuances with admins, they should log in. I realize they say this is for their technical convenience but their logging in is for our communication and tracking convenience, and policy cares more about the latter. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * At no point did I call you or the other editor "abusive;" with the kind of experience I've had with one of your colleagues, the bar for that is set so high I doubt if I ever will. You'd have to really work for it. I consider your block unnecessary, annoying at the most, but not abusive, no. I don't agree with the logic behind it ("it might be an LTA so let's just block first and ask questions later") but I can at least kind of see it. That's a major improvement over what I'm used to. You keep talking about some nuanced discussions but I don't see this as such. What I do see is an admin trying to strong-arm a new user into choosing one out of his/her three properly linked, disclosed and purposefully created accounts so that the other two can get blocked and for who knows what reason asking him/her questions that the user already answered on his/her user page. All I did was point out that easily observable fact and express my displeasure with it which, by the way, I still believe was the right thing to do. Ensuring that new users have a good initial experience is vital to the perpetuation of the project and I was happy to do my part. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I consider the bite accusations a bit over the top, but that’s my view. Yes, there is some nuance there: Ponyo had access to some suppressed information as an Oversighter and was trying to act in a way that could potentially limit damage on that front. There is a lot of nuance there. You’re free to question her on it, but you should be discussing that logged in. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "if they’re a good faith user, they could log into their account" - so there are no good faith users without accounts to log into? Peter James (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I intentionally did not turn on the account creation block feature which would enable them to create an account to track these type of disputes if they didn't have one. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So if an unregistered editor gets into disputes with administrators not only should they be tracked, but they should be made to link their account to an IP address on a page anyone can see? Not a legitimate reason to block. Peter James (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse block Per all of the above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and note that Iaritmioawp has been incorrect in his understanding about editing logged out and has generally interfered. Keep IP blocked as he was correctly blocked before for this and still didn't get it. One more time will likely mean that his account and IP end up blocked.
 * WP:NOTFISHING - you may have checked and blocked users for similar reasons but that doesn't make it the correct thing to do. Peter James (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My previous block, which was utterly absurd rather than "correct" might I add, was the result of a certain CU abusing their tools; they have since been issued a warning for such by the Arbitration Committee. I made an ARBN comment on the matter at the time if anyone's interested. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Your block was upheld on both your account and IP and Arbcom's warning didn't have anything to do with you. If you ankle-bite another admin or checkuser as an IP and I see it, I'll be checking your IP and blocking account and IP. Are we clear? ...or do I need to reach for the cluebat and block you now for your failure to get what others are telling you in this thread with their consensus?
 * I already said (and even earlier proved through action) that I have no problem logging in when someone needs their "ankles bitten" as you put it, so please calm down. Your threats are as unnecessary as they are embarrassing to read. And no, my previous block wasn't "upheld," it simply expired before anyone got around to reviewing it. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, however. You can also choose to abuse your tools however you wish, but there might be serious consequences, such as a polite warning issued by e-mail, if you overdo it, so please don't; with new editor retention in the dumps (no idea why, perhaps our CUs aren't clobbering them with their "cluebats" [oh, the irony!] aggressively enough), we need to keep as many of the old guard in place as possible and that includes you as well. We're on the same side whether you like it or not so hold your fire. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, you are super experienced and able to out-argue anyone. However, I am also willing to indefinitely block you for general WP:NOTHERE as volunteers should not have to spend this amount of time explaining what is required. There is no possible explanation for why an editor would need to log in on each page other than they are using a really shonky setup. Per AGF we are happy to accept that you have such a requirement, but that is not a reason for allowing this IP/account mixing which is against the spirit of alternate accounts. Sorry about your trouble but this distraction has to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your skepticism, but my commitment never again to get blocked while IP editing, which will be achieved through my sustained conscious effort to only make completely uncontroversial edits in that way, perfectly in line with the spirit of the policy, is genuine, and I'm looking forward to proving it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and suggest that the editor in question be given the option of editing with the account only or with IPs only. If the former keep the IP(s) blocked for a reasonably long period of time, if the latter, indef block the account unless the editor changes their mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward
There seems to be agreement that the block was fine. The only question remaining is whether it should remain in place for its full duration of one month. Clearly, the main operator of the blocked IP now understands what the issue was and how to avoid it so the only thing currently being prevented by the block are useful contributions. Do we remove the block or do we keep it in place? Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK let's move forward. Let's block the account for sockpuppetry -- that's what "avoiding scrutiny" amounts to -- and block any other IPs we know of, then give Iaritmiowp the choice: to keep the account, and edit with it only, or to keep the account blocked and edit with IPs only.  The option not open is to continue editing with IPs and switching to the account only when it's convenient to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, logging in is never "convenient" to me but there are cases where it's required; today, I've added a new item to that list. If you look at my last 100 contributions, you'll see that they go back three years and they're almost exclusively file uploads, new page creations, page moves, and project/talk space edits. I use this account merely as a tool to supplement my IP editing when necessary. Blocking the account would just mean I'd have to submit requests instead of performing these edits myself. How is that a good idea? Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear who you're going to avoid falling afoul of WP:ILLEGIT again. If you are to remain unblocked, how will you ensure that your future editing is in line with policy? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple; if I get into a disagreement with another editor that isn't related to content, I'll log in. Or would I also need to log in for things like this? I'm open to adding whatever is currently considered necessary to the "log in to make that edit" list within reason since I have no interest in "avoiding scrutiny" whatsoever, I just don't want the hassle of having to constantly log in (my current setup, which I neither can nor want to change is such that every new page I open requires a new log in) and that's it. This block was entirely unnecessary; a simple talk page message would've done the trick. I do always make an effort to be in line with policy; the problem with WP:ILLEGIT, and more specifically with its "evasion of scrutiny" component is that it's not clearly defined to the point where it can include pretty much anything, which means that what it actually includes is determined by the current practice which can mean anything at any given point in time and is bound to catch you unawares if you're not paying attention, which is what happened to me in this instance. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All things being equal, I think 's suggestion was simpler. ——  Serial # 14:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Simpler than unblocking a good faith editor and letting them resume normal editing now that the issue which prompted the block has been resolved? I'm afraid I must disagree. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue has not been "resolved", because the issue is that you're editing with IPs to avoid scrutiny. It would be resolved if you edited only with your account -- regardless of how "inconvenient" it is to you, which I don't understand, since you can set your account to stay open for up to 1 year unless you deliberately log out -- and not with IPs except in error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a requirement that you make clear the connection between your IP addresses and account every single time that there is a potential for crossover. That could be using an image you've uploaded with your account when you aren't logged in or editing the same page with your account and an IP address. You will need to be extremely careful not to do this as it will likely result in you receiving a long if not indefinite block. You should also make it clear on the talk pages of the IPs and your account that you are the same operator. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I have come up with a solution that will satisfy both myself and everyone else in this thread. What if I were to start a subpage in my userspace, called User:Iaritmioawp/IPs, and use it to list all of my IP addresses moving forward? It would allow all of my contributions to be tracked in one place while at the same time allowing me to edit normally. I'd still log in whenever the policy as I understand it/common sense would dictate I should of course. The list would contain the date on which I gained/lost access to any particular IP address and I would log in to add new entries to ensure the integrity of the list. As for the crossover concern, I don't believe there's ever been any meaningful crossover. As I said, I always do make an attempt to stay in line with policy and the only time I ever run into problems is when the policy itself is vague; frankly, where does WP:ILLEGIT say that you need to log in to make edits such as the one that got me blocked? It's not there. I don't think the policy page on socking reflects our currently accepted editing practice sufficiently and it might be time to make some adjustments to it and clarify a thing or two. I'll add it to my to-do list for sure. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why this complex rigamarole when you can just edit with your account? Simple, neat, doesn't violate policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That idea of yours only works one way round, which is going from the account to the IPs but not the reverse. ILLEGIT requires that editors not use multiple accounts or edit logged out in a way which avoids scrutiny or is misleading, such as, in your case, by making the connection between the account and IPs unclear. The only way this is going to work for you is if you avoid editing in the same areas with your account and IP addresses, and that the connection is also disclosed. That still won't prevent you from breaching the policy if it appears as if you are editing logged out in order to avoid scrutiny as it did in this situation. The safest and simplest way for you to continuing editing is to use only your account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've already explained, my current setup makes account editing infeasible. I suppose I'll have to work something out on my end. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for you to give us some details on the reason your current setup makes account editing infeasible? I appreciate there might be confidential information that you don't want to disclose, and I'm certainly not asking to breach your privacy. I'm just thinking that if there is anything you can tell us, someone might have suggestions for a way round it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * they explained this to TB, slightly, although I'm not particularly technical. ——  Serial # 12:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, but all it says is "I use a setup such that I have to log in anew every time I go from one page to another". I don't understand what such a setup could be and why such a setup would be needed. If we knew, we might be able to suggest something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thought but any changes to the setup would affect more than just myself. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How would such a change affect others? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't figure that out either. I think Iaritmioawp needs to provide more specific information.  If there's a privacy issue, they should e-mail an admin with the information, and the admin can report back here with as much info as can be made public. Until that happens, I still believe that they should be given a choice between using the account, or editing with IPs, and not be allowed to go back and forth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am content to leave the question of lifting the block early to Tony as there is no question regarding his judgement in this matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The endorsements in the section above include the duration of the block on the IP.
 * I don't think they do, but there's clearly no one supporting an unblock so one month on the naughty chair it is. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting review of my unblock conditions
Over the past two years, I have refrained from creating any redirects (if you were not to count a "soft" redirect/link to Meta-Wiki from my user space or the "automatic" redirects created by renaming pages) or templates or anything that may cause disruption to Wikipedia. I have become a rollbacker and a pending changes patroller within the past couple of months. I have went through my past contributions and tagged for deletion/discussion any pages I have created while learning how to edit properly. I have also taken the advice of and decided to become  (see this archive for reference) and have made several user scripts designed to enhance the experience of Wikipedia. Over the course of the past couple of years, I have gotten an understanding of the redirect policy and have only ever requested redirects be created from searching Wikipedia and seeing that the topic is available under a different name. (That would be one redirect back in 2019 and another request when I landed on a miscapitalized title that I just made a few hours ago.) I have participated more recently in RfDs to demonstrate my understanding of policy and how it applies to the encyclopedia and TfDs to demonstrate my understanding on what is a good "template". So I understand that 3.1415...4 is not a good redirect, nor is all this junk or this junk I created. I have worked on uncontentious improvements to the encyclopedia, and now I am here.

For reference, my old username is UpsandDowns1234 and my full unblock conditions can be found here. It has been a pleasure making improvements on top of improvements. Aasim 07:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Provisional support - an initial look over seems to indicate that it would be reasonable to revoke all criteria (up to 9) still in force. A brief look by me didn't indicate issues. Unless someone else finds some troublesome behaviour, the timescale and positive actions since, seem to suggest removal of a fairly intense set of limits. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Awesome. I'm provisionally in favour also,  ever since I discovered that you haven't been blocked since and nor does your talk page look like an illuminous fruit-salad :)  To be fair,  we ought to invite input from  who was as much involved as me and more involved than most.  Good luck,   serial   # 08:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To expand on this slightly. If we take the original unblock restrictions to be in the nature of a topic ban from various areas, then we would usually look elsewhere for signs of productive editing. Looking at their contributions to other projects, I see lots of activity and no alarm bells in the shape of talk page warnings, noticeboard alerts (particularly on meta and commons). A major issue that led to the original block—if Awesome will allow me to temporarily be a patronising ass—was the question of maturity: I see no reasons to question that any more. serial   # 12:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hah, yep :) That was the main problem - I understood that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, but I did not recognize that my edits to userspace and template and project space were inappropriate. That was why I got a break from editing May 2017 and an infinite block (now lifted with conditions that I am appealing here) August 2017.  That is no longer a problem - I am 18 now, compared to when I was 14-15 when I made the bad edits.  Aasim 14:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Provisional support per NBB and Serial# above. I would suggest that Aasim generally follow the rules of condition 8 even if they're formally lifted (it's good advice for all of us, really) but my impression is that they've matured since the original ban and have an understanding of the relevant policies, so I'm willing to support lifting the formal restrictions assuming that nobody comes forth with especially damning issues. creffett (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: I don't think it's helpful to editors to carry the baggage of sanctions/restrictions that have long since served their purpose. I don't see any problem with lifting all of those. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal of all restrictions. They don't seem necessary anymore. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal of editing restrictions. The thorough and frank nature of the appeal and the evidence that maturity has developed gives me confidence that this editor will be productive and responsible in the future. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery
I would like for an uninvolved admin or two to keep an eye on this article. There are concerted efforts to include part of the victim's supposed run-ins with the law, as if these things are somehow relevant to him getting shot by these two men. Allegedly shot, of course. I find, and I am not the only one, that such inclusions are distasteful, and I'm putting it mildly. They are BLP violations, because recent deaths fall under the BLP and this information is undue and does not pertain. This is not a biography of a person, it's an account of how an unarmed man was shot by two other men. Allegedly, of course. See also Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery. We can NOT have this article with some tendentious material, which IMO borders on racism. We've seen this before, in the article on Trayvon Martin most particularly, and we should not let this happen again. I have no easy solution here, but I think that some active and proactive administrative oversight might help. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Late at night and I have to sign off. But, these two edits claim that Arbery commited felonies with no source. . Appreciate it if someone would take a look. Even if true, likely a BLP vio. I only spent ten minutes, but couldn’t find a source for a felony conviction. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, claims like this that can't be easily confirmed from RSes in 5-10 minutes need to be removed. The earlier probation about the gun, yes, but the stealing from Walmart I can't find anything about. Will deal with that. --M asem (t) 01:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "Arbery [some things] " I cited that source properly when making an edit, which was summarily undone with no discussion – 90 minutes before you censored my post on the Talk page. Can you please put what I wrote back and remove your "final warning", or should I? Tambourine60 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Tambourine60, I want you to not post that kind of material anywhere on Wikipedia, OK? Doesn't matter whether it's verified or not--there is no good reason to post that here or anywhere. The material is not relevant to ANYTHING we're doing here, and it's certainly not relevant to the shooting. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a novice at this, and would also love help understanding the relevance in the "Background" section of things like: the "troubled history" of a police chief who "was indicted on charges arising from an alleged cover-up of a sexual relationship that an officer had with an informant" (AFTER Arbery's death, no less), or "Attorney Jackie Johnson who was accused of a coverup…" These are living people whose actions are being included to prejudice (fairly, perhaps) their behavior in the instant case. But how is it possible that it's relevant to include unsubstantiated and unproven accusations against living people as "background" while not including the fact that, say, Arbery was previously convicted by a court of law of theft and other crimes?  Tambourine60 (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All that falls under the BLP as well, but for people who are allegedly involved in an alleged shooting some kinds of prior information are in fact relevant. And if you cannot stop blaming the victim, you will be not partially, but wholly blocked, since it seems you are not here to improve the project but rather to further an agenda. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The article protection will end today. It needs to be extended. There is enough evidences in the history page and the talk page of POV-pushing IPs.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree and have extended. DrKay (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have partially blocked two editors from the article today - the above-mentioned User:Tambourine60, who added another false claim on the talkpage about Arbery's priors, and User:Chrisvacc, for this attack on other editors and threat to "take this to the press". There do seem to be a number of low-edit SPA accounts hanging around this article at the moment, all with similar aims as regards inserting material into the article; more admin eyes on the talk page especially would be welcome. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a threat – I'd call it more of a 'heads up' – Chrisvacc (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Stating that you will go to the press complaining about specific editors in beyond chilling. O3000 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I just put on my magic glasses to see this edit. Thank you for removing that, and all I can say is that Tambourine60 better be thankful to you that a partial block is all they got. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting support for both blocks; Tambourine60's as the commented noted above is clearly a NOTHERE situation, and the one from Chrisvacc as being close enough to a legal threat. (I haven't touched/looked at that page for several days at all, and it falls into my area of where I have several misgivings of how we handle NOTNEWS on topics like this that unfortunately draw editors that are going to spark discussion that may lead to these types of blocks; there's better ways we can edit the mainspace and discuss behind the scenes but neither here nor there of the current proper admin actions). --M asem (t) 21:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem, as a reasonably impartial admin (can't be too polite); you're attention would be useful. Even with two article bans; those two can still edit the TP and others are filling their place. One linked to a site I've not heard of (complex.com) with an article mentioning the records of his brother and cousin (the sins of the brother and cousin?). They are discussing inclusion of his "criminal record" without any evidence as to what it might be. Admin only protection won't help as the BLP vios are mostly on the TP. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's deeply ironic that someone with "Objective" in their username is writing this with a straight face. The "evidence" of Arbery's criminal record has been widely reported. But one can't "discuss inclusion" of it, as you suggest, because one gets warned, redacted, and blocked. It's pure Orwell — one can't have a good-faith discussion on the Talk page of whether facts are WP:DUE without acknowledging what the facts are. But as soon as one quotes and cites a mainstream source to identify the facts, they're redacted and blocked for… being "WP:UNDUE". Then you come along and say "these idiots are discussing inclusion of "the facts" without any evidence as to what those might be." Do you see the irony? Because that is quite literally what has happened here. Maybe someone with some actual intellectual and moral integrity and independence will step in, but from what I'm seeing, the people with actual power here are all self-congratulatory sheep applauding each other for fighting "Stormfront", oblivious to the fact that they're actually blocking a Jewish lady whose family survived and escaped totalitarianism and happens to have the courage to think and speak freely. Tambourine60 (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I blocked them from both the article and the TP. As will any other account be that repeatedly commits any other BLP vios. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Didn't mean to slight your efforts. Just looking for more eyes. BTW, a problem I've seen with partial blocks as I've seen examples elsewhere where those banned hadn't realized it applies to article TPs. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, FYI, one of those you blocked just emailed the other you blocked. Haven't seen that before. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I am entitled to a specific explanation from you as to how I violated WP:BLP (or any other reason you blocked me). I have read WP:BLP thoroughly and am certain I haven't violated WP:BLPCRIME; I've been entirely "dispassionate" and never suggested the Article should be anything but WP:NPOV; and I have stuck entirely to writing cited, well-sourced facts on the Talk page and this Administrator Messageboard as part of a discussion on what facts are relevant. I have not written a single unsourced fact nor has anyone cited a single source that factually contradicts anything I've written. Indeed, all I did was respond to a warning from about a theft from Walmart with a neutral quote from The Daily Beast which stated verbatim what I had been warned for writing… and the quote itself was censored, along with a lecture from  about how he personally didn't want me posting things he didn't like, whether or not they were verified, because they "blamed the victim" and were part of an "agenda". That's completely outrageous; I have no agenda and believe that it's preferable to include Arbery's prior criminal convictions because they are relevant, have been widely reported in reliable sources, and in fact formed the basis of a prior relationship between the victim and one of the men accused of his murder. As has been widely reported, including in both the instant Article and on its Talk page, on April 7th, DA Barnhill wrote a recusal letter to the State AG in which he stated that "his son, a prosecutor in the Brunswick DA’s office, and McMichael, then an investigator in that same office, 'both helped with the previous prosecution of (Ahmaud) Arbery'" and that his son "'handled a previous felony probation revocation and pleading Ahmaud Arbery to a felony'". I count two felony convictions of Arbery in that statement. I have half-a-dozen other sources, but have a feeling that any more direct quotes from mainstream sources might get me banned forever. Again, this isn't even language or specific information I ever suggested go into the Article—it's factual, sourced information I mentioned on the Talk page in the context of joining an active, ongoing debate and attempt to reach consensus on whether criminal history was WP:DUE. One hopes you can see the absurdity of being warned for allegedly violating WP:DUE in a Talk page discussion of what was and wasn't WP:DUE. Now I've been censored for citing a source on this Administrator Messageboard — literally doing nothing but pasting a quote from an article along with its citation — for the sole purpose of defending myself from being accused of having "no source". I hope it's obvious why it's positively Orwellian to block people for violating WP:DUE by engaging in an ongoing, good-faith discussion of whether something is WP:DUE. Again, please explain specifically why I was blocked. Sincerely, Tambourine60 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also note that you have blocked two editors who would obviously be participating in the RfC on Arbery's priors, just before they had a chance to do so. You and others have also redacted my citations of mainstream-sourced facts about Arbery's priors from the Talk page and this page. This has a very bad smell to it. Tambourine60 (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2020
 * Yes, they were redacted because they were BLP violations, and the last one I redacted wasn't sourced at all - which was unsuprising because it was false. If simply carry on violating BLP after you've been final warned by another administrator, then you should be unsurprised to be blocked, and as another administrator said above, if you don't understand this I probably should have blocked you completely, not just from a single page. Black Kite (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Tambourine60, you will not get very far with this claim that I "just don't like" your material. I could just as easily say that "you don't like mine". You can claim you are being "censored" but the only thing that's happening here is that you were asked, and are now implored, to adhere to our guidelines and policies. Think of it as a "no shirt no shoes no service" sign. No one hates your feet, but you shouldn't walk in here without shoes on. And if you still don't see how impugning the character of a murder victim is problematic, then yeah, you probably shouldn't be here at all. Anyway, maybe some other admin can come along and close this--if Tambourine60 puts his foot in his mouth even further he might get himself blocked for it. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You told me that you, personally, "don't want me" to write "anything like that… even if it's verified" — even though what I had written was nothing but a direct quote from a Daily Beast article, which I was only quoting because it stated facts I had been warned were not in mainstream sources. How else could I possibly respond? And I had originally stated that fact as part of a Talk page discussion on whether those facts were relevant – how can one discuss the relevance of facts on a Talk page if one can't identify those facts? Despite my asking a dozen times, no one has been able to explain to me what specific policy or guideline I've violated – I just keep getting more broad threats of being "entirely blocked" for daring to ask the question. Tambourine60 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You could respond by saying something like, "oh, sorry, guess I was wrong". You still fail to grasp that this is a website whose policies and guidelines are being enforced by administrators, and for better or for worse I'm one of them. No, you're not being blocked for something heroic like "daring to ask the question"--you stand a good chance of being blocked per NOTHERE, or maybe ongoing BLP violations. For clarity's sake: BLAMING THE VICTIM by continuing to harp on negative aspects of a person's life that have NOTHING to do with the reason their life and death are now part of an encyclopedic article is not allowed. Clear? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've respectfully asked for a specific explanation for your block, so I can better understand Wikipedia editing. You're saying if I don't understand "BLP violations" then you "probably should have blocked [me] completely". This is my understanding: "'Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them… Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers.'" You're saying what I wrote "wasn't sourced at all" — now I've provided the source (which, as I've pointed out, I've cited before and is found in articles already used as sources in the Article). Neither you nor anyone else has provided ANY information contradicting what I wrote, let alone, as you claim, that it is "false" — despite my asking repeatedly for it. Again, can you please either provide evidence that what I wrote was false, and explain what specific BLP policy I violated? Appreciatively, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Will you please help me? You have refused to unblock me because I "have to demonstrate a better understanding of WP:BLP". I have read and reread WP:BLP and have asked for specific clarification numerous times. I am entitled to that: "'Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them… Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers.'" To say that I am "discouraged" is a gross understatement. I got a first and "final warning" for citing well-sourced information (indeed, the information is in the Article). When I quoted from a mainstream source in my defense, it was redacted. Then I was banned for asserting as fact something from a source I have already cited several times. I have repeatedly been told it's "false" without the slightest evidence being provided. All I want is to understand specifically why I was blocked. The only reason given is "BLP violations" which is unspecific and jargony, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy. Can you please specifically explain how I would "demonstrate better understanding of WP:BLP" so that I may be unblocked? Thanks, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You said that Arbery had been convicted (and that is the important word) of two felonies. You provided no source for this. Since then, on your talk page you mentioned Barnhill's comments - neither of those used the word "convicted" and they were Barnhill's words anyway and so should have been attributed at the very least. Even if Barnhill's claim that they "had a felony record" is true, that is not "two convictions" - it may be, it may not be. Do you understand the problem now? Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your explanation and now finally understand that I was blocked specifically for failing to cite or source information I presented as factual. Is the "BLP violation" that I disseminated "contentious material about a living person that… is unsourced or poorly sourced"? If so, the BLP element now makes sense to me. I thought I had been blocked for writing something WP:UNDUE, which made zero sense to me as it was in the context of a Talk page solicitation about what was/wasn't WP:DUE. I'm glad to have that clarified. As you point out, certainly no one has provided any source which contradicts in any way what I wrote, so it's not that I posted demonstratively "false" information, as many have claimed, but as you say, that "it may be, it may not be" true. I completely understand that in your view I erred by assuming that my having cited/sourced the information in the same context on the same Talk page more than once before, I didn't need to re-attribute and re-cite the source. I can certainly see now how, had I provided the attribution/source along with that statement, it would have been clearer why I had presented the information. Not doing so was entirely my error and I will do my utmost to always cite and attribute each piece of information, regardless of whether I've done so before – I can clearly see how that will help avoid future conflict — and I wholeheartedly apologize for not doing so in the instant example. Very truly, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there something further I need to do vis a vis my unblock request? As soon as I was given a specific explanation for why I was blocked, I grasped the issue, apologized for the error, which was made while editing in good faith, and have resolved not to repeat the mistake. Again, I'm new to this, and so I'm reaching out to you because you blocked me and declined to unblock me, respectively, and I'm not sure what else to do. Sincerely, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Tambourine60, I believe you understand what you did, and I think you are on your way to being unblocked. I am not an administrator, but I can say that instant unblock requests are rarely granted.  Now, I don't think you need to wait a great amount of time, but maybe edit some other articles and give it the weekend?  Something like that?  I think you'd make a much more compelling case if you can just let things cool down for a couple of days.  But, as I say, I am no expert either.  Cheers, and best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If anyone is interested there is more discussion at this talk page:  Steve Quinn (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisvacc, filed by me.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I know you've taken it upon yourselves to address what you see as BLP violations on the Talk Page for the Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery article. Steve Quinn's description of the innocent McMichaels as "killers", with no qualification and no RS cited inline, appears to my admittedly novice eye to be a serious WP:BLP violation. I've brought my concerns to the attention of both Steve Quinn and Drmies, but have been mocked and/or ignored. Thanks for your prompt attention! Tambourine60 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , "innocent"? In the sense that they haven't been proven guilty yet, or are you suggesting they aren't guilty? And did they not kill Arbrey? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant that legally, the McMichaels are 100% innocent (100% not guilty, if you prefer) in the matter of Arbery's death. As to other forms of "guilt" and "innocence": adjudging sinners would seem to be outside the narrowly proscribed boundaries of Wikipedia editing. This is a very important distinction—in the US, even people accused but not convicted of heinous crimes ARE innocent—and that's not a different kind or quality of "innocence" than that of someone who has never been accused of anything at all. According the coroner's report, Arbery was the victim of a homicide, and thus was "killed". But clearly no one has been found to be his "killer" or to be guilty of "killing" him. So to call the McMichaels "killers" is prima facie defamatory. As it says in the Wikipedia material regarding BLP guidelines, without proper inline sourcing: "It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter." Tambourine60 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did provide a source, an NYT source, that delineated what happened in that very section. Also, it is very clear from all the RS and video that he was killed and there were killers involved. That's essentially what I wrote about. Also, RS has covered who killed him and who else was involved in pursuing and blocking Arbery. This like Wikilawyering - or something like that. Picking nits? Also, Tambourine60, please read my most recent reply,, to the concerns you mentioned on your talk page . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They are the killers. They have admitted that. They just deny murder, they think the killing was lawful. Murder is a crime while killing is not always a crime.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I see no reference to them as "killers"—every RS I've seen has described them as "alleged killers" and the like. I fully understand the difference between killing and murder. And what's the RS where have "they" admitted that "they are the killers" (plural)? Again, I believe this to be defamatory and a violation of WP:BLP, which states: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." That would certainly seem to apply to the McMichaels and referring to them as "dogged killers" as opposed to simply acknowledging that they have been accused of a crime. Tambourine60 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm Washington Post reporting "...Both McMichaels were charged with murder and aggravated assault, and the GBI has confirmed that Travis McMichael shot and killed Arbery..." So the man shot Arbery, killing him, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, but you object to "killer"? Drmies (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "I fully understand the difference between killing and murder." But earlier you made comments that show that you were totally unaware of the differeces between murder, manslaughter and killing until I came and enlightened you. You said "no body has been found to be guilty of "killing" him"" and "It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter". Someone who doesn't know the differences between murder or manslaughter and killing shouldnt get involved in that article IMO.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Travis McMichael's gun apparently fired the fatal shots. His father, Gregory McMichael made a preliminary statement to police in which he allegedly claimed that Travis fired a single shot from his shotgun—but I see no evidence that he has ever said that this single shot hit, let alone killed, Arbery. I'm unaware of any report that either McMichael "admitted" to shooting or killing anyone (let alone that they both did), or of any evidence whatsoever that Gregory has shot or "killed" anyone in either a colloquial or literal sense (let alone that he "admitted" it).
 * SharabSalam: you haven't "enlightened" me and I have no idea why you think I'm confused as to the terms — perhaps you're unaware that it is entirely possible to be convicted of murder without actually "killing" someone in any usual sense of that word. Perhaps I can enlighten you further on the difference between two words: "killer" and "killers". Again, with no RS as required by WP:BLP, you claim" "They are the killers. They have admitted that." Stating that two men have confessed to killing someone without providing any source is an obvious BLP violation: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." Since I have seen zero evidence that either man admitted to killing or murdering anyone, I ask yet again the question you appear to be avoiding: where is your source for the above statement ?
 * Drmies, The Post reported that the GBI claims Travis McMichael shot and killed Arbery, and that claim should be attributed to the GBI on the Talk page as well. More to the point: you will note that I did not object to the singular word "killer" but that I asked for and have seen no reference to them as "killers" (plural). The "plural" was not decorative, and I'm still waiting.
 * Steve Quinn, per BLP: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." The McMichaels have been commonly described as "alleged killers" or "suspected killers"—but not as "killers", without qualification. Why is it so difficult to write that they're "alleged killers" – especially when neglecting to do so could easily be seen as an attempt to "smear" innocent men?
 * It's hard to understand how you all, who are at such pains to protect the image of one innocent person involved with this tragedy, are so cavalier about defaming other innocent people involved. WP:NPOV, anyone? Tambourine60 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed TBAN of Tambourine60

 * Proposal: TBAN Tambourine60 from "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" topic- broadly construed: The partial block is obviously not working with . There is clear issue above with WP:Wikilawyering, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:CIR. Notifying .-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN Tambourine60 from "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" topic - broadly construed. Including WP: Admin board discussions. Engages in wp:idht. Also,wp:gaslighting per last part of discussion above, failure to dropthestick by continually arguing against consensus -(see discussion above, see talk page discussions , ,  , ) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indefblock as someone who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Frankly, I have had it with accounts that clearly exist only to press a narrative (no matter which direction the narrative runs). BD2412  T 04:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with not here. I'm OK with an indefblock. Either way at this point. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Against This is clearly motivated by a desire to retaliate for pointing out the BLP violations of those proposing this ban mere hours before (see immediately above). Two of the above have suggested banning me rather than replying to my substantive concerns about what they've posted. SharabSalam has proposed banning me, rather than simply providing an RS for her/his unsourced and obviously contentious claim regarding Gregory and Travis McMichael: "They are the killers. They have admitted that." For pointing out the obvious BLP violation in making such unsourced and defamatory claims, s/he is proposing to ban me. I have contributed valuable information to the article and to the discussion that is in no way "pressing a narrative" – including asking for sources for the above claims. Look at my last edits on the article and talk page — I'm advocating for including the fact that the shooting was found to be a homicide, revealing a nuanced view when viewed concurrently with my position that innocent men should not be described as "killers" on Wikipedia. My views on relevance of prior connections between principle actors involved in the shooting and subsequent investigation may be those of a minority, but they have violated no policy or guideline of which I've been made aware. I was warned and briefly partially blocked for not citing sources (neither the warning nor the partial block had anything to do with the content of what I had added) and, as a new user, accepted responsibility, wholeheartedly apologized and been scrupulous in citing RS ever since. To suggest I lack "competence" is totally without merit; there is no "consensus" on the issue of relevance, as the open Rfc on this issue makes abundantly clear. Tambourine60 (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you are joking or just don't know, in both cases you are wasting our time and your time. Both Travis and his son chased Arbery and killed him. Killing alone is not a crime. You have confused the word "killing" with "manslaughter". Killing means to cause death to someone. Both Travis and his son caused the death to Arbery as they even themselves said. "According to a police report, Gregory McMichael said he saw Arbery run by and recognized him from the break-ins. He and his 34-year-old son Travis McMichael then grabbed a shotgun and a pistol and got into their truck to go after Arbery, the report says." "Once they caught up to him, Gregory McMichael told investigators Arbery "violently" attacked Travis and the two fought "over the shotgun" before Travis shot twice and killed him.". They are only saying that they killed Arbery in self-defence. They didnt deny that they killed Arbery. You are wasting our time and your time calling for the ban of an editor who didnt say anything wrong. You have made too many posts above just trying to sanction another editor just because you got sanctioned. You are treating Wikipedia as a battleground. You also keep saying that Travis and his son are innocent e.g when there is still no confirmation of that. You seem to be confusing "innocent" with "presumed innocent". You cant say someone is innocent or guilty when the court hasnt say anything in this regard. I do think that you are WP:NOTHERE.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There you go again, SharabSalam, posting unsourced and obviously contentious claims: now you're claiming “they are saying they killed Arbery in self-defense” — where’s an evidence of either, let alone both, saying that ? And again, where is your source for either McMichael “admitting” that Gregory McMichael killed Arbery? Regardless of the fact that it's defamatory and false, pre WP:BLP it ought to be immediately removed as it's unsourced contentious material about a living person. As to the source you cite above, it's referring to the police report, which I've linked to, and it's in error — since, according to the report (which I've linked to above): "McMichael stated the unidentified male began to violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot." Manslaughter has exactly zero to do with this, so I don't know why you're going on about it. And “presumed innocent” means they are innocent of any crime until they have been proven guilty, period; the legal definition of "presume" is "to accept as true". I find it hard to believe that I'm being accused of "pushing a narrative" when it's crystal clear that you have no interest in applying WP:BLP fairly and equally. Tambourine60 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Indef block per NOTHERE. See above, "killers"--Tambourine's contortionism is impressive, and dealing with them, here and on the talk page, is an incredible timesink. I'm somewhat surprised no one has run CU on the account yet, given their obvious agenda and their relative skill--this was their second edit, and a streak of pedantry was already evident in their very first edit (for the record, that edit had nothing to do with grammar). We know that Hidden Tempo is still around, a sock of theirs was blocked yesterday, and we also know that talk pages of black victims of racist shootings (alleged!) draw the likes of Hidden Tempo and others like a shit pile draws flies. Enough already. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indef block per Drmies and SharabSalam. NightHeron (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indef block based upon their conduct at the article and in this thread.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN. The user is intelligent and articulate, and I think they could be a valuable asset to the project if they could learn to defer to consensus. There is nothing wrong with taking a minority position until you take it too far. No matter how "right" we think we are per policy, we can't keep arguing for this long; that's called disruptive editing even if confined to article talk pages. If they take this kind of behavior to other articles and issues, then I think a 30-day block would be in order. If they continue after that block expires, then indef. I disagree that this is a NOTHERE situation, although I disagree with a lot of our application of NOTHERE. One can be here to improve the encyclopedia even if they are completely wrong and disruptive. It should be their intent that matters re NOTHERE, not their competence. Semantics, perhaps, but semantics are often important.I agree with Drmies that a CU is justified, and a positive result would moot everything else. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughtfulness, Mandruss, both here and on my talk page. I am new to Wikipedia and am absolutely here to help build an encyclopedia and believe I have much to offer in that regard. I am at a loss as to the rationale for blocking me at all, let alone "indefinitely"—I don't see anything I've done in the list on WP:WHYBLOCK. Tambourine60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Indef Block/Not Here Per Drmies and SharabSalam; they are clearly focused on an agenda and that agenda is to smear a victim's name. --Jorm (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support TBan, and a warning over BLPs more generally. I read through a lot of T60's talk page comments, in particular, and found them very disturbing. I can believe the comments were made in good faith, out of a commitment to fairness to the accused, but the very best you could say is that they are profoundly tone deaf. Guy (help!) 21:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support TBan This is a very narrow restriction (even given the "broadly construed" on the topic). T60 seems to want to edit with good contributions, but in trying to point them what their approach was wrong (and even when they did come back to fix), the fact they appeared transfixed that Arbery had been convicted of crimes earlier and thus was an essential part of the coverage to the point of deriding other editors that this information wasn't included is worrisome. It's why we caution editors not to edit on topics they may be emotionally drawn to. T60 has some fair points, but this type of action on this specific topic area may be necessary to temper them. There's plenty of other areas to continue contributing but obviously this should be a warning as well that getting too emotional or too invested in how we cover these types of stories may led to a more drastic block or ban. --M asem  (t) 21:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Topic ban. There was another option and that was to redact and ignore. Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.--MONGO (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. I just got around to reading their answer to my question above re: "innocence". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Propose closing this

 * Pinging concerened edtiors:


 * I am pinging all participants to see if there is a agreement for closing this as described below:


 * Comment: all of the above ivotes for TBAN or Indef block appear to cite policy based arguments. The one ivote that opposes or is against seems to cite BLP to back up their editing practices. So I will say that is also policy based. My tally is 7 for TBAN (if I include me), 5 for indefblock, and one opposed. Of course I said I would be satisfied with either (based on policy). So, if I migrate over to the indef block camp the tally would be 6 to 6 to 1.


 * For either choice, at this point, that is a close tally. So I think right now consensus is saying at minimum a TBAN is the result. So, the consensus minimum, as I see it, would probably be 12 to 1. And that is a TBAN from "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" topic- broadly construed. I think it has been almost 4 days since the last post here, so I think it will be OK to close this with the TBAN as described in place. So, I am asking to have this closed with the decision implemented. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No strong objection to that, but this should also be a last-straw close. BD2412  T 01:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I support that decision. NightHeron (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection to closing with the TBAN.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I erred in the past and was warned and temporarily blocked solely for failing to cite sources and I have learned my lesson, apologized, and been utterly consistent in citing sources for everything. Indeed, it would appear that I have been banned as the direct and immediate result of having asked for RS for describing both Gregory and Travis McMichael as "killers" (plural) and stating, as regards Ahmaud Arbery, that "They are the killers. They have admitted that." and "they are saying they killed Arbery in self-defense." Not one of the editors/admins who claimed to be so upset by my early lapses in sourcing has expressed the slightest concern with those obvious BLP violations (my understanding is that any contentious BLP material must be properly sourced ). Instead of correcting these prima facie BLP violations, those in violation have accused me of being "disruptive" and have engineered this proposed ban. My understanding is that bans and blocks should never be punitive—and this retaliatory action flies directly in the face of that mandate. Tambourine60 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Illegitimate Barrister no response to ANI disruptive editing


I posted on the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) on 13 May 2020 User:Illegitimate Barrister Infobox template codes/ parameters in articles - it has been archived. MSGJ responded that "The editor should take responsibility for their actions. When it is explained to them why their actions are disruptive, it is their duty to revert these edits". An ANI Notice had been posted on the editors talk page on 13 May Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Infoboxes: new section). The editor has been editing since 13 May and hasn't reverted either the infobox templates or the infobox changes in the articles.--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You might have an issue here. It would help if some people who are familiar with templates would comment. The worst problem I see is this edit where Illegitimate Barrister removed your detailed complaint from his talk page while making no reply. If Illegitimate Barrister is planning to ignore the whole thing, then maybe some admin should leave him a note. I will leave a ping for User:MSGJ who posted in the 13 May ANI complaint: User:FOX 52 also undid one of these changes, and User:Fram participated in the last ANI. I'll leave yet another notice for User:Illegitimate Barrister. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have started reverting the edits. I have spent nearly five hours so far. I need to revert all the article edits then the template otherwise there will be issues with the images in the articles. I noticed a further issue with Template:Infobox national military it has two subtemplates also Template:Infobox settlement/columns in addition to Template:Infobox country/imagetable. The editor responded to your notice on their talkpage that "Don't know what there is to say or do; it seems the "disruptive" edits in question were reverted".--Melbguy05 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If Illegitimate Barrister won't respond to the repeated complaints about their template editing, admins have the option of blocking them from template space. I've left another reminder for IB. User:MSGJ had removed IB's template editor permission in January 2019 per "concerns about misuse of TE, and lack of accountabiity". EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He pulled the same stunt here which I fixed.  He has a history of extreme infobox edits with no summaries. FOX 52 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * More generally: I strongly oppose using partial blocks in this way, and it is one of the reasons that I opposed their implementation. If someone is not willing to respond to comments on their behaviour in regards to templates, it is also likely the case that their behaviour as a whole needs to be examined for the ability to work on a collaborative project. A quick look at the talk shows responses then immediate archival, and I remember in particular this non-response to concerns about BLPs and suppression. I'm not sure if he's changed, but I wasn't particularly hopeful given the response. It's why this thread stood out to me on my watchlist. So, yes, if someone is being non-responsive in multiple areas, they should have that behaviour examined.The overuse of partial blocks that we're now starting to see as an experiment now prevents us from dealing with actual issues. So yes, I strongly oppose a partial block in this situation. IB is either having a communications issue that impacts all areas of the encyclopedia or he isn't and is fine to edit everywhere. If the community wants to ban him from template space, the community should do that via a ban, not an admin unilaterally deciding via a partial block. If he's disruptive enough to be blocked, it should be a site block, not a unilateral topic ban using technical means. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The statistics for edit summary use are not confidence-inspiring (takes a couple minutes to load); in the past year, only 20% of edits have been accompanied with a summary. --Izno (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a problem with more than templates. But if a user simply won't respond to a problem with their edits, the only other option that will prevent the problem from continuing is a regular indefinite block. Past experience with this editor suggests tenacious adherence to their current worldview, hard though it is to understand. It should be a simple matter for them to go through and revert their disputed template changes, but they absolutely decline to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and are administrators that are familiar with templates who may be able to comment on copying code from other infobox subtemplates into infoboxes for images/image layout, creating duplicate image parameters by not incorporating new code with existing image parameters and to a lesser extent not updating documentation subpages with copied code parameters. --Melbguy05 (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Melbguy05, I did not go through the full incident, but I strongly agree with your points above. Infoboxes should not use the subtemplates of other unrelated infoboxes, this only complicates things and discourages future editors wanting to improve the template. And wherever possible, use of unnecessary subtemplates should be avoided. If new image parameters are introduced, it should be made clear how the previous parameters differ from the new ones. I.e. we shouldn't be creating redundant parameters if we can simply use existing ones. If there is anything I can help with in particular, feel free to let me know. Reh  man  07:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox national military code has been reverted which had nearly 130 affected articles by the editor to be reverted beforehand (3 had already been by User:IrishSpook diff, User:FOX 52 diff and User:Skjoldbro diff). The majority of article edits used Template:Infobox country/imagetable parameters. A few earlier edits used different parameters based on code from Template:Infobox settlement/columns for example. Template:Infobox fire department code has been reverted with one affected article. Template:Infobox law enforcement agency code has been reverted which had no affected articles.--Melbguy05 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If I may suggest a standard block for a week a 3 month period, might get them to rethink their editing practices - FOX 52 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be reasonable cause for concern, and the editor has not shown any accountability for their actions. A sanction may be appropriate to prevent this happening again. Question: are there any concerns about their editing outside template space? If not, a partial block may well be worth considering. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks discussion

 * Note: I created a new subsection here because it seems the partial blocks discussion below seemed to veer away from the original topic of discussion. Feel free to revert if there is disagreement. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that either no block or a regular block would be better than a partial block from a namespace. If he isn't disruptive enough where the community could get behind a topic ban from the template namespace, we shouldn't be unilaterally topic banning him from it ourselves. If he is disruptive enough for an indefinite block, we shouldn't be spreading the damage elsewhere to limiting it only to templates. Yes, I'm the guy who thinks partial blocks are the worst idea in the history of Wikimedia projects (not joking), but cases like this are an example of why I have that view: they're either an admin overreacting in a way the community wouldn't have supported a few months ago, or they're an admin not taking enough action. Neither is a particularly good thing in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this hyperbolic rant is meant to be taken seriously, but it's worth noting that partial blocks are not the same as unilateral topic bans, as they can be appealed to any admin, and don't require lengthy discussions to impose or to lift. Partial blocks can be very useful to quell disruption without a lot of community overhead or collateral damage, and often strike the correct balance between site-wide blocks and community topic bans. I'm not sure whether it's right to this specific situation, but it is certainly one of the options available to any uninvolved admin. – bradv  🍁  00:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no practical difference between a topic ban and a partial block except that a partial block might be harder to lift since no one really knows how to appeal it. The community has, unwisely in my opinion, allowed them. That's fine, but we're new to it and questioning their use in scenarios like this is important. One of the things that was discussed at the RfC and in the build-up stage was that they wouldn't be used as de facto topic bans and that there were limited uses outside of things that were normally enforced socially. Here we're discussing taking what would ordinarily require a social decision by the community and suggesting that an administrator unilaterally impose it via a technical means.As I said, if there's not enough for a consensus to develop to TBAN, we shouldn't be doing it unilaterally. If there is enough of a reason to block, we shouldn't be doing half-measures. This is the exact type of situation where partial blocks should never be used. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , so I'm confused. I'm confused because the block template, including the partial block template, makes it clear how to appeal (random example). Also I'm confused because I can't figure out who has been TBAN'ed in the way you find objectionable so I can evaluate it. Thanks best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant that we've developed norms around what is acceptable and unacceptable as a normal block as an admin action. We know how the unblocks normally proceed, and admins evaluating them can look back at prior cases and established policy and use that for guidance. Blocked users can do that too. We also have norms around appeals for topic bans, and individuals are generally advised of these when they're TBAN'd, and admins can give good advice on how to edit in a way that the community will accept an appeal. We don't really have any of that for partial blocks currently.Yes, I'm in the minority position on the RfC on partial blocks, I'm not trying to overrule that (and I was stating my opposition to it to let people know where I stand. I know I'm in the minority.) What I'm saying is that we have not established norms for their use, and I do not see the RfC as supporting the idea that administrators should be able to unilaterally impose editing restrictions that would normally require consensus to an editor, so I don't think we should have someone template blocking someone until they come to AN to talk to us or until they agree to certain conditions.If the community supports that in this case, I'd prefer it be a social measure like a topic ban, but fine, but we shouldn't be doing something like blocking a user otherwise in good standing and who wouldn't be eligible for a sitewide block from an entire namespace without discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I am not an admin, I am going to chime in here about partial blocks. I have seen partial blocks in action and I think this is a very useful tool. It saves a lot of time and saves productive editors from getting burned out dealing with an editor who is stubbornly disruptive. And I want to emphasize editor burn out occurs in dealing with someone like this.


 * This alleviates the constant need to go to ANI over and over pertaining to disruptive editors' slow motion edit warring, continual engaging in IDHT, engaging in one or more aspects of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and even gaslighting. The gas lighting I was surprised to see, which is my opinion, and is recent.  The partial block is also an effective surgical tool that focuses on one issue for a short enough period of time.


 * It can also result in timely action that would otherwise result in having to deal with a WP:DE editor over very long periods of time. Partial blocks can also quickly stop damage that is occurring until discussions can resolve the issue. Additionally, relying on socially enforced bans all the time leads to burn out and editor exodus from a topic area and/or Wikipedia. And, from what I have seen, unblock requests are readily available. This means, of course, that any other Admin who is satisfied that an unblock is warranted can do so. This is a great idea. Well, that's my two cents. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I need to add, I don't know if this can be used for something like gas lighting. I think I wrote that because it was on my mind after having seen it, I think for the first time. I guess just keep it under the heading of WP:DE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin opinions welcome :). I think that's fair, it's not my opinion, but I get why people see it as attractive even if I don't. I just think if you want to do it in a case like this where it is an editor with thousands of edits, you should be doing what you'd do to get a topic ban since they're functionally the same thing. If someone wants to make a formal proposal and it's implemented, thats one thing. Having a quick discussion and one-off namespace block without getting community support; I don't think we should be doing that lightly. The idea in the RfC was that we shouldn't limit admins for things like edit warring blocks, not that we should be supplementing existing community processes for dealing with disruption. If we want to use this to enforce consensus, I have no objections even if it is not my preference and I won't ever push that button. I just don't think we should be doing it on our own when we couldn't do the equivalent social action 5 months ago, and still can't.Tl;dr if people think there'd be consensus in this case for namespace blocking an editor with over 200,000 edits, make the proposal like you normally would with a TBAN. This is already at a community forum: let the community discuss like it normally does for things analagous like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, being a concerned Wikipedia citizen I would be glad to propose a TBAN. But should we wait some more and see if they respond here? Or has enough time past? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are suggesting a block. Let me go back over the discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not really suggesting either. I just butted in to point out that we already have tools for dealing with this, and going with the quick and easy option when the harder method (equivalent TBAN) might not have support or where there might be cause for more than an partial block. I don't think Ed meant it this way but the idea of we can partial block them from an entire namespace for a 200,000+ edit user without support concerns me, and I wanted to raise it since I think this is likely the first time it has occurred. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the clarification. And I think your concern is valid. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

creating Wikipedia entry page for 'Ganesh Thite'
Sir, Madam,

I wish to create a page for the eminent Indologist and Professor of Sanskrit Ganesh Thite whose page copyrighted has been aranged here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ganesh_Thite_(copyright_Lauren_Bausch).jpg

The text I wish to suppply is this:

Ganesh U. Thite

Ganesh Umakant Thite is a Vedic scholar and Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit from Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune and former Professor of Vedic studies and Sanskrit at the University of Pune, India.

Original views

Hindu identity is inclusive being not restricted to one tradition, social cast or religious affiliation; it includes ‘munis’ and ‘thinkers’ who either accept or do not accept the Vedas, theist and atheist advocates and beliefs, such as Cārvākas which are de facto Hindus alongside orthodox (āstika) Brahmins. .....................

I write to request your approval for this page

I look forward to hearing from you soon,

Sincerely

Dr Ionut Moise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Moise (talk • contribs) 23:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any problem in creating my page in wikipedia
My name is Sutanu Sinha

I am an Insolvency Professional by profession and asocial worker. You can get my numerous reference either in web or google news.

I dont understand how to maintain a page of my own.

Please guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutanusinha (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest using the Help Desk in the future, but to answer you, Wikipedia is not a place for people to maintain "pages" about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, which has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please review the autobiography policy for more information.  331dot (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Clear sockpuppet
Hi, is clearly a sockpuppet of. Please look into their contributions and Albertpda and his/her socks contributions e.g. It is so clear.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * might be interested.--- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda is the place to report such sockpuppetry concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont want to do an investigation in these obvious cases because in my opinion if an editor got to know how we discovered them they would learn how to not be detected the next time they create a sockpuppet. It is also a very boring process and I dont want to waste time with sockpuppet investigations. You don't need a checkuser to tell you that Pestick is Alberpda. Anyway, I will send a message to the admin who blocked the sockmaster.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, I have already launched a sockpuppet investigation.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Same here, editing habits and behaviour clearly help to find out Sock accounts. CheckUser is the final definite proof to ban the Sock. Sharab have detected many Checkpuppets only by observation. Also Pestick used a Anon IP adress to avoid 3RR.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hereis the proof.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Zara Abid
Please protect Zara Abid.

The subject is "feared dead" in the PIA Flight 8303 crash, but people are editing to say she is dead, without sources confirming this.

Please be sure not to protect a version making such unconfirmed claims. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for full protection? Because the article is already semi protected Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, full protection. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , i've applied extended-confirmed protection for a week, as the latest addition was made by an autoconfirmed user. Note for next time that WP:RFPP is the correct place for these sorts of requests. – bradv  🍁  00:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I assumed there would be a more prompt response here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note it now seems confirmed she is dead. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for deletion by article subject
I've been contacted on my talkpage by someone claiming to be an article subject asking that their article be taken down (I'm being a bit cagey for a reason). I have no objection to doing this...unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm horribly rusty as to the process. What steps do I need to take? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If have Twinkle, just choose the "XFD" option. If you don't, follow WP:AFDHOWTO. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So it needs to go through AFD, then? OK - if that's the case I can take care of it shortly, thanks. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see it meeting any of the speedy deletion criteria, so AFD is the way to go. Primefac (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ser Amantio, there really is a lot of coverage for this person, and a "normal" AfD would be likely to fail--that is, I'd argue tooth and nail for keeping the article. Ser Amantio, I don't know why you were cagey--I'm wondering if we shouldn't just send this to ArbCom, for instance (I just sent them a note, but Ser Amantio, it would be good if you did the same). Drmies (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Call it habit - I spend so much time being cagey that it's become my default. :-) (Also, I didn't want to put a name here that would need to be scrubbed later, should it come to that.) I'll drop a note to Arbcom, then. I take your point about AFD, but if I were to put it up there I would make it clear that the article has been nominated expressly at the request of the subject. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes you would; I've seen that done before. But let's go with ArbCom first, just to make sure. Thx! Drmies (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I sent the message off to ArbCom a little while ago, just after dinner. If I don't hear anything in a day or two I'll look at AFD. Thanks, all, for the assistance! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no policy I'm aware of that allows ArbCom to delete a long-standing article about a notable subject at the subject's request. This article has existed since 2010, meaning it has most likely been mirrored countless times, so no deletion could ever address any vague security concerns the subject might have, especially if the subject is a journalist and blogger who has extensively used their name in all kinds of publications. For subjects of marginal notability, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/WP:BIODEL already gives us guidance on how an AFD can be closed but even that policy presupposes that a deletion discussion takes place. Regards So  Why  08:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to SoWhy's assessment of the real life implications, to put it baldly, if the article subject is in danger is because he advocates from of the press in a country which has seen 47 journalists killed there in the last three years; not because they have a Wikipedia article. None of this, of course,  and for the record, impugnes their personal courage or strength of character: they are  truly in the caldron of freedom and an example to most of us in the "civilized" west.   serial   # 09:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAICT from the article, the subject doesn't live in Afghanistan. While they have mentioned their own safety, they've also mentioned the safety of their family back home, which also supports the view they don't live in Afghanistan. IMO we're underestimating how much of an influence we actually have in providing a simple means for people to find out basic details about people which they obviously could with more work otherwise but which often wasn't going to happen. (Or maybe people are just overestimating how much work many nutters put into deciding whether or who to harm.) As an example of our influence, I seem to recall a case where some immigration official read details of a Wikipedia article to someone they were planning to deny entry although couldn't find mention of it from a quick search. That said, since I think it's clear there's little chance of getting consensus for any deletion I won't be discussing this further since bringing attention to it will just make things worse. (I mean in the case of Kidnapping of David Rohde, the primary reason we were able to keep the details out was because most sources did the same.) In truth, if this article in part contributes to the death or assault or other human on human harm of someone, I doubt it will be the first time or the last anyway. A big part of the problem is that even if we were to deal differently with cases like this, we're not going to be able to deal with all the case people don't think about until it happens. That's the scary truth about our size and reach. The good or bad news depending on your PoV is that most of the time, probably including this, even if the Wikipedia article is a contributor to something bad that happens there's a good chance we will never know about it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I know the article is pretty much a lock, but Ser Amantio asked a question and I answered :-) Primefac (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd be opposed to deleting this article about an obviously notable person, and cannot see how it being on Wikipedia is a security concern, given their history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We've had this situation before - Sally Boazman and Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) spring to mind. Subjects of articles do not get to dictate to Wikipedia whether or not they have an article. If they meet WP:GNG and someone writes an article that complies with WP:BLP, and is accurate, we have the article. Mjroots (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no they don't - but in marginal cases we defer to them. Because anything else would be evil. Guy (help!) 07:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * et al.: I tend to agree. I tend to defer to the article subject's wishes in as many cases as possible. For what it's worth, ArbCom said no, so I will be opening an AFD later today on the subject. That being said, thanks, all, for the input - I was sure there was a procedure here, and I was equally sure that I'd overlook something if I went hunting for it myself. Which is usually the case for me, alas. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , for future reference, the policy you're looking for is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I've also invoked WP:BLPPRIVACY once or twice, usually when the subject says "please don't list my date of birth, it's not public information" at which point I've scrubbed the date and just given the year. creffett (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I'll mark it for future use - it comes up now and again, I find, though I don't encounter it often at all. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Noting for the record that the AFD has been started. Please see Articles for deletion/Nasim Fekrat. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Jpk0721
has been involved in an edit war at Funhouse (The Sopranos), and although his edits are not a direct violation of WP:3RR as they have been just outside of the 24 hour period, he has reverted two editors five times over the past three days, and has also been warned about edit warring by another user at his talk page, but continues to do so despite MOS:TVPLOT and WP:BRD. I think administrator action is needed here. Thanks for the input. Regards, <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 21:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to respond here because I don't know any other way, being a relatively light user, and this experienced user is clearly trying to push me around. This war was started by someone reverting an edit I made in good faith and spent a lot of time on. There was no reason at all other than the changes were "unnecessary". Who decides that? I thought pages were not supposed to have "owners"? And now Vaseline goes to admin? For what? Does Wikipedia want good faith efforts to improve these pages or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpk0721 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the changes are unnecessary is besides the point when we’re at the point we’re at now. After your same edits were reverted five times by more than one user that’s when you go to the talk page to express your thoughts as to why it should be included per WP:BRD as the status quo should remain until that is done. However, you continue to ignore this policy so this is what I have to resort to. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 21:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether the changes were unnecessary is the *entire* point. My changes should never have been reverted in the first place without even the slightest reason given - let alone an ample one. The first user was anonymous, and they disappeared. And just look at "this is what I have to resort to" - who are you? Page owner? An admin? If you want to discourage someone from ever contributing to another Wiki page again, you are doing a great job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpk0721 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry you see it that way, but you can't just keep edit warring and reverting to your non-status quo version a half dozen times within a short period of time when several editors have raised concern to those edits with no repercussions, period. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 22:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jpk0721: Even though it is not a policy, please review WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You made a bold good-faith edit in the hopes of improving the article. Other editors have made good-faith reverts of your edits, claiming they do not improve the article. We're now at the phase where there needs to be discussion at the article's talk page (Talk:Funhouse (The Sopranos)) to determine what changes, if any, should be made to the page. I encourage you to make the case for your changes there. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations. That is the last time I *ever* spend even one minute trying to improve Wikipedia. Your so-called "rules" were broken from the very start when these users reverted my changes with NO explanation whatsoever. I'm done here, for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpk0721 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jpk0721: They did provide explanations. But if you'd rather walk away than enter into productive discussion, your choice. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Best way to handle duplicate draft articles
Hey all, need some help dealing with this:


 * Draft:Gouri G Kishan (no period after the initial G) existed in live space in 2018, but was converted to redirect, then moved to draft space. It has a number of edits made by TamilMirchi in April 2020 onward, including a copy/paste move.
 * Draft:Gouri G. Kishan (period after the initial G) existed in live space in 2019, but was moved to draft space after an AfD. TamilMirchi subsequently also edited the article, then moved it back to live space, then converted it to a redirect. In that time he also copied a version of the article and pasted it into the incorrectly named draft listed above, and I guess started editing that draft again.

What's the best way to deal with this? Delete Draft:Gouri G. Kishan as duplicate? Is there a way to neatly merge TamilMirchi's edits to the correctly-named draft? Might I trouble someone to assist if it's tech-y? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, TamilMirchi here. Prefer to have the article name as Gouri G Kishan (with the period) since that is how she is refered to by the media. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I usually just redirect one of the duplicate drafts to the other one (whichever is more recent or, if they're the same, whichever has a better name). I don't think actual deletion is usually necessary, and usually history merges are also not necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With parallel histories, history merging may not be a good idea, but if any copyright eligible content from the one "discarded" is copied/merged to the one that becomes the primary article, then you need to make sure this is acknowledged somewhere to comply with the licence terms or a WP:COPYVIO arises. (I think possibly since TamilMirchi is in both edit histories, you don't have to worry about any content copyrighted by them, but I'm not sure so check with an expert.) We should not disregard our contributions copyrights anymore than we do other people. See WP:Copying within wikipedia for recommendations how to handle. Definitely deletion is not acceptable if this applies unless you are copying the contributor somewhere. You need to preserve both pages somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

TamilMirchi
Keep an eye on. In two months of editing, they're on pace to performing over 70,000 edits in their first year, and are generating new drafts and articles at an extraordinary rate. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever does that mean, "keep an eye on"? Are you suggesting inappropriate behavior? Or are you calling favorable attention to a busy and productive editor? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 03:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, TamilMirchi here. Just wanted to tell you that I am using this account for a legitimate use called clean start under a new name. My previous account, DragoMynaa, was used up and until March 1 when I changed the password (by typing random keys on the keyboard) to prevent myself from my Wikipedia addiction. I tried several times to recover the password to no avail. I thought I would never use Wikipedia again. I never used the old account again since I couldn't access it. Starting fresh, I used this new account from March 11 onwards. I never used two accounts at one time, so it is not sockpuppetry. Sorry for the confusion. If need be, my old account can be indicated on my user page. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything weird about TamilMirchi's contributions to Wikipedia and TamilMirchi has admitted the fact that he used previous username u|DragoMynaa but has forgotten the password of his previous account. So it is not strange and can't be considered as sockpuppetry. I have reviewed most of his articles under the new username TamilMirchi which he created as a part of WikiProject India/The 10,000 Challenge. There are several editors who generate huge number of edits in quick time but it is not the criteria to make allegations about the behaviour of editors. Nowadays usually editors keep on editing Wikipedia continuously amid the pandemic and it is not strange though. Abishe (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you meant . You're currently linking to the article on u (the letter of the alphabet) under DragoMynaa's user name. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

correction of birth date for Peter Edwin Bocage's wikipedia page
I tried three times to add a birth certificate I purchased from the Louisiana State Archives for Peter Edwin Bocage but it failed. Please DO NOT USE MY NAME IN PUBLIC. I can email the birth certificate to you so you can correct Peter Edwin Bocage's birth date in Wikipedia. Thank you. cmbocage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmbocage (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed the birthdate on Peter Bocage to match the allmusic reference already used in the article. We rely on secondary sources for our articles, what you are engaging in is original research, which is not permitted here. Iffy★Chat -- 09:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this the right thing to do? Allmusic is listed at WP:RSPS as "some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available". I think birth certificates are more useable than Allmusic for a straightforward fact like a birthdate. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 11:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous birthdate was unsourced (both references agree on the year of birth) so changing it is better than doing nothing. The problem with using birth certificates like this is as per WP:PRIMARYCARE, it's impossible to be sure that the certificate is for the notable person and not just someone with the same name. Iffy★Chat -- 11:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the secondary source is not considered reliable then it would be better for us to simply remove the birth date from the article. It adds very little to our understanding of the topic anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added some sources and left some comments on the article talk page Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Interaction ban removal
In the spirit and season of removing black marks for which one of the 2 participants has departed Wikipedia, I ask that the interaction ban between myself and the above noted user imposed at (specifically the "Not a good unblock" section) and in light of  the other user having been banned for Socking be modififed. Specifically The Interaction ban between Hasteur and Technical 13 is rescinded. Should Technical 13 return to an editor in good standing and resume disruptive interactions with Hasteur, this previous history shall be considered in further sanctions deliberations. This has been an iBan for over 5 years in addition to a ArbCom case and a sockpuppet investigation. I acknowledge that when discussing and advocating for Draft namespace and CSD:G13 I become heated and do not always represent the ideals of Wikipedia, however I would present as an analogy the Featured Article editors/creators defensiveness of their work. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (Enjoy the flood) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the same rationale expressed above regarding Godsy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC) OK, I'm convinced they're not equivalent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support T13 was a very big PITA who was able to get under people's skin. The final issue seems to be this 2015 bot report where T13 and Hasteur got into an edit war over Hasteur's unwise attempt to close the section (example). This is fundamentally different from the Godsy/Legacypac feud. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, for all intent and purposes, the sanction is meaningless now. I do not see T13 asking to come back, and if they did, I do not see support for unblocking them given the extent of the betrayal.  I've known Hasteur for many, many years, including back when I was refereeing in the old MMA wars (2012, where he was very helpful under some extremely contentious circumstances), and trust that even if T13 came back, enough time has passed that it wouldn't be a problem.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – It's no longer needed because it's no longer preventing anything, and apparently hasn't been for five years. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 04:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I invite you to refer back to the imposition of Interaction Ban as that is what the operative subject "5 years" is describing. January 2015 to May 2020 is 5 years. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant "hasn't been needed for five years". Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 06:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - the present iban serves no legitimate purpose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, per what everyone else says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with Technical13 being gone for nearly 5 years and nothing highlighted so far to indicate Hasteur interacting with Technical13 will be a continued problem, I don't see any purpose for keeping the iban any more. Further since any unblock will definitely require arbcom and/or community approval, it's easier to consider if it will be needed if we come to that, although I can't imagine reasons why it would be. Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Indeed this is no longer needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, support per everyone above. Difficult to see T13 returning; if it does happen, as Hasteur indicates, it's very possible to remember & take into consideration past history; happy days, LindsayHello 09:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Review of a page-specific general sanction
The article Coronavirus disease 2019 is subject to the community-imposed General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019.

I recently checked through the sourcing and found examples of content sourced to preprints. The applicable sourcing guideline WP:MEDRS clearly states "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge". The preprints at https://www.medrxiv.org/ carry this warning: I maintain that they don't even meet our criteria for reliable sourcing, let alone the higher standard of MEDRS.

However, when I attempted to remove one of the preprints, it was immediately reinserted by another editor. The article has developed a culture of using news media and unreliable sources for medical content in an attempt to keep up with breaking news. That has lead to poorly-sourced, unreliable information being inserted into our article, despite it being under general sanctions.

On 11 May, I decided that the article needed a specific general sanction prohibiting editors from adding preprints as sources for content, so I on the talk page and received support from admins  and, with  confirming the decision several days later. Consequently on 12 May, I followed the requirements to add an edit notice and talk page notice notifying editors of the prohibition, and I logged it at WP:GS/COVID19.

There was vocal opposition from a handful of editors very active on the article, each of whom criticised me for insisting on applying MEDRS. This is not a content dispute; it is a simple application of a project-wide sourcing standard.

I have not had to sanction any editor for breaching the prohibition, but when I warned that if they were "going to deliberately breach MEDRS at the COVID-19 article, then I will topic ban you again from the area to prevent disruption", they decided to raise a case at WP:ANI  questioning whether I could, and accusing me of being WP:INVOLVED. I have indeed made numerous "minor or obvious edits" to the article, but in all good faith, I do not believe that they show any CoI or bias beyond my desire to maintain sourcing standards.

Therefore I'd like independent admins to review (1) the specific restriction "Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article" and (2) rule on whether my edits to the article rise to the level of being involved as defined at Administrators, which I have always taken to apply to admins involved in content disputes, not to admins attempting to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks for any insights. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I condone both the GS application and the warning issued to the editor. The specific restriction is simply an application of already existing policy. Your introduction of the restriction and your edits on the page do not make you WP:INVOLVED. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." None of that applies to this situation.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I endorse Rexx's restriction. However, Rexx has clearly weighed in, in my view, on the editorial content of the article - the RfC alone is enough for me so we don't need to debate whether his reverts qualify under the exception and is thus clearly and unambiguously INVOLVED in this article. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into RexxS's involvement but, that aside, may I suggest that the GS be modified to "Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article without first establishing clear consensus for inclusion on the talkpage". The point being that there may be (hypothetical) circumstances under which an important result is released as a pre-print/self-published given the urgency of its findings, be widely discussed by various health-authorities, influence actual policy and medical practice etc, and yet be uncitable on wikipedia due to a blanket ban that prevents considered discussion of the particulars. Lets leave room for the exceptions like the Imperial College reports, which are (afaik) self-published, not independently peer-reviewed etc but are (correctly IMO) cited in wikipedia articles. Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not averse to amendments of the specific restriction, but I'm not convinced that it's necessary. Surely we would want to cite the conclusions of the various health-authorities as secondary sources (per MEDRS), rather than the primary source, especially in its preprint form? --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The restriction is reasonable and so is Abecedare's suggestion. But admins should not be admin-ning a page they are involved editorially, and I agree with Barkeep49 that you are involved with respect to the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the restrictions are fine for the page. I also think your contributions to the article and discussions on the talk page have also made you involved. PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No concerns with Abecedare's addition. There could be a one off were the preprint would be reasonable in addition to other sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I support the restriction imposed by RexxS and the modification proposed by Abecedare. I see nothing here that would suggest to me that RexxS is too involved editorially with the article to act in an administrative capacity with respect to it.  Sandstein   06:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully support the enforcing, by general sanctions, of WP:MEDRS on Covid-19 related articles, and the additional clarification that preprints are not MEDRS sources - they're not even WP:RS sources. SarahSV said it perfectly at ANI: "WP:MEDRS has strong consensus, probably the strongest of our guidelines. It means that Wikipedia can't be an early reporter of new medical information, which is frustrating, but it's how we've chosen to approach getting things right in the longer term." I do not support Abecedare's proposed modification, for the very reason RexxS cites in response (though I wouldn't necessarily oppose it if there were other examples of where we might want to propose that relaxation). RexxS is not in violation of WP:INVOLVED, as he has only been involved in this in an adminstrative capacity, not an editorial capacity. I support the warning RexxS gave to an editor for repeatedly challenging our MEDRS requirements (and RS requirements), which was reasonable and measured - you know who I mean, but I won't name them here as they appear to have courtesy vanished. If anyone wants to violate MEDRS and doesn't want RexxS to block sanction them, just drop me a line and I'll be happy to do it instead. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as an additional comment, if anyone sees anything related to the General Sanctions over MEDRS in any Covid-19 pages and want an admin to look over it, please feel free to ping me and I'll be happy take a look. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the restriction, which amounts to stricter enforcement of existing guidelines, and it makes sense to do that on a high visibility page on an important topic. I do think that RexxS's edits have made them involved though, RexxS has made 53 edits to the article and 102 to the talk page, and most of these have nothing to do with admin actions.  Hut 8.5  12:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Two things. Any number of edits to an article and/or its talk page, whether related to admin actions or not, do not automatically make an admin WP:INVOLVED in relation to the article in general - only potentially to those specific edits. WP:INVOLVED is often misunderstood, but it *does not* mean "Any admin who has made more than a certain number of edits to a page must not act in an admin capacity on that page". Secondly, for a breach of WP:INVOLVED, we'd need to see editorial disagreement about content with an editor against whom RexxS might then be proposing taking admin action, not merely upholding policy (and such upholding does not need to be actual admin actions). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Like RexxS threatening to sanctions someone after they had content disputes with them? Also it is generally understood community consensus that when an administrator is extensively active on a page outside an administrative capacity, such as here, that they are considered involved and should not be taking administrative actions against someone they are in a content dispute with. You have to remember Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute which has easily been meet here. Given the reverts and disagreements on the talk page over content. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing any editorial conflicts or conflicts outside of the simple enforcement of WP:MEDRS. But it shouldn't be a problem, as there are plenty more admins who can take GS actions when needed - at least one positive outcome of the ongoing pushback against the enforcement of MEDRS is that more admins will be aware of it now and will hopefully be watching. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, lots of admins watch that page and that is a good thing. It means when one is involved like RexxS they don't need to threaten to inappropriately use their admin bits. I disagree with the not seeing conflicts, there was him reverting them and the talk page disagreements. PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Boing, I don't think it's quite as clean as you're describing here ("merely upholding policy" isn't a great standard because administrators have a wide range of opinions of what upholding policy is and the community should desire that diversity of thought). But you've given me a lot to think about as your overall point resonates with me to some degree so thanks for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that thought too. I think part of the problem is that RexxS has been pretty much single-handedly struggling to maintain compliance with MEDRS without much help from other admins (and I mean no disrespect to the many editors doing a great job of MEDRS, just that there's been a lack of admin support). So, I think we're coming to the best way to approach this, which is to get more admins prepared to help. (And, of course, to get the discussion more open, as we are doing here.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mere numbers of edits don't make an admin involved, no, but those edits show a lot of back-and-forth between RexxS and other editors about issues like sourcing, which is usually understood as a content matter. These are fairly characterised as content disputes about sourcing, so I think RexxS is on somewhat shaky ground in using admin tools to create a sanction relating to sourcing on that page. Being right doesn't make an admin uninvolved.  Hut 8.5  17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry,, but issues of editors deliberately breaching sourcing standards like MEDRS, despite being aware of them, are behavioural issues, not content ones, even more obviously so on a page under general sanctions. I'm simply not prepared to accept that warning editors about those breaches can reasonably be construed as making an admin involved, and I hope you're prepared to accept that you're on even shakier ground suggesting otherwise. We are experiencing a net loss of admins at a steady rate, and those prepared to insist on maintaining the quality of our articles are being spread ever thinner. Lowering the bar on being "involved" to include explaining our sourcing standards on article talk pages is not going to improve the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is saying a warning makes you involved. Extensive involvement in the content side of an article makes you involved. It is not lowering the bar, that is where the bar has always been. PackMecEng (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There you have it in a nutshell. That's just the usual misunderstanding of WP:INVOLVED which is designed to prevent administrators using their tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. It was never the purpose of INVOLVED to hamstring an administrator who takes an interest in an article from upholding PAG. The act of editing an article does not create involvement, either. No amount – extensive or otherwise –  of minor or obvious edits which do not show bias creates involvement, and fortunately the policy spells that out clearly. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah but you are wrong though. That is not how the policy is written or how the community generally interprets it. If you want to change policy I suggest you start a RFC on the subject. This is starting to get into WP:DEADHORSE territory at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull the other leg; you're just gaslighting now, as anybody who reads the policy can see. Fortunately, your misunderstanding of the policy caries no weight unless you manage to get it changed so that it no longer says "an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity". End of story. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:INVOLVED Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Which is what you have here. You claim minor and obvious edits which is just not the case by any reasonable measure. Even on ANI there were what 5 or 6 people all saying yup you are involved. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Doubling down on this is not a good look. But hey, you already agreed not to take admin action on that page so I guess it is rather a mute point huh? PackMecEng (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you're getting it. I have no problem in accepting that others can reasonably consider !voting in an RfC or reverting sufficient to make me involved, and I've said so. What I'm not prepared to accept is the proposition that any admin who is part of "back-and-forth ... about issues like sourcing" is involved because of that. If an admin explains how a particular source fails to meet MEDRS and another editor challenges it, that's not a content dispute, and there's no bar on the otherwise uninvolved admin taking administrative action with regard to that issue. Good grief, if your interpretation of exchanges on an article talk page were accurate, it would be impossible for an admin to caution or take any step less than sanctioning because any editor who argued about the caution would become immune to further admin action by that admin. Ridiculous. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous indeed! Good thing no one is making that argument. Ironic since you accused me, without evidence, of gaslighting just above. I think we are done here if that is the road you want to go down. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
I'd like to thank all of you who commented, and I appreciate the support and constructive advice. It seems pretty clear that the specific sanction could be usefully amended to 's suggestion, and I have no objection to any other admin making the change. I won't do that myself because I can see too many opinions considering me involved on the page. It's difficult to judge how one's own actions are perceived by others. For example, I saw edits like pointing out that I couldn't read the text in an image (my !vote at the RfC) as an obvious accessibility concern, not a content dispute, but I accept that others can reasonably hold the opposite view. Nevertheless, I don't think it is productive for me to attempt to act as an uninvolved admin at the article, and so I'll refrain from taking an administrative action there. Hopefully, it will be sufficient in future to refer any breaches of MEDRS (or threats to do so) to a clearly uninvolved admin, or to this noticeboard for action. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal.
Rather than amending the sanctions notice itself, which has consensus and some precedent from ArbCom, I propose instead to add a section as follows:

Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.
 * Application notes

Editors are reminded that onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page.


 * Proposed. Guy (help!) 18:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So this is consensus required for MEDRS topics? PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS applies to medical content anywhere on Wikipedia, not just on particular topics. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. That is not the question being asked though. When Guy says Editors are reminded that onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page. Which sounds like the AP2 consensus required sanctions. I was asking for clarification if that is what they are proposing. Understand now? PackMecEng (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I still don't. The wording of the proposal seems utterly clear to me. Could you explain clearly what you're asking? --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps let Guy answer then. PackMecEng (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bite your hand off" support: thank you, Guy. I think that would be incredibly useful. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Question - I think this is a good idea, but I do have a specific question regarding preprints. Many decisions that were and are being made regarding how to deal with the pandemic have been based to some degree on preprints.  I'm thinking here specifically of the early French study regardiing hydroxychloroquine, but there have been other instances.  Can these preprints be linked to in the context of the political and social decisions being made based on them, or is it best to refer to them without linkage? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to write "President X recommended use of Y based a preprint", you can. If you want to use a preprint or any other study to support content making a biomedical claim, you can't. This and this (or this) are "French studies", which come to different conclusions, and none of them is suitable for use in our article. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, that's clear, link to the RS which reports that a decision was based on a preprint, but don't link the preprint. (Incidentally, I'm not defending any of those decisions.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well done! This must be the day for me and JzG to be on the same wavelength. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Makes sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia is not the place for bleeding-edge reports of what might be. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. That stuff belongs on Bleedingedgeopedia.com. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep, big Support from me. And thanks Guy, it's great to have more admin help with this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Seems totally reasonable and will actually fix the problem at hand.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I was involved very early on with the first few Covid19 pages (I think there were only 2 or 3 then and no country outbreak pages) EG > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome__2/Archive_1 . I requested back then that an administrator with a science/medicine/bioscience background be tasked to monitor the overall space. While I would have supported Bioxriv/Medxriv type "fast science" up to around March I think an administrator is well within reason cracking down hard on that practice now. Reputable journals like the Lancet and the NEJM have greatly accelerated peer review/publishing for Covid19 now. My thanks to @RexxS to their stepping into a very onerous role at this time and indeed to any other administrator who chooses to help them given the velocity of change in this article set. Wikimucker (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Persistent edit-warring. No action being taken at WP:ANEW
has been persistently edit-warring at Schooled (TV series) over the past several days. A report was opened at WP:ANEW (see here) 3 days ago but, despite the edit-warring being very clear, no action has been taken on the report and DJTonyPrep continues to edit-war there. I stepped in as an uninvolved editor and posted to his talk page, but the response was not positive, with the editor saying that he didn't care and was going to continue the edit-war. after I explained edit-warring he told me to "BACK OFF!" If there is an admin who would care to look at the ANEW report it would be greatly appreciated. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And I have repeated asked that my edits not be undone, and I am not harassed by other editors. Those requests have been ignored, and now multiple people are starting editing wars with me. I am following Wikipedia's guidelines, and I will continue to do so. I do not care to hear what other editors think of what I'm posting. This is a self-policed site. No one gets paid to contribute to Wikipedia. Therefore I am under no obligation to heed any warnings from anyone, especially when they are violating the same rules they claim they are following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJTonyPrep (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Blocked, 72 hours. The above demonstrates unwillingness to edit collaboratively. As I noted at WP:ANEW, "The editor's conduct shows flagrant disregard of WP policies, guidelines, and norms." I have taken action to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Please merge the edit histories of two pages
I forget if we have a specific forum to request it (well, it's English Wikipedia, I am sure we do). But anyway: Maria Beatrix Krasińska and Marya Krasińska. Content merged by User:Aciram following a discussion, but I think the article history should be merged to, particularly as the old article is from 2004, and has more contributors. TIA. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Requests for history merge is probably the right place DannyS712 (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone has redirected the page, which is all that can be done here (per WP:Parallel histories). --Izno (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Izno, though personally I think a histmerge template is a lot easier than going through the hassle of filing at WP:REPAIR. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Blacking out Wikipedia in Support of Black Lives Matter
(I know this probably should go somewhere else but this probably gets the most eyeballs the fastest)

We should black out the site in support of Black Lives Matter. We've done it before. We can do it again. It simply requires moral courage to do the right thing.--Jorm (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We are a force for good. We should do good things. We have, at our disposal, the largest information platform in the world. We should use it.

There is an idea that we are "neutral." We are not. The simple idea of "free knowledge" is, in and of itself, the most radically progressive idea that has ever existed in the minds of humankind. We are not neutral. We will never be. We are always, forever, a force of progress and progress is only ever ''good'.

We should act like it. We should do good things.

I am not the smartest person in the world so I don't have all the ideas. We can black out the site in solidarity with the lives lost over time to police brutality. We can use our vast money collection engine to pay bail or medical expenses for those injured by the police state. We can use our money to buy legal advice. We can provide direct, powerful fact-checking for free to millions of people.

Let's do some good.
 * --Jorm (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think WP:VPP might be a better place to request/discuss this.
 * (i'll copy this there in a second)


 * Support. -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 06:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support something like this. Schierbecker (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Note Could we have an uninvolved admin check over there and assess whether there is a case for a WP:SNOW close? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't need an uninvolved. It's snowed. It can close. It's fine; I won't bark.--Jorm (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Amazon corporate blocks (including 205.251.232.0/22's block)


Hello, it seems that 205.251.232.0/22 isn't actually an AWS range, "merely" owned by Amazon. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-ip-ranges.html#filter-json-file for further details. Could you please have a look? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's some unusual WHOIS records in that range, and some other things that say to me that at least some of it is part of their corporate network. Some of the later edits also look a bit specialized. Unless anyone has some contrary views I'm happy to unblock it - we have the /20 blocked so I'll take a chance on unblocking that. You know it's also globally blocked, right? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment . I'm aware of the global block, I just wanted to wait with removing the global one, in case some enwiki admin sees something I didn't :). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I figure it'll probably be best to convert it to a local soft block rather than unblocking, to help deter someone just hard blocking it again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI: I've just removed the global portion. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it's better to convert this to a soft block? I don't understand that part. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll admit it's not ideal, but there are two scenarios a soft block avoids. First, a lot of Amazon blocking is done by bot, from the IP file, and the bots will (or should) exclude any ranges already blocked. Second, if there's anon editing then someone someday will look up the WHOIS, see Amazon, and just hard block it again. A soft block allowing account creation is not a great burden for the end user, and I'm sure they will understand without feeling offended or put upon. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the one who brought this block up with.
 * It seems to me that blocking Amazon by bot, or based on a single glance at the WHOIS, is problematic. Some of Amazon's published IP ranges are used for the public-facing IP addresses of EC2, which provisions virtual machines that can run arbitrary applications, such as sending arbitrary Internet traffic. However, other Amazon IP ranges are not used for this purpose; the documentation of the public IP ranges go to some length to clarify the distinction. The services that run from other Amazon IP ranges are things like databases, storage, logging, etc., and simply don't allow running arbitrary code.
 * Other large cloud providers also provide detailed information on their IP address ranges (e.g. Microsoft Azure IP ranges, Google Compute Platform IP ranges and a script to enumerate them easily). Amazon appears to control about 1.4% of the total (!) IPv4 address space, if I did my calculations correctly based on the published ranges, and I would guess that including cloud infrastructure from other large companies increases this total several-fold.
 * In my opinion, the description put on these blocks ("open proxy") is confusing and probably exacerbates the lack of feedback from users about IP ranges that have been erroneously blocks. It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a block message that says something like, "Your current IP address has been identified as belonging to public cloud computing environment XYZ."
 * Also, it appears that English Wikipedia (at least) doesn't have a clear policy on whether or not it's reasonable to impose IP blocks on IP ranges belong to public cloud computing platforms; it seems to me that they fall under the general category of shared IP addresses, but this is pretty vague. While there is obviously potential for abuse of these services, because they allow users to provision IP addresses that are not easily associated with their "normal" home networks, there are also many legitimate reasons to use them, or even why particular users can't escape them. (A lot of corporate networks and VPNs' egress points go through such clouds.)
 * If there's a more appropriate forum to discuss the general issue of how public cloud IPs should be treated on Wikimedia sites, please do let me know. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 22:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this up. For the record, I do deal a lot with IP addresses and open proxies, and situations like this, but I do not get involved with the mass blocking of these ranges - when I do I do it as conservatively as possible. Having had some memorable experiences with Leaseweb and SoftLayer a long time ago, I fully recognise the various useful (and often restricted) apps that can use these services, and I try and impart this message at every opportunity. Unfortunately, the main users involved in blocking these ranges are not currently very active, but I'll be sure to point this out to them at the next opportunity. Although having said that, who on earth is going to be editing from databases, storage, or logging servers?
 * The blocking of AWS generally falls under the 'anonymising proxy' policy, which is fairly liberal on this wiki, when you look closely. I do happen to know the latest round of blocking was kicked off by some rampant vandalism hopping all over the AWS ranges, and we had no choice but to step on it. It wasn't the first time either.
 * I would be in favour of both a better template for the blocking reason, and an informative page about data centres including clouds and compute hosts (or these providers generally). We could also provide specific information about collateral risks. We don't currently have that. It might take a little momentum to kick it off, probably starting with an essay and some discussion at the village pump, with notifications for the blocking policy and the open proxy policy pages. These discussions can get easily derailed by people wanting full editing from open proxies and such, but a focused discussion might be of use. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the best way would be just to do some editing to the template with a brief information page. I know I have a significantly more liberal view on mass blocks than you do, but I don't really think policy-wise much should/needs to change. We allow for mass blocks of ranges and since and  started doing this systematically locally (as well as  globally), we've seen a real decrease in certain types of abuse, particularly when it comes to spam sock farms and POV-pushers trying to evade CU... it's just much harder now than it was 5 or even 1 year ago. I think linking to a page explaining this to people might be a good idea, but getting a wiki-wide effort going to rework a policy that has achieved very good practical results precisely because of how broad it is would not be something I think would benefit us. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the ping.
 * It has happened once or twice that I've seen where Amazon retires a range. I've unblocked a few of these over the years, and prior to my break, I was watching for them.
 * However, that is not the case here.
 * This range appears directly in https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json.
 * "ip_prefix": "205.251.232.0/22",
 * "region": "us-west-2",
 * "service": "AMAZON",
 * "network_border_group": "us-west-2"
 * },
 * This is an amazon AWS range, per amazon Amazon Web Services (AWS) publishes its current IP address ranges in JSON format. To view the current ranges, download the .json file. To maintain history, save successive versions of the .json file on your system. To determine whether there have been changes since the last time that you saved the file, check the publication time in the current file and compare it to the publication time in the last file that you saved.. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the other range appears here:
 * "ip_prefix": "205.251.224.0/22",
 * "region": "us-east-1",
 * "service": "AMAZON",
 * "network_border_group": "us-east-1"
 * }, SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * as I wrote above linking to the same source, these are not Amazon EC2 ranges. That document goes to some length to clarify the difference between EC2 ranges and non-EC2 ranges. The bottom line is that the non-EC2 ranges don't contain virtual machines where the public can run arbitrary code. This one here happens to host [some] the Internet-facing egress servers for Amazon's internal corporate network. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know how to clarify beyond Amazon's own words. Amazon Web Services (AWS) publishes its current IP address ranges in JSON format. To view the current ranges, download the .json file.. It sucks if they choose to mix in corporate ranges, but it seems from that quote that these are AWS ranges. Affected people can request IPBE - I know this because I've granted it many times for this very reason. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sucks for Wikimedia (and for Amazon employees trying to edit Wikipedia) that AWS ranges are mixed in with corporate ranges; Amazon (and Microsoft Azure) are known for dogfooding so it's probably not too surprising that some of their corporate services run from IP ranges that are associated with their public cloud services. To also quote Amazon's own words, To allow an instance to access only AWS services, create a security group with rules that allow outbound traffic to the CIDR blocks in the AMAZON list, minus the CIDR blocks that are also in the EC2 list. IP addresses in the EC2 list can be assigned to EC2 instances (emphasis mine).
 * What this is saying is that only the IP ranges described as EC2 can be used to provision arbitrary public virtual machines. The others are not used for this purpose, and it does not make sense to block them, at least not on the grounds that a member of the public could use them to cheaply get a new IP address. (The document could be much more explicit and clear about this.) —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 00:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "who on earth is going to be editing from databases, storage, or logging servers?" Hah, true! Presumably no one. I was just listing those as examples of things that shouldn't be blocked. The reason that this block came up is because it was also including [some of] the Internet-facing egress servers for Amazon's internal corporate network. Obviously there are cases where blocks are warranted due to sustained abuse or PoV editing, but I believe that in general you try to avoiding blocking networks just because they're associated with the employees of particular organizations, even large and powerful ones.
 * A lot of users connect from networks which do render their traffic effectively anonymous (IPv4 NATs with too many hosts behind them, institutional network egress points) even though anonymity is not the users' intention. I will try to kick something off over on the Village Pump. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 23:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have always been very accommodating to employees of these server firms using the corporate parts of their network. I'd also agree that part of this network is their corporate network. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Based on...? Direct ARIN whois doesn't mention anything along those lines. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just adjust that link a little. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know how to clarify beyond Amazon's own words. Amazon Web Services (AWS) publishes its current IP address ranges in JSON format. To view the current ranges, download the .json file.. It sucks if they choose to mix in corporate ranges, but it seems from that quote that these are AWS ranges. Affected people can request IPBE - I know this because I've granted it many times for this very reason. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sucks for Wikimedia (and for Amazon employees trying to edit Wikipedia) that AWS ranges are mixed in with corporate ranges; Amazon (and Microsoft Azure) are known for dogfooding so it's probably not too surprising that some of their corporate services run from IP ranges that are associated with their public cloud services. To also quote Amazon's own words, To allow an instance to access only AWS services, create a security group with rules that allow outbound traffic to the CIDR blocks in the AMAZON list, minus the CIDR blocks that are also in the EC2 list. IP addresses in the EC2 list can be assigned to EC2 instances (emphasis mine).
 * What this is saying is that only the IP ranges described as EC2 can be used to provision arbitrary public virtual machines. The others are not used for this purpose, and it does not make sense to block them, at least not on the grounds that a member of the public could use them to cheaply get a new IP address. (The document could be much more explicit and clear about this.) —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 00:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "who on earth is going to be editing from databases, storage, or logging servers?" Hah, true! Presumably no one. I was just listing those as examples of things that shouldn't be blocked. The reason that this block came up is because it was also including [some of] the Internet-facing egress servers for Amazon's internal corporate network. Obviously there are cases where blocks are warranted due to sustained abuse or PoV editing, but I believe that in general you try to avoiding blocking networks just because they're associated with the employees of particular organizations, even large and powerful ones.
 * A lot of users connect from networks which do render their traffic effectively anonymous (IPv4 NATs with too many hosts behind them, institutional network egress points) even though anonymity is not the users' intention. I will try to kick something off over on the Village Pump. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 23:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have always been very accommodating to employees of these server firms using the corporate parts of their network. I'd also agree that part of this network is their corporate network. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Based on...? Direct ARIN whois doesn't mention anything along those lines. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just adjust that link a little. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

, there's another range which has also been erroneously hard-blocked for the same reason:. It's also apparently used for Amazon corporate network egress. As with the others listed here, this one is erroneously described as an “open proxy”, whereas it is in fact an AWS but not EC2 range from Amazon's docs (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-ip-ranges.html#filter-json-file).

Could you convert this one to a softblock as has been done for the other ranges discussed? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I’ll let look at this more, but based on the discussion above, I think IPBE for any user who is actually affected is the best way forward and that the hard blocks should likely remain in place. There have been zero actual complaints from real people using these ranges. I don’t think proactively unblocking AWS ranges that may theoretically be used by an amazon corporate employee makes any sense at all. If they’re having issues, we have a tool to make an exception for them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion above should make it clear that these are unambiguously not IP ranges which are available to the general public for running virtual machines that can send traffic to the public Internet. They are not open proxies by Wikipedia's lose definition.
 * I am an actual person actually affected by these ranges, and brought them to the attention of admins and stewards as mistaken based on Amazon's own published data. I know of others affected by them… I conjecture that one reason no one has complained is because the error messages are confusing and do not suggest that someone has made a mistake. Known-affected and motivated-to-do-something individuals aside…


 * Shouldn't Wiki(p|m)edia projects have a general policy of not hard-blocking IP ranges when there is no rational motivation to do so?
 * Shouldn't Wiki(p|m)edia projects have a general policy of removing blocks when a previous rational motivation is confirmed to be mistaken? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What was shown above was that part of this was the corporate range. I have given you IPBE to help deal with this. That was the simplest solution. This also impacts some people on Amtrak and Virgin trains, since both of those use AWS to provide in train internet. For the handful of people that impacts, we give IPBE. AWS is used as an anonymizing tool and typically falls within our understanding of what should be blocked. We’ve done an excellent job of hard blocking it in its entirety and that has greatly decreased disruption. For the extremely small minority of editors who get caught in inadvertent collateral, it is much easier to just give them IPBE. I’ve done that for you now. You shouldn’t have any more issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What was shown above was that part of this was the corporate range. Not quite right. What I've shown is that the entirety of the specific ranges named in this section (205.251.232.0/22, 205.251.224.0/20, and now 54.240.196.0/24) are categorically not available for provisioning EC2 virtual machines. There might well be some justification for blocking them, but "can be used as anonymizing proxies" is not a rational justification. "This IP is in an AWS range" is an insufficient condition for judging an IP to be available as an anonymizing proxy, and I'm trying to demonstrate that the additional information needed to make this determination is straightforwardly available.


 * We’ve done an excellent job of hard blocking it in its entirety and that has greatly decreased disruption Wiki(p|m)edia shouldn't be hard-blocking AWS in its entirety; while I have some qualms about hard-blocking EC2 in its entirety, that would at least be consistent with the "anonymizing proxy" justification.


 * I greatly appreciate you giving me the the IPBE, but I'm not really concerned about myself; I know how to split-tunnel and use a variety of other techniques to more-or-less-effortlessly ensure my traffic is not subject to such blocks. I'm much more concerned that Wikipedia is excluding a very large chunk of the IPv4 address space by overly-broad blocking of address ranges that are associated with large cloud providers, and thus quite likely catching many would-be editors as collateral damage.


 * The fact that these are hard blocks which cannot be avoided by creating an account using a less-suspicious IP and then logging in while using a more-suspicious IP makes this problem much worse. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 18:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone is impacted for a reason like yours, they are free to request IPBE and it will be granted quite liberally. Currently three total people including yourself have requested it that I’m aware of for similar reasons. Two for trains and one for you. There might be a handful of others, but I follow IPBE on these ranges fairly closely. It’s not having a vast impact.As a whole, AWS is very likely to continue to be blocked globally as well as locally as a hosting provider. These blocks have done a significant amount of good reducing abuse with extremely limited collateral. It is far easier and takes significantly less manpower to block all of it than to identify individual ranges that are used by Amazon corporate or for things like train wifi. It just makes more sense to block AWS and grant IPBE as needed, and you’re likely to see that trend continue both here and at the steward level. It’s a question of limited resources and preventing significant harm. There’s always going to be some collateral with any range block. The question is how we deal with it. There’s no indication we’re being overwhelmed with valid IPBE requests. That’s the easiest way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * While y'all are discussing things I don't understand, the vandalism goes on and on. This is the third one today, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting review of a case of hostile and combative editing
I am requesting a review of the behavior editor GPinkerton in the talk page of Gothic Architecture. I think he has been extremely aggressive and hostile in his commentary, while repeatedly undoing edits he doesn't approve. I hope someone might ask him to treat other editors little more calmly, to tone down his language, to be a little more respectful of other opinions, and to be more open to cooperation instead of confrontation. It might calm things down. I have notified him on his talk page that I am writing to this Notice Board. Thanks very much for your help. . SiefkinDR (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The only edits I have undone are the ones already opposed by myself and others on the talkpage, or those which manifestly contradict the reliable sources, and in both of these cases it is obviously impossible that consensus is in favour of SiefkinDR's edits, which mostly are geared towards adding acres of blank space to articles by shoehorning badly formatted galleries into every section and then shoehorning all other images into these galleries, regardless of their size, shape, or relative importance. I have also had to make a number of changes to avoid WP:UNDUE weight being given to SiefkinDR's favourite French mediaeval cathedrals. Others I have had to remove as undue weight given to Gothic architecture itself where such is not merited, as at Rib vault. I have many times explained why SiefkinDR's additions are not helpful in this respect, but they continue to blithely edit regardless, forcing their beloved "packed" galleries into every conceivable article. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this response by GPinkerton gives a good idea of how he communicates with me and other editors. See also his commentary on Rib vault. Could someone please just remind him that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a continual battle? Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban
I cordially request of Administrators here to lift the current topic ban against me in the ARBPIA area so that I might effectively contribute in that important area. A ban has been effective against me for one-year. The last appeal that I made was here, a little over six months ago. The history of my blocks in this area is one of rare occurence, while others with many more blocks than me have been allowed to edit in this area. I enjoy this topic area and I hope to contribute more fully for the betterment of our online encyclopedia, if given the opportunity to do so.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (non admin comment) I am going to suggest that you need to address the issues that brought the ban about in the first place. To quote from the close of your last appeal "...while requesting to lift the topic ban, to come up with specific suggestions what type of articles they would like to edit and how best to avoid the controversies in articles of this type, and what to do if other editors disagree with the edits." In my experience just waiting for time to pass without addressing the previous issues is usually a non-starter. This is just a suggestion on my part and you will get reactions from admins in due course. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MarnetteD. The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused two other editors in the ARBPIA area of having ulterior motives, when I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. This was clearly wrong of me to do, and I have since made strides to amend my behavior. I bear no ill feelings towards any co-editor here, even in cases where we might disagree on political issues. After all, our world is made-up of pluralistic views, and that's a good thing. The same editors that I disagreed with, I have also a long record of cordial relations with, here on Wikipedia. I'm simply asking for a second chance to prove my worthiness, and to expand articles (make corrections, etc.) in this field.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to post this . I don't know how things will go but this is a positive first step. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Link to the TBAN discussion. Note that this is actually Davidbena's second TBAN, which was enacted pretty shortly after he successfully petitioned for the lifting of the original one, and then resumed problematic behavior; two topic bans in the same area in less than two years is a lot of rope. Also, note that The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused two other editors in the ARBPIA area of having ulterior motives, when I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. is only a part of what drew the second TBAN. I hope that Davidbena will be more honest about their past behavior in this appeal. Reserving my vote until I see more acknowledgment of the problems on display as recently as that last appeal. Grandpallama (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, I had actually thought that two co-editors were stalking me because of their "opposite" political views. Does this help? As I said, I can get along with them. My edits in the ARBPIA have mostly been very constructive, as the record will show. If I have erred in judgment regarding these two editors, which I did, let us fix the problem with a reprimand and move-on, without hampering the ability to contribute effectively in the betterment of our important online encyclopedia. If you're counting the number of topic bans, both the editors with whom I contended have a greater number of topic bans in the same area than myself, and, yet, they are free to edit. I have no complaints about that, but hope that admins here will be impartial to my case. By the way, I will be unable to answer here for the next two days, as one of Israel's holidays is commencing this evening.Davidbena (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski
Should this type of edit not be striked out? , Seems somewhat vile of a post. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 17:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Govvy (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Death of George Floyd
I would like for an uninvolved admin to consider topic banning "All Lives Matter" editor User:Frozenranger. While they aren't responsible for starting a rather ridiculous thread on the talk page (see Talk:Death_of_George_Floyd--yes, there are seriously a few editors who want to whitewash the mentions of race out of that article, pace all reliable sources and common sense), they are responsible for a number of really insensitive forum posts, and for a condescending remark toward User:EvergreenFir. Another user, User:RandomCanadian, managed to remove the police officer's race from the article, twice, and posted a number of puzzling remarks on the talk page (essentially questioning/denying that race had been discussed as a relevant matter in the coverage by reliable sources), but they haven't lowered themselves to forumposting yet. I'm asking for another admin since I,, and EvergreenFir will likely be seen as involved. Please note that both Frozenranger and RandomCanadian were notified of AP2 and BLP discretionary sanctions; Frozenranger reverted that. Thank you. Oh, and please close that ridiculous conversation, since EvergreenFir's list of reliable sources should make sufficiently clear that those who want to erase race from the article (or the lead) have no leg to stand on. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither the article talk page nor the user in question had received a discretionary sanctions notice/alert. I have now done so. El_C 20:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - The user had indeed been notified: . They promptly removed it and minutes later removed the race of the officer from the article .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to have missed that in Drmies' opening. Anyway, actions are as follows: I have partially blocked the user from the mainspace article, but they may have one last chance in contributing to the article talk page (and other talk pages, including this noticeboard report), so long as they start adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines from now on. Failure to do so may result in a topic ban or other sanctions. I have also closed that article talk page discussion, see my closing summary at the top. El_C 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

REVDEL request
Can an admin please give a second opinion to this WP:REVDEL request and act (or not act) as appropriate? I don't do enough Revdeling to feel confident in acting on this. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely revdelete — serious BLP grounds. Anyway, I have now done so. El_C 05:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

LTA hoaxer
Do any of the old-timers remember who that fool was who kept inventing American wars? One of their socks was User talk:FrancoRussoGreco, and I just CU-blocked User talk:MinnesotaMapping. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at any of the CU data, but is it Sockpuppet investigations/Amarjeetpardeep? ST47 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, maybe it's his Indian cousin. No, this guy does American stuff, and it reminds me of someone from a few years ago, but I don't think I was directly involved in it, and I sure don't remember. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're thinking of the Upper Peninsula War. Style is similar, but that article was from 2007, and the creator doesn't seem to have any publicly documented socks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the war I was initially thinking of, thanks--but I'm pretty sure this is not related. What I saw, a few years ago maybe, was more recent. Drmies (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk page warning notice

 * Could someone take a look at a "talk page warning notice" discussion? --  Otr500 (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I set it to expire. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The bizarre thing is that I couldn't see any notice whatsoever instructing me to do or desist from anything. Where'd it go? ——  Serial # 18:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it magic? Hopefully to the "Not really the best worded template subject" Wikipedia boneyard. Thanks, --

AfD for Kobi Arad
I failed to create an AfD for Kobi Arad. Don't know what is the issue. There was an error saying it is blacklisted. - Thebiv19 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This thing back again? There was some paid editing ring around this a few years back. I remember having deleted at least one copy of the article and blocking a few socks involved in that ring. If I'm not mistaken the title was salted too. Don't know why AfD link is blacklisted though. I think the AfD title might've been blacklisted accidentally after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad. Maybe someone who deals with blackists can shed some light. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I started the page at Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (2nd nomination)‎, but it could still do with User:Thebiv19's rationale, as nominator :)  ——  Serial # 06:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For those who want the timeline, it's in the log files, though you might have to do a little digging via Special:Log. See Special:Diff/928367156.  The page was created at Koby Arad, reviewed by ComplexRational via PageTriage, and moved to Kobi Arad by admin Anthony Appleyard.  Yunshui ran a check on the page creator (PelicanBaySquad) and said he was unrelated to the sockmaster.  The blacklist is still active, but it was evaded by using an alternate spelling.  The title blacklist cites Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad as justification. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've re-WP:SALTed the article, given it was deleted under CSD:G5. Pretty much done here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)
Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 20:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Block review
I have blocked this user indefinitely because despite numerous messages and a previous block, they continue to add material, including to BLPs, without citing sources. Of their 500 edits to date, 499 are to mainspace, the sole edit outside mainspace was this following a warning from. Anyone is welcome to unblock if the user begins to WP:ENGAGE, or to convert to a partial block from article space or something, or shorten it. Guy (help!) 22:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @: If the goal is to get the user to communicate more, I have to imagine a mainspace partial block would be much more effective than a straight indef. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

TBAN appeal
EDIT:REQUEST HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN

Back in December, I was topic banned from edits relating to the Knights of Columbus. Over the past six months, I have abided (mostly, with explanations below) by my ban, strived to avoid conflict, and taken steps to avoid the types of incidents that led to the ban. Below is a brief recap of my past half year of activity.

I’ve long been troubled by the systematic WP:BIAS that is inherent in the project and have used this time to partially rectify it. Of the nearly 2,500 edits I’ve made since then, many--if not most--of them have been to further the goals of Women in Red. I’ve made 22 women blue since then, or almost one new article a week on average.

I’ve slipped up twice. The first came from a misunderstanding of what my ban entailed. After pointed it out to me, I reread the ban more closely, apologized, and have abided by it since. The second time was when I edited an article to add a wikilink and a minor detail to a low-interest biography of a Knight. A few hours later, I remembered the ban and self-reverted it.

I’ve also taken steps to avoid the behaviors that led to the ban. During the TBAN discussion, it became clear that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and especially WP:ABOUTSELF than the community at large. On the three (1, 2, and 3) occasions since the ban when a source I used was challenged, I immediately took it to WP:RSN.

When disputes arise, I’ve taken pains to de-escalate the situation and to bring in outside voices. For example, when a dispute arose at Catholic Church and homosexuality with (with whom I have clashed numerous times over the years)  in February, I left the article alone for three months, even though I thought she was wrong. More recently, when a new dispute arose with her at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, I not only disengaged from the dispute, I took a week off from editing to reflect. I had been working through the article with another user, and we sometimes disagreed. Through the normal give and take, the article got better. It can be difficult to do this with Roscelese, however, and so when she arrived at the article I notified the appropriate Wikiprojects and removed myself.

When a dispute arose with (pinged as a courtesy, even though he does not wish to interact with me) at Stop the Church, I took the issue to ANI. That conversation dried up without a real resolution, and I was left unsure about what I should have done better. In an effort to avoid similar situations, I then turned to and, who were familiar with the particulars, and  asked them directly how I could improve my editing in situations like these. I can't remember any other disputes worth mentioning here.

I am now going to ping everyone who was involved in the original discussion so that they can weigh in here, if they like. A few of them said they would support a TBAN in order to give the Knights article time to improve and stabilize, which I believe it has. Since I typically don’t spend much time on noticeboards, I was unfamiliar with protocol in situations like these. I made a partial appeal a few days later, asking to be allowed to edit on talk pages. That was denied, but I want to make sure and  have a chance to comment as well, should they care to do so, since they took the time to respond to my previous appeal.

Thank you all for your consideration. I'm not perfect, and I am certain I will mess up again, but I'll try to make new mistakes the next time around. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind this being lifted--but there were some really serious issues, esp. in regards to sourcing. Obviously SOT will be closely watched if they get back into this territory. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For the ANI you opened reporting JzG, it was just a month ago, and I closed it w/ no action as I found both of you to have been edit warring, but it had gone stale. How can you assure the community that it's not too soon to lift this unrelated topic ban? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that incident is an example of why the community should. I only edited the main article after JZG had gone silent on talk for several days. I took his silence to indicate that he agreed with me. I think this happened twice. After the second time I realized that it wasn't working and, rather than continue to edit war, decided I needed outside help. That's when I went to ANI. As mentioned in my initial appeal, after you closed the discussion I was still unsure what I should have done better, and that's why I went to your talk page (and Steve's) to seek further clarification. I don't want to try and deflect the attention from myself, but think it is worth pointing out here that it was JZG who was making the contested effort, not me, and thus should have been him who was trying to seek consensus. I did so anyway rather than edit war. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was looking for you to say that you were having a dispute, but you realize now that it was wrong to have reported the other party for edit warring, when you were a culprit as well. It's not to say you didn't know to follow WP:DR now. I'm neutral on lifting the TBAN at this time. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , as usual, you admit no fault, and write as if your point of view on the whole thing is ineffable truth. That was the problem on KofC too. And it seems to me extremely likely that lifting the TBAN wiull lead to exactly the same behaviour again because you exhibit a very obvious emotional commitment to a specific view of these topics. Guy (help!) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , In my initial statement, I twice say that I have "taken steps to avoid the behaviors that led to the ban." In case that wasn't clear, it's because I recognize that I was in the wrong. I was at fault. Mea culpa. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , you think you have, but you haven't. See also Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS (which of course is directly related to Stop the Church). Guy (help!) 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Kind of dependant on the answer to Baguma's question, but tending towards a "Support per Drmies".  ——  Serial # 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This user has demonstrated no understanding of NPOV and Wikipedia sourcing policy. It was not limited to Knights of Columbus. The same issues are evident in SO'T's editing at Harvard Extension School. This user seems to edit articles that are related to his real-life experience or loyalties but these are exavctly the ones he should not be editing. I see no reason to believe SO'T is willing or able to set aside such fundamental and apparently deep-seated deviations from Wikipedia editing policies. Also, without revealing evidence here, for what it's worth, I believe it's likely he socked at least once in violation of his TBAN. If so, he later lied about that at ANI. 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC) <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPA: Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. May I suggest that you either file at WP:SPI and leave notification here, or retract the statement? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was my intention to acknowledge that I was stating my personal belief without the evidence that would be required for a formal complaint. Are you suggesting or ordering me, under threat of Admin action? If you are instructing me as an Admin to strike, I will do so. I can email you why I did not and will not make an SPI complaint. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm unfamiliar with the greater dispute here but raising a serious accusation like "socking to avoid a topic ban" without evidence being offered is pretty textbook casting aspersions which has popped up in multiple ArbCom cases as being quite toxic to dispute resolution and has been described as equivalent to a personal attack. I appreciate that you're not trying to solve that complaint formally here, but simply mentioning it offhand is not generally a good thing - my strong suggestion is to raise it properly (via private means if necessary) or strike it and drop it. ~ mazca  talk 17:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can't change what I've done in the past. I can only try to improve going forward. For what it's worth, when you tried to propose a new restriction on my editing a few weeks ago, a propsal closed per WP:SNOW, you used the Harvard Extension School as an example then, too. The problem is that what you cited as a prime example of my problematic behavior happened there seven years ago. I have offered on multiple occasions, both in that ANI discussion and twice on the talk page there that I would be glad to work on the sourcing in that article with you. You haven't responded to any of those requests. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to work on the sourcing in that article with you. That sounds like more of the same behavior that got you banned. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , with multiple reverts with edit summaries along those exact lines. Guy (help!) 21:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support lifting the ban. Per WP:ROPE, and the reasonableness and thoughtfulness of the above statement, I have no problem lifting the formal ban.  I do wish to remind Slugger that memories last longer than bans, and that it is likely the amount of patience given for similar behaviors is likely to be much smaller going forward.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Read the talk page archives. Slugger is a textbook civil POV-pusher. He remians "reasonable" and "thoughtful" until all others have died of boredom or thrown themselves from the nearest tall building in despair. I lost count of the number of times we explained what an affiliated source was, and he never exhibited any understanding of it right up to the ban. Guy (help!) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support lifting ban - As long as he is willing to mend his ways going forward and work collegiality with other editors then I also am comfortable with ending the ban now. Based on his above comments it sounds like Slugger has turned a corner and has what it takes to contribute productively including in the areas that were under contention. I did see some troubling issues WRT that dispute from last month but I think that even despite that he deserves from latitude since everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Michepman (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support for KEEPING the ban - Slugger's problem with the KofC article was NOT a mis-understanding of sources, it was (in my opinion) a strong emotional attachment to an organization to which he had previously stated he belong(s)(ed) to, which caused him to do his best to WP:OWN the article, and use the excuses (which he is still doing now) of "not understanding source quality" to support his attempts at making the article into a positive and glowing propaganda piece for the organization. I don't see how this has changed/could change in 6 months.--- Avatar317 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , how long do you imagine it would take for me to change? Perhaps I should just wait until then. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know a timeframe, but the fact that (as far as I understand) this is an EXTEMELY narrow topic ban: KofC articles ecompasses what 5-10 articles at most? (this isn't a ban from all religious articles, or all politics articles) Aren't there plenty of other articles in the 6M in the English Wikipedia that are interesting enough to you that you can improve rather than needing to come back to this specific and very narrow topic?  The fact that you are here asking for this removal in only 6 months makes me feel that you are still very attached to the KofC area; and more attached than would allow for allowing other editors to modify "your" articles.--- Avatar317 (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , As I said, this is largely unfamiliar territory for me. I don't spend much time on any of the ANs, and only edit here when I am directly involved in something. During my first appeal, Jayron32 introduced me to the concept of the WP:SO. The first step says to wait six months. That's what I did. I think I've met the other two criteria as well. I understand it isn't binding, but if you can't give me a solid timeframe or any other metrics towards which I can work, I don't know what my options are. What is it that would convince you I am ready? Also, I think you are under the same misunderstanding about my ban as I originally was. I'm banned from any edit regarding the Knights, even using it as a passing reference in a talk page comment on an unrelated topic (see the first slip up mentioned in my original statement). It's not as narrow as it appears at first glance. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep the ban. It took months to get that article into shape, against determined and relentless opposition by Slugger. Diff from his last edit to the current version: . The comparison between the version I first saw and the current is even more stark: . Note the number of affiliated sources removed. You can see the trail here: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Slugger%20O%27Toole/0/Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality - edit summaries like "gain consensus first" can, as we all know, be parsed as "first satisfy me". "Undid revision 930299082 by SPECIFICO (talk) I disagree. This is not undue detail. We can discuss on talk if you like" - but since he never hgave any ground on Talk that was rather pointless (hence the ban, but I repeat myself). I think bore much of the b runt of this stonewalling.
 * We're talking here about an editor who had over 900 edits to an article, reverted pretty much any attempt to tone down its promotional content, and on whose removal the article then took at least a couple of months to get neutral, which involved the removal of around half the text and addition of a good bit more that was omitted and less flattering.
 * This is not the only article where Slugger has obsessively hammered his catholicism into the 'pedia, either. His behaviour is a classic exemplar of MPOV: He is religious, and like so many religious people he knows he is right, therefore everybody else is simply wrong, and that's all there is to it. He is acting in absolute good faith, and that is the problem. As it is, I strongly suspect that his main reason for wanting to edit that articloe right now is the recent debate over how to represent its funding of anti-LGBT causes. Catholic Church and homosexuality is his second most-edited article. Guy (help!) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I tried my best to ping everyone who was involved in the initial discussion. If I missed someone, it was inadvertent. Please let me know who it was and I will ping them now, or you can do so yourself. I should note that I made a special point to ping you, someone I knew would !vote to keep the ban in place. Finally, for the umpteenth time, I do not identify as a Catholic or as a member of any other religious organization on here. My edit history will show substantial contributions to Catholic, Protestant, and secular topics. I don't know why you won't respect my request not to be referred to as such. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I posted it at the Talk page, which of course you could not do, so let's not worry about it. Guy (help!) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , You made three edits to this comment after I responded, adding substantially more content. I don't really have anything else to add (aside from being astonished at the tone which grew increasingly hostile with each edit), but in the future could I ask that you could create a new comment to add additional thoughts? It may look as if I am ignoring part of what you had to say. I believe this is best practice. Thanks. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I completely agree with JzG's characterization in his first TWO paragraphs - the KofC article is the only place where I recall having interacted with Slugger, so my opinions reflect only edits on that article.--- Avatar317 (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5 May 2020 AN/I close by : JzG has said he will voluntarily avoid interacting with Slugger from hereon. So much for that then. Easy to dodge tough situations with false promises (there was discussion that the action in the AN/I thread was desysop-worthy!). --Pudeo (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is an admin board, I am an admin. We're discussing a sanction imposed after a dispute in which I was involved. Slugger pinged me. I have absolutely no desire to interact with him, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit back and make no comment on a request for a necessary sanction to be lifted. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up. Guy (help!) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep the ban Slugger has shown no evidence that they have made effort to change their behavior and has shown the same behaviors at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS as Knights of Columbus. Slugger has been pushing Catholic sources that scrape by RS into Wikipedia voice and stonewalling on the talk page when called on it. He downgrades content that is critical of the church and stretches positive content well past reasonable paraphrasing.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So as not to be accused of utterly diffeless accusations here is one diff that I think epitomizes the issues with Sluggers editing. He uses an actual Diocese press release written by the Bishop and published on the Diocese website to in Wikipedia's voice state that this church run programs degree was cheaper than a degree from a state school. "which has a total four year cost of $32,000, far less than the cost of in-state tuition at a four-year Arizona public college".  That is absurdly Catholic POV. AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , That simply isn't true. When a source has been questioned, I've taken it to RSN. I'd like you to provide a dif of me "stonewalling" on a source. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is ample evidence of stonewalling on the talk page of Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS though it anyone considering the ban is confused I can supply more extensive examples. Just one example would be Slugger's refusal to supply timestamps on a podcast he added extensively to multiple pages even though he demanded other editors supply timestamps for the exact same podcast.  Here is just more FUD Slugger is spreading about the source, to be clear it has been made clear to Slugger why the source is not optimal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK. You are correct on that one. However, when good faith requests were made for that podcast, including yours, I did provide timestamps. It was only when another editor was trying to make a WP:POINT that I demurred. I'm also not sure what FUD is supposed to stand for, but I'm not sure that seeking additional clarification is an example of bad behavior. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you hoping no one follows my links? You didn't demure, you refused to add timestamps after multiple requests.  I asked, others asked, a third party administrator told you it was necessary, and still you did not add them.  They are thirty minute long, not very interesting, episodes of a podcast, and I had to listen to an hour or it because you would not add timestamps.  FUD in this case means you have been told repeatedly the issue, yet instead of onboarding the advice, you pretend you did not get advice and ask for more from already busy people.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep ban I’ve long been troubled by the systematic WP:BIAS that is inherent in the project... And there you are. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what you are insinuating, but perhaps I should have been more clear. The bias I am talking about is the underrepresentation of women and other groups. If I am righting any great wrongs, it is creating articles for women who deserve them. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment To show that I am willing to edit within the bounds the community has set, I propose the following: First, if there is even a borderline source that I am looking to use, I will take it to the talk page first. I hope this will appease . Secondly, I'm willing to undergo a review after an additional six months. If other editors don't see an improvement, the ban can be reinstated. Of course, anything egregious can always be brought to this forum sooner than that. I hope this might show that I am serious. I'd be open to other restrictions as well. Consider it a halfway measure. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that you don't even realize what a borderline source is.  A liturgy textbook of, no known authority, published by a seminary, isn't a borderline source for adding content in wikipedias voice on the positive actions of the catholic church, it an obviously bad source for that.  Its like reading the HR docs from Google and adding that they are a world leader in diversity issues.  Also taking it to the talk page doesn't do any good if you are just going to argue about its merits even if it has none, then take it to RSN and hope it scrapes by with people not reading to close on what you want to use it for.  How about instead you take 3 months off of Catholic articles and just write for the WIR and show that you can step away from Church issues.  From the look of it after you were TBANNED from one catholic article you just moved on to another.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well, I would say that a liturgy textbook published by a prominent seminary is of known authority. That aside, this is the type of source I would be taking to talk first. Also, I've been editing Catholicism-related articles for years, well before the ban. Finally, as noted above, I have taken time off from articles when things started to get heated. Ultimately, though, we will never know if I am able to or not until I am allowed to try. Maybe I'll fail miserably. The ban can be reinstated. Maybe I'll prove myself. Only one way to find out. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is my point, that is not a source that would need to be taken to talk. I am not seeing anything new just more stretching of catholic sources.  It should be obvious that a textbook does not have authority over the actions of a bishop and other priests in a working diocese, let alone the church entire.  Even if it was it would still not be a source that the church is following its own precepts in practice.  You have had plenty of time to prove yourself and it is your actions we are judging now.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not just sourcing. It's the related problem that, editing subjects that are so important to you, your edits are regularly failing DUE WEIGHT. Detail that may be of sources of great pride and interest to you are not considered noteworthy by mainstream sources. None of the talk page discussions of this problem resulted in any improvement while you were active. ..we will never know if I am able to or not - that may be true, but that experiment not the overriding goal of the community. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose lifting the ban Responding to above. I'm not going to comment on the Stop the Church article. However, I'm noticing on the Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS talk page  there was a lot of discussion between Slugger, Almost Francis, and  Contaldo80 in about 12 different sections out of about 14 sections. Reading through these talk page sections  shows the editing was contentious between Slugger on one side of the issue and the other two editors on the other side of the issue. I recommend editors read at least some of these discussions.


 * Then, moving down to three other sections entitled Fancruft, Major cuts, and Liturgy Training Publications Kasza source. for me seems to be very revealing about how Slugger edits and how he supports the use of poor sourcing and perhaps edits in a way that biases the article. I don't have time or space to go through all the details here, but reading through these three sections indicates how little Slugger's editing style has changed. So, based on these observations I cannot recommend lifting the ban.


 * I have to agree with the above - there is no demonstrated understanding of NPOV, and this user does not understand or refuses to get the point (IDHT) regarding affiliated sources. Also, this editor generally engages in tendentious editing especially to maintain poor sourcing, maintain affiliated sourcing, and support UNDUE weighted material. This editor has over and over demonstrated "a very obvious emotional commitment to a specific view of these topics." per JzG above ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems to be trending against me. There were people I specifically pinged to bring into the conversation that I knew would never support removing the ban. I pinged them anyway. I knew it wouldn't help my cause, and I was right, but I thought they should have the right to weigh in anyway. Then I read 's comments. I have found Steve to be about one of the most levelheaded and reasonable editors I've ever had the pleasure of working with. I don't think he has all the details and all the history behind some of the discussions he references but, if that's the way he feels, then it is probably best for me to withdraw my request. I am going to reflect on all the comments here further but, in the meantime, ask that my appeal be withdrawn. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to oppose lifting the topic ban, but instead I will commend the editor for withdrawing this appeal. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of NOTHERE block template for deletion
The template has been nominated for discussion at TfD here. Given that this is a built-in block reason at Special:Block along with the standard block/warn extensions, I am bringing it here for wider discussion. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I noted at here, if you use the template while the discussion is ongoing, a notification appears on the blocked user's talk page above the block message inviting them to join the discussion at TfD. This is not ideal for a number of reasons (e.g. an invitation to block evasion, potential confusion as to how to appeal the block), so admins should be aware of the issue while the TfD discussion is ongoing.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as I already noted, this seems like a WP:POINTy TfD that is actively disrupting the project. El_C 20:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * see Village_pump_(policy). For what it's worth, I agree with El C that this was pointy, but if we need to reaffirm that there is still broad support for the practice every five years, we can have the discussion at VPP. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Withdraw of Afd
Hi friends. I made a mistake on this Afd. Could you please close it? Thanks! Ixocactus (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, strictly someone agreed with you—invalidating WP:SK#1—but since they are *ahem* an inexperienced user, NOTBURO came into play... ——  Serial # 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to double check what you wrote in the close, "the only keep vote" you mean "the only delete vote" I am sure. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ha! Thanks Govvy. Now re-caffinated :)   ——  Serial # 10:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

TBAN for User:Cwf97 from creating categories


I am here to propose that User:Cwf97 receive the equivalent to a topic ban from creating categories. Since 2018, this user has created 956 categories, 123 of which have been deleted (12.9%), with dozens more at CFD right now, now that this pattern of behavior has been brought to attention. This user spends their time creating and populating elaborate category trees like CFD:Sequel video games by decade, CFD:Video game franchises by year of disestablishment, and CFD:Feature films by year. A brief spot check of their remaining category creations reveals tons of categories/category trees that would likely not survive CFD like Category:Film series endings by year. All attempts to get this user to engage on the talk page (e.g. 1 2 3) have failed and user has only made 8 edits in the User talk namespace and 10 edits in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Even after these warnings, the editor appears to be continuing their great work at a rapid clip, making dozens or hundreds of edits a day to add their categories to mainspace articles. Considering their misfire rate (cf. WP:CIR), this editor is being extremely disruptive and creating a tremendous amount of work for other editors to clean up after them. For these reasons, I am proposing a community sanctioned topic ban on category creation for this user. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe the partial block can be used here on the category namespace? I think that's how the PB can work, and unless Cwf97 replies to explain, then this can be done straight away.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I second Lugnuts' proposal. A TBAN is unlikely to elicit meaningful communication from the user; a partial block just might. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A partial block here would only block changes to, or creations of, category pages. It would not prevent the user from adding arbitrary (red-linked) categories to pages, which is the more disruptive factor to handle, and would still result in wasting time at CFD or elsewhere to deal with the task. A full block or the editor obeying a topic ban from categorization are what is necessary to prevent further disruption. I think it is reasonable to say the latter will only result in a full block as soon as the editor resumes any editing, so I think we should levy the full block and let the user appeal to the community. --Izno (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have any red links (or deleted) categories been added or are people assuming bad faith? Peter James (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support: TBAN or partial block. I actually filed a report about exactly this a year ago, but it was largely ignored except for a couple of snarky responses from and  that were later dug up and used as dirt against me in an unrelated conflict (but I digress).


 * If you check the ANI report linked, you will see that Cwf97 has an extensive history of creating copious amounts of non-notable categories and adding them to articles. They have received floods of notices, which are universally ignored. The user also refuses to use edit summaries or interact with anyone. They briefly started interacting with other users after they were warned about it, but then immediately went right back to their previous state of obliviousness. At this point in time, should have better familarised themselves with category notability and should know that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.  Dark  Knight  2149  11:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support CIR Block. TBAN is just going to result in one anyway. After the latest spurt of categories resulted in dozens of CFDs (some combined), I gave him a warning about his continued refusal to stop, even when pinged to discussions. He disappeared a few days, then came back and started again, with a new CFD being opened almost immediately. I'm not convinced a PBAN will accomplish anything except to stop the direct creation of categories. My feel is the user will just add them as redlinks, but who knows. The user's disappearing behavior leads me to suspect he does read warnings, and tries to let the heat cool and avoid scrutiny. -- ferret (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If they just add redlink categories, and continue to do so, then they'd likely be banned for good, as WP:REDNOT states you should not do this.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support CIR block per ferret. Also going to add that I think Cwf97 might be a sock of, who was banned in 2014. They've been caught socking like 35 times in the last five or six years, and Cwf97's behavior is reminiscent of theirs. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  14:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Their talkpage shows what a lot of constructive editors' time and patience this user is wasting. They are aware of having a talkpage — they responded some in 2018, to Berean Hunter telling them that communication is required and ongoingly for a couple of months... then stopped. And did not slow down in creating inappropriate categories. The user may mean well, but they're a complete net negative to the encyclopedia. I read through the ANI thread from November 2019 with the snarky comments that DarkKnight2149 mentions above: there you have ANI at its worst. Sorry about that, DarkKnight, and please don't let's ignore the problem again, everybody. I too support a CIR block. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Well, crap, apparently the spelling in DarkKnight's sig is wrong and won't generate a ping. That's... kind of boring. Pinging User:Darkknight2149 again. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC).


 * Support I have seen this issue from a distance and gone to undo excessive category edits on pages I follow, to see that someone has thankfully done it before me. Of course, this just means that the problems created by the user are enraging more people than are needed to actually fix them. Unnecessary, tries to avoid culpability by not engaging, apparently not being aware blocks can be imposed for such disruptive behavior. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support CIR Block - the WP:NOTHERE behavior is unlikely to change, and they are merely acting like a troll. No reason to have patience for that kind of behavior.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no trolling; looks like this is in the wrong section. Peter James (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Ban. I understand WP:COUNTITIS as much as anyone but when an editor does not respond to any of the posts on their talk page they make it clear that they do not wish to be part of the community. Zxcvbnm is probably correct that a CIR block is in the cards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN based on the astonishing number of trivial categories created, the continual disruption and extra work this causes via CFD discussions, and CIR. I was initially inclined to Ivote for a CIR block. But I think this editor should be given a shot at correcting their behavior after the wake-up call that would result from a TBAN. The editor has shown a capability for editing proficiently, but not effectively to say the least. Also, I have to agree this will probably end up a CIR block, even after a TBAN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a 'communication is required' indefinite block here, and while I share the suspicions that this user is CensoredScribe (reasonable overlap of topics, problematic categorization, and the communication issues), this editor has been editing since multiple CU-checks of CensoredScribe have identified socks of CS, so I'm not confident that these users are the same. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  Sorry. I support CIR block based on my above response, and lack of communication. I can't see how a TBAN will alter this person editing behavior. They can demonstrate a commitment to change on appeal if so desired. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support In the beginning I saw this user work very hard on Categorization and appreciated that (even gave them a Barnstar for it!) but recently I have seen them create tons upon tons of obvioulsy not helpful categories and I have to agree with a topic ban, but if it is shown that they are indeed a sockpuppet then I would say a complete ban from the site.★Trekker (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Most categories created recently are not bad; Dead by Daylight characters looks like it's too trivial, and there were also the categories by year of disestablishment or ending (but they created the first a few months ago and as they had not been deleted at the time it was reasonable to assume that new ones could be acceptable). Feature film categories were being created as early as 16 April by EuanB2000 (now blocked for trolling unrelated to categories, films or video games) but it was only on 16 May, when Cwf97 created a few of these, that they were nominated for deletion. Categories for sequel films by year were started by another editor last month, and only continued by Cwf97. Sequel films by decade were created in 2016, most of them by an editor who has now been autopatrolled for more than ten years, but after Cwf97 created a category for the current decade it looks like this categorisation will be deleted and sequels will only be in subcategories by nationality of companies that made the film (an outcome that would be more detrimental than creation of the year categories but is supported by some editors who have participated in this discussion). Other categories may be too trivial but if one category has survived for some time it's reasonable to expect that similar categories are acceptable. Peter James (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)