Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive342

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


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

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

For the short term: User:Total random nerd is also in breach of the ArbCom-sanctions at Margaret Sanger. He/she is clearly aware of it and choses to ignore the warning. The Banner talk 00:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the peanut gallery, is the party he is referring to, and he did notify them (thank you).  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s was most certainly a progressive movement. See this for starters. —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 22:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Reason has something of a dog in this fight. To call the 20's klan "progressive" doesn't make a great deal of sense to me as we use the term today.  My favorite (popular) history of this era is "Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan" by Nancy MacLean (forgive my dated tastes as I am old).  While we can take the Reason article into account, I think we should be looking to more authoritative sources.  Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, per Ohio History Central: "During the 1920s, many Progressives also joined the Ku Klux Klan, a self-proclaimed religious group that was to enforce morality, based on Progressive beliefs, on other people." —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 23:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the insinuation of EpicWikiLad here that the KKK opposed labor unions is another point I will provide a refutation to. This source explains that the the Klan favored labor unions and violently resisted strikes in the 1920s when certain unions were exclusive to benefiting the white Protestant working-class. —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 23:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is referring to the Bull Moose Party sense and era of "Progressivism". Using that as a rationale for cramming a no-context, no-nuance reference to Progressivism in the United States into the infobox, with no supporting material in the article, looks like an ill-judged addition at best.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "no supporting material in the article" It appears you did not sufficiently read the article. —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it appears you did not sufficiently write it. (Which given the nature of that writing, overall no bad thing.)  I think the "at best" assumption of any good faith here is sailing rather fast.  That you made other poor-quality "hahaha leftist KKK gotcha" edits at the same time to the rest of the text, while failing to stand up that one, is entirely besides the point.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Klan most certainly took some left-wing positions, namely gun control (First Klan) and compulsory public education (Second Klan). The attributed label of "right-wing" to describe them relies on vague, often fallacious presumptions. Books such as "The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics" by Rory McVeigh outright admit that they arbitrarily assign a vague definition to "right-wing" order to deem the Klan as allegedly such. —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 01:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is gun control even a 'left wing' issue? Yes, it is advocated for by the centre and centre-left of american politics, but in itself it has no political home, is not part of any 'side'. Just because one party advocates for something in any given country, does not magically make any issue 'left wing' even if the party would be on the left wing. And given how distorted the Overton window is in the US, it is arguable if the country even has a 'left wing party' and not just a centrist one and a (far) right wing one. Typical insular amerian view. This all reeks of alt-right nonsense that has been so normalised in the US, and by extension very much so on Wikipedia. Just sad that you lot let people play those stupid games on here, and it got so much worse over the last couple of years. The Paradox of tolerance could be a nice short read for some people. 80.228.130.74 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Aware to the point of finding it "boring" that they've been warned "a zillion times", indeed. If they're not reading these notices before blanking them on their talk page, they certainly should be...  109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * TRN's Reason article looks sufficiently detailed to suggest this content should probably be in the article. It might help if the article were structured around these different phases of the KKK, even in the introduction.  That said, why is there no talk page discussion regarding these edits?  The most recent, non vandalism edit, was 4 March.  I would suggest finding additional sources (certainly the Reason article provides some).  The Reason article looks like a good source but, unless we have additional sources, it would have to be treated as a single source and thus have very limited weight.  Get the sources, propose changes on the talk page.  Springee (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My edits do not constitute vandalism. —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the article's talk page. Look at the 8 March edit and you will understand my comment.  Springee (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This tarring by association has spread to American Birth Control League, Birth control and Margaret Sanger. - MrOllie (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just imagine if more articles actually included the full factual substance instead of using omission to whitewash bigotry... —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

TRN is doing the standard 21st-century reactionary thing, of conflating the late 19th-early 20th century progressive movement and the Democrats of that era, with the 21st-century Democrats and the contemporary use of the term "progressive" to describe views actually closer to the 1920s Socialist Party of America than anybody else of that era. The goal, as MrOllie points out, seems to be "guilt by association" as practiced by D'Souza and others who call liberals fascists, antifascists fascists, BLM activists racists, etc. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, the irony of someone hurling "guilt by association" charges toward me to insinuate I merely follow in the footsteps of D'Souza... I do not wholeheartedly subscribe to the argumentative points of D'Souza, which I view as frequently naive. And please clarify what you mean by "antifascists." Is the reference towards Antifa, which imitate fascist tactics in their overt mob violence/intimidation? And do the mass burnings of buildings in major inner cities by BLM activists in the summer of 2020 not merely serve the causes of white supremacists in decimating the livelihoods of ethnic minority residents in those areas? —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a shame that this clown been blocked yet. --JBL (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Exposing bigotry makes me a "clown"? I certainly see where you're coming from... —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 01:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Antifa, which imitate fascist tactics in their overt mob violence/intimidation AND mass burnings of buildings in major inner cities by BLM activists in the summer of 2020? Yup, somebody's been chugging the alt-right fantasy Koolaid, all right. (And I live in the inner city of a major American city, TRN.) -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm now purportedly "alt-right" in spite of my consistent edits which demonstrate an effort to point out and expose bigotry that numerous articles whitewash via omission? And I purportedly chug the Kool-Aid? The English language lacks enough words for me to sufficiently deem this laughably ridiculous slander. —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 01:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to distinguish your comments here from those of a troll. –– F ormal D ude  talk  06:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Srsly. — JBL (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , let me put this in plain Texas talk: I read through your edits earlier, some were a little problematic, but much of it was interesting and I can see where there is merit to including it.  The problem is the sources need a little work, and the other problem is you.  You come in with a sledgehammer in hand, breaking shit, so it's no wonder some people are going to get upset.  What you are talking about is pretty radical change to the page.  I'm not an expert, but some of it seems worthwhile and would get consensus.  But you have already added it, it was reverted.  Via our gold standard for editing disputes, WP:BRD, now is the time you stop editing and use the talk page to discuss your changes, calmly and politely show your sources, and try to garner support over time.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't, but if you keep editing this boldly, you're going to have a bad day.  TheBanner points to where you are edit warring.  If you do THAT again, you're going to have a bad day.   I don't want to block you, but I can justify it easily if you don't pull back a little and use the talk page.  If you do that, then all is well.  Just be patient, this stuff takes time.  People in general abhor change so trying wowing them them charm instead of beating them with your opinion.  Serious. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I do want to block them, and have done, for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the 1-revert restriction at Margaret Sanger. As The Banner points out, TRN has ignored a warning about it (with a yawn, so I guess they have become pretty blasé about warnings that have never before been followed up with a sanction). Also, the 1RR restriction is shown in a great big in-your-face template that comes up when you attempt to edit the article. 24 hours is a short block; I'm not sure some of the stuff above doesn't merit more; but this is what I'll personally do at this time. No prejudice to further sanctions. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC).
 * I think it was well earned. We will see if it has an impact or not.  The goal is still to get them up to speed and get them to use the talk page.  Having a few good ideas doesn't make you exempt from following the same rules as everyone else.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Edits replicated from Conservapedia
Good work Mr/Mrs IP. , this means YOU must go back and remove each and every one of those. While it isn't directly a copyright infringing (so I don't think I have to revdel), we don't accept their "license" as being Free. That pretty much settles it. Failure to remove, well, trust me, you just want to remove those over the next day. Even tho it isn't directly a copyright infringing issue, we have to treat it exactly as one, because it could possibly be one if they revoke the license. Since you added it, it's your job to remove it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from the hyper-aggressive POV-pushing concerning the KKK (and, relatedly, abortion:     ), I wonder if someone who knows something about copyright could take a look at the long series of their edits with summary "Adding content I originally wrote elsewhere": according to their talkpage, "elsewhere" is "another wiki", and that to me raises the possibility that these additions might be under copyright by the other place they published.  (Such edits include:                .) --JBL (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Several of those edits contain material copied from Conservapedia that was written by a Conservapedia editor called User:Liberaltears. Doesn't appear to be a copyright violation though as Conservapedia allows reuse without attribution. –– F ormal D ude  talk  20:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing we still prefer attribution. I went and check out their license, which really isn't a license.  It isn't public domain, although similar.  It isn't copyleft but similar.  In many countries, that isn't even a valid copyright license, although I don't think they care what other countries think.  Still, attribution is always best with material from other sites like this.  No reason not to.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's their own material, it doesn't matter what the original license is, as long as they've never entered into any agreement preventing them from relicensing it. The moment they click "publish changes", they've relicensed it under CC BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. Same as when one takes a photo and then uploads it to Commons; in most cases that's an act of relicensing a previously all-rights-reserved work. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is another agreement -- or a purported one -- with The Other Wiki. Plus there's the issue of verifying whether our user is indeed the originator.  Conservapedia have a 'copyright policy' that uses the word 'license', that was written by an allegedly qualified and practicing lawyer, so on the face of it this is supposed to be legally operable.  It seems fairly laughable though.  It consists of a statement that a licence is granted until they chose to revoke it for opaque reasons and on entirely vague grounds ("self-defense", and reuse of (the magisterially oxymoronic) "entire parts").  And of course, of ample amounts of boasting about how superior this is to Wikipedia's system, somehow.  I don't know how we'd go about attribution:  clearly not by citing Andypedia, which is a reliable source only to the extent of being an anti-weathervane.  I'm not sure it's either reasonable or helpful to ask that editor to acknowledge that identity and those edits.  The ideal solution might be if they rewrite their (let's suppose) own contributions in such a way as not to infringe the copyright that they've irrevocably signed over to the Schlaflywiki, that they then explicitly revocably allow us to use, until potentially they don't. Given this editor seems to be a fairly implacable POV-pusher, thinks use of talk pages are for other people, regards the 3RR as more of a target than a limit, and requests being unblocked on the basis that they didn't read the very clear 1RR warning they sneeringly blanked, I'm not holding my breath on fulsome cooperation on that score.  But I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, so this is well above my pay-grade.  Maybe this should be referred to Contributor copyright investigations, if that's at all adjacent to the right place?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't work that way. They don't use CC license, they have their own.  Just because they are a Wiki doesn't mean they use the same license we use.  And yes, 109.255.211.6, I got a good snicker out of their license as well, which is why I'm sure it won't hold water in some countries.  I have dealt with copyright and trademark issues as part of my job for 30 years now, although I'm not a lawyer nor an expert.  There really isn't anything to enforce, although they aren't trying to enforce anything. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Does part of their license take away someone's right to relicense what they publish there? Because if not, it doesn't matter what the license says. If you publish your own writing in two places under different licenses, then, assuming you didn't agree not to do that, both licenses are valid and the more restrictive one doesn't limit the less restrictive one. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant what they claim to do. I've published the same images and text under multiple licenses for years, for instance I have some images that are under CC 3.0.  If a company wants to use them somewhere without giving me attribution (like on the cover of a phone book, which really happened), they they have to license it separately, as CC3 requires attribution.  So pay me a few hundred bucks, and I will license it royalty free for that limited purpose, without attribution.  Lot of material is dual or tri licensed.  Anyway, we really don't care about their license, except whether it is compatible with ours.  This is why I said you should give attribution anyway, even if their license doesn't require it.  And I say this because their license, again, really isn't a license.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That'd be my assessment too, Dennis, but my meta-assessment is that my assessment isn't worth very much, and we should ask someone who's qualified and willing to stick their neck out on that. Other countries is the least of their worries if it doesn't even hold up in NJ.  Maybe it's entirely void;  maybe some reasonable interpretation of it might be held to stand, even though it's unreasonably badly written.  As for addressing this by "attribution", again I'm not sure how that'd work.  We can't sensibly tag the articles, and I don't know if it's appropriate or constructive to tag the account.  But to Tamzin's particular point:  Iunno, maybe?  Let's assume that the extra from Mrs America at some point in the future does "revoke" Wikipedia's 'license' to use their (they appear to claim) copyrighted material.  (Actually it's so badly written it's unclear if they're claiming to own the copyright or publishing rights in their submissions.  Honestly, we should be questioning this person's licence to practice law, never mind his wikilicence.)  Would we undertake to comply?  Fight them in court?  Ignore them and assume they'll flounder in vain?  And granting that they're not doing this at present, do we anticipate such concerns in theory, or just burn that bridge when we come to it?  This surely must have arisen before, I'd had thought.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah-hah! WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Sources, and assorted outgoing links.  "The revocable license is a no-go."  And apparently we're at the least politely pretending that it is indeed a valid licence. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, had you given attribution in the summary, this would have been a lot more trivial to fix, because it would be easy to search. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Just want to confirm before I proceed: you want me to revert all of their contributions that contain copied material from Conservapedia? –– F ormal D ude  talk  04:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there's some targeting confusion here.  is just the person sleuthing these, alongside 's initial reporting; the perpetrator was .  Who can't be fixing them just yet, as they're still blocked for their 1RR vio (perhaps with 'other offences taken into consideration, m'lud').  Ideally they will when they get back, though given that they were fairly transparent about what they were going here, and were almost certainly unaware of these IP issues, for that at least they're not to be reproached.  In principle anyone could, but no one must fix these, as the Anglicans might put it.  Which could be done by reverting, or by rewording sufficiently if the general sense is a useful addition.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note Conservapedia is WP:USERGENERATED, thus, any information copied from it should be removed whether there is a copyright concern or not. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Content being usergenerated doesn't mean it can't be used here. We can't use usergenerated content as sources, but we can copy it here provided we comply with copyright since content here is clearly also user generated. And indeed we copy content from other user generated sites all the time, with content from other languages Wikipedias. Besides copyright, the issue when copying is whether the content complies with our policies and guidelines, including Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Because many other Wikipedias have similar policies to ours, their material is often useful provided the editor makes the effort to ensure where there are differences between our respective policies, the material is modified as needed e.g. sources are changes or the material is re-worded or remove. It is unlikely this is the case for conservapedia, as their policies are often in fundamental dispute with ours, but this isn't because it's user generated per se. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood User:Tamzin's argument although the IP seems to understand it. Tamzin's argument seems to be that Conservapedia can say whatever the hell they want about what licence their content is under but unless they explicitly either require copyright transfer or forbid contributors from relicencing their content elsewhere, any contributors are free to relicence their work elsewhere including on Wikipedia. Since we on Wikipedia require dual GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0 as part of our ToU, any contributor who submits their work has licenced it under both these licences unless they're legally prevented from doing do, no matter where else they may have submitted their work. Therefore if someone from conservapedia comes here and copies the material they wrote here, there is no legal copyright issue as the material has been appropriate licenced here under both the GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0 whatever Conservapedia says. (Since they don't say anything which would forbid a contributor from doing so.) IANAL etc, but I'm pretty sure Tamzin is entirely right on this point. The problem with this as the IP has said is we have no way of verifying that the contributor here is the same as the one on Conservapedia. So as a matter of policy, generally if someone submits material from their personal website, we require them to either put their licences on their website or prove their identity Donating copyrighted materials or we reject the material. In this case if the contributor on Conservapedia is the same as here, IMO they could either make appropriate statements on their Conservapedia user page about the licences of their contributions, or they could confirm their Wikipedia identity on their Conservapedia user page. If Conservapedia doesn't allow them to do either of these then they're pretty much SoL since I can't see how can link the two without something on Conservapedia. Separate to that we have an additional problem that Conservapedia is also a wiki. The contributor has to take great care to ensure they only submit content which is entirely their own work. In other words, they should not submit content which has been edited by others. Note if they are editing an existing article, it may be complicated whether what they wrote was influenced by others. On the whole, considering it's unlikely conservapedia content is useful here, they just shouldn't submit it given the great complexities involved. Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the typo of User:Tamzin username. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the identity issue is a further complication for sure. That'd probably be workable around, if the editor were keen to do so, and some sufficiently tooled-up Wikipedia official were on hand to verify.  Perhaps as you suggest, or for example by the so-trusted person contacting them by email via the account on each site.  Plus the derived work concern, indeed.  But even if those hoops were successfully jumped through, we'd still have Assistant Counsel's opinion that the revocable licence would prevent wholesale reuse here.  Now, they might be being extra-cautious here, as I doubt they're entirely sure what legal effect the CP "licence" actually has.  If any.  They're saying "irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information" in one breath, and "Content is copyrighted" in the next.  Is that purporting to be a copyright transfer?  Does it amount to a "binding legal document" at all, given the lack of any actual plain-meaning use of language to say what effect it intends to have on the other hand, or any signs of competently lawyered jargon on the other?  Ah hae ma doobts.  Now whether that advice is simply applicable to direct copying, rather than to re-submission of individual (non-derivative!) edits we might need to get further clarification on.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To update on this, I asked over at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights and a couple of people suggested that possibly/likely the original contributor does still own the copyright. Without necessarily going to far as to say the notice is clear, or indeed anything other than wholly defective.  So it's fairly unclear if there's any admin action required here.  Or indeed how best to advise the WP contributor (assuming they're indeed the same person) to proceed.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Poking around a little more, I found a page on RationalWiki (I know, this turning into a wiki nostalgia tour) breaking down CP's Copyricence. I've no idea if their contributors have any expertise on this either, but I'm mildly comforted that their take is similar to mind, especially as regards it being a muddled mess.  But interestingly, it points to a quote from Schlaf Jr himself, which strongly suggests that the intent of his cack-handed wording (and presumably consequent effect, if any, were this ever to be be litigated) is that the contributors retain copyright, and are free to relicence to other wikis (etc).  "As a dual user, I suggest submitting to Conservapedia first because our copyright is less restrictive than other Wikis."  109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked TRN about this on their talk page. –– F ormal D ude  talk  22:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To which they've responded with a revert (gasp, shock, film at 11) linking to the Conservapedia article on the same subject. Which has only been edited by one user, so I think we can do the maths on their claimed identity without straying too far into doxxing territory.  (Literally only one editor in the entire article history -- maybe helps explain why CP may not be the best training for playing nicely with others.)  But these concerns may be rendered largely moot by the following section...  109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Post-block continuation
Today's edits: Special:Diff/1078338619, Special:Diff/1078339056, Special:Diff/1078339111. Of course the source doesn't support labeling the subject a "fascist". This is classic POV pushing. And here's another "Adding content I originally wrote elsewhere": Special:Diff/1078352579. Needs indef. Levivich 16:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, there's no getting around this POV push. An indef is the best way forward. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:NOTHERE. –– F ormal D ude  talk  17:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)It's definitely continuing the same POV pattern as before: Democrats, RINOs and "Progressives" are Klansmen and fascists, ah-hahahaha, there will be so many liberal tears (as it were) at these edits.  The theme of 'I have a tenuous and tendentious theory as to how to categorise people politically on the basis of quote-mining from a cherry-picked source, so I'll embed that in infoboxes and categories where it'll be as opaque and contextless as possible, rather than properly discussing it with any degree of nuance or due weight' continues too, as opposed to .  I also note that the large addition to the Aime Forand is another replication of the article on Conservapedia on that subject, which was written entirely by a single editor, returning us to the issue of, does Conservapedia have a copyright notice, a licence, and in either case, is it valid and operable?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Conservapedia's copyright notice is here. I can't comment on "valid and operable", nor on whether a license which is "revocable only in very rare instances" is compatible with Wikipedia's license. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you comment on their continuing to restore the content without proper attribution? –– F ormal D ude   talk  00:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your signature is ridiculously long - your comment started and ended on the first line of my display, and the following five are occupied just by code from your signature. As for attribution I think they did provide it - our license stipulates that a URL is sufficient - but I think the better question is whether republishing something here that an editor admittedly wrote themselves on Conservapedia constitutes original research. Conservapedia is not exactly known for its neutrality nor its adherence to reliable sources. I would question whether an editor who insists on copying material from such a website is competent to participate here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently "revocable only in very rare instances" has been deemed to be not compatible; see the discussion above at, so copying per se isn't possible (much less desirable).  But had they verified they were the original contributor and hence copyright owner resubmitting them here -- and had we wished to keep them! -- that's different.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indef clearly just here to push a POV, best stopped ASAP. -- JBL (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Oh no, block TRN because he exposes fascists for who they are!!11!11!" Yeah, 'nuff said. —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 19:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I need an indefinite block because I expanded a stub into a sizeable article with content I originally wrote elsewhere? Insane. —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 19:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This rather neatly illustrates that you need an indefinite block because either you have a complete lack of insight into the extremely real issues with your conduct here. Or perhaps worse, are intent on rather disingenuously and artlessly reframing them to suit yourself.  As was the case with much of your editing, one way or another. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support continuing block/or topic ban from American politics - TRN is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, they're here to stir shit up with subtle POV-pushing. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I heavily expanded a number of articles, including Stalwarts (politics) and Half-Breeds (politics). It would perhaps do you some good to pay attention before thinking about immaturely antagonizing me. —  (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest that an indefinite block was premature, but your responses make a good case that an indef is indeed appropriate. Best of luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Check out their recent edits, quite a few reverts demonstrating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, including reverting me on Hunter Biden where the edit referred to the laptop and their edit summary instead references emails. It appears this editor wants to edit war so much that they're not even reading what they're reverting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. In the source for Special:Diff/1078338619, the author says that while (in their view) was sympathetic towards Mussolini's economic policies, they still specifically say in as many words that Hicklok otherwise rejected Fascism on ideological grounds. There is no good-faith way that that could be parsed as a source that would support describing Hicklok as a Fascist in the article voice; taken in the context of their responses above and elsewhere, it seems reasonable to infer that this is an intentional misuse of the source and that they have no intent of stopping. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked I am presently issuing the indefinite block. There is a clear consensus that the TRN is editing disruptively, and that the block should be an indefinite block.  There is the confounding problem that TRN's responses to these problems does not show that they are likely to improve their behavior.  -- Jayron 32 12:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

UCoC enforcement guidelines voting has begun
This is your unofficial reminder to vote in the UCoC enforcement guidelines ratification. Please, consider doing so if you haven't already!! { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, the impenetrable Meta Strikes Back. Well, at least as a venue, it isn't a ghost town like Fakebook's Meta (Truth Sokial?). BTW, the Glossary cracked me up. Q: what is X? A: See X on Meta. What, we are on Meta? Well, we're still not gonna link it for ya, peasants! And... scene. El_C 08:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I linked the most obvious ones. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, Affcom is the Affiliations Committee and not the Affections Committee? Now I'm extra-sad. El_C 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if there is a logical discussion venue - no doubt there should be one, not sure if it should be here, somewhere else local, or there - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nosebagbear: I'm cool with whatever, but I'd check with since he's the one that gets paid for this. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's pretty pathetic. Doesn't anyone there know how to link? Doug Weller  talk 12:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This was a reply to El C, but reply didn't put it in the right place. Known problem? Doug Weller  talk 12:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reply was (and still is) correctly positioned as a reply to El C. See WP:INDENT for the basic rules of threaded discussion: If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level. Floquenbeam's reply above (not made with the reply tool) is an example of one that is not correctly positioned. Modulus12 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right of course. It's a problem with WP:INDENT, not the reply tool IMHO, in that it's not obvious unless you carefully look and line up the replied. Like it or not, User:Floquenbeam's post is an obvious reply to El C,  mine is not.  Doug Weller  talk 09:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't read all of your post. So you are saying that the reply tool isn't doing what I expect/want it to? I did notice once that using it and saving after someone else posted didn't cause an edit conflict but put it after the other person posted, so I went in and moved mine. Doug Weller  talk 09:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you expected it to do. But in this diff the reply tool correctly positioned your comment as a reply to El C, after Nosebagbear's reply to El C. I don't think there's anything wrong with the essay WP:INDENT either. Modulus12 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Question, asking for a friend. Do administrators have to sign their names in blood when forced to agree to this or will a regular pen or pencil do? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are You Now or Have You Ever Been A Metamate? El_C 10:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: Assuming your friend isn't an admin yet (because existing admins don't have to sign anything), I'm pretty sure it'll be a digital signature &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My friend is rejoicing as we speak, because apparently "All advanced rights holders" doesn't apply to admins, as in "The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct: All Wikimedia Foundation staff, Board members, Wikimedia affiliate board members, staff and contractors; All advanced rights holders;". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Vote early, vote often, vote no. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone please answer a procedural question (I don't want to e-mail the meta address to ask)? If I vote no, there is apparently a box to comment on why I'm voting no. Do I have to comment? If I don't, is there some kind of, uh, follow-up? I find the instructions confusing. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having just voted, you do not need to fill out the comment. There was no follow-up after submitting my vote, beyond receiving a PGP hash receipt of it for my own records. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there actually is a box even if you vote yes, though I've not tested Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The comments box is available regardless of the answer to question 1 (Options: No, -, Yes); it is for overall comments, not necessarily a justification for your vote. — xaosflux  Talk 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, upon voting No (a few min prior to commenting here, at AN), my vote box comment read (in full): learn to condense! I'm helping! El_C 15:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Learn to condense"? That's rude! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably a violation of the UCoC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To quote James Randal: I got scared. El_C 15:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend you include the reason why you voted no if you voted no. If ratification was to fail at this stage, then the revision committee that gets formed is going to use what people wrote as the basis for deciding what changes should get made. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaving comments no matter how you vote is helpful. Either it will pass and there will be an amendment process in a year (at which time it would still be good to know what people liked/disliked at ratification) and a U4C building committee (who might be able to address some issues that were disliked) or it won't pass and revisions will get made in which case again it's helpful to know what people liked and disliked so the right things are changed. If you already voted and didn't leave a comment you can go back and vote - only your most recent vote/comments are kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, we're going to keep having the vote with minor tweaks until we say "Yes". Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would the tweaks have to be minor? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't. But this is the WMF we're talking about here, I can't see them majorly revising this very important thing. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This may be a gross misreading on my part, but does the section on harassment, as currently written, prevent us from sending non-public off-wiki information about other editors to ARBCOM? If so, that's immediate grounds for opposition; we cannot hope to deal with off-wiki harassment and coordination without the ability to handle such information. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While I'm very confident that it's not intended as such, you're right that the base UCOC text doesn't include write-outs for it. It has a general category, that UPE (etc) combatting wouldn't fall into, and then names certain "included but not limited to" names buckets. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, Nosebagbear: do you know if ARBCOM members have commented on this before? I'm minded to ping some of them here, but I don't want to make a scene if it's been resolved elsewhere. I find this very concerning. ARBCOM has frequently banned users here because of their off-wiki activity; how is this to be brought to their attention going forward? Is the board aware that they are essentially preventing us from discussing off-wiki harassment anymore? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I hate to yell for attention, but given the off-wiki harassment I've seen, I think it's justified; I'd be interested in hear whether y'all think the the doxing section of the UCoC prevents editors from bringing off-wiki information to ARBCOM when it relates to things besides paid editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself, I don't get that reading, but if you are not confident that the policy is clear enough, then that is a good reason to oppose. Section 3.1 of the UCoC, Harassment, includes a definition at the start any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome. Sharing non-public personal information with the arbitration committee in private for the purposes of administering the project does not seem to fall under that definition. My understanding of the doxing example in the text is that it is limited by that main definition, and covers the public sharing of non-public personal information as the main outcome of that action would be intimidation, outrage, or upset, but private reports have the main outcome of effective project administration. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can see how it may be read that way; and if it's always read that way, it would address my concern. I'm not (yet) confident it will always be read that way, however. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I am not speaking publicly about the UCoC Enforcment draft, other than to encourage people to vote and leave comments regardless of which way they're voting. Courtesy ping to who has been speaking about their interpretation of things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have any special insight about the UCOC itself, so I try to avoid talking about it. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Other than the apparently obligatory fear and loathing of anything WMF does, can somebody explain what the problem is with the UCoC? I get the objection made by  about off-wiki evidence, but I assume that's something that can get fixed with a minor working tweak.  So, what else about this has people upset?  I've read through the whole thing and I really can't find anything it prohibits which I wouldn't want prohibited.  I assume nobody's saying that sexual harassment, doxing, threat of violence, etc, are actually things they want to allow.  So, what am I missing? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm perhaps in the "pass with fixes but not right now" camp. I'm leery about the lack of language describing who gets to decide when there are failures to resolve disputes locally or systemic failures to enforce the UCoC; if this is clearly a decision made by the community at the target project and/or Metawiki, there's no problem IMO, but right now it's vague and could be interpreted as a blank check for office actions. signed,Rosguill talk 15:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But there already is pretty much a blank check for office actions, and this doesn't change that one way or the other. Is there any fundamental difference between WMF doing something we don't like and justifying it with "Because T&S" vs "Because UCoC"? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to worry, even without indulging the "WMF is out to get us" mentality, that the community buy-in afforded by a successful passing of a UCoC would encourage the WMF to use its provisions more fully than the existing T&S. Given the possibility, I'd rather object now and push for language I am fully comfortable with rather than endorse something I don't necessarily agree with. signed,Rosguill talk 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced about the possibility of a minor working tweak. I'm also not sure how this impacts on fighting paid editing. Without something more official I shall probably vote no. Doug Weller  talk 16:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Principal issues to me, @RoySmith with the enforcement guideliness (phase 2) include:
 * i) There are numerous requirements of anonymity capacity, but no countervailing evidentiary safeguards for the accused. It moves the marker a very long way.
 * ii) It also, despite it being the single most requested amendment to the 1st iteration of phase 2, has functionally zero right to be heard inclusion. Such a right definitely shouldn't be absolute, but given the community demand, its exclusion (other than one line that may refer to it, but only in specific regard to the U4C) is unacceptable
 * iii) It is unclear - even in English, making the translations likely even harder to be confident on reasoning
 * iv) The training is mandatory (the definition that grandfathers admins doesn't apply here), and doesn't give a community veto on its content
 * v) We were guaranteed that phase 2 would be iterative, but they decided, right at the endgame, that we would not be permitted any chance to amend significant parts of the policy text prior to the vote. That is, we'd never seen it until December, and despite major discussion, if we don't vote no, we can't fix flaws with it.
 * vi) We were not permitted a vote on phase 1, and then T&S policy stated that no-one in the community had requested a ratification vote prior to the ARBCOM open letter, and when I provided a diff demonstrating exactly that, six months earlier, they ceased communicating about it. Until all issues with prior engagement have been resolved, I am nervous about trusting future ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope any admins supporting this are looking forward to their compulsory UCoC training course. This hasn't been developed yet but the WMF's anti-harassment course lasts 8 weeks and includes coursework.  Hut 8.5  18:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does it say there's going to be a compulsory training course? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training to ensure a common understanding of implementation". That includes all advanced rights holders. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training... That includes admins: the "Affirmation of the UCoC among certain groups" section says The following individuals should be required to affirm... they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct...All advanced rights holders. The glossary says that "Advanced rights holders" includes admins.  Hut 8.5  18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I had to go hunting to find that, but for future reference, it's here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * lasts 8 weeks and includes coursework - Not gonna do that, personally. WP is suppose to be a fun hobby for me, and having to deal with a lengthy "seminar" and likely giving more personal information to the WMF than I would care to in the process of signing up does not sound enjoyable, plus whatever "follow-up" I'm sure they'll deem is necessary in a few months.  I will almost certainly be resigning the mop if it comes to that. Hog Farm Talk 20:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that’s going to happen. They must know that’s too much. Do we have any information about what they actually plan? Doug Weller  talk 20:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Call me cynical, but I'm not sure the WMF wants us to know exactly what they plan, or they'd be making it more clear. Either that, or Hanlon's razor is at play here. Hog Farm Talk 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I am *personally* aware, no course has actually been made yet. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Which makes it difficult to support. A bit of a pig in a poke. Doug Weller  talk 13:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to share what I know. How the vote goes is beyond my control, but I'm glad the WMF is having a ratification process here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Roy, with insufficient clarity about local control vs WMF control of enforcement, I worry that without further clarification in advance, this process as written will make it much easier to weaponize the UCOC, even easier than it is to weaponize our local policies. Some may recall we had a little dust up about that a few years ago, involving Fram?  Voting yes on this, as written, seems to me to be giving up all the local control we painfully clawed back from WMF that time.  Once approved, WMF will have zero incentive to modify things they like that we don't.  Of course we all don't support harassment, but there is a thread on ANI right now where an editor is threatening to report another editor they're in a content dispute with to T&S for "bullying". I do not trust T&S to evaluate such a claim fairly. I think it will be easier to pull the wool over the eyes of T&S than even editors at ANI, or our local ArbCom.  One thing I'm curious about; if editors of other language wikis - where there may be no functioning ArbCom, and where something like this might make sense as "better than nothing" - vote for this, and English WP editors vote against, I'm guessing WMF is going to interpret that as an approval to go ahead and apply it to us too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If 50.1% of voters support the enforcement guidelines, they will be applied to all editors. The UCoC was implemented by a Board resolution making it binding policy under section 11 of the Terms of Use, but also means it can only be modified with the consent of the Board. I expect the enforcement guidelines to be resolution'd into force the same way. Neither document allows the community to make amendments to the UCoC itself or the enforcement guidelines, the only indication such a thing might be possible is an announcement that is not binding on anyone and was signed only by the current Vice Chair of the Board. The latest I've heard from the WMF is that if the guidelines pass even with widespread opposition, there will be no amendments for at least a year. Of course, the Board can modify either document by resolution whenever they want. Putting on my pile of non-enwiki hats, I think the UCoC will be a good thing for many wikis. But the enforcement guidelines are just not ready yet, and ideally the UCoC itself should have had another pass too. It is not possible to simply legislate social change into existence with a few Board resolutions, it is necessary to actively work to fix problems and to find a mutually-acceptable solution. However, the WMF has decided to ignore this successful consensus-based model, and I think both documents are worse off because of it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Fram, if anyone has forgotten. Please everyone: vote! I might disagree with "the powers that be" here on en.wp from time to time, but I have a heck of a lot more trust in en.wp that I have in WMF. Huldra (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


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

Almost Late Question
I realized that I have waited until almost the end to vote. There is lengthy discussion above that provides at least as much noise as signal. It appears that the rough consensus is that we should vote No because, as written, the enforcement guidelines will expand the powers of T&S without any particular constraint on those powers, and so increase the likelihood of another Framgate. Is that basically what has been said above? Is there another two-paragraph summary? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's how I've understood it, Robert. I 'm pretty sure which thread on ANI refers to above, and yes, I can see how worrying WMF's handling of such cases could easily become. Full transparency: I've just voted "no", and have written "Because of the Fram fiasco" in the comments box. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC).
 * But that was kind of useless. I have re-voted (which is perfectly kosher) and adduced a much fuller rationale. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC).
 * Perhaps it goes without saying that recent events reinforce my concerns about bad-faith weaponization of the UCoC as a bullying tool. I don't see a lot of evidence that there are safeguards in place to prevent this inevitability, and I don't know that the WMF's track record inspires a leap of faith in that regard. MastCell Talk 19:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've heard a lot of different reasons people had in the above thread. I don't believe anywhere in the proposed enforcement guidelines T&S have their authority expanded, but some people did mention above they did not restrict T&S enough (in their view). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @MJL While direct authority shift to T&S is not a particular concern of the UCOC#EGs, assuming that T&S will be the ones writing the training, where the Community is only consulted on its content, rather than authority to discard it, that is a source of authority given its purpose is to standardise judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV
There is a backlog at WP:AIV. 2.55.21.45 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of the more creative ways I've seen to request blocking your own IP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed... and tagging admins in edit summaries after refreshing your IP...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Did I... look cool? El_C 20:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Things I never expected to see referenced on WP:AN: a Twitch VOD. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From the wisdeom of Twitch chat: fire is flammable. El_C 10:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Inflammable means flammable?! What a language! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Turns out Primefac also disabled me from working on the page Christopher G. Hollins for edit warring, when he is the one warring with me without explanation and without the three-revert rule having been invoked. He did so only to prevent me from recreating the Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins page and redirecting Christopher G. Hollins to the new page. I am allowed to retitled MY work.  And I should not be prevented from working on an article I originated in good faith.  Therefore, in addition to seeking some intervention, I am requesting that the block be removed.  ChristaJwl (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're quite clearly engaged in an edit war, which is never appropriate, even if your edits are correct. Your partial block is only for one week, and it seems that it is necessary to prevent you from continuing to edit war. If you are willing to agree to stop edit warring and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page, it is possible or another administator would be willing to remove or reduce your partial block.
 * You've also called Primefac's edits bad faith, but didn't provide any evidence. They're just following Wikipedia standards, and your accusations against them seem unfounded. –– FormalDude  talk  00:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * while we thank you for your contributions, per WP:OWN you do not own any pages here even if you are the sole contributor. We will generally allow you to request deletion of content for which you are the sole contributor (WP:G7) and sometimes like with reference styles and English varieties, we will follow the first contributor's preference if there's no reason to choose any other option. However in all cases our policies and guidelines are more important than any contributor's preferences. So if your preferences are not inline with our policies and guidelines like WP:Common name and WP:NCDAB, then we will defer to our policies and guidelines rather than your preference. Note I am not commenting on any the specific title dispute, simple saying that it's not correct that you get to rename an article without considering the disagreement of other editors just because it's your work. Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also even where your preference as author of a page makes a difference, it definitely does not allow you to usurp or take control over some other title. The other title is clearly not your work so trying to take control over it solely because you created some other article is not acceptable in any way and frankly doesn't even make sense. Nil Einne (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like ChristaJwl moved an existing Chris Hollis article to Chris J. Hollins. Then after another editor turned Chris Hollins into a dab page, ChristaJwl copied and pasted the contents of Christopher G. Hollins into Chris Hollins. Primefac stepped in and protected the page to reverse the copy/paste move, which I see nothing wrong with. ChristaJwl also copied and pasted Christopher G. Hollins to Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins, which needs to be speedied. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The last issue is another important point. WP:CUTANDPASTE is not generally an acceptable way to move pages any more per Copying within Wikipedia. The only case where it might be okay is if you're really the only contributor but in this case it's clear that User:David Tornheim and probably others have made significant contributions to the page so cut and pasting definitely is not acceptable. User:ChristaJwl please don't do that again or you may be blocked from the entirety of Wikipedia. It's not acceptable to have such disdain for the WP:copyright of your fellow contributors. They've agreed to freely licence their work but one of the conditions is that they must receive attribution (well with some differences between CC BY-SA and GFDL). There is no way anyone can know from the history of Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_(Christopher_G.)_Hollins&action=history] that there are other editors who wrote part of that work. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear this means even if your moves were otherwise completely proper and frankly now that I've looked into it in more detail I don't think any of them are, what you did would still be wrong since you didn't move them in the correct way. Note if you cannot make a move because an existing page is in the way, the correct process is to make a technical move request for an admin or page mover to do it for you. It's not to cut and paste the content around. I see when the article was originally created the content was partly copied from the draft. I'm not sure it why it was done this way but it was acceptable there because proper attribution was left both in the article history and in the article talk page (albeit non standard). Perhaps this confused you, but when Primefac told you what you were doing was wrong, you should have listened rather than making false accusations of bad faith. As Primefac also said regardless of whether you're right about the primary topic, once your undiscussed move was disputed, you needed to make a full WP:Requested move rather than edit warring to keep your version in place. You do not get to decide by yourself what's the primary topic when there is dispute. As I said above, this would apply even if you were the sole author of both the article and the title you're trying to usurp neither of which is the case anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The cut-and-paste move problem goes even deeper than that, as there is Draft:Christopher Hollins, which has edits by ChristaJwl and is about the same subject. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like ChristaJwl is responsible for that one though. I sort of indicated this above, technically it might be okay provided the draft isn't deleted since attribution was left in the article history, although not sure it was the best solution as I don't see a reason for the separate histories. By comparison, at least with the now deleted article, I saw no indication the content came from anywhere else so AFAIK, it was not compliant with either licence so was definitely highly questionable IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I realize this is very much a minor detail in the scheme of this... incident, but the move from of the UK broadcaster from "Chris Hollins" to Chris J. Hollins was clearly incorrect.  It's very much not his common name -- we've managed the remarkable feat of creating not just the top reference in google searches for that term but the only reference to this individual as such.  (After all, people don't generally go by abbreviations of their first names with an initial -- real stylistic mishmash.) Could someone reverse this, or if the double-dab at Chris/Christopher is deemed necessary, to Chris Hollins (broadcaster), please?  Or if this is remotely contestable, I'll of course take this to RM.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, why is there a dispute about retitling a page at all? That’s actually and honestly absurd given the ease by which a history merge request can be effectuated and was so requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think a page is improperly "named", and there is another page that has that name, the proper procedure is to open a requested move and explain why you think the page name(s) need to be changed. It is not correct to either copy and paste content into another page, or to create several redirects to new names. I don't think you are reading that section on "usurping pages" correctly, as this is for creating NEW articles. Natg 19 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because a problem can be fixed doesn't mean it's acceptable for you to create the problem in the first place requiring some other volunteer to fix it. Notably history merges are something only admins can do, and even for simple ones not all admins are comfortable doing them. Also, a problem can only be fixed it someone notices it. By making a cut and paste move and leaving no notice that you've done so, you've create a copyright violation until someone notices and fixes it. Since your a lawyer, you should be aware that a copyright violation is not acceptable. It doesn't matter when it can later be fixed, you've already violated someone's copyright and technically they could sue for the time when we were violating their copyright. As for the rest, I don't know how to make this any clearer but your understanding of the rules here is more or less completely wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I maybe should emphasise there are two issues which you seem to be conflating both of which are very important. One which I emphasised a lot is that the way you tried to move the page in two or more instances is wrong. You don't get to move pages by cutting and pasting the content around no matter that it can be fixed, our policies and guidelines make this clear so I suggest you re-read them if you think they allow it. The other issue is that even if you had performed the move correctly, it's clear that people disagree with your move because they are unconvinced about with your primary topic argument. To be clear, this means they don't just disagree with your move because it wasn't performed correctly but they disagree with the reasoning behind your move. When you make a bold move and it's disputed, as with any bold edit, it's perfectly fine for another editor to revert your edit. In fact especially in the case of page moves, it's completely the norm to return everything to the WP:status quo ante bellum which means all articles are returned to their original titles. If there's no status quo because it's a new page, then it will need to be moved to some interim title. What you then need to do is discuss your proposed change and come to consensus. In the case of page moves, the process is to start a full WP:RM. Technically you could move the page at an interim title around in the mean time to some other undisputed title, but it would generally be better to just focus on the RM. While all WP:Edit wars are disruptive, move wars are especially the case as noted in the earlier link. So you should never get involved in a move war and in so much as one may be said to already exist, they should always end with the reversion of an undiscussed move. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the highest forum to wage a complaint against user conduct. And where did you make a merge request or requested move? I don't see any such edit in your contributions. –– FormalDude  talk  03:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved "Chris J. Hollins" to Chris Hollins (broadcaster) in response to the quite reasonable request above. ChristaJwl, be very careful about commenting on the "legal" aspects of this matter. Deb (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm much obliged. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I'm reading too much into some of these choices of wording -- "litigator", "lawful act", "elevate my complaint" to "another forum" -- but you should perhaps also be aware of WP:LEGAL. I would also strongly urge you to redact your numerous and frankly baseless personal attacks on . Starting perhaps with the entirely inappropriate section title.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Is Christopher G. Hollins going to be moved to Chris Hollins (Attorney and Politician)? ChristaJwl (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would tentatively suggest a move to Chris Hollins (politician) given our naming conventions, and on the basis of a quick google search. And ignoring the much more numerous for me references to the UK sport chap, it must be said.  If there's some objection or contention, you could make a request on those (or some such) lines at WP:RM.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Responding to ping by. Thanks for the ping. I haven't read all of this. In responding to the initial complaint by, I would say, thank you for your efforts, and I hope the experience with this complaint does not make you want to leave Wikipedia in anger. You wouldn't be the first! I saw that you said you are a litigator and were following the rules. I'm sure you were trying to. Unlike law (I have a paralegal degree), for every rule here, there seems to be other rules that trump it. The hard part is that you haven't edited long enough to know what rules are the important ones. For example, when you file a complaint here, you are supposed to provide WP:diffs, but you didn't. It makes it really hard for editors responding here to have any idea what you are talking about. We are not going to go on a wild goose chase looking through your edits, the page you refer to, or the other editor you are accusing trying to figure out what was happening. The burden is on your to provide that evidence. In this case is correct that if you are going to do a page move or merge, you open up request and solicit input form other editors before doing the move or merge, unless it is a trivial move involving, for example, pages only you edited or pages with practically no content, etc. In this case, it seems you moved a page that had a long history without asking first. Not a good idea. As an editor with few edits, it's an understandable newbie mistake. As for the tone of people responding you to you, I'm sorry if you experienced something unpleasant. Countless new editors experience it and leave. It's been a long-term problem on Wikipedia. I hope you stick it out. Because you didn't provide any WP:diffs for what you considered an inappropriate tone, it's hard to know what you are talking about. Lastly, I hope you take a look at the top of my user page under the "Advice to New Editors." I think some of it will be helpful. Feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, or ping me on a note on your talk page. Good luck! --David Tornheim (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delightful thing to wake up to, not really bothered by what has been said (or by the section header).
 * As mentioned, Chris Hollins was moved to Chris Hollins (broadcaster) by the OP, and the content of Christopher G. Hollins was then copied there (diff). As the page had already been converted into a dab, that was reverted a few times but there was also a a histmerge request made. This is where I found the page, and upon recognising the older/dab history, I rolled back the base page to its dab form. After that it was mostly a series of reverts by the editors involved, including (who I have notified of this ping as well). I left ChristaJwl a note followed by a warning, which I felt was appropriate given the other messages that had been left in edit summaries. After I protected the dab to prevent further disruption, Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins was created (a straight copy-paste of the CGH article), plus there were another couple of warnings on their talk page, and I determined that a partial block was the only way to actually stop the disruption. And here we are. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your actions seem to me to be above reproach. Deb (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since it looks like the histories etc have been fixed and it seems to matter a big deal to the OP, I've boldly moved Christopher G. Hollins to Chris Hollins (politician) as suggested by the IP above. As I remarked when moving the page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Hollins_(politician)&diff=1078801574&oldid=1078782391], all sources I looked at seem to use Chris Hollins & the 2 Hollins are from different countries active in different fields so there does not seem to be any natural disambiguation per WP:NCPDAB and the US Hollins notability seems to come from their involvement in politics, so it seems to me to be the best disambiguation if it's needed. I felt I wasn't furthering the move war since that seems to be mostly about the primary topic with some unfortunate very poorly implemented attempts at parenthetical disambiguation that followed. My move isn't intended as commentary on the primary topic, that can be resolved via an RM if needed, instead my hope is that this will reduce the OP's apparent concerns about the old title and allow them to focus on whether they want an RM to establish whether either Hollins is the primary topic. I'd note that the same outcome could likely have been achieved without all this drama if the OP had simply asked on the talk page, and then sought feedback elsewhere if there was no response. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My hot take is that of Hollinses, the UK one is likely somewhat the more notable, especially over time. But I'm also aware that I might be being biased by which one I'd actually heard of, and by google's fiendish algorithms second-guessing me too.  I'm far from certain that he'd pass the standard of being much more likely to be the one sought, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.   The TX chap is conversely slightly the more recently newsworthy, and might be about to become more notable, or drastically less so, depending on his political fortunes.  Nor are these two necessarily the be-all and end-all of all possible Chrises Hollins that people could be looking for -- I happened across two others while checking.  So I'd favour not troubling RM at present, and find the status quo largely satisfactory.  Glossing over the bumps in how we got there.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @David Tornheim Thank you for the feedback, encouragement and advice. I'll leave this here and take you up on your offer to review the information on your user page.  Best and, in good faith, thanks to @Nil Einne for the move. --ChristaJwl (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Urgent revision for public information/health' sakes.
I refer to page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aconitum and any other wiki pages that may mention monkshood and wolfsbane.

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

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

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

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

I do not think I should just edit, I would rather an experienced editor would verify what I've said and make relevant corrections in view of the risk to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.89.171 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't the right place to seek help with editing articles. I suggest you post this to Talk:Aconitum. However just to let you know that unless you have WP:reliable sources to verify any of this, we cannot add it to any articles as we cannot rely on any editor's WP:original research. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's OK, visitor: on the face of it this does potentially look like a public health issue. Thank you for bringing it up, and I undertake to look into it and make any needful corrections.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes: I've verified this and added the requisite information to the article. This can be closed I think.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Move closed
A move discussion at Talk:LGBT adoption reached a consensus to change the name. Can an admin please make the change. (sorry if this the wrong venue) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the correct place is WP:RMTR. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Articles for deletion/Kluaynamthai
Personal attack. Can an admin please address it and do a revdel on please.  scope_creep Talk  19:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Took care of the edits. Will address with the IP now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks.   scope_creep Talk  19:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Shirshore (Horn of Africa General Sanctions)


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

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

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


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


 * This block request I see as a disingenuous attempt to stop my contributions to Wikipedia. I have been on Wikipedia for over 4 years and in that time I committed to the community's guidelines and have been a constructive member. If you briefly browse through my contribution history you will see that I have consistently adhered to guidelines by all always citing credible sources for every edit I make. Despite this effort on my part, a group of editors have persistently frustrated my contributions and have made it impossible to edit certain articles over a long period of time. This group includes Kzl55, Jacob300 and others (I personally suspect that some of these users are sock-puppets). I believe the group who edit as a team have an agenda to project Somaliland as an independent state and are not interested in neutrality at all. If you see the cause of the current dispute in the Sanaag talk page, you will see that I have tried to reason with the reporting editor to try and understand why they reverted the edits I made despite the plethora of credible sources I cited. However, it was impossible to reach consensus with them as they continuously reasserted a subjective standard that followed their point of view. I hope that this decision is not taken lightly and it is probably assessed to render a fair result. Shirshore (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin, I hope the above filibuster further illustrates why sanctions are necessary in this case. Other than personal attacks and attempting to frame the issue as a content dispute, there is little acknowledgement of the persistence of the pattern of behaviour that led to their block last year, nor any respect for the fact that the section is under discretionary sanctions. There is a long history of combative tendentious nationalist style of editing in this section which is what led to the general sanctions being enacted in the first place. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it may be against WP:NPA to call a discussion partner as a nationalist.--Freetrashbox (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * comment Apologies if this has been construed as a personal attack. This is not my intention. However, I do not think the reporting editor does this in good faith. Initially reverted the edits I made on Sool and Sanaag. I informed that editor to engage on the talk page and they did respond at first but after the second time of reverting they ceased the disruptive behaviour and the reporting editor  instead supplanted them in reverting the edits on the third time. I believe if the reporting editor was acting in good faith they would of continued to engage on the talk page and not themselves revert edits on the third time. This is very similar to the pattern that was followed last year when I was blocked along with  as brought up by the reporting editor. Thus, I do believe, ,  and  who also displays similar patterns of editing might be sock-puppets. I could be wrong of course but this is worth investigating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirshore (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no proof, but I think they are different people as far as their thinking and what they post.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Without any comment as to the merits of any of this, I will just note that because Horn of Africa is now an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction, WP:AE is available for reports. Reports there normally are resolved in some way (sanction, warning, no violation). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've added the points you've raised to a new report at WP:AE, please feel free to add anything I've missed there: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
 * many thanks for highlighting that, I've filed a request there. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

G11 or G12
hi what's the solution? Thanks--N (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I made an article (dotin)
 * Removed based on G11 and G12 criteria.
 * I asked the deleting user to return the text of the article to my practice page to correct it
 * I asked the user to specify which part of the article has a copyright issue or includes ads
 * Replied It won't be restored and you will not be allowed to post this advertisement again.
 * Part of the reason it was deleted was that it was alleged to be a copy of this page. That page is in Persian, so it may be helpful if an admin who reads Persian could compare it to the deleted text.  For me, looking at an AI translation of the source, it doesn't look similar enough to be a copyvio, but I also have no familiarity with the Persian language whatsoever and a healthy skepticism of machine translations. I don't know if  or  (who tagged it as a copyvio) know Persian or not.
 * Any admin is going to be extremely hesitant to restore something that was deleted as a copyvio, especially if they lack familiarity with the language.
 * As for G11, if that were the only grounds for deletion you may be able to convince me or someone else to restore it as a draft or to your userspace if they thought it could be made more neutral. However, with the copyvio allegation hanging over it, it might be better to start over.  Assuming, of course, that you do not have a conflict of interest.  If you do draft a new article, I recommend going through articles for creation just so that another pair of eyes can verify that it is acceptable before it gets moved to mainspace. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @ONUnicorn I need the resources used and the infobox to rewrite. If it is returned in my sandbox, I will inform another user to check before sending it in the original name space. Thankful N (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @نارنجستان I have copied the sources used and the infobox to your sandbox. I took the company logo out of the infobox as it is fair use and unable to be used in userspace.  I hope that is sufficent. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 12:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @ONUnicorn thanks a lot N (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that even if I had never heard of Wikipedia before I would keep a copy of anything substantial that I wrote on my device. If you did not do this then please do so in the future, and you will never have to bother anyone with such a request again. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Phil BridgerSorry N (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ripples at White phosphorus munitions
Primefac (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Another Nigerian hashtag problem
I came across Meetup/WikiForHumanRights 2022 in Nigeria today because one of their members was violating WP:OVERLINK on a number of pages. This is far from the first time this has happened, with this ANI thread being the latest discussion on the noticeboards about the matter. I have handed out a number of warnings, and a couple of participants have been blocked for failing to respond to multiple reverts and talk page requests to stop, and I have also left this blunt message on the Meetup's talk page; they keep telling folks to just "add wikilinks!" without actually telling them how to do so.
 * Current hashtags: #W4HRNG, #W4HROWR, #W4HRLAG.

This is one part discussion on how we can sort this out amicably, and one part heads-up that over the next 24 hours (and then until April) we're likely to be hit with a ton of these hashtag edits. Tracking can be done with https://hashtags.wmcloud.org as well as edit filter 1017, assuming it gets updated by whomever said on IRC that they'd update it. Thanks for the vigilance. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear the organizers have followed up or followed through on my previous complaints and I don't think a filter is sufficient given the massive disruption at this point. CUPIDICAE💕  18:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this does look disruptive. I have never seen a competition with prizes have a beneficial effect here, but that just may be because I only see those ones that cause a problem. Can anyone show any useful such competitions? If not, then I would suggest that we ban competitions with prizes from the English (because that's the only one we have control over) Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Core Contest is a fine one. DanCherek (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a chronic problem with edit-a-thons. The idea is supposed to be to get new editors but what tends to happen instead is a bunch of people making clueless edits for the duration of the event, admins having to block the most persistent ones, and then the event ends and the new users never come back. It's essentially self-defeating for everyone involved. The addition of hashtags is a new thing I don't think I've seen before. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The addition of hashtags is a new thing... at least it makes it easy to track their edits. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would add that trying to ban such events is probably a bad idea as it would just encourage them to be organized off-wiki and we'd have even less of a chance to get through to the organizers. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A previous hashtag asked users to add images to articles that didn't have them, which of course prompted people to add non-free images to articles, get reverted, get annoyed, and in some cases get blocked. I think a later one went less disruptively when it was made clear to users that the images should only be sourced from Commons. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, both years of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (identified by #WPWP) have been disruptive. The issue with was never non-free images (at least on the AN/ANI threads I was watching). The issue was Commons images being inserted by inexperienced editors at extremely high rates of speed resulting in numerous errors (compounded by their limited engagement with experienced editors). Many of the images didn't actually belong in the articles they were being jammed into, the captions were at best vestigial or at worst downright misleading, and the formatting was often wonky. Individual editors got blocked, and edits with the hashtag were throttled in 2021, but many contest editors continued to try to jam the edits through despite the throttle, so the whole thing continued to be quite disruptive. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Filter 1073 generalised to cover this contest. No actions beyond tagging and logging, but of course this can be changed if needed and consensus is found. firefly  ( t · c ) 20:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

No source mentions the exclusion of mental disabilities, but one or two editors are very insistent that it be added in; the article could likely do with protecting and rolling back to the last revision that supported this. Thank you!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 00:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I dropped a friendly needs better sourcing note on 's talk page. Beyond that, this looks like a good old fashioned content dispute that probably should be sorted out on the talk starting with an examination of what the sources are saying. I'm not seeing a need for page protection right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ed Krassenstein redirect creation request
Ed Krassenstein was deleted numerous times in 2018 and can no longer be created, except by an administrator. I created Brian and Ed Krassenstein about Ed and his twin brother, who jointly have had substantial verifiable coverage and multiple reasons to qualify them as notable. Brian Krassenstein redirects to the two-person article. Can an admin please create a redirect from Ed to Brian and Ed? Thanks! White 720 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 09:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! White 720 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Revdel for some very boring edit summaries.
Boring revdel needed for boring edit summaries by boring IP hopper for the IP Special:Contributions/186.96.50.39. Summaries by other IPs have already been removed. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I revision deleted the edit summaries in question. Just a friendly reminder to not post revision deletion requests at AN/ANI/etc. Please follow the instructions at Revision deletion instead. --   LuK3      (Talk)   14:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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


 * I hope you can get back up to speed, but the mood towards long inactive administrators returning with their mops is not so friendly right now. You've made less than 500 edits in the last 15 years, so expect some push back. But welcome back and good luck. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can start here: WP:ADMINGUIDE. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing interest in coming back! Which areas are you interested in? Deletion guidelines for administrators is good reading if you're interested in that.  I'd recommend reading all the way through WP:CSD regardless, as several criterion have been revoked by the community over the last two years.  A big debate is SNG vs GNG for notability on some topics (mainly sports figures right now); that can get kinda nasty at times so I'd encourage you to hold off on any AfD closing in that area until you've worked up a bit more active.  If you're interested in main page stuff, WP:DYK always needs more admin help and would be willing to give you a refresher/crash course.  What specific areas are you interested in working in? Hog Farm Talk 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I could be of help in requests for protection. Many changes there, not the least the introduction of pending-changes protection. Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to cover AfDs for those that have that as a focus area - while Hog is absolutely right regarding the current furor area, I'm happy to cover the field more broadly, whether for Babajobu or others.
 * In fact, the idea in general is very interesting - perhaps we should have a page with volunteers broken into admin-action categories for those interested in getting reacquainted. More broadly, just getting out and doing the core mission of some content edits is good for picking up changed norms in that area. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In 2019 I implemented pending pages protection for the article on Eric Reguly. If you have any feedback, positive or negative, on the manner in which I did so, my attention is yours. Babajobu (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles on the Middle East, the California Correctional System, and farm equipment would all make fine fare. Happy to hold off on closing any AfDs. Babajobu (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have made a number of uses of the admin tools, as recently as 2019. You are not as inactive as you think, or as others above think.  &#9786;  You already know about pending changes, for example, because you set it on  twice.  Some of the cultural changes are good things.  We are nowhere near as willing to keep articles in the bands, businesses, and biographies parts of Wikipedia as we were in 2004/2005.  But again, you know this.  You deleted  last year.  Three simple principles will keep you away from lots of minefields: Don't use the deletion, protection, or blocking tools to win arguments in your favour.  Be prepared to talk to people.  Don't rush to closure.  And since you were around in the early 2000s, you can tell Hog Farm what the schools notability debate was like.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to active mopping; we need all the help we can get! My suggestion is to pick an area to concentrate on rather than trying to do a little of everything.  That way, you'll get up to speed on that specific area.  In my own experience, I find I'm much more likely to do something stupid when I wander into an area I don't usually work in, thinking I'll just help out a bit.  Often, it's more like a bull in a china shop.The big take-away from the recent crop of arbcom cases is that everybody understands that admins are human and make mistakes, but as long as you're quick to admit you goofed and revert your action, nobody's going to get too bent out of shape.  It's when admins dig in their heels and refuse to talk about an issue that things go bad.  If there's anything specific that you're unsure about, feel free to drop a question on my talk page, or if you prefer, email me.  And, if I might do a bit of recruiting for the area I'm working in these days, WP:SPI can always use more patrolling admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And, of course, always remember to sign your posts Nosebagbear (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And date them, too... --Blablubbs (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If the currently suspended recent admin conduct cases had proceeded, I would very much expect them to have centered around the admin in questions understanding of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT. Those are really important points to keep in mind. I'd add that coming here and asking this shows more clue than some other recently returned admins, so you're off to a good start. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to those abortive cases? Curious where said admins got mixed up on WP:INVOLVED. Thanks. Babajobu (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Babajobu I think they are referring to Jonathunder and Timwi. The Signpost has a decent summary if you don't want to read through all the drama in the actual case requests. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And the third one is Geschichte. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh I remember Jonathunder. He and I disagreed rather fervently in 2005 over whether Wikipedia should follow Chicago Style or AP Style in the spelling out of numbers in non-STEM articles. He seemed committed to the wiki's welfare, I'll give him. Babajobu (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow,I really did show back up at a heck of a time to be a legacy admin talking about re-engaging with admin functions. It does seem like WP:ADMINACCT is taken more seriously than it once was and that some old-time admins have been bafflingly frivolous and flagrant in their breaches of WP:INVOLVED Babajobu (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for returning! Most admins don't bite and will probably be happy to answer any questions – it might be a good idea to watch areas of interest for a while, figure out which sysops are prolific in those areas, and reach out on their talk pages whenever questions arise. I'll also note that WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators has some pointers that may be useful. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone for the input. Reorientation syllabus has been provided! Babajobu (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple of more things I think that need to be brought up is that the mop has a lot more strands than it used to... 15 years ago, there was just block-delete-protect, but each of these has gotten significantly more complex. There are many more levels of protection beyond just full- and semi-protection, and they each have their standards for when to use them (see WP:PROT for all of the details).  There are now revision deletions, which when I first starting adminning, were not possible, that are sort of a "suppression light" that allows admins to remove individual edits, much like oversight.  We now also have the ability to block users from specific pages rather than just site blocks, which is probably the most significantly useful addition to the mop toolset in all my time as an admin.  There is also a lot more arbitration enforcement procedures than their used to be... When working on adminning in Arb-Com sanctioned topic areas, use of admin tools needs to be logged (something I occasionally forget), and most of these areas also place articles under "editing restrictions", such as enforced 1RR and the like.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I find the AE process very confusing. So much so that I just stay away from it, for fear that I'll accidentally do something terribly wrong.  For somebody looking to pick up the mop again after a hiatus, that's not where I would recommend starting.Another new thing is that there's now a wide range of permissions which can be granted (and revoked in some cases) by any admin.  See Requests for permissions.  Along those lines, you no longer have the autopatrolled permission; it got unbundled from admin rights by RFC a little while ago.  You might want to visit Special:UserRights/Babajobu and re-grant that to yourself, which odd as it may sound, is perfectly acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The two things that make AE particularly difficult to work with is 1) The logging requirements (all sanctions in the area (protections, rev-dels, blocks, etc.) need to be logged and 2) AE sanctions have a built-in first mover advantage. Unlike other admin actions, which any other admin can undo, AE sanctions should not ever be undone unless the blocking admin agrees OR ArbCom themselves over-rides it.  I understand why this exists (in the past, disruptive or harassing editors could build a cadre of admin friends who would rescue them and protect them from meaningful sanctions), but it does make it a bit of a minefield to work in.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, you shouldn't unblock somebody without first consulting with the admin who blocked them. Violating that is a relatively minor transgression, except in the case where the block log comment includes some variation on "checkuser-block".  Unblocking a CU block is one of those bright line things that will almost certainly get you dragged to arbcom for a first offence. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the distant past I don't recall many wheelwars, I think most admins would not have considered unblocking someone without conferring with blocking admin. Non-admin editors thought there was inappropriate level of solidarity among admins and we were often referred to as "The Cabal." Sounds like there'd been change there. And honestly, AE and AfD now sound terrifying. Babajobu (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 one of us is having a small misunderstanding - either me for what you'er saying or your for what you're required to log. You only need to log if you're using Arbitration Enforcement authority. So, to use one example, if you're doing a regular page protection of the kind and type you'd do anywhere, there is no need to log it. If, however, you're protecting earlier or at a higher level of protection that you would have were it not that topic then it is an AE action, should be noted as such in the log doing it, and then should be logged at WP:AELOG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While that is true in theory,, WP:AE has migrated to be much more of a consensus board. Rarely does any admin just jump on a close/sanction.  In fact, they often drag out until they are stale.  This is one reason I've become more active at WP:AE, which isn't particularly enjoyable, but I'm one of those admin that isn't likely to wait more than a week to close cases.  Most of the time, there is very clear consensus among admin (2 or 3 at most).  If there isn't, I typically won't close at all.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Revision deletions seems like it would be very valuable in biographies of living persons. Blocking otherwise good editors from individual problem articles rather than sitewide...yeah, very good. I don't even remember how to log use of admin tools, will find out. Better that I probably not be autopatrolled for the time being, someone may catch something worth catching. Babajobu (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


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


 * I suggest you create yourself a test account (mine is ). You can use that to experiment on.  Block it, unblock it, grant or revoke privileges, etc, without worry of breaking anything important.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * would be a semi-traditional name. Though  has quite the Sopranos ring to it too...  109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done thank you. Babajobu (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Your standard "RFPP is backlogged" notice
I'm being pulled away from WP for a little while and can't handle it myself, but if anyone wants to take down a moderate backlog of ~15+ requests, it's a quick job for a few bored admins. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks to be mostly cleared. Thanks to everyone that helped out.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I safely block this IPv6 range?
There's a large amount of vandalism coming from the /32, almost certainly a school I'd guess. And I never can remember, how should I have shown this other than as a link? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can use this template: . This is a rather well known type of huge dynamic range known as 'Indian' or just 'Jio'. Users will typically have access to several of them. If you've ever heard anyone say 'Indian ranges can be very difficult', they're referring to this type of thing. That's it for my analysis. I'll leave you to judge the collateral. There will be lots. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The first thing to mention is that if you look at any sufficiently large IP range, you'll find a lot of disruption. Second, mobile IP ranges can be a huge pain.  Some mobile network operators have more customers than the population of the United States or European Union; see List of mobile network operators.  Some of these companies dump their customers in huge IP ranges.  Partial blocks are one solution.  I've found it frustrating to deal with partial blocks.  I sometimes use confusing features of MediaWiki to mitigate collateral damage, but this can cause massive collateral damage when done incorrectly.  It's easier to just do a site-wide, anon-only block that allows account creation.  People can still edit freely, but they have to make an account.  This does nothing to stop sock puppetry, but it can seriously cut down on impulsive vandalism.  You can also do an overlapping mix of hard blocks, partial blocks, and anon-only blocks with account creation enabled.  For example, I might do a soft block on the /32 to disable anonymous edits but allow account creation, then do overlapping hard partial blocks on certain topics that are subject to sock puppetry.  It's a nightmare to clean up these complex, overlapping blocks when other admins mess them up by changing the block settings, though.  You have to know CIDR and remember what each block was designed to do.  It can seem deceptively straightforward, but I've confused myself a couple times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I’ve decided to walk away from this one. And I’m running out of time, bowel cancer op Wednesday, so I won’t be around for a few days after that. But a soft block does sound as though it might mitigate the problems there. Doug Weller  talk 19:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

sockpuppet
Dear wikipedia administrators, I am a sockpuppet of User:Skh sourav halder. Faofln (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have blocked you. PhilKnight (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion: Opening of proceedings amendment
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Consider using a other than your real name is here to contributions.
Consider using a other than your real name may caused to editing your talk. Please review for contributions. Wrugtrab (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked by BotNL, talk page access removed by me. Just trolling.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for closure review
I'm requesting a closure review for my RfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79, topic # 7. It was a wide-ranging discussion that affects a policy concerning WP:FILMPLOT. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The discussion was never formally closed. I think you want WP:CR to request a close. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand the procedure over at WP:CR. Do I leave my request for closure under the Administrative Discussions sub-section of the Request for Closure section?
 * The three entries there aren't phrased as mine would be. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:MalnadachBot
I'm getting sick of seeing this bot dominating my watchlist. Is it doing anything useful... it seems to be mostly tweaking signatures in long archived discussions.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. I know I can filter out all bots from my watchlist, but I do find some of the edits by other bots useful and therefore don't want to filter that out.  But it's been a while now for MalnadachBot, and on the balance of "useful improvement to Wikipedia" versus "really, really annoying", this seems to be falling on the latter... Singularity42 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If not for that bot, how would you remember all of the old AfDs you watchlisted? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just be thankful you're not watching every daily DRV log page for the last decade like I am. A couple times I've logged on to see it's run up against the irritating 1000-page watchlist limit all by itself. —Cryptic 18:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be nearly so offensive if it fixed all the problems in one edit, instead of picking a user to follow around and change just their signature one at a time. There's no excuse for the last four edits to  be separate, for example. —Cryptic 18:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Its late in the night now and I don't have time for a detailed reply, so will keep this short. My bot has been discussed in detail at WP:BOTN and found to be compliant with bot policy. I would urge everyone to read the still open discussion at BOTN to know why these edits are necessary and why not everything can be done in a single edit. If you want to hide only MalnadachBot from your watchlist, it can be done by following the instructions at WP:HIDEBOTS. --ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, it's Chris Rock to my Will Smith right now. I shouldn't have to find a way to disable notifications from a bot that is doing nothing useful other than filling up my watchlist... 210 entries out of 250 this morning.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  19:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion threads in one place. See this thread at Bots/Noticeboard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for creation of New page for - Nestaway Technologies pvt. ltd.
Hi Administrator forum,

I write on behalf of Nestaway Technologies a home rental startup in India, that would like to be listed on Wiki pedia.

I write to request you to sanction the creation of a new page for the same

Thank you and regards Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua1094 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Administrators do not need to "sanction" pages except when a page has been protected. I highly suggest read through WP:YFA, determine if your company meets the requirements, and IF those are true use the Article wizard to create a draft, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. It is highly unlikely that a startup rental company will fulfil notability guidelines. Have a read of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I suggest that you don't waste time writing an article that is likely to be deleted.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  08:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've updated my message slightly. Primefac (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 sanctions warning in an AFD discussion
I've warned all participants and taken the gentle option of refactoring and cautioning where discussion has either become uncivil or strayed from the purpose of an AFD discussion into discussing matters of COVID-19 itself, rather than leaping straight to actual sanctions themselves. I hope that the warning is enough and that it does not get to that point; and people stick to what an AFD discussion is actually for. Please keep an eye out. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you please block this user and stop him from pestering us?
This user, Special:Contributions/213.107.84.221, is a menace. He just left me a message about removing shows like My Spy Family and The Batman from the List of WarnerMedia television programs page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdamDeanHall&type=revision&diff=1080255209&oldid=1080063061&diffmode=source

So could you please put a stop to him so that he doesn’t leave us any more messages? AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That IP user's talk page is currently a red link. That tells me there is at least 5-6 steps before "Running to the admins to get a block" before you should run to the admins to get a block.  One of those steps should also have been "Notify the user you ran to the admins"... But even before that, you should perhaps just tell them to stop spamming user talk pages and see where that gets you.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You said that I could tell the IP user to stop spamming user talk pages. Well, I just did; and here is the proof: User talk:213.107.84.221 AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , while your request was perfectly acceptable I thought it might be better to leave a warning template on their talk page just letting them know that we appreciate good edits and frown upon spamming and harassment. I'm also going to leave a generic message letting them know that, if they have any questions concerning Wikipedia they can ask their questions at the Teahouse or create an account and go through the WMF Growth Team's mentor/mentee program which would hopefully afford them the opportunity to have their concerns addressed while learning and growing as an editor. An admin can take any action they deem appropriate, I'm just doing this as an act of kindness directed at both the IP and the understandably frustrated OP. -- A Rose Wolf  19:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also notified them of this discussion. -- A Rose Wolf  19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I am reporting a ban evasion.
This user, Special:Contributions/213.107.87.18, has a history of a ban evasion, and is linked to the other blocked accounts. Could you please block him as soon as possible? The reason is because he has removed three shows from the List of WarnerMedia television programs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WarnerMedia_television_programs&type=revision&diff=1080424296&oldid=1080176625&diffmode=source

And not only that, he has also removed Warner Bros. Television from the following pages: Out of Jimmy's Head, The Batman and La CQ:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Out_of_Jimmy%27s_Head&type=revision&diff=1080424725&oldid=1076845313&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Batman_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=1080424555&oldid=1080401123&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_CQ&type=revision&diff=1080425547&oldid=1079337532&diffmode=source

AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which blocked accounts are you saying they used prior? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * These accounts, Special:Contributions/107.119.45.37 and Special:Contributions/LeftyJuJu, were used prior. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

a user intentionally added a factual error and defends it and refuses to communicate
heyo. i stopped editing since before 10s since wiki is more about fighting in comments than actually doing good and here we go again.

so i noticed an error in the article and instead of being anonymous as for last 15 years i had to log in back to edit the page. i made two edits fixing mistakes in the article. and then those got reverted into obviously wrong state and i was blamed for vandalism. okay so as to not to start diff war i went and wrote to the user in question and gave a direct wiki link that can explain a word that can be not known to casual people (but should be known to people who literally edit the sentences in the foreign language in question). and i gave a link to the japanese page where they clearly spell the name of the film letter by letter and i did even add a direct quote from it that spells the name of the movie letter by letter. well, instead of a dialogue the user outright deleted a discussion and refuses to have a dialogue and intends to defend the obviously wrong state. soo can someone tell them to not defend outright false information? --Agof K.P.2 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you got the wrong user there. User:Eiga-Kevin2 wasn't the person who reverted you on the article, he was merely the user to whose (old) version to article got reverted. The person who reverted you was somebody else. I'd suggest closing this noticeboard thread for now, and you first go and talk to that other user and explain your edit to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * huh? i hate this new web two point null and void design with terrible visual editors. okay i retract my remarks about the user calling me a vandal, removing my edits, and my pleads to autoritah. but still they could've try to communicate and either tell me that it was someone else or ask me what i'm on about. --Agof K.P.2 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed the key point here. There's no reason why User:Eiga-Kevin2 needs to do anything since they are not involved in the editing dispute with you, at least not when you started this ANI. If you have a disagreement with the reversion of your edit, you really should talk to the editor who actually reverted your edits i.e. User:Armegon. If you want to talk about the accusation of vandalism or other behavioural issues you can do this at their talk page i.e. User talk:Armegon where slightly ironically the last edit from another editor was from Eiga-Kevin2 a few days ago. I'd note however if you want to talk about the substance of your edits or argue in favour of keeping them, you really should raise this issue at the article talk page i.e. Talk:Frankenstein Conquers the World rather than any user's talk page, where again semi ironically the last edit was from Armegon over 21 months ago. If you open a discussion on the article talk page, perhaps Eiga-Kevin2 will respond perhaps they won't, it's their choice. Again there's no reason why they should be expected to respond to something that doesn't concern them. Editors are expected to communicate about their edits when it's necessary. They are not expected to communicate about someone else's edits, no matter if those edits reverted to a version last edited by themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * no one ever reads article talk pages especially not people who are outright wrong. and you are missing the point here. i already retracted everything, but outright erasing people from talk pages that's just rude and goes against the core of wiki — something something assume good intentions. back in me days 15 years age it was not even allowed if it wasn't obvious trolling with unpleasant pictures or something.
 * anyway, if we are not gonna replace Eiga-Kevin2 with Armegon in my original statement, because Armegon are insisting they know better than japanese people and the intellectual property owners combined, while not knowing the basics of japanese or ignoring talk pages, this topic should be closed. but if Armegon ignores common knowledge even after i pointed it out and linked IP owners in 3 different sources, the core problem behind this request and my appeal to autoritah still stands. Agof K.P.2 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Agof K.P.2 - If you had started this thread on 1 April, you might be cautioned about a bad joke of impersonating a troll. Since this thread started on 31 March, I think that you should be cautioned about flaming.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * >>Flaming or roasting is the act of posting insults, often including profanity or other offensive language, on the internet.
 * you demean and talk down to me out of the bat while i never posted a single insult, profanity or offensive language. i never did anything wrong in articles, but was helping for free yet i was already called such worst inside-wikipedia slurs as a vandal and a troll. you are literally calling me a joke, but somehow it is me who is flaming Agof K.P.2 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * this is the "Administrators'_noticeboard" so how about we will talk about the topic at hand of furigana and my diff war with Armegon. instead of random unrelated non-administrator users coming out of nowhere just to insult participants? Agof K.P.2 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Full protection review
Sorry to raise what is a rather unimportant issue but most edits at this article for the last five years have involved edit warring over an image. I'm involved but have fully protected the article until an RfC that I just started finishes. Does anyone have an opinion on whether I should have protected or whether another admin should monitor the situation while the RfC is in progress? Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Given that you're involved, I'd say asking at WP:RFPP would have been a better move than protecting it yourself. And ornothogonal to that, semi-protection would have been sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Separate from the main issue, an entry at WP:LAME seems more than warranted. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Re semi, it didn't seem fair to privilege the small number of registered editors who also join in the edit warring. I take your point about RFPP and if anyone wants to adopt the current protection or change it, of course that's fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Roy, that doesn't comply with involved or protection policy. Full protection should be a last resort not a first step, and never by an admin who is involved. Starting an RfC and then full protecting the page... Levivich 13:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Full protection wasn't warranted here - with the exception of who should know better and is experienced enough to be blocked if they take advantage of protection to "win" a revert war, the only editors involved are IPs or single-edit accounts. There was an earlier discussion (still visible on the talk page, two sections above the RfC) from 2020 which IMO established consensus for removing the photo, given that the only coherent argument for inclusion was "it's funny" and that's just not a valid encyclopedic rationale. Johnuniq participated in that discussion, arguing for deletion, and although the article was protected on the version with the photo included, 6 reverts over the course of a month is not an emergency; had I seen this at RFPP I would have declined. I suggest we reduce to 1 month semi and let the RFC run its course. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was clear to me that there was not a consensus to include the photo so I know it would not be appropriate for me to restore it. However, it was quietly restored some time after the discussion by someone else and I did not revert that. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry, I meant that to read that I'd expect you to know better than to revert again after a page had already been protected because of an edit war, not that you had done anything wrong here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Un)delete associated talk page coming soon
See WP:VPT. If you have any concerns please share your thoughts there or on the project talk page. Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about a range block
An IP-editor in the range Special:Contributions/174.215.192.0/19 has been ignoring consensus and edit-warring at Taino. That article has now been semi-protected for a week, but I noticed today the user has expanded their unconstructive edits to other articles. A block of the IP range will cause some collateral damage. What is the best way to handle this? - Donald Albury 16:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's just a few articles, an admin could do a partial block on the IP range and add more articles as they become targeted. Or the IP range could be blocked with account creation enabled, which would allow anyone to edit but force them to create an account.  On a technical level, leaving account creation enabled is a mostly meaningless gesture in stopping disruption, but it has three benefits: 1) constructive editors can continue to edit, though they may be momentarily inconvenienced; 2) the psychological effect of forcing people to take ownership of their edits (even pseudonymously) discourages disruption; and 3) placing a trivial barrier in front of an impulsive person will occasionally cause them to take their impulsivity elsewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten the option for a partial block, and I have now done so. Thank you! - Donald Albury 21:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Force-creating local accounts for a few users whose autocreations were disallowed
Due to a recent error in an edit filter, a number of users were erroneously prevented from creating accounts. With users who were trying to create these accounts from scratch, there's nothing we can do but hope that they tried again with some other username, but for users who were visiting after previously registering an account on another wiki, it's possible for admins to "force-create" the accounts for them locally. (This is different from regular account creation, as the account is automatically tied to the user's SUL.) This strikes me as a good thing to do since otherwise a well-meaning user might try to create a local account different from their SUL account, which could in turn be mistaken for sockpuppetry. As such, could an admin please force-create the following accounts? See discussion at (permalink); the main admin involved, Oshwah, is currently unavailable but gives his blessing. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 02:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Special:CreateLocalAccount/Choudharyrakesacaudhar (CentralAuth)
 * Special:CreateLocalAccount/Lryeric (CentralAuth)
 * Special:CreateLocalAccount/Veroyrob (CentralAuth)
 * Special:CreateLocalAccount/Uryrfyy (CentralAuth)
 * Special:CreateLocalAccount/Desroyerwashere (CentralAuth)
 * Special:CreateLocalAccount/RoyRoa (CentralAuth)
 * Special:CreateLocalAccount/BladSDestroyer (CentralAuth)


 * I totally understood that. Also here. El_C 10:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've created the local accounts. Thanks Tamzin for compiling a list (also fyi those CreateLocalAccount links don't work like you'd think). -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I really should have checked that, zzuuzz. Not sure why I expected MW behavior to be consistent. Thanks. Also, El_C: Filter say "username bad". Filter wrong. So users have accounts other places, but not here. zzuuzz press buttons. Now users have accounts here. Now they don't have to be like commons:User:ElC with two accounts. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The underscore gives me +1 agility. El_C 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I just left this user a message about spamming pages like “La CQ”, “Out of Jimmy’s Head” and “The Batman”.
I just told an IP user, Special:Contributions/213.107.85.237, to stop spamming pages like La CQ, Out of Jimmy's Head, The Batman (TV series) and List of WarnerMedia television programs: User talk:213.107.85.237. Could you at least give him a warning about that? AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any spamming on those pages by that user, just good faith edits and yourself adding information without sources, and then re-adding them after they were validly removed which is now edit warring. Honestly from what I can see, you are the one making unsourced edits, and the IP is just trying to undo that as it's not supported. Can you provide diffs and info on this? <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdamDeanHall&type=revision&diff=1080920193&oldid=1080848019&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Out_of_Jimmy%27s_Head&type=revision&diff=1080919874&oldid=1080507769&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Batman_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=1080918197&oldid=1080455675&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_CQ&type=revision&diff=1080917692&oldid=1080738154&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WarnerMedia_television_programs&type=revision&diff=1080918988&oldid=1080479973&diffmode=source

These are the only differences and info that I provided for you. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again nothing there about the IP spamming those articles mentioned, just reverting unsourced information you added. Instead of coming here complaining you should be taking a content dispute to the talk pages of the articles as per WP:BRD. You know this, you've been down the unsourced/edit warring path before. It could be considered your edits are disruptive for continuing to re-add unsourced material to articles and edit warring on it. You changed/added, the IP reverted with good explanations, now it's up to you to come up with sources to support your edits and discuss them on the various talk pages, not revert back. And it seems you're now acknowledging that the IP is in fact right. Honestly the only poor behaviour I've seen here is yours. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing the same thing as . I also notice the OP has filed three AN cases in the past week. All of these filings are related. As pointed out by @Canterbury above, it appears the OP removed information from the articles in question and replaced it with new information without providing proper support from sources to make the alterations. The IP or IP's were just reverting back to the stable version of the article. If has the sources then I encourage them to add or provide those in a message on the respective article talk pages. It's not harassment or spamming to notify an editor when they are breaking with policy when they are actually breaking policy which appears is the case. Filing repetitive needless cases here takes time away from our admin corps, time they could be spending on legitimate concerns. While I have never been an admin, I can appreciate their efforts and respect the time they give to the project. These filings seem more a disruption than any comment the IP's have left on the OP's talk page.   -- A Rose  Wolf  14:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also now notified two IP's from two different filings for the OP. They are reminded, again, that notification is a requirement. -- A Rose Wolf  14:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Based in part on this edit by the reporting user, I'm thinking maybe close this report with no action, but a future report like this might trigger WP:Boomerang. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The unfortunate thing here is that these kind of edits are not out of character by AdamDeanHall. Lots of minor issues of article ownership, they rarely source their edits, minor incivility, rarely uses talk pages, reverting with no real explanation (and related edits such as this one), making what could be considered disruptive edits (in this case the original text was correct, for 1999, WHV didn't disappear until 2016 in a reshuffle and rebranding so this edit is actually not suitable) that rarely has raised their attention too much on the major drama boards. They do have a severe disruptive editing pattern of updating links and mentions of old production companies and studios to be what they are called today, despite the fact that what they're called today isn't how it was released. However I see them all across movie and TV articles causing minor disruption. I wouldn't be upset by a boomerang investigation into their long term editing patterns. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Wikipedia by HistoryofIran
Hi. i noticed, the user HistoryofIran changes the names of cities, regions, people of Iran without a source. On his page (talk), I asked about his work, but without answering, he deleted my question and explanation. Isn't this his behavior disruptive?

i provided documentation and history of articles that he tries to change the names to his liking. Masoud bukani (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Where did you provide the documentation? The post on HistoryofIran's talk page doesn't contain any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Look more closely at the post. I see 4 examples:
 * Mukriyan -> Mokriyan
 * Aziz Khan Mukri -> Aziz Khan Mokri
 * Kurdistan - > Kordistan
 * Bukan - > Bokan
 * 93.172.232.172 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Historyofiran hasnt edited Mukriyan is the last 15 years at least, Aziz Khan Mokri is the current article title and has been since it was created in 2013, Bukan was recently editted to be Bokan but that was by an different user altogether. What is this nonsense? LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 15:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@transmission You are really rude! Nonsense?Masoud bukani (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The only diff you've provide is Historyofiran removing a comment on their own talk page, something that is allowed per WP:OWNTALK. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 15:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) Three of those four titles are at the names that you seem to prefer, and Aziz Khan Mokri was renamed five years ago without opposition. That last one, which is the only one that this user actually renamed, should be discussed on its talk page if you disagree. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

i made the article Aziz Khan Mukri and its name was based on sources. Changing the correct spelling name is not the right thing to do!


 * Aziz Khan Mukri
 * Aziz Khan Mukri
 * Sardar Mukri
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6

user HistoryofIran: Changes the word u to o for no reason and replaces its arbitrary name. It also deletes my comment (in HistoryofIran talk page) without providing a response! This is very unprofessional !! Masoud bukani (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The 'professional' thing to do is start a discussion on the relevant article talk page - one that doesn't include threats to 'report this to the managers'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This is quite rich, coming from a user who's made 213 edits over 8 years, and who's talk page is littered with all kinds of warnings to which he never left any sort of constructive response (until 2022). User:Masoud bukani has a long-time fixation on changing material on Wikipedia without consensus, discussion or sources. E.g.--- Not even Commons is spared from this uncompromising zeal. His message on user:HistoryofIran's talk page followed after years of warnings that were issued to him by various users. Looking at the compelling evidence, I would have to say that this is a retaliatory report out of WP:JDL and a sheer lack of WP:CIR. Wikipedia is a project carried out by coorporating with others, not trying to shove your personal POVs into articles whilst ignoring WP:RS, WP:WAR, WP:CON, etc. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "Changes the word u to o for no reason"
 * The sole source (Encyclopaedia Iranica) cited at Aziz Khan Mokri prior to the major expansion by user:HistoryofIran in 2021 uses Aziz Khan Mokri. Even when the article only contained this source, you still tried to override it. On several occassions that is. And you were warned for it too (to no avail unfortunately). That's textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon I'm not very active on this wiki. But this is not a reason to accuse me! [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/fa.wikipedia.org/Masoud%20bukani It is better to check correctly. Do not accuse me].

and Only Iranica has written this person's name like this! I upload the images (Aziz Khan Mukri) and that user changes his name and the letter u to o! Are you sure which one is more correct?Masoud bukani (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

How many books have you read about the details of this person's life? Did you know that the person (Aziz Khan) was the founder of Bukan ?? If you do not have information, please do not blame others. I think you have not read as much about this historical figure as I have.Masoud bukani (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, three of the four examples you gave haven't been renamed by anyone, so what the hell are you talking about? The other one should be discussed on its talk page. Why come to this page? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Starting to feel like this is just an extension of the, what is starting to really appear seemingly organized, general attacks against HistoryofIran that they are unfortunately having to deal with a lot of. There's no reason for this thread, yet they have come in attacking HoI for things they didn't do. Is this spill over from the FA Wikipedia? <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do here. I see no basis for any action against HistoryofIran from the material presented here. As noted above, any concerns you have about the title of articles will need to be discussed at the respective articles' talk pages. Be prepared to present multiple reliable sources and to have your position rebutted. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

'''The word mokri is used in Kurdish. Its correct pronunciation in English is mukri. like the: Kordistan (in kurdish) Kurdistan (in English) Bokan (Kurdish) Bukan (English)'''.

Of course, Google Translator still has a lot of mistakes. For example, this article is from the great encyclopedia of Islam, which has spelling mistakes with Google Translator.Masoud bukani (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a content issue and beyond the scope of this noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's a spill over from the FA wiki, as I can't even understand the Persian script so I rarely make edits there, and those are usually minor, i.e. adding a image or something. That makes me remember, this is not the first time he has made random complaints about me in a noticeboard. He also did it in the FA Wiki (down below .) I don't know what grudge he holds against me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)



Persian Wikipedia has nothing to do with this.

Why not answer instead of accusing? Why change the names to your liking? Let me show you your edits for my claim:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Khan_Mokri&type=revision&diff=1036740481&oldid=779271376 (Move Aziz Khan Mukri to Mokri !!)


 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AAziz_Khan_Mokri&type=revision&diff=613422937&oldid=579832240 (change Mukri to Mokri !!)


 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAziz_Khan_Mokri%2C_military_commander_in_Qajar_Iran.jpg&type=revision&diff=642894992&oldid=613422981 (delete/change category name )

In Persian Wikipedia, failure to respond to users and delete comments is considered a violation of the rules. You also did an unprofessional job and disrespected my servant. We could have talked on the same page of your talk page! But you deleted my comment and I had to mention it here. Masoud bukani (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do I need to keep repeating this? The place to discuss that name is Talk:Aziz Khan Mokri, and you need to tell us why you complained about three other articles that hadn't even been renamed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So this is all over a single edit on the English Wikipedia? —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad, it's not a single edit. It's four years worth of edits, including an attempted move against consensus by Masoud bukani and adding a Romanization but not a source for it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)



Allowing users to delete other people's comments without reply (a kind of disrespect and insult) is one of the bad rules of English Wikipedia, and I'm upset.

I have access to many resources and have read over 150 books on historical topics. I have more than 17,000 edits in all Wikipedia projects. Several people participated in this discussion but none of them paid attention to my content, no problem, you like it wrong, go wrong wrong. I do not have time anymore. Thanks.Masoud bukani (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)



Sources? I introduced a lot of sources and books:


 * Aziz Khan Mukri
 * Aziz Khan Mukri
 * Sardar Mukri
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6

I'm upset by this behavior. I have nothing to say. Goodbye. Masoud bukani (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This is just a timesink, and heading towards WP: BOOMERANG territory. Close this now, any content issues can be brought on on the talk pages of the respective articles. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 20:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

AFD closure
Articles for deletion/John Stump (3rd_nomination) seems like it's been relisted enough times for a consensus to form. Should it be closed as delete? Maybe apply some WP:SALT since I know the article has been re-created multiple times. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The procedure to contest a decision made in a deletion discussion is first to ask about about it on the relevant user talk page and then, if not satisfied, to go to WP:DRV. It is not to post here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this was relisted again. There seems to be enough substantive commentary and source analysis for a delete consensus. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 21:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that it doesn't appear at WP:OLDAFD probably doesn't help matters. I will also note that Closure Requests has a deletion discussion section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of permissions
Hi, I've recently changed ISPs and I don't think I'll have a need for WP:IPBE anymore. Please remove it. Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ (@FozzieHey) firefly  ( t · c ) 20:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Mirette El Hariri article
Hello, can you please look at Articles for deletion/Mirette El Hariri, Mirette El Hariri and Draft:Mirette El Hariri, as there's socks involvement? Please see meta doc. (Cross wiki issue). Thanks on advance -- Alaa )..! 21:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Hi, the subject discussion is the third such recent discussion on this. See also:Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8 and Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7. This is a relatively trivial matter but it is IMHO getting to be disruptive. I know this isn't WP:CR but I'm not likely to get a quick response there. It needs IMHO some decision one way or the other to refer to as definitive. I'm not seeing a clear consensus either way. There isn't a clear status quo. It probably comes down to an onus for inclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not sure admins could do much on this or where there is disruption. Are you asking them to establish a statu quo by choosing a version?
 * Maybe asking at a WP:DR (not sure if one could fit your request) or making an WP:RFC could settle the matter. Sometimes, there is no way to find a solution quickly to some editing disputes. Veverve (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , it would be a question of determining a statu quo since I can't see a consensus either way and it wouldn't be a statu quo in the normal sense since I'm not seeing a particularly stable version either - though I could be wrong on both counts. It is really asking for an independent eye to make a decision and I came here because I know that WP:CR can be a long wait. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If the status quo is what has stayed longer, then it is with links. Thankfully no one has removed them in weeks now and the dust has settled. I think starting an administrators noticeboard was honestly very unnecessary. Wretchskull (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Um, edited out here, in here, out here and [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1080434173&oldid=1080423860back in here] since 29 March? Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not think intervening in such an edition dispute is an admin task. Veverve (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Should Non Fungible Tokens have similar discretionary actions to Cryptocurrency?
Please start by referring to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies and to the relevant prior AN discussion

A Non-fungible token (NFT) has characteristics which are related to Blockchain and cryptocurrencies (obviously I am out of my comfort zone here, forgive any naïvety), not least of which is the enthusiastic promotion of them for profit.


 * 1) Should NFTs have their own discretionary sanctions?
 * 2) Should the existing sanctions be extended to include them im a formal manner (including amending the notice at ?

Or has this been discussed already? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since NFTs rely on cryptocurrency and blockchain, I think they implicitly fall into this existing DS and do not need a new one. --M asem  (t) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Masem My lack of knowledge is to blame for a poorly phrased question. Understanding what you say, should the alert template have its scope extended slightly? Would that be useful? I am thinking not of those who receive the warning, but those who may be unsure whether to place it. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It probably can't hurt to add.
 * As a separate concern, I do wonder if we should be thinking about the metaverse in the same way. --M asem (t) 14:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone that participates in the topic area of crypto, I think that while metaverse is related I currently don't see the level of disruption or contentiousness to where DS are necessary. UPE and fan content are an issue, same as crypto, but we don't have the level of mass-scale promotion-for-profit editing or militant POV pushers currently to where DS are needed. If the crypto bubble pops before mid-2023/2024 that should stay the same, but we might see the type of editing requiring DS otherwise. However, if editors believe metaverse == blockchain content (I'd disagree) then one can assume metaverse falls under the crypto DS already. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that NFTs fall under "blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed", which are the target of the current sanctions, and I don't see any harm in updating wording to clarify the matter for us dinosaurs who prefer things real, and so know little about such topics. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see them as any different. Secretlondon (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Blockchain is a technology; NFTs are an application of that technology, and thus already covered by "broadly construed" IMO. There are a number of applications of blockchain, of which NFTs and cryptocurrencies are two (see Blockchain for others), and I'm not sure we need to list them all in alerts/templates/etc., unless we have a widespread problem of editors thinking that NFTs are not covered by the blockchain GS. Levivich 17:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been pretty well recognized that NFTs fall within the crypto GS. See the header at Talk:Non-fungible token. JBchrch   talk  16:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Careful attention to the page Russian fascism (ideology)
Dear community. Need your help with this quite hot article which is being contributed by various users with various views: Russian fascism (ideology). I found it today to be absent and redirected into the general disamb page. I restored the version by and want you know about it. I think, the article needs to be both improved, cleaned and protected from any harsh moves like redirects, speedy deletions, etc. There are a lot of sources and the scope of the article is disputed but after Bucha massacre and other Russian actions in Ukraine it will be quite easier to prove Russian fascism is not an alleged but a true ideology. My latest page is also about it: What Russia should do with Ukraine (article). --IgorTurzh (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * it appears that article was redirected per this talk page section. It is probably best to engage with the arguments for redirection that were mentioned there. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xeno there were no arugments. One user just decided to redirect. that's all. that user is not even an administrator. IgorTurzh (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * have you taken the time to read the talk page before being so bold? Since you wrote after Bucha massacre and other Russian actions in Ukraine it will be quite easier to prove Russian fascism is not an alleged but a true ideology, I think you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here and not to follow Wikipedia's standards (see for example WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:PRECISE). Veverve (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Veverve I think you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here and not to follow Wikipedia's standards -- nope, it's your idea, not mine. It was just additional argument. Don't please count it. I read carefully and found no consensus you are talking about. So I revert it back and ask you to join the Talk page discussion.  IgorTurzh (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I showed you were the consensus was on your user talk page, and has also told you there was a consensus. Please do not revert; discuss first, otherwise administrative sanctions may ultimately be taken. Veverve (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Veverve @Xeno I find no consensus and the talk discussion was quite weak. Good for flags and shortening the article, but not good for soft-deleting the article. IgorTurzh (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I started work on a draft page Draft:Fascism_in_Russia (in general draft space not my user area) and laid it out and added some text as a starting point. Unfortunately I have no time to work on it and will be taking it no further but my suggestion would be to publish it and then work on adding the information there rather than expanding the scope of other pages. That way there is a definitive master "Fascism in Russia" page which talks about it for the last 150 years (or so) with links to other articles. Gusfriend (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gusfriend. Thank you for a good start. I have quite another idea. I think it's better to focus on Rashism - as the phenomenon of independent Russia (post Soviet). It's a mix of Putinism, nazism, fascism, etc. IgorTurzh (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

error
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 21:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Request Review of Topic Ban
I have topic banned for one year from the subject area of Eastern Europe and the Balkans broadly construed. See my notice here and the ANI discussion here. My review of their history in this area largely supported the rough consensus in the discussion that their editing was frequently, though not always, problematic. However, as I have only very rarely imposed a t-ban and the user believes the sanction to be unjust, I am requesting a review of the ANI and my sanction. Thank you...

Courtesy ping to editors involved at the ANI. ,, , ,

-Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ad Orientem thanks! I ask to ping someone else, for instance @Deepfriedokra @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Tsans2 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse topic ban -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Justice is not the issue. This is not a criminal justice system. The TBAN was undertaken to reduce or stop disruption, and is warranted. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you want to ban me for a year because I was reverting edits on one particular page? Why don't to limit editing this particular page as you did for me and that other user? Tsans2 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Deepfriedokra Tsans2 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your problems extend beyond the one page. You are only banned from one small part of the encyclopedia. Not the entire encyclopedia. That you do not understand how your edits are problematic actually argues in favor of the topic ban -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Deepfriedokra can you prove your thinking with some facts? I can only guess what do you mean, but I ask you for arguments. Tsans2 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly. It was all presented at Special:permalink/1080566415.  Best,  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Boldness is only part of the process, especially in contentious areas. When one is reverted, as you have been, then it is necessary to discuss-- to seek WP:CONSENSUS, which you are not doing so well. The TBAN is important to prevent further disruption due to you lack of discussion in a contentious area, when other BOLD editors do not agree with what you are doing, and find it impossible to discuss with you. And most importantly, when other editors disagree with your changes, you should not proceed anyway. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, if I violated WP:CONSENSUS on this page -- Russian fascism, and I got no other warnings (except for one with Yuzhne/Odessa mess which was mistakenly made by Ymblanter). What is the reason of TBAN? Tsans2 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not "mistakenly made Yuzhne mess", I reverted a replacement of a valid link with a redlink. This continuing battleground behavior demonstrates the necessity of a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Me doing my usual ANI→AE rant + one example I looked at (in isolation): User_talk:El_C. El_C 17:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse topic ban per Okra. I wouldn't say the user is acting maliciously or anything, but just from a practical, results-of-action perspective, this needed to happen eventually. Tsans kept on disrupting the article I was watching (namely, Russian fascism) and would not be dissuaded by talk page discussion, despite Veverve's extreme persistence and patience. Tsans got banned for a week for edit warring, then the moment said ban expired, they went back to the same behavior. I don't really see what other choice could be taken to stop that constant disruption. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Can I restrain from editing Russian fascism page and get liberated from TBAN? I see, you and other user are not happy with my edits on Russian fascism page. I can forget about it. I created 12 other pages and had no problems with anyone. Tsans2 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith I ask to ban me from editing Russian fascism article. I don't see any other problems with any article. And I ask to relief TBAN. Tsans2 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the testimony of other editors in this very thread, that is untrue. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse topic ban: for Tsans2 's unapologetic use of FICTREFs and POV-pushing, as well as their unwillingness to follow or try to understand WP:consensus and WP:BRD on Russian fascism (ideology). Veverve (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is even worse than I thought on the WP:DONTGETIT side, the user has stated: I didn't find any reason for my ban. In general, which exactly my edits are so bad, that I was banned? ; and Tsans2 has claimed that this ban looks like a punishment for my following of this rule: Be bold . Veverve (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse topic ban We do not need an editor in this topic area pushing a POV, playing fast and loose with references, and engaging in edit warring behavior. Let the editor develop their skills in other parts of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was surprised by the topic ban. Initially my reaction was "Where did that come from?".  I gave it some thought.  We don't want aspersions like Special:Diff/1080203447 being bandied about, not just because of the Eastern Europe+Balkans thing but because of current affairs, as well.  And the response to my opening a talk page discussion at Talk:Yuzhne was not to participate but rather to keep blundering about in article space creating Pivdennyi Port and then asserting that I, who cautiously opened a talk page discussion starting it off with some evidence that this name change seemed not to actually have happened in practice, was "not carefull".  Opening a talk page discussion rather than just blundering straight into article edits is a canonical example of being careful.  I never asked for a ban or anything like it; and my preferred outcome would have been some people (including others such as Ymblanter who took issue with this change to the extent of calling it "vandalism") actually participating on that talk page.  Sanctions are there to maintain the highest standards in contentious areas, and using talk pages for disputes is definitely part of that.  (Whether placenames are in one or in another language is not a contentious topic limited to current affairs in Ukraine.  It's a long term issue in Armenia and Azerbaijan too; and we know that there have been minor edit wars over that.)  So although I was surprised by the topic ban, I cannot fault it.  Uncle G (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Uncle G I have asked the other admins to restrain me from editing this Russian fascism page as all the problems come to that page and no one other. I think it's okay to ban me from editing this page forever, but not all the Eastern Europe topic for the whole year. I created 12 or more aticles and no one said that I was wrong, or did something bad. Tsans2 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This probably needs to be formally closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose to such very wide topic ban. Support a more narrow topic ban from page Russian fascism (ideology) or from the subject of Russian fascism. Looking at their edits, the behavior by the user was clearly problematic only on that specific page. For example this edit on another page by Tsan2 just needs to be phrased differently, but it is factually correct. Ovsyannikova said herself she worked for Russian propaganda for years, and this is just a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

AIV seems to be backlogged
About three dozen manual requests, and lots of other bot requests currently to be actioned on WP:AIV. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 14:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Firefly • Sdrqaz
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ad Orientem
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast



Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news
 * Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the  and   rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators.
 * When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present.

Arbitration
 * has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
 * A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
 * A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

3RR violation
(It's my first time posting here. If there is a more appropriate place to tell this, let me know)

Controversial Reddit communities edit history

User seems to engage in bad faith edits in this post and other articles (where his contributions are quickly removed). Tetizeraz -  (talk page)  10:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The best place to report edit warring is WP:ANEW. However, the user hasn't edited the page for a couple of days, and they have already been advised that discretionary sanctions are in place in that topic area. I'll give them some advise, if they do it again report them and they'll be prevented from editing. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If I happen to find another instance of users like this one, other than reporting at WP:ANEW, what kind of template should I use in their talk page? Tetizeraz  -  (talk page)  16:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's about Uyghur genocide specifically, you can use . If it's edit warring in general,  depending on whether the user is new or not, you could use Article, or Article . Or you could just write them a message directing them to WP:EW and asking that they stop.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The UCOC enforcement guidelines have passed
58.61% to 41.39%. 945 opposes, 65 neutrals, and 1338 supports. See it at Universal Code of Conduct. MoneytreesTalk🏝️ 21:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC) The guidelines can be seen at Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines MoneytreesTalk🏝️  22:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they'll publish breakdown of support/oppose by home wiki, much like they did with the voter turnout. Hog Farm Talk 21:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In order to do that, they'd have to keep track of how each person voted. I doubt even WMF would do that.  or at least admit to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Securepoll is a horrible piece of software that embodies a lot that has been wrong with how the foundation has prioritized software development dollars in the past. The one thing it does do is ensure votes are anonymous. So there is no way to say what the support/oppose was by various wikis because it genuinely can't be told from the software by design as a privacy feature. Which, at least for me, is incredibly important that private voting is kept private. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be more accurate (I think, someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong), the UCOC was already in place, by pure WMF fiat. This was the vote on the enforcement mechanisms. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant to say, I've amended my comment. MoneytreesTalk🏝️ 22:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are not correct, in your understanding, you are not alone in misunderstanding; I, too, believed (and believe) the vote was about "enforcement mechanisms". And furthermore, that being so: if my understanding of the "enforcement mechanisms" is also correct (even if only mostly correct) Wikipedia's era of joyful optimism has officially given wane to a new era; a regrettable era to say the least. Oh how I wish to be wrong. --John Cline (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If it tells us anything, it's that WMF have learned lessons. Viz, don't put anything up to a vote unless you can guarantee the result first.   SN54129  21:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And they continued to follow an old lesson they've been following for years: make sure what you're writing is as unparseable as possible; then once it passes, you can interpret it however you want. And in classic "First they came ..." form (sorry, don't mean to violate Godwin's law quite so soon, but it's otherwise too good an analogy to avoid.  To be absolutely clear, I'm not calling the WMF nazis), I didn't actually pay any attention to the years-in-the-making UCoC until someone pointed out it could affect me directly, and by then it was already too late.  If it wasn't for the fact that, before too long, they're going to demand a loyalty oath and attendance at a re-education camp for new admins (and in about a year, almost surely for existing admins to remain admins), I would probably still not know or care anything about this.  So, to some extent, I deserve what I get.  In the long run, bureaucracy always wins (absent a revolution, which seems unlikely here).  --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So what happens next I guess? Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Next? The WMF tells admins they've got to enforce UCOC. The admins reply 'or what'? Then we find out what 'what' entails... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I foresee admin resignations, especially in areas where the UCOC is an anchor around the neck (i.e. any of these areas). —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Watch this space. Unfortunately I am busy with work until this weekend, but on the weekend I will be proposing some amendments to WP:ADMIN that will explicitly disallow ENWP admin enforcement of the UCoC, as well as prohibiting WMF staff/contractors from holding advanced permissions on ENWP. It will absolutely not stop UCoC enforcement, but it will make it clear to the WMF that if they want to do it, they need to do it themselves, from a staff account. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If WMF decide to go ahead with the UCoC enforcement, I would unambiguously support such a motion. If they're not willing to listen to their largest community, then they're not truly doing their own job, according to their mission statement, which includes In coordination with a network of individual volunteers - obviously if you're not listening to people then you're not "in coordination" with them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing something in the logic flow here. But if the proposal is to prevent enwiki admins from enforcing the UCoC, and additionally prevents WMF staff and contractors from holding advanced permissions on enwiki, who then will enforce the UCoC? Pretty much any enforcement action would require advanced permissions, so this sounds like a defacto block on any enforcement of the UCoC. Or will this proposal only prevent WMF staff and contractors from holding advanced permissions on their non WMF work related accounts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I should say 'community granted' permissions on their non-staff accounts. Staff accounts can be granted advanced permissions by developers (I have no idea if a staff account has them by default). UCoC enforcement would then only be able to be done by a WMF staff member, on a staff account. Making it clear that its WMF enforcing a policy they have in place, and not any part of ENWP's self-governance. Due to the inherant conflict of interest, it would mean anyone who is a staff member or contractor for the WMF could not hold advanced permissions on their non-staff account, because of the confict of interest between them recieving cash from the WMF and their duty to uphold ENWP's policies before the WMF's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, got it. I can't say I support that proposal, as I continue not to see any issue with the UCoC or enforcement of it by local enwiki admins, as it is pretty similar to any such code of conduct you'd be required to sign for employment or long term volunteer work in a professional or semi-professional capacity. But I do now at least understand what that proposal would entail. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think desysopping and debureaucrating 10+ admins, bureaucrats and former arbcom members, who otherwise make good contributions and may or may not have anything to do with UCOC, is a very bad idea. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The stuff about self-proclaimed indigenous knowledge trumping all, or something was terrible. It reeks of corporate America. Such a shame it passed. Secretlondon (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It may also be worth having a discussion about requiring the WMF to get a consensus on the English Wikipedia before making any significant changes, technical or otherwise, to the English Wikipedia. Whether the WMF would abide by that discussion if it does produce a consensus for that requirement is a different question. BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Only in death does duty end: The WMF should obviously have some role in enforcing the UCOC, but to give them the sole responsibility for enforcing it would not lead to positive results. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Cheerio, Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And over 1,300 editors voting for it is not changing anyone's mind about how this is all the WMF's doing. I wonder if they'd approve a grant for popcorn... Levivich 22:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If they tell me I have to enforce it, I will ignore them. If they tell me I have to sign a loyalty pledge to the Foundation almighty, I will just watch them rip the admin bit out of my hands, even though they aren't the ones that gave it to me.  As I've said elsewhere, my loyalty is to the community, not the paid representatives of the Foundation.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ↑ Likewise. Deor (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ↑ Likewise. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ↑ Likewise. — Ched (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ↑ Likewise. BusterD (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I will state as clearly as I possibly can: no one will have to sign a loyalty pledge. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * MJL, at least to me, the gist of affirming to a standard that I frankly don't believe is in the English Wikipedia's best interests (the UCOC stuff probably works better for some of the smaller wikipedias) is essentially stating that I am more loyal to the WTF than to the English Wikipedia community. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hog Farm: Okay, but you aren't even going to be required to say you'll enforce the UCoC since you're already an admin. I get that some people are concerned because future admins will be required to affirm the UCoC, but that is a separate issue (among other issues). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on with exception of current advanced rights holders with rights that are not up for renewal who will not have a set timeframe to accomplish these affirmations. This may be changed on review after a year following the ratification of these guidelines from the enforcement guidelines, I'd sure says that's coming in the not so distant future ... Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly a good chance that many future admin candidates will just refuse to sign an oath or attend a WTF class and will be elected anyway. Maybe all of them. Probably the best thing to do now is take anything mandatory for English Wikipedia admins - past or future - out of the proposed document as soon as possible. That would save a huge amount of time and let English Wikipedia know that the Foundation recognizes both the extent of Wikipedia's self-governance and how important a certainty about that is to many Wikipedians, including those elected by the community under its own set of rules, regs, and whatnots. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, but they can't change it without review. That's in the text. When that review happens, that is when you should be making these points (which for the record, I will participate in to support the removal of affirmations altogether rather loudly). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah,that seems to have been worded that way so they could tell us old timers we wouldn't have to do it right away, while all new advanced permission holders will have to (iff it approved by the Board) That doesn't reassure me at all. I also share the concern about mass resignations. I'll tell you all this: we absolutely should not all start resigning if and when the enforcement guidelines become global policy that we must swear to uphold. Instead I propose we make them fire us for refusing to do so. They will either back down, or they will have to own being responsible for decimating the admin corps worldwide. They can't claim there was a strong global mandate for this as turnout was absurdly low. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: can someone please summarize, in plain English, what changes this would require of our policies? 93.172.232.172 (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * None at all. As folks basically kinda admitted when I discussed this at User talk:Iridescent, there is nothing in the UCOC that isn't already English Wikipedia policy (either as-written or as-applied). To me, this just seems like a huge overreaction caused by a mix of a) skepticism over WMF-led initiatives; b) fear/uncertainty when new major policies are introduced (further backed by the fact that the community tends to be quite conservative and refuses to change processes, even when it finds a consensus that a given process is broken, because it's worried any replacement will have side effects).
 * Obviously, policy is not enforced by robots, it's enforced by humans, and indeed the UCOC is enforced mostly (entirely in the case of enwiki?) by local admins. So thinking there will be some catastrophic change due to some ambiguity or typo in the UCOC docs is IMO quite unreasonable. Actually, much of this section just comes across as a dislike of the WMF. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I will also point out that just because a site has systematic issues, does not mean it is irrelevant. Croatian Wikipedia is one of 4 different Wikipedias written in Serbo-Croatian, but who runs is still a pretty critical concern because otherwise its issues will bleed out into other projects. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question for everyone here. Regardless of what the policy says, and also regardless of what we feel about it, by what practical mechanism can the WMF force any one Wikipedia admin to enforce the policy?  Blocking an editor for violating the policy requires a positive action on the part of an ENWP admin.  Like, I have to go in, read the ANI post (or whatever initiated the block requirement), and decide to enact the block through my own volition.  How is the WMF to require me to do any of that?  I'm failing to see how this proposal affects even a single ENWP admin and the performance of their jobs as ENWP admins here?  Like, even without this UCOC mess, pretend this is 2017 or whatever.  Lets say there's a discussion on ANI that comes to consensus that some user is to be blocked.  How does anyone know a) that I read the discussion b) that I decided I didn't agree with the results and c) that I could have used my admin tools but just decided not to?  Because unless the WMF knows about any of that, they can't actually force me (or any admin) to use my tools.  They can't say "Jason, we're sanctioning you because you didn't block so-and-so".  How?  What if I was on vacation that week?  What about the other hundreds of admins?  Literally, this is not reality.  The UCOC can realistically only be enforced by the WMF using WMF personnel.  There's nothing they can do to an admin, because there's literally know way of knowing that any one admin deliberately disobeyed the requirement to enforce the UCOC.  It's all making mountains out of molehills.  If the WMF wants to enforce it from their WMF accounts, let them.  They can't require a bunch of volunteers to block someone, anymore than they can force an editor to correct a spelling mistake in an article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess this is what the enforcement guidelines process was all about, and a lot of it still seems to be left deliberately vague. But as I understand it, the key points are: admins are responsible for enforcing the UCoC; ArbComs (or equivalent) are responsible for making sure that admins on their project are enforcing the UCoC; and the new U4C will be responsible for making sure that ArbComs are enforcing-the-enforcing (point 4 of its scope). So if there's a systematic failure by enwiki admins to enforce it, the U4C will be looking to see if ArbCom is doing anything about it, and if they're not lean on them to do so, or as a last resort recommend the WMF take some severe action like removing and replacing ArbCom or the admin cadre. I highly doubt that would ever happen on a large project like enwiki, but you can see parallels in the WMF's recent actions on zhwiki. If it's not a systematic problem then it's not really a problem at all, since presumably other admins on the project are picking up the slack of doing UCoC-enforcement. So yeah, it's pretty hard to see how this could impact individual admins, unless they refuse to affirm that they'll enforce the UCoC in the first place, which would be a clear justification for someone on that enforcement ladder taking away their bits. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am curious what these hypothetical scenarios are where the UCoC would apply and enwp admins would say "I'd rather quit than address that specific conduct the UCoC says is problematic", and what you imagine would happen if you try to argue that enforcement in that scenario is [un]necessary. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering about this myself. I get the you-can't-tell-me-how-to-volunteer-my-time response, but seriously, what in the UCoC's "unacceptable behaviour" list do we not already act on? We tolerate mild trolling, we might debate over whether something is "actually" harassment, but most of what's covered under "harassment" is stuff we already take very seriously. Under the "abuse of power" section, the only thing I'm not sure about is the "psychological manipulation" part (how do you recognise this?) And vandalism? Even a lazy admin like me acts decisively against vandalism. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RE: the "psychological manipulation" part (how do you recognise this?) — with a Shoe (0nhead). Random example: Fakebook's T&S has been complicit in causing 'psychological' harm to the Rohingya. Of course, oh hi Mark seems to be far more interested in having some weird uncanny valley GTA RP, with required VR headsets and without any of the fun, or a superior (10-year-old) graphics engine. But with voluntary nudes and NFTs for some reason. And nobody caring. A brave new world (that sucks).
 * Annyway, we don't want the kind of delusions, ineptitude and outright maleficence of the tech giants spilled over, here, to en. We got this, WMF. When it comes to en, there's no need for you to flex the Dark Side of the pur$e $tring mu$cle with a poorly-defined, top-down command & control. As noted above/below, the WMF already has the power to do any and all of that (even if to everyone's detriment, its own hierarchy included). Side note: I am the leader of the Wikimedia Foundation. I will do it. El_C 15:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We're all forgetting that Wikipedia is basically en:, and the foundation is a parasitic outgrowth. Without en: they are left with sorting out infighting between the Armenian and Azeri Wikipedias, and the excitement of Moldovan Wikiquote. The power is with the big Wikis, not with the actual bureaucrats. We are the product they exist for. They are nothing without us. People donate to them, thinking they are us. Secretlondon (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is such a bad take. English Wikipedia is not the only Wikimedia site that matters. It's very misguided to believe otherwise. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It may not be the only Wikimedia site that matters, but it's one of rather few that does. Many of the other language Wikipedias are very small and primarily either run by a very small cadre of editors or are otherwise poorly created (Cebuano Wikipedia is just a bunch of bot-produced stubs on species and places, and I think everyone remembers the Scots Wikipedia fiasco).  Wikiquote is a bunch of copyvios that nobody reads, meta is a cesspit, Commons is a mess of copyvios and porn, etc. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hog Farm: Of course I remember the Scots Wikipedia thing; I was there as an admin.
 * MJL, speaking of systematic issues at some of the smaller issues, that's what I've felt that the UCOC and the enforcement guidelines would work better for - small communities that can't govern themselves effectively for various reasons. I don't think the one-size-fits-all approach here will lead to anything good.  How to govern issues in Scots or Croatian is not relevant to enwiki, and trying to slam a single document onto all (I'm referring to enforcement here, not the same behavioral expectations) is just going to hurt everyone. Hog Farm Talk 16:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Except in a few areas (in re training and affirmations), the EGs aren't a one-size-fits-all situation. We are talking about a document that literally says: Local enforcement of the UCoC may be supported in multiple ways, and communities will be able to choose from different mechanisms or approaches based on several factors at their discretion, such as their capacity, approach to governance, and general community preferences. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Based on what I've read, and from some conversations I've had with WMF people, I'm really not too worried. The vibe I get from those conversations is that WMF considers enwiki to be well-managed by its community and this is mostly aimed at some of the smaller projects where self-governance is a lot more dubious.  As for "forced enforcement", it's just plain absurd to think they're going to put a gun to an individual admin's head and say, "Block that user or we'll take your mop away".  But I could see them say to a local Wikimedia chapter, "If you don't state that the UCOC applies to your meetups, we're going to revoke your charter".  For instance, I would imagine that m:Wikimedia New York City/Code of Conduct will eventually include a UCOC mention.People seem to be worried that this somehow gives WMF some power they didn't already have.  That's silly.  They own the servers.  And some trademarks and domain names.  And they pay for the data centers, bandwidth, and employees to keep it all running.  They could pull the plug tomorrow.  On the other hand, they don't own the software or the data, both of which are freely available for anybody to download.  So the day after tomorrow (well, maybe a little longer than that; it's a lot of data to upload) we could have wiki-fork-a-pedia.org up and running if we could find the money.  The existence of the UCOC doesn't change any of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We're their biggest product. They exist because of the success of en: Secretlondon (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. People's concerns seem to be that this is a Trojan horse for other/bigger changes down the line, or some kind of complete WMF takeover of en-wiki. Basically, some folks don't assume good faith on the WMF's part. While the WMF has certainly made mistakes in the past and some suspicion is reasonable, I think Wikipedia volunteers have a tendency to be too paranoid about the organization. The UCOC is not going to result in major changes around here (and if I'm wrong about this I hope I never have to eat my hat!). Ganesha811 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am really surprised it passed. It would be nice to see the breakdown by wiki. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To address the questions from and, and also to be clear about where the problem lies: The UCoC itself is fine, most objections are specifically to the loss of local autonomy inherent in the way the enforcement guidelines are written. The mysterious U4C committee is described as a venue for final appeals. So, let's say the duly elected Arbitration Committee on en.wp makes a decision. Someone doesn't like that decision (as we all know there is basically never an arbcom decision that somebody doesn't think is the most unfair decision in the history of decisions throughout the universe) So they appeal to the U4C that the arbcom decision doesn't properly follow the UCoC enforcement guidelines. The U4C could then hypothetically order the en.wp arbcom to change their decision because of this perceived lack of compliance. Failure to obey can result in the entire arbcom being desysopped for "refusing to enforce". That shouldn't even be a possibility. Defenders of the guidelines have said this isn't what is supposed to happen, but the way the guidelines are written, literally any advanced permission holder can have their rights revoked if the U4C decides they didn't properly enforce the UCoC.  Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While that hypothetical would, of course, be a problem, there's a lot of possibly's, theoretically and perceived's in your comment. And I'm not sure which parts of the guidelines the concern is based on because Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines doesn't assign U4C scope to deal with the appeal of any random ArbCom sanction, unless you (ArbCom) refers it to the U4C, or the WMF does (and U4C accepts). Keep in mind the U4C will also be community-elected, and I really doubt the WMF starts referring random ArbCom cases to the U4C and the U4C accepts.Again, to put things in perspective, this section is a load of speculative paranoia that the UCOC is a trojan horse, combined with threats of admin mass-resignation. The concerns are completely unsubstantiated by evidence. At User talk:Iridescent you had editors (not Iridescent, to be clear) making assertions that AFD decisions could be changed due to the UCOC. No WMF employee or UCOC drafter has made any such claim. This entire section is nothing but fear, uncertainty, and doubt. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, and what is your post if not the same thing in reverse? The WMF doesn't need to make claims in advance for whatever WP:FRAM 2.0 might be in store. It's all FUD, until it isn't. El_C 03:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with others here that it is rather unlikely that this will result in any major changes (at least on large projects like en), but I also believe that policies that allow for possibly's, theoretically and perceived's with potential impacts this massive should be rewritten in a way that doesn't allow those interpretations. Approving something with this much wiggle-room based on the assumption that it will always be interpreted the way we interpret it now strikes me as an overly optimistic approach to policymaking. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said, Blablubbs. When it comes to en, many in the WMF are out of touch. Which makes them unpredictable. In that sense, the less of an opening they have, at en, the better. I actually think the WMF's mostly does a decent job wrt interventions at en. Any WP:EMERGENCY reports I ever submitted were replied to within minutes. More complex reports to WP:T&S usually get answered within hours. I don't think there was even one instance in which I felt either lacked professionalism or expediency. But the WMF needs to stay in their lane. This weird overreach —again, wrt en only— is a giant time sink. If only they were to just exercise some common sense. But that's challenging to do when one is out of touch. El_C 12:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This weird overreach —again, wrt en only: It doesn't seem like the UCOC's primary target is enwiki, but obviously it's quite difficult to claim a document is legitimate if it has a "Big Wikis Exemption" clause. Everyone should play by the same base rules. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter the intent, we're talking about unintended consequences here. Yes, I think en should be able to vote on its own exemption from whatever this enhanced enforcement might be, might open the door to. In a language project as self-governing as en, I don't see an issue with that, base rules-wise. El_C 13:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No amount of rewriting is going to remove all possible speculative worries, just as it hasn't in enwiki policy. Even with old enwiki PAGs you can see ANI discussions (often involving popular editors) where participants take interpretations of PAG clauses that fly in the face of how they've been applied for years and the obvious intent of the policy, and then the ANI is archived as "policy dispute" with no action taken. The converse also happens, where a given PAG permits any single action being discussed, but editors decide that the actions collectively, and considering the totality of the context, are problematic. Any behavioural policy on this site is always going to be enforced flexibly and as more of a 'living document'. PAGs are enforced by people, and how they're applied in a given discussion has always depended on who participates, sometimes without regard for their language. Aside from that, there's actually very little quotations from the UCOC provided to support most of the concerns articulated in this section. They don't even seem to be reasonable interpretations of the UCOC, which makes it difficult to even call them legitimate 'speculative worries'.
 * El C mentions above that the WMF are out of touch, but again, the WMF has no enforcement role, so how in or out of touch they are seems irrelevant. The U4C is–like ArbCom–an annually community-elected body. The WMF has no voting members on the U4C, unless they run as community members in community elections. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Like the thing itself, that view is overly nuanced to the point of being impractical. The less real or perceived Foundation policy backing a WMF employee thinks they have at en (in parity or near-parity with other language projects), the less chance that they might bring about the next WP:FRAM 2.0 (in whatever form). Preventatively, then, let's just not. El_C 13:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the UCOC actually prevent anything like a WP:FRAM 2.0? Presumably T&S found itself required to act because a) ArbCom didn't, and b) there exist no other bodies that can act. If there exists a structure creating a new (again, community-led) body that can deal with systemic issues, then WMF/T&S could've just referred the issue to it for a second opinion, and had no reason to act itself. Besides, as far as pretexts go, there's already the TOU which says the Foundation has enforcement discretion. The practical barriers to that is community approval of Foundation involvement, and that barrier remains whether a UCOC exists or not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way. Things often happen in practice different than they're supposed to on paper. I want to minimize the chance for a WMF employee to conflate enforcement actions in smaller language projects with ones unsuited for en. Obviously, ideally, they'd be safeguards and checks and feedback. But that doesn't always happen / in the best way. En users should at least have the right to choose. El_C 13:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beeblebrox: Defenders of the guidelines have said this isn't what is supposed to happen, but the way the guidelines are written, literally any advanced permission holder can have their rights revoked if the U4C decides they didn't properly enforce the UCoC. Can you point me to where in the enforcement guidelines it gives that U4C this power? I thought I'd read it pretty carefully before I voted, and I didn't see this. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The primary flaws in the UCOC/EG process are several, some inherent to the document, others to the process followed. The issues are primarily EG-based: the UCOC, while with flaws, is generally "livable with".
 * 1) The EGs completely failed to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the accuser. It has anonymity provisions in almost every segment, but nothing on the rights of the accused to be heard, or to know the evidence against them, or for the community to know where the axe would fall. By all means, include a balancing test - in fact, I wrote a draft one for them, but they hardly had to take my standards. The RTBH was raised by over 40 individuals and was just...ignored.
 * 2) The WMF overrode the obligations committed to in the process. We were assured that the drafting of the EGs would be an iterative process, prior to their ratification. Yet when we got the final policy text, a good 1/3 of it had never been seen before. said we'd get to review it, and then the WMF unilaterally decided "ah, sorry, we don't think there's enough time so you'll just need to wait a year". As the WMF has not indicated that the BOT forced the timeline, they are responsible for the shortage of time allotted to the process, and they've never explained why they couldn't just provide an additional timeslot for phase 2.
 * 3) The UCOC policy text has no standing, as it has not been community ratified. Nor does using the strategy recommendations as a basis have any mandate, as they also did not get community ratification. Now the proposals by some above to desysop anyone who enforced the UCOC are absolutely mad - most of the text is in our policy text, so you'd be desysopping individuals carrying out en-wiki policy. However, in a discussion with T&S Policy, they indicated that no-one had raised the question of community ratification until phase 2 (the Arbcom open letter). I provided a diff in the middle of phase 1 between I, T&SP, and others, and they haven't responded to that point. and I have had several discussions, and while I still feel several of her answers are not sufficient, this particular point hasn't received any follow-up.
 * 4) The mandatory training - I'm not sure anyone could make training that is actually useful to everyone given that it has to work for our most experienced and the least experienced temporary admin in the entire movement. And if it's not useful for us, and just there to be box-ticking, then you're wasting our time and damaging the movement for the sake of...nothing, which is unacceptable. But more problematically, if also let's the Foundation, not the Community, get significant say in determining a "shared outcome" for similar style cases.
 * 5) The EG's have what our more dramatic editors have called a "loyalty pledge". Now, it's immoral to be asked to sign it (there are more important obligations that I've adopted without signing them) but it's also immoral that new admins are forced to have obligations that old ones aren't, for the sake of pragmatically making it more acceptable. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Results from the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote

 * Hi all - I work on the Movement Strategy and Governance team that supported the outreach for this vote. I'm re-posting a message from the senior manager of T&S Policy below. The message was originally posted to wikimedia-l and m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines and outlines the next step in the process: ("The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement.") There is an upcoming Board Community Affairs Committee meeting 21 April 2022 at 10:00 UTC. I will share the concerns raised in this thread there. You are also welcome to attend or submit your questions in advance. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

<section begin="announcement-content" />
 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
 *  m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement • 

Hello all, We would like to thank the over 2,300 Wikimedians who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:

What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete. From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter's responses. In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work. Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year. Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines. For more information regarding the results, please refer to the Results page. Regards,
 * 58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
 * Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
 * Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot

Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy <section end="announcement content" /> User:SNg (WMF) 00:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To reverse an action
How should I take this? Majestic greetings. I don't handle very well at the enwiki. I wanted to find out if there is a board to reverse the action of a maintenance template this was placed on my talk page, which has absolutely no context.--Berposen (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As per WP:OWNTALK you can just remove it. You can remove anything from your own talk page, apart from few exceptions (declined unblocks while blocked is one). As to the message DS alerts are neutral, they are just to make you are aware that an area you editted in is under special restrictions. Eastern Europian articles are a hotbed of arguing and edit warring, so editors are expected to try and remain as civil as possible. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the context for that alert was that you have been doing some significant editing on Azov Battalion which falls under those sanctions and looks to be getting rather heated today. There may need to be some admin attention there, honestly, from a look through recent activity. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism?
When I go to Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and hover my mouse over "Australia" in the infobox, I get a gay-flag in the preview. Is that meant to be that way? 2600:8800:2C09:2F00:4E1:12EB:AE76:5C40 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Check now? I'm on a phone right now, so I can't hover over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

< would leave a warning, but talk page is protected... 2600:8800:2C09:2F00:4E1:12EB:AE76:5C40 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , see . It's probably a page purge issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't get how a change in the infobox of Australia can affect what one sees in the infobox at Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, regardless of any purging that needs to be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was the hover over preview on the wikilink to Australia. I've seen a similar issue with regular vandalism showing up in the preview. Of I weren't on a phone right now I could pull up an example from the first time I saw it., do you remember that? I think you were trying to figure out out with me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 unblock request
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Community input

 * Support unblock Darkfrog24 has become an integral part of the Simple English Wikipedia community and garnered the respect of that community and the sysops there. I hope my support of this editor, without hesitation, may speak somewhat to that end. While simplewiki is not enwiki, I believe Darkfrog24 will prove to be an invaluable asset to the English Wikipedia when granted a fresh start by the community.  Operator873 connect  18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've collaborated with Darkfrog24 on the Simple English Wikipedia, where they are a very helpful, trusted, and community-involved editor whose volunteering is highly valued. I am in support of an unblock. Vermont (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock – Regrettably, this unblock request shows the same lack of acknowledgement of the reasons for the initial block that has been displayed in previous unblock requests, and is laden with the same quasi-legalistic arguments about the procedure by which the block was enacted. Any unblock request must acknowledge the original reasons why Darkfrog24 was blocked, and show at least a modicum of contrition. Anything else is opening up the encyclopaedia to the same sort of incessant disruption that Darkfrog24 wrought upon the encyclopaedia years ago. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) - struck, see below.
 * Just looking over the standard offer, I see a requirement to avoid the initial behavior that led to the block as the only stipulation regarding past issues. I feel Darkfrog24 addressed this in their request. Additionally, I'll further point out that the stand offer specifically mentions "Apologies and other expressions of remorse aren't necessary, but basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively are." Not only has Darkfrog24 distinguished themselves on other projects, they have specifically expressed the willingness to move forward productively on this project. I think this is an excellent opportunity to AGF and allow a chance to reintegrate.  Operator873 connect  19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the first place, Darkfrog's case is anything but 'standard'. We're well past that point. We've had eight years of appeals, all of them tone deaf wastes of the community's time. While I agree, no one should be forced to grovel and beg for forgiveness, nor is that what I'm asking for here, this unblock request itself is an example of the 'initial behaviour that led to the block'. I do not believe that Darkfrog understands what Darkfrog did that lead to the block, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that they will actually abide their topic ban and avoid such behaviour in future. For Darkfrog to be 'productive', they will need to express a clear understanding of the topic ban that was issued, and why it was issued, without asking for endless clarifications. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support their work on Simple does the thing that we literally always ask for: demonstrate the ability to work collegially and without disruption on another project, and assuming that CU corroborates that claim, I think it's an easy decision to unblock per ROPE. I note, in passing, that neither WP:SO, WP:BLOCKING nor WP:UNBLOCK demand any kind of grovelling "contrition", and I do not think it is necessary to make people crawl to see that they know where they went wrong. I also think that it ill-behoves those that supposedly non-partisanly move an editors unblock request here then begin WP:BLUDGEONing the same discussion. What gives?  SN54129  19:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a bit rude, don't you think? I have Darkfrog's talk page watched because of our previous interactions, and noticed no one had copied the request to AN as was requested. BLUDGEONing? Sometimes, I wonder about Wikipedia. One comment, a bludgeon. In any case, I will withdraw, if not for yours or Darkfrog's sake, for my own. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologise for Assuming Bad Faith as I did; I've seen that kind of thing happen, and it's offensive when it does. But, I admit, one edit does not a bludgeon make. Sorry!  SN54129  20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You also removed my comment... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If we want thoughtful participation from more people than just those who have had past dealings with them, there needs to be some background here. As someone unfamiliar, I have no idea what topic DF is even topic banned from, no idea what led to their topic ban, no idea what they did in violation of the topic ban to earn a block, and no idea why multiple previous unban requests have been rejected. There is no way to find all this without some detective work.  Is the theory that every single person who comments here is supposed to spend an hour and do this research for themselves? Since  is the one requesting an unblock, here is the minimum I'd like to see from them:
 * Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to the topic ban
 * Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to their multiple blocks
 * Links to the previous unblock requests.
 * <li style="list-style:none">If someone besides DF wants to compile this instead, OK I guess. But until then, this is an insufficient unblock request, and I conditionally oppose it until it is fleshed out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I never circled back on this. Info was provided a while ago.  If I have time I'll review and opine, but if not, the reviewing closer shouldn't consider this an oppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * DF has written their timeline on their talk page.  Operator873 connect  00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't expect a forced apology for past wrongs but I do expect that those past wrongs are at least acknowledged in an unblock request. I'm not familiar with this user, but from what I can gather from links in their extensive block log, they were topic-banned from a particular subset of the manual of style, I cannot discern for what reason, and some time later were indefinitely blocked with talk page and email access revoked (as well as UTRS eventually revoked) because they just would not stop wikilawyering and attempting to relitigate the topic ban. The fact that they were also indefinitely blocked on WikiNews for the same type of behaviour (allegedly also over that project's style guides), and the fact they've explicitly stated their intent to relitigate the same sanction again in their unblock request, does not sit right with me. I both commend and applaud your contributions to simplewiki, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To quote from the 2016 Arbitration motion: "She is very strongly advised to focus that appeal on her future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of her topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas." I interpreted Darkfrog's comment about appealing lesser sanctions to be in line with previous advice, aka to work on editing constructively in other areas prior to trying to immediately re-enter the sanctioned areas that caused issues last time, and to abide by those sanctions so long as they are in place. And yep, I've had a hard time trying to sift through all of the archives, it's a rather annoyingly complicated set of discussions. Regardless, Darkfrog is certainly capable of contributing constructively to community projects, and I don't see how this block is preventing disruption by continuing. Vermont (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then, as Darkfrog has not done so, tell us what the [expletive deleted] ban or block (it is unknown whether it was one or both, as the title of this section refers to unblocking but subsequent comments talk about a topic ban) was for and link to the relevant discussions. How can anyone independent come to an opinion without this information? And having to spend time digging around for that information will inevitably end up biasing people against her. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not enough information has been provided for anyone to have an opinion. User:Darkfrog24, you are the one asking to be unblocked, so you need to tell us (with links) why you were blocked. You can't expect others to do any detective work to find out. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The following provide some background to the later portions of the situation: 2019 AN unblock appeal, 2018 AE appeal closure diff. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And here's a link to the 2016 ARCA motion declining the appeal of the original indef block and topic ban. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the interest of thoroughness, I'm going to say here also that DF has posted their timeline on their talkpage.  Operator873 connect  00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support unblock. Those demanding some sort of act of contrition are on thin ice for actual policy. All that matters is that henceforth Darkfrog24 promises to be a positive contributor, and has the work at other projects to show that they are capable of it. DF's work at Simple is absolutely all the evidence needed. (Those asking about a timeline of events can see the one DF24 placed on their talk page, being that that is the only place they can currently post.) oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. The failure to provide links to the discussions that led to the imposition of the sanctions and the previous discussions that declined to remove the sanctions is a very bad indicator, and to me, shows disrespect to editors trying to evaluate this unblock request without wasting editors time in conducting detective work. This editor has had many years to study and learn what is required to formulate and submit a successful unblock request. I looked at a unblock request from 2019 that is linked in this user's block log, and noticed that I had opposed the unblock based on comments from which I agreed with at this time and still agree with today. Then, I checked out a block related conversation from 2016 which included comments from  that gave me great pause. That was eight years ago. Some may argue that this was all quite a few years ago, but that argument is only legitimate if we have solid evidence that this editor has abandoned that disruptive point of view. I see no such evidence. The editor's supporters point to their good work at Simple English Wikipedia and I suppose that is a point in their favor. With no disrespect to thar project, I consider it to be relatively minor in comparison to this project, and I am sure that pageviews will back up my claim. So, perhaps this editor's best niche is as a contributor to that project, where they can make positive contributions to that offshoot project, but are unable to disrupt the flagship project of the Wikipedia movement. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * DF is unable to post their timeline and relevant links here as they are currently blocked. But they have posted the requested information on their talkpage.  Operator873 connect  02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes,, thank you for providing a link to where this blocked editor says That amounts to additional evidence that this block remains necessary. What we need to see for an unblock is evidence that this editor has completely and definitively abandoned this type of disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think DF is specifically saying they see this was a mistake and a part of the problem. Hence, they do not intend to repeat it in the future and, at the minimum, are requesting WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap.  Operator873 connect  03:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cullen, that's them describing their past misconceptions from almost three years ago. See the last sentence of what you quoted. Vermont (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't care about apologies or statements demonstrating understanding; I don't pretend I can judge a stranger's mindset based on written correspondence. What I care about isn't what's in their head or heart but their actions, specifically whether they can contribute to Wikipedia without disrupting others. I believe they can after skimming their Simple Wiki contribs and talk page (2021 is a year of what appear like productive collegial conversations), and their Wikinews contribs since being unblocked there in December . Maybe I missed some recent red flags but absent evidence of recent problems, if they can edit without problems at Simple for the last couple years and Wikinews for the last couple months, they should be fine here. And if not, they'll get blocked again. Levivich 03:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally rather oppose due to extensive off-wiki experience with the user that led to me leaving #wikipedia-en back in 2019 when this user was allowed to "help" others with their policy questions there during their block. I believe they have always had the genuine intent of helping, but reading their name here again brings back bad memories. They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It pains me to see someone say any reason made them walk away from Wikipedia. Indeed, that is, perhaps, the worse outcome of any conflict on Wikipedia. However, with respect to you and not intending to offend, but... isn't They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. the precise embodiment of assuming bad faith? I understand some folks expended a lot of energy in 2019 regarding DF and the incident they were involved in. However, in 2022, I hope those same people can see the amount of energy DF has put into re-earning enough trust to be given a chance.  Operator873 connect  23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From the IRC channel, not the English Wikipedia itself. I assume good faith, but it was clearly combined with incompetence back in 2019, which may have changed. Assuming that this might not have changed is not an assumption of bad faith, it's just pessimism. That should be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair statement and I think I understand what you mean. While I can't speak for Vermont, I can say my reason for being here supporting her is that I am witness to her improvement and will put my name on this statement: I know the troubles are in the past and she's ready to move forward.  Operator873 connect  23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also noticed that and had a similar concern. Though, it looks like that should hopefully no longer be applicable with the unban discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving to support based on the responses and timeline. I do think the user understands why they were blocked by ArbCom on their last topic ban appeal, and acknowledges that rationale such that those particular issues won't recur. From the appeals of the block, it seems we as a community have pulled a "gotcha!" each time they appeal: if they acknowledge the topic ban we say "they're relitigating!" and decline; if they don't mention the topic ban we say "they don't acknowledge the ban!" and still decline. Well we can't have it both ways. They're a user whose past productivity on this wiki has been noted and who has remained active on sister projects throughout their block here, which is what WP:SO asks for. They're here committing to respect the topic ban even though they disagree with it, which is how topic bans work. They should be given the opportunity to comply.
 * Regarding the topic ban, which is not being appealed here; : in each of your requests where you've noted the topic ban, you've made a point of also noting that you disagree with it. You need to refocus; saying you don't agree with the ban kills your appeal before you even get started. Successful topic ban appeals start with the sanctioned user acknowledging that their own disruptive behaviour led to the sanction, and that the sanction was necessary to stop their disruption; that's how you convince the community you won't just do the same thing again. It seems you've appealed many times already on the basis of the propriety of the ban, and each time those reviewing agreed that it was appropriate and necessary. You will not successfully appeal until you also acknowledge that it was necessary. Nobody here has any moral authority to demand contrition or apologies, and that's not how any of this works, but a successful appeal does sound something like "yes I did these things and I was sanctioned because I would not stop." Best of luck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Unblock I recognize DF's name, but I don't know that we have had any substantive interaction; still, for me, this seems an easy support. They are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and should be given the chance to do so.  I also don't mind a stance of "I believe this decision is wrong, but I am willing to abide by it" (but note I am not an administrator).  I would however, urge DF to be less litigious in general--I think  the original block was appropriate.  That said, all the best, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [26] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised"--that led me to two comments by, this and this, and those comments are still valid. I also agree with comments by . I'll add that the way this request is going, starting of vague and partly in denial and then moving into minutiae is exactly how earlier conversations/appeals went, and it's exasperating. On the other hand, makes a valid point and who knows, it's been a while. Putting all that together with my own memories (which bring back a sense of failure and frustration on my own part), I find it impossible to choose one option over the other, and will wait and see what the community says. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of this until seeing Drmies' ping above. I still have strong memories of just how exasperated I was by Darkfrog24 (which is significant given that it was years ago), such that I don't wish to spend any time evaluating this request so I will not bold any opinions. However I will encourage not unblocking without a short leash such that, should they return to their previous behaviour or anything else disruptive that a block can be swiftly reimposed without wasting yet more of the community's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't sure if I should ping you or not: I know this was as much a time sink for you as it was for me. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just felt I should briefly chime in again to explain my thinking--which is mostly about the nature of DF's transgressions. They were, as far as I can tell and somewhat recall about being an administrative time sink and aggravation.  I don't mean to make light of that as an issue; as I said above, the  block was deserved.  But it strikes me that if anything like that were to reoccur, it would be instantly obvious by its very nature.  I think we all agree DF could be a worthwhile contributor, they just need to make sure their behavior doesn't make them a net negative.  I believe they should have that chance, though, as ever, my information is only partial and I fully appreciate how others (especially admins!) could reasonably come to the opposite conclusion.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – I said I would not comment further, and I wish that I could do so, but it seems there is a real problem in terms of institutional memory here. Perhaps too much time has passed, as some others have said. I take Ivanvector's point that, in order for the topic ban to be acknowledged, it needs to be discussed. However, one must take care to note the specific way in which it is being discussed. Please see this comment that Darkfrog has added. I would like editors here to draw their attention to one particular remark, specifically the following sentence: In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia. This may seem to benign to anyone here who is not familiar with the dispute, but I can assure you that it is not. The initial topic ban was issued precisely because Darkfrog continued to advocate for a position that quotation style is an ENGVAR issue. Contrary to community consensus, and a pile of reliable sources that were brought up each time it was discussed, Darkfrog would argue that there are 'American' and 'British' quotation styles, and that Wikipedia needed to acknowledge this fact.
 * Because this argument was repeatedly rejected at the main MoS page, Darkfrog moved the dispute to a few subpages, one of which was subsequently deleted Manual of Style/External support, and one which was userfied User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register (please note the creator's comment at the top of the page). Darkfrog's reference to the 'Manual of Style Register' is in fact not benign at all. This page, previously at the title Manual of Style/Register, was used by Darkfrog as a PoV fork of the MoS, despite the fact that it had no community consensus behind it. Darkfrog used the page to compile random stuff that Darkfrog deemed useful ammunition in disputes, and its previous shortcut of MOS:REGISTER gave it an air of legitimacy. Please note very carefully that Darkfrog linked directly to a section of this page that Darkfrog had compiled for this purpose, without providing any of the background information about the page, and with continued reference to it as if it had the authority of an actual MoS page. This is the exact sort of behaviour that led to the original topic ban, and is proof that Darkfrog has not 'dropped the stick' as people are wont to say here. The advocacy campaign, and the attempts to legitimise Darkfrog's position, continue...in this situation, how can an unblock be justified? This really will be my last comment, and I do apologise if my participation here is deemed a nuisance...but it seems like I am one of the few people that actually remember what happened here. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My view on this as I said above is that Darkfrog is not appealing their topic ban which covers all of these past disputes, they're stating that they intend to respect it. Even though they explicitly disagree with it I see no reason not to believe that they're capable of abiding by it. It seems to me that has always been the case, with the exception of their nagging of a relevant administrator (which they now acknowledge was both "testing the edges" and harassment) and their crossing the line in an AC appeal. I think they also understand that if this request is successful and they then violate the topic ban again, the resulting block will be quite permanent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if, as Thryduulf says, Darkfrog is truly given a 'short leash', and Darkfrog truly intends to abide the restriction, then I suppose I can withdraw my opposition to an unblock. In order for such a 'short leash' to be enforced, however, it is important for administrators to familiarise themselves with the specific nature of the behaviour that led to the block. I will strike my oppose. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm very dubious about unblocking this editor. The response to my simple request to show why they were blocked/banned was not to provide a few links with a brief factual account but to give a rant about how hard done by they were, which is exactly the kind of behaviour that led to the block in the first place. If the editor is to be unblocked then I hope that those who want this are willing to take responsibility should anything untoward happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I was hoping you could clarify your message. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems you're saying DF has gone on a rant but, they're blocked. They literally can't participate here and have only provided a brief synopsis on their talkpage with links to the requested information others have asked for. I'm just confused about you talking about their behavior where DF can't actually participate?  Operator873 connect  23:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This does appear to be their edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And I copy/pasted that edit here. But, I think it's a bit of a reach to call that a rant. DF was specifically asked for all of that information. She provided as requested.  Operator873 connect  23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a rant. There's loads of self-justifying commentary there rather than just a statement of the facts that she was specifically asked for. That's exactly what she was blocked for. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. This is very clear sysop misconduct + one-way IBANs are a problem; unlike anything here. I was not familiar with the Arb matters at the time, but it does not appear to be necessary as of right now. Darkfrog24 can use common sense; even in times when many editor editors do not, and I hope to see good contributions from Darkfrog24 in the future, and improve the encyclopedia. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * NeilN isn't around to answer to that accusation, but I strongly disagree - this was a measured and appropriate warning to a user violating a sanction imposed under the authority of arbcom, who was in the process of talking themselves into a total block. NeilN warned them at least twice more after this to stop before pulling the trigger, and then their UTRS access was also pulled because they still didn't stop. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I wasn't aware of that. I also didn't really have a problem with the talk access being removed when it was eventually, I was more concerned with the specific diff alone. I've also just now seen that NeilN is not around (ironically, their last edit is telling everyone they will be more active after a two month break, then took a 3.5 year break :/). I still think it was not handled perfectly, but I remove my statement about very clear sysop misconduct. Naleksuh (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Naleksuh, that is not sysop misconduct. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This right here is why 1-way IBANS are a problem. If Editor X is banned from talking about or interacting with Editor Y, but Editor Y is not such restricted, and then Editor Y makes uncivil/abusive/inappropriate/baiting/whatever comments about Editor X, it's essentially a trap. If Editor X reports the abuse being directed at them, they are technically violating their restriction (at least by the letter), because it's impossible to report abuse from another editor without mentioning that editor. That what appears to have transpired here. It takes two to tangle - it doesn't matter who "started it" or who was more "at fault" - if two or more users are problematic with each other, then round robin ban all of them, or ban none of them. IBANS are relatively trivial compared to topic bans, so even if one editor was "more to blame" then the other, sanctioning them both with an IBAN is hardly excessive, and prevents this very situation. In this particular case, the "ridiculous suppositions" definitely didn't help their case, but the admin in question was also rather aggressive considering that the question appeared to essentially be asking for the ban to be made 2-way. Even if such a request is violating the letter of a ban, it should be allowed under most circumstances as a specific exception. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:C4E0:11CC:3658:77A0 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly is being appealed here? The title says that its a block, much of the previous discussion was about a topic ban, but now you people are going on about an interaction ban. Can we get some focus here for us uninvolved editors who shouldn't be made to spend hours digging through histories to find out what this is all about? And I mean simple facts, not people's opinions about those facts, which can come separately. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a number of layered sanctions involved here, many of which resulted from DF24's problematic behavior while appealing existing sanctions. The inciting sanction was a TBAN from discussing quotation marks and quotation styles imposed in Jan 2016. This was later expanded to encompass the entire MOS, broadly construed: . Shortly after, she was blocked for a week at AE: . Finally, at the end of February 2016, she was indeffed for wikilawyering the TBAN:.
 * She was unblocked December 2017, but the MOS TBAN remained in force. In June 2018, she attempted to appeal the TBAN, but as a result of further wikilawyering at that appeal, she was blocked for a month and given a one-way IBAN with SMcCandlish (June 2018). This apparently upset her to the point of making the comments that NeilN admonished her for in the above-noted now-struck comment. Later that day, NeilN upgraded the one-month block to an indefinite block, as a result of the now-suppressed comments on her userpage. Other appeals via unblock request, UTRS, ArbCom, and a community request like this one in 2019, have followed and failed.
 * All three sanctions - the TBAN from MOS, the IBAN with SMC, and (obviously) the indef - are still currently in force. I believe the current appeal only concerns the indef, but naturally the other sanctions have come up in discussion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the interest of clarity, &spades;PMC&spades; is correct in that this conversation is only regarding the indef and not any of the other sanctions. DF will abide by the TBAN and other sanctions while reintegrating into the community and rebuilding the trust with the community in general. Further, DF has fully acknowledged rebuilding that trust will be a lengthy process: I realize that will take time and work.  Operator873 connect  21:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


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


 * Support unblock...with conditions - I feel a bit qualified to speak about DF's unblocking request, as I have had substantial interaction in the past with the editor, all of it extremely negative. I was blocked due to my interaction with this user on an article (DF was blocked, as well), and at the time I considered them pretty much among the worst Wikipedian I'd ever worked with. In short, I fucking loathed Darkfrog with the heat of a hundred suns; very few other users have ever made me feel that way, or could make me lose my temper the way I did when around them. There was tendentious editing and - I am still positive to this day - socking. I was close to walking away from the Wiki-EN forever, all because of the user.
 * But that was over 5 years ago. It took a near indef block to get me to change my own problematic behavior, so maybe the block that Darkfrog has been subject to has changed them for the better as well. I am not saying that I am never tempted to lash out; I am saying that my desire to edit collaboratively has since outweighed my need to be right. So, in that way, I suspect that I have actually changed.
 * I suspect that DF is in this same position; the impulses are still there, but maybe the user has begun using the correct tools to interact with others better. They seem to have found a better place for themselves in the Simple Wiki (which I consider to be just as vital as the regular Wikipedia), and while I have not looked at Darkfrog's interactions there (though someone should if only to confirm that they are better at editor interaction), I want to believe in Second Chances; I am a better editor because I was afforded a second opportunity, and it follows that DF might be as well.
 * It is because of that history - and my own reflection on it - that I would support a conditional lifting of the block. The possibility of change does not mean the implementation of change. I think a second chance is warranted. If they mess it up, they mess it up. Give the user a chance at their own redemption. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The conditions to be what? I've looked into the archives and diffs at some length -- more than might have been wise or good for me, in hindsight -- but I'm still in two minds as to what to comment on it, or indeed even whether to.  (And yet, here I am.)  In particular it'd seem unfair to the user to get into the weeds of the MOS stuff when they're enjoined from commenting on that at all on this projecct; other than their several prescriptive-grammar userboxes.  Frankly my heart sinks to read that they "will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before", "plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction", and their compliance is framed in terms of "until it is lifted".  I know that Hiberno-English is if anything over-supplied by use of the subjunctive, but a "would" or three would go a long way here for me.  But from their activity on both simple: and on wikinews, it seems like an issue they're still very invested in, and see it less as a style-guide choice, but as a great right to be wronged in the form of overturning the "ban" of "correct" "American English".  (To SYNTH some descriptions they've previously used here, and more recently at those other WM projects.)
 * But surely if they're to have any further "conditions" (much less any sort of (IMO rather unfortunately phrased elsewhere) "short leash"), it should be something clear and transparent, not just something ominous-sounding but vague. And conversely, if they're not unblocked at this time, it would be a minimal service to them to indicate what they should do to be so in future.  Rather than as seems to have happened in the past to be essentially told "you did it wrong this time, try again next year", which would surely be deeply frustrating for anyone.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jack Sebastian, I'm looking at closing this since it seems everyone who wants to comment has said their piece, but before I do so, if I do unblock are there any specific conditions you have in mind? Bear in mind that this request is only to lift the block not for a full amnesty, so if I (or anyone else who decides to close it) decide there's a consensus to unblock, it won't stop any other topic or interaction bans from remaining in place. &#8209; Iridescent 18:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Iridescent, Not having any interest in Darkfrog's contributions since my unfortunate interactions with them, I can only offer an informed outsider's view. In the past, DF has been determined to enforce their view of an article on the community; the idea of collaborative editing was utterly lost on them, as they considered everyone else to be intellectually stunted. Then there was the very strong indication of socking, which I am hoping was a one-time flirtation that I voiced to an admin at the time. And of course there has been the MOS content issues which eventually led to their indef ban.
 * Maybe they have improved, having switched over to the slower pace of the Simple Wiki-en. Maybe their patience with others has grown, and their need to win an argument eased. Speaking for myself, those would be the only reasons to let them back in. Taking into consideration the views of others who have had more interaction with DF, I would submit that the user be limited in the following ways:
 * -a permanent ban of anything related to MOS. This is intended to be all-encompassing; any attempt to wiggle around the rules should result in massive damage from the BanHammer.
 * -A one-revert rule for the first 3-6 months, to encourage them to use the article discussion page to build consensus. As above, any attempt to mis-characterize a revert as a content edit should result in a BanHammer beat-down.
 * -Mentoring with someone that admins feel is completely opposite to DF. This might not be fair to the mentor, but it would provide DF with a 'devil's advocate' and someone to talk to that could provide an alternate view of a situation the DF might find personally frustrating.
 * -a review of the user, sort of like probation, at the 6-month and 12-month point, post-unblocking, to be conducted by an admin fully aware of DF's tactics used in the past to 'pretzel' the rules. If the user should pass these two probationary reviews, we should allow the user to free range - but maintaining the permaban on MOS and MOS-related topics.
 * It's important to keep in mind that we cannot change Darkfrog's personality; we are here to try and channel her usefulness to the Project into effective editing - and thus better articles - in the Wiki-En. She has shown she does quality work when her ego is removed from the equation. Once she accepts that the manipulative aspects to her personality are only detrimental here, she will likely stifle them, as she has seen the results of her failing to do so in the past. That's my two cents' worth. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, DF does have an active topic ban related to MOS, that is not being appealed here. And speaking as someone who works with her relatively frequently and has only done so for under two years, your description is far from how I would describe her today. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, an indefinite topic ban, applied prior to the indefinite block. I was going to say they weren't allowed to appeal the former until some time after any lifting of the latter, but I might have formed that impression incorrectly while trying to navigate the twisty history of this.  But at any rate an ArbCom member "strongly advised" them to wait before re-appealing that. , I've got some sympathy for your suggestions, but I doubt any of them are fliers.  "Indefinite isn't permanent" seems to be something of a rule of thumb, so I don't think an exception will be made here.  And technically there's a competence issue here:  I don't think this noticeboard is empowered to deny a user any possible future appeal.  Perhaps an interval of a year (as was previously applied) or two years (as previously suggested but not adopted) would work.  A 1RR restriction might be seen as harsh, as none of their earlier sanctions seem to related to that sort of activity.  Mentoring has been strenuously opposed by the bannee in the past, there seems to be a distinct lac of volunteers, and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY.  Likewise for the "probation officer" approach.  And on a more mundane note, given how late-on these are being suggested, we'd have to considerably extend the discussion to allow others to chime in again before adopting them, which again seems unfair to the user if there's an apparent (if trepidatious) consensus to unblock otherwise.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will readily admit that I am of the personal (and perhaps minority) opinion that an indef block'd person has a large-type problem with conforming to the rules by which the rest of us agree to follow. Given a second chance to work with us should mean that a salted version of AGF is applied until the formerly-blocked person proves that a solid lesson has been learned. I (truly) love the fact that we give second chances and often even third ones, and that we are careful in doing so.
 * I do think that DF has intentionally misapprehended/misinterpreted/exhibited selective blindness - and that, more than anything else, gives me pause. Looking at her defense of her MOS back and forth was just plain maddening; she actually thought she was smarter and cleverer than not just one or two of us but all of us combined.
 * I don't know if that her perception can change/has changed. Even now, that dark part of me that wonders if DF is petitioning to get back in just to see if she can. And that is the same part of me that wants to boot her down a well if she gets yet another chance and squanders it by resuming the same sort of behavior that got her where she is now.
 * I think we have to insist on some braking controls with DF, and if that means re-opening the discussion to see if at least an 1RR and a ban on MOS-related topics, then so be it. DF has been blocked and warned for edit-warring issues in the past (full disclosure: I was a party to at least one of those blocks as well).
 * Do I think Darkfrog is irredeemable as a contributor? No. I myself am a bit of a reformed asshole editor, and I was allowed another chance - with conditions that have since expired. It would be unwise to let DF free rein without at least similar conditions, if not more. Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do I think Darkfrog is irredeemable as a contributor? No. I myself am a bit of a reformed asshole editor, and I was allowed another chance - with conditions that have since expired. It would be unwise to let DF free rein without at least similar conditions, if not more. Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I will point out, again, that this discussion is only for the block and all other actions, such as the MOS Topic Ban, will remain in place. This discussion is solely about whether DF should be allowed to demonstrate they are able to successfully integrate in other areas of Wikipedia similar to how they've integrated and become a trusted part of the Simple English Wikipedia community. I think the concerns that DF will "go off the deep end" are a bit excessive since, even if that was the case, a new block is but a click away. I, personally, don't think that would happen and I'm willing to back that statement up with endorsement, support, and advocating for DF. I'm not one for putting my name on something lightly; but DF has earned my support the hard way.  Operator873 connect  20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * {ec) As and I said there already is an indef MoS TBAN in place.  Having read chunks of the history of that stuff, yes, it comes across exactly as you describe.  Like the punchline of a bad Sheldon Cooper joke, only even less funny, and in even poorer taste.  I already said more than I originally intended to, above, but candidly if I were Wikidictator -- or had the casting vote on yet another Arbcom appeal, just as implausibly -- I think I'd want the next one on that to come a year after the user had been on a descriptive linguistics course (i.e. any actual proper academic one at all, as opposed to the Traditional Prescriptive Grammar ball of smoke), and had desisted from throwing around the "ban on correct American English" nonsense, on any Wikimedia project.  Sure, they're not TBANed from it there, but it goes to apparent state of mind (your honour), and this request has very much stressed their work on simple:.  Much indeed as their previous one stressed their work on Wikinews, something that ended up in this also fairly appalling exchange, which the appeal really seems to minimise in favour of said credential-burnishing even when asked about it directly.  But I'm not in either of those positions -- fortunately for all concerned -- and I think that's beyond the scope of our desired input here. It's certainly entirely plausible they might have greatly improved their skills in seeking to resolve such disputes, even if of the same (frankly dogmatic) views concerning them.
 * I wasn't aware of the EW warning and blocks, and don't really want to take a deep dive into that too, so I offer no further comment on the intrinsic merits or procedural details of that idea. I certainly don't agree with the user's self-assessment (paraphrasing from memory and not having the link to hand) that they do "professional-quality work for free", which sounds like it'd be infinite gain.  The quality is glaringly lacking in some areas, and it clearly does have a cost: in the terms of the toll it takes on other participants.  (True of most of us, I don't doubt for a moment.)  Whether it's better or worse than zero-sum is a harder call to make, but on the evidence of simple: and WN:, there's a strong case to be made that it at least can be positive.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Beyond passing comments about her time at WikiNews, the thoughtfully provided link indicate that DarkFrog has not altered her approach to editing since my own interaction with her in 2011. There are just too many red flags here, and I am a bit disappointed at DF's lack of commitment to change. I think I have to alter my opinion to Opposing Unblock. I think we'll be back here in less than a year debating this same sort of thing, and that seems like a tremendous waste of time. Let her stay at the Simple Wikipedia, where she seems to be able to function there. I don't think she can manage without major drahmaz here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jack Sebastian: What red flags are you talking about? What "lack of commitment to change"? The IP linked to something from 2020. Can you link to diffs of recent problems at WikiNews, Simple Wiki, or anywhere else? Levivich 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And are you really judging someone based on an interaction you had in 2011, 11 years ago? Is that a typo? Levivich 17:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Levivich: Hi Lev. No, it wasn't a typo.
 * If the issue was only with my interaction with the user over a decade ago, I'd be at the same spot where I was when I first commented about the unblocking proposal, even with all of the intervening years of MOS nonsense.
 * However, seeing evidence of the exact same behavior at WikiNews not even two years ago makes me doubt the ability of DF to be able to conform. When you see the same exact behavior exhibited over a decade, that's a pretty strong indicator that despite all of the input of well-meaning admins and editors, the contributor has not changed, cannot change or does not think they need to change.
 * I know my opinion is probably in the minority, and I'm okay with that. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that we'll be back here in less than 18 months, debating DF's problematic behavior yet again. I am thinking that our time, present and future, is better spent in other areas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So you are judging this editor based on something that happened two years ago and that doesn't stop you in your tracks? Like, why ignore the last two years of evidence of productive contributions? You say they haven't changed, but they have, based on their last two years' of contributions. Why not judge them based on what happened in the last 12 months? Or the last 6 months? You say "we'll be back here", but when were we "back here" last? Judging someone for behavior from two years ago, before their block from WikiNews was lifted, is the same thing, in my eyes, as holding a grudge. Make a !vote based on who this editor is today. Look at their contributions recently. Anything else is unfair, just unfair. If we judged every unblock request based on what the editor did years ago, we'd never unblock anyone. Levivich 18:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Levivich: Again, you appear to have missed the point. The user has acted in exactly the same way for over a decade. They say they have changed, and go right back to pissing us all off again. By your reasoning, we should let Grawp, Essjay, and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry back in, all due to the problems with them being over 2 years old.
 * And frankly, you asking when we were last discussing Darkfrog's behavior seems a bit baffling; have you away during all the earlier posts here? The user's behavior has been problematic for over a decade, and you somehow believe they have magically gotten all better now. As I noted in a previous post, if DF's behavioral issues remained in the dim past, I was ready to let them have another chance. But upon learning that the same issues kept cropping up at Wikinews, it appears that the user will never change, and we are going to end up blocking her yet again in short order. This isn't a 'grudge'. This is an observation of a pattern that does not appear to have altered in any significant way in the past. That suggests that it will not change in the future.
 * I hope I am wrong - I really do. I just think that evidence to the contrary is pretty compelling. I vote no. Sorry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not "magically gotten all better now", we have the last two years of evidence of positive contribs at Simple and the last four or five two months at Wikinews. That's also what separates this appeal from the other editors you've mentioned. It's like you're considering only evidence up to 2020, but not considering any evidence from 2021 or 2022, even though there are hundreds (thousands?) of recent contribs. And sadly you're not the only opposer in this thread whose comments are limited to events from years ago, and who aren't commenting on the last year or two of contribs to sister projects. I don't understand why people would form conclusions based on old evidence and not consider more recent evidence. Levivich 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your maths is a little out on Wikinews contribs: they appear to have been blocked there for almost all the intervening time in connection with that incident, and only unblocked for what's a little over two months now.  Others can will obviously have to make up their own minds, but when I produced that link, I wasn't suggesting it was decisive in my mind -- it's not, I'm left with very mixed feelings.  On the one hand, as I said great play of their WN contribs was made at the time of their last appeal as "evidence of positive contribs".  Cut forward to them being blocked there most of that time, saying nothing at all about it in their appeal, and when directly asked about the block, only find this to say about it:  'I criticized an admin action by saying "it's overkill."'  Not a very full or helpful summary of what I linked to.  Their contribs there since seem from what I've looked at fine, aside from what look like tells about the same hyper-prescriptive take on style issues.  Articles on Old World moths must be in AmEng.  Any use of LQ is not "correct" and not "American".  The very wording of their request here seems to envision a return to that here:  get unblocked, appeal the TBAN after that, then get back to "contributing to the encyclopedia as before".  But "as before" is exactly the problem, especially in that area.  But conversely, I think they have met the terms set out for appealing the block as originally set out, there's no MoS TBAN on them at either simple: and WN, so it's not misconduct for them to press those issues there, and WN did eventually unblock them, so it's certainly arguable that if they're all right with them, that shouldn't be taken as a necessary impediment to a return here.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was counting from their unblock request in December and hadn't noticed they didn't actually get unblocked until Feb. Two months, which isn't a lot (neither is four or five), but that's buttressed by the longer record at Simple. Levivich 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that their contribution at Simple: is encouraging, and I've seen no issues of serious concern raised there. I'd have preferred that they not during that very period of time have used it as second front on their MoS war, and in particular not continued their insistence that it's not simply a matter of "we have a style guide, let's go with that", but of anything other than their particular preference being not "correct" or "American", which is exactly the locus of their original woes here.  But it must be said it didn't turn into a WP:BLUDGEONfest, their TBAN here doesn't extend there, and I'm not aware of them causing MoS trouble there in their article edits, so there's no user conduct issue there as such.  Just adds to the general sense of the user not having dropped that particular stick, and it remains to be seen if they plan to return to waving it around "as before".  109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 109. I don't see this MOS thread at Simple as evidence of a problem, but rather evidence of a lack of problem. First, it was two years ago (2020). Second, as you said, there was no bludgeoning or other disruptive activity in that thread. They made a suggestion, it didn't go anywhere, they dropped it. Here are all their edits to the MOS talk page at Simple: there was only that thread in 2020 and replies to another unrelated thread in 2021. No evidence of "failing to drop the stick" or bludgeoning or anything like that. Not only do I see this as a lack of evidence of problems but I see it as evidence of reform.
 * In every way that I can figure, this is a model unblock request. This is what we want from every indef-blocked editor: a history of productive, non-problematic contributions at a sister wiki. Levivich 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We may be going around in circles on this, and perhaps to little purpose given I'm essentially on the fence myself, and I might be helping hold up closure to little purpose. But I'd have to disagree on both counts.  The simple:MoS interaction seems less an example of seeing the issue in anything other than the stark black-and-white terms ("incorrect in American English", exactly the framing of the issue that led to such grief here) than just not having found people to argue incessantly with them there.
 * For me, a "model" unblock request would:
 * Not involve having been blocked for almost two of the three years since their last request on the very "sister wiki" claimed on that occasion as evidence of their likelihood to be a net benefit there;
 * In the alternative, have at least mentioned this in their appeal, which isn't went much more on the brag-sheet direction;
 * In the alternative to the alternative, have given a fuller -- and frankly, less misleading -- summary of that incident when directly asked;
 * Not been engaging in exactly the same campaign for "correct American English" that led to a TBAN here in those terms on both the sister wiki featured in that appeal, and the sister wiki that's foregrounded in this one;
 * Not flagged their intent to return to exactly the same area here.
 * A grantable appeal? I think there's certainly a strong natural and procedural justice argument that it is, and a more marginal 'may be a net benefit to the project' one too.  A model one?  Not within a bull's roar.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Levivich: I think a lot of that reticence to deep dive through Darkfrog's more recent contributions might be that most of them (myself included) feel that deep-diving this user's recent activity is more work than the user deserves from her detractors - sort of that whole 'the definition of insanity' thing. They see a clearly established, long-term unchanging behavior and have assessed that the user cannot change. That last part is somethign I do not personally believe, but change has to come from the user's view that they have been wrong and need to change. The consensus of those opposing this unblock request is that this user doesn't want to change; they don't even see a need to address the mistakes of their bad behavior. It is not an apology they are looking for; its evidence that the behavior has actually, fundamentally changed.
 * I don't know how to explain it any better than that, Lev. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're not willing to look at recent contribs then you don't know if the user's conduct has or hasn't changed, because you're not looking. You can't close your eyes and tell us your eyes are open. Levivich 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As Levivich said, this is a circular argument. If that is the consensus of those opposing this unblock request, it is ignoring recent years of improved behavior and constructive contributions. I was concerned about your baseless accusations of socking, your more-than-rude descriptions of her behavior, but this logical fallacy is a bit too much not to make note of. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support unblock I think this is a decent unblock request. Based on the above, I'm quite convinced that DF understands the reasons for which they were blocked and, as such, I'm hopeful that set of issues won't recur. Especially if they're staying well away from any MOS/style-related issues. It seems a primary issue in their block was relitigation framed as 'clarification requests' which also made admins stop wanting to deal with the editor (eg ), so assuming this unblock request passes I'd support a speedy reimposition of the block if that recurs again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Close please
This block appeal is about to enter is fourth week on this page, and with respect to the participants, nothing much is really being added at this point, we've all made our arguments. Somebody please close this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robert W. Malone
Grateful for an administrator to have a look at this edit. I don’t really have a dog in the fight, and the allegations are clearly sourced. But I know we have to be very careful about these things. All good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Administrators don't review content issues (as administrators). If you have concerns about some content issue, then open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Robert W. Malone and if you receive no response (unlikely in this case) or aren't satisfied, use some form of WP:Dispute resolution and none of the administrative noticeboards should be part of that. In this case, WP:BLP/N would probably be the best way to seek additional feedback if it's needed, or maybe WP:RS/N if it's particularly over the reliability of a source. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Really helpful, many thanks Springnuts (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting a blanket IP ban lifted temporarily (extremely temporarily) for edit-a-thons
I posted this first at the Reference Desk and they directed me here. Please let me know if this should be on a different page. Copy pasted here, with some additional info:

Hello, I'm a librarian at San Diego Public Library. I ran an edit-a-thon a few weeks ago, and while we only got a few people, it was well-liked. We had one major hiccup: Our patron computer IPs and even our data-based IPs have been blocked from making new accounts for three major reasons: We use UC San Diego internet, we have a high school on two of our floors, and being a central downtown library, we have some very creative patrons who have their own struggles to contend with and occasionally make un-encyclopedic edits. Despite this hiccup, I'd still like to run more edit-a-thons in the future because it's a massively valuable program as far as reference, info literacy, and humanities-based education are concerned. I've been struggling to find solutions to this, as requiring participants to create an account off-site is not only a barrier to attendance and access, but unlikely to be done, leading to frustration upon arriving. In addition, if I applied for a blanket unbanning, I cannot guarantee delinquent behavior wouldn't happen again. Our wifi hotspots use the same blocked network and VPNs are too expensive. (And might get kind of close to ban evasion, though from the policy I've read it seems it isn't ban evasion as long as you specifically weren't banned?) So, with two potential solutions left, I want to know if it's possible to request temporary unbannings for the library IPs. Ideally just a 10 hour window where the library IP isn't banned from making new accounts. Would a request like this be feasible? If so, what page would I use to do this? It was suggested to me as well that I try and get IT involved as an IRT, but that is unlikely to happen at this time. The program just isn't a priority for other departments, which is fair.

I have been working with a user with account creation privileges, but he cannot bypass these ip bans either. Is it possible to get a location temporarily unbanned then rebanned? It is completely reasonable to have those IPs blocked, simply because of the nature of who those IPs are, but it is also blocking legitimate users who may not have internet access at home. I really want to make these edit-a-thons a recurring program, but the ip ban muddles things significantly. Please let me know if I can clarify anything. Thanks. --SDPLPauline (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey — I think the first step here is figuring out which IP block(s) are affecting the library. Could you email us this information at info-en@wikimedia.org and we'll go from there 🙂 ~TNT (talk • she/her) 00:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Libelous entry on Wikipedia entry for Thomas Palley
RE Wikipedia page THOMAS PALLEY {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Palley}

(1) I do not have the coding expertise to go through the process of correcting slanders against me.

(2) Wikipedia user AndyTheGrump {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump} has entered libelous accusations against me that I am an "avid apologist for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

(3) I have attempted to correct the entry which is that I have "openly questioned the US Government and mainstream media account of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."

(4) AndyTheGrump keeps deleting my correction.

(5) Please restore my correction which states the position I hold. Additionally, I think AndyTheGrump should be banned from making changes to Wikipedia. Furthemore, it may be necessary to temporarily freeze my page until the intolerance triggered by the Ukraine war subsides.

Sincerely,

Tom Palley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.168.24 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This can also be found at WP:ANI, where it's gradually being processed. I'm sorry 71.126.168.24 but you're incorrect. AndyTheGrump has not added anything, but removed the sentence which was added recently. There's a number of reasons that neither the original sentence, nor the sentence as modified by you, belong in the lead of the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. I removed entirely unsourced assertions regarding Palley's opinions regarding events in Ukraine, as required per WP:BLP policy. And that is all I have done to the article. Such unsourced material doesn't belong in the biography, regardless of whether it comes from unidentified IPs, regular Wikipedia contributors, or Palley himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for information on reporting a complaint about an administrator
Apologies if this is not the correct place to ask, but I would appreciate knowing how and where to make a complaint about an administrator who has been making a number of untrue comments about my editing. Is there a particular place to do this? Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If it's something you don't mind discussing in public, you could post the details right here. If you'd rather keep it off-wiki, you can contact the arbitration committee.  See WP:AC for instruction on how to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Roy. Much appreciated. I will give this some more thought, especially if I continue to be treated with further untrue comments about my editing in edit summaries and on talk pages, coupled with reactionary block threats, by this particular administrator who seems to have article ownership issues. Afterwriting (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please also note that if you do discuss it here, you have to notify the admin in question on his/her talk page. 93.172.232.172 (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that what's being got at is the six year long history of edit summaries such as: And in discussions of edit summaries: The warning given explicitly referenced: Then there are these: Hello CorbieVreccan &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reply to dishonest warning." (end of last month)
 * "Removed fake report." (referencing Special:Permalink/941876315 presumably)
 * "Hypocritical "warning" is noted and appropriately acted on."
 * "Removed blatant hypocrisy by a habitually aggressive and dishonest editor."
 * "Enough of this nonsense."
 * "Try to develop some instead your habitual hypocritical behaviour."
 * "Removing repeated hypocritical crap."
 * "Removing hypocritical nonsense."
 * "Pathetic!"
 * "stop being so insufferably self-righteous" (from a request to not do what is in the edit summary at Special:Diff/722280861)
 * "Removing illiterate "comments"."
 * "your edit warring behaviour has been a complete disgrace"
 * "your edit warring behaviour has been a complete disgrace"
 * FYI : 1. My "Removed fake report" comment was about exactly that. It was a non-existent "report" added by cut and paste to my talk page by a disruptive IP editor who was adding BLP violations to an article such as this one. 2. The recent "Reply to dishonest warning" comment was in response to an editor who admitted that the warning was made incorrectly and apologised. 3. Most of my other impolite comments would have been made in response to editors who were being either repeatedly disruptive in various ways or who were blatantly misusing unjustified warnings in order to assert their own POV and to attempt to "warn me off" rather than for any legitimate reason. When I've received justified warnings from an administrator I have nearly always accepted them without any argument. Afterwriting (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * None of which excuses or justifies an administrator making a number of untrue comments about my recent edits to an article and also just reverting them even when they included some clear stylistic improvements. Whatever my faults have been in the past the behaviour of this administrator has been high-handed and also indicates article ownership issues. And accusing me of being uncivil by wrongly claiming that I had accused the administrator of lying is in itself uncivil and isn't acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't have the time to look into this, but from my experience an editor complaining about templated warnings they've received, even from an admin, doesn't tend to go well for the complaining party. At best, even if the warnings were completely unjustified it's lame, just ignore them (with or without reversions) and move on. While technically a false warning could be a personal attack, unlike an accusation in an edit summary or especially one at ANI, since it's primarily personally it isn't generally seen the same way. And at worst, we often find those warnings weren't as unjustified as the editor suggests. And since all editors behaviour is scrutinised at ANI a WP:BOOMERANG can easily result. Note also it's reasonable to look at an editor's recent or persistent behaviour when issuing warnings. So for example, if an editor has persistently touched or even gone over the personal attack line, it's far more acceptable to give a level 4 or serious warning straight away. And likewise for more mild personal attacks.  An editor inappropriately issuing warnings is far more likely to be seen as a problem if it can be shown they've consistent issued inappropriate warnings to different editors. Or in the specific case of admins, far more serious would be if it can be demonstrated the admin was threatening to directly block an editor while involved or persistently threatening to block an editor for inappropriate reasons but that's not going to come from templates as these should not be interpreted as a threat of personally blocking the editor.  As for reversions, well WP:BRD always comes to mind whenever there's some dispute over reversions. Ultimately if the other editor is willing to discuss and had reasonable reasons for reversion most of the time (which doesn't have to mean they were correct), it'll be rare we'll sanction them for it, so it won't generally belong at ANI.  As always, if someone makes an edit or a series of edits with some improvements and some changes seen as harmful, we generally don't demand an editor reverting needs to pick through these to keep the good while removing the bad. There will be exceptions like BLP violation, but stylistics ones won't generally fall into that category. I mean ideally they should, but most of the time it's not ANI worthy if they don't.  Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the diffs posted by Uncle G (thanks!), has a long history of incivility, revert-warring, and blanking their talk page to hide the warnings. I've just recently encountered them doing punctuation and spelling changes on Two-spirit that change the forms of words used in the sources and cited quotes, and that go against the discussions we've had on talk. They don't appear to have read the talk page. While I appreciate that Afterwriting has good intentions, their edits I've seen are disruptive, and they respond to all feedback with hostility, personal attacks, and further disruption. After looking through their edit history further, I gave them a final warning on incivility as there's already been far too much of this. -  CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I want to acknowledge that I was wrong in one instance about some punctuation changes Afterwriting made. The WP:MOS is slightly different from some other style guides. This is not used consistently across WP, but the form Afterwriting used of periods after quotation marks does align with the WP:MOS in that instance. So when they changed it again, I let the second change on their part stand. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not accept that any of my edits to that article (apart from one typo) introduced, as you claimed, "multiple punctuation and grammatical mistakes" or that any of my edits, as you also claimed, were just my "preferred" style and were contrary to the MOS. There were no obvious mistakes or anything contrary to the MOS. Nor were there any spelling changes (unless adding hyphens to be consistent with the article name itself is a "spelling" change) that made any actual change to any sources or cited quotes. I also thought, apparently incorrectly according to your comments, that stylistic consistency within an article, which this article doesn't have, is actually a good thing and something to be encouraged in all articles. Expecting any editor to consult an article's talk page before making what seem to be very straightforward improvements is an unrealistic expectation. Regarding my editing history, my editing is not "disruptive" as you've claimed. Just the opposite in fact. I am nearly always a very constructive and responsible editor and my editing has consistently made numerous stylistic and other improvements to many articles over many years. I have rarely edit-warred, especially in recent years, and nearly all of the reversions I have made were clearly justifiable for MOS or policy reasons. And selecting some of the relatively infrequent instances, mostly from years ago, when I have responded to other editors with some uncivil comments, especially without any understanding of the context in which most of those comments were made (such as unjustified warnings by POV-pushing editors), does not give an accurate depiction of my overall editing behaviour at all. Also, like every editor, I am entitled to remove comments and warnings from my talk page and it is my preference to only keep comments on the page that I may want to come back to at some time. I don't see any point at all in keeping comments on my talk pages once they've served their purpose. That is my choice and it is not appropriate to attribute some kind of other motive to this preference. For the record here are the original so-called punctuation and grammatical "errors" which I was accused of making and which were reverted and the  Two-spirit article talk page section on style uniformity so that other editors can judge for themselves just how much in "error" my editing was and whether the reversions and other claims about my editing were justified. Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I see zero issues and largely agree with User:CorbieVreccan's actions and comments in this thread. Disagreement is the normal state on Wikipedia. User:Afterwriting needs to learn this and learn to disagree in a collegial manner (instead of hauling disagreements to AN). I'd be thinking trout instead of boomerang, but I see no reason for admin action in this thread. BusterD (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not "haul" any disagreement to ANI. I merely asked about the process for making a complaint about an administrator in case I wanted to do this. Others, for their own reasons, chose to make it an issue about my editing history instead. Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Nobody should say on their user page that they do not suffer fools gladly unless they are damn sure that they are not a fool themself. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And how exactly is this comment not uncivil? Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If you'd rather keep it off-wiki, you can contact the arbitration committee This is a common misconception. ArbCom will not here a case in private just because a user wants it to, there has to be a compelling reason that it has to be discussed privately, like confidential information, off-wiki evidence, etc. Anything that is entirely on-wiki can and should be discussed on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Problematic edits by User:84.92.40.23
Is making contentious edits on coordinates of many articles (see their contributions), some of which have been reverted. I can't tell if this is sneaky vandalism, but I doubt that a troll would spend extended periods on something that will just get reverted. Wretchskull (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well Special:Diff/1082002373 seems to be in stark contrast to the above claims. It reduces precision from 6 decimal places to 3, and gives an explanation right there in the edit summary that pinpointing University College, Oxford down to less than a metre is inappropriate, which it is per WikiProject Geographical coordinates.  It does seems silly as the place is definitely more than 1 metre large.  This is even made explicit in the edit summary at Special:Diff/1080760801 that Brentwood, Essex is larger than 10 metres and the co&ouml;rdinates aren't even at the centre or some recognized civic building, but are apparently for a patch of a car park behind a Tides Home &amp; Garden shop. Indeed, in reality the shoe is on the other foot with edits like Special:Diff/1082010327.  On what basis, Wretchskull, are you locating the University of Oxford precisely, to within approximately 1 decimetre, inside but off-centre of the Weston Library? Uncle G (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wretchskull, I have notified the IP editor of this discussion on their talk page. The University of Oxford and University College, Oxford edits look like attempts to tackle unreasonable precision, but a link to the precision guidelines in the edit summary would be helpful, as would be answering the query on their talk page. TSventon (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this edit moved the coordinates out of the city into the sea (and note that the precision guidelines say that "cities must be specified with a precision of degrees, minutes and seconds to respect historical norms" [my emphasis]), and this one moved them off the castle itself. I don't think that this is "sneaky vandalism"; the edits appear to be made in good faith, but there's such a thing as reducing coordinate precision too much. The IP seems to have gone rather overboard in his or her reading of WP:OPCOORD. Deor (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Too much precision for places makes no sense. However, I think distances from Oxford are measured from Carfax, the major cross-road in the centre, not the castle. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the responses! I have poor knowledge of coordinates and I was uncertain about the validity of the edits. I'm sure it's done in good faith but I decided to get some input from editors more experienced with the subject. Thank you again and have a good one - Wretchskull (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Can someone properly close AFD vandalized by nominator?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twists_of_curves Five people said to Keep it, the nominator arguing with everyone, no one agreeing with him, so he closed it as "Whatever". Can an administrator go and fix that properly?

He also closed another AFD he started with Merge, and I don't care about that one, just someone starting an AFD then closing it seems like its against a rule somewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Westinghouse_Astronuclear_Laboratory  D r e a m Focus  03:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Also can someone tell him not to go through and remove a large number of links to an article he nominated for deletion which is still at AFD? I asked him to not do that at User talk:TenPoundHammer after reverting some of them. Many of his edits are still not reverted though. Just checked and Search Engine Watch actually ended in keep so he needs to undo his removal to all links to it.  D r e a m Focus  03:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It wasn't "vandalised", he clearly withdrew it (he removed the tags). So I've reverted and closed it as Withdrawn.  The Merge one I think is OK as it's effectively withdrawn as well and Merging isn't a discussion for AfD (the two things do appear to be the same organisation though).  Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think closing Articles for deletion/Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory as merge was appropriate when there are editors !voting keep (which can be implicitly read as "don't merge"). Yes TPH could have tried a bold merge instead of AfD, but that ship has sailed, and the existence of a closed AfD saying the "The result was Merge the two" falsely implies there was a consensus of multiple editors to merge, not just TPH's whim. In general I agree that it would be better if let AfDs run their course rather than self-closing them with idiosyncratic results. Pre-empting the result of AfDs he started by removing links as "unlikely to be saved" is also disruptive (and pointless: if the AfD is closed as delete, XfDcloser will automatically remove all incoming links). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note TenPoundHammer was previously topic banned from deletion discussions in 2018–2019: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive300, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea to merge was WP:BOLD since I knew there was already a consensus to keep and was admitting my wrongs. Merging seemed like a no-brainer since both articles talk about different incarnations of the same building. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User rights removal request (Interstellarity)
Can you please remove all my user rights? I haven't been as active as I used to be and haven't been using the rights I have. I may request to have my user rights returned should I be active again. If in the event my account is hacked, I want to be confident that they don't have access to these rights since I do not monitor my account on a regular basis. Interstellarity (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have removed your various user rights.  Thank you for your service.  If you become active again, please feel free to request these back.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this. I still plan to edit on occasion, but I have been more of a reader than an editor these days. Have a great day! Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Jayron32,
 * I would also like the autoconfirmed permission to be removed. I was wondering if this is possible and something you can do. Interstellarity (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AUTOCONFIRM, that user right is automatic and cannot be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As Johnuniq says above, this is not an admin-granted permission, so it cannot be taken away by admins. It's granted automatically by the software.  I bet some hoops could be jumped through to get it removed involving stewards or something like that, but it's probably not worth it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses. Based on the responses above, I’m happy with keeping the autoconfirmed permission. It might be useful as time goes on. I’m content reading as well as editing Wikipedia on a reoccurring basis. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Unattributed article merger, authority control and Wikidata issues
Hi, I came across an article merger that remains unattributed at the destination page. was merged into Buddhahood with Special:Diff/978231398 & Special:Diff/978230841 respectively. The merger is not attributed at the destination page. Also, the prior article (now a redirect) is already connected to a Wikidata item and has an authority control box in it. I don't know how to deal with it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 09:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the authority control just be removed? It was added almost a year after the article was made a redirect, and it's not needed there. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this! I repaired the attribution (WP:RIA) with a dummy edit and added Copied templates to the talk pages (contribs). Alternatively, there is the Copying within Wikipedia tag, but its Category:Possible CC BY-SA or GFDL violations due to copying within Wikipedia is not empty. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandal
Can somebody please take a look at IP editor 2409:4043:2D1E:7B71:8EC0:BAC1:D440:2742, who just vandalised the coin noticeboard for some reason. NOT here to do good work anyway.  scope_creep Talk  06:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Scope creep - Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Close review - "She" for ships
The RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style was closed with a consensus to change the MOS guideline, but retain usage in existing articles unless sources show such a usage is not preferred in relation to that specific ship. This close has multiple problems, and was discussed by others on the closer's talk page. I think it should be overturned to no consensus based on the following: Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) There simply was nowhere near enough support for a change to justify a change to the guideline. Participants were very evenly divided, and neither side's arguments are much stronger than those of the other: some cite competing style guides, some cite other types of works besides style guides, arguments and counter-arguments about how this is or isn't an acceptable use of gendered language, ...: in short, nothing decisive)
 * 2) The proposed solution is a novel one which was not suggested or espoused by any suggested by only very few of the participants (there were plenty of arguments stating that this minor style change was not worth the trouble; and there were of course arguments to rewrite the guideline, but I fail to see much of anybody supporting both of these somewhat contradictory outcomes). As such, it would be something of a WP:SUPERVOTE - yes, probably a good faith attempt to reach a compromise, but one which had not been much discussed during the discussion, nor one around which an agreement by participants of the discussion was formed.
 * 3) In light of the above two, given there was no clear outcome from the discussion, and that the proposed closure is incorrect, the only proper outcome is to close this as "no consensus", because there wasn't one.
 * I agree. But perhaps the best thing to do would be to revert the non-admin close and ask for an admin close?<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOBIGDEAL. Whether the closer was an admin or not is not, IMHO, a relevant factor. In fact, we most certainly want (experienced) non-admins to make closes when those don't require admin tools, and when they are done in a proper way (and it also serves as perfect practical training for future admins). I would not support reverting any close merely on that technicality, and I have intentionally not mentioned that in my rationale here, because I don't think it's a valid one. And even admins occasionally make bad closes (at RfCs or elsewhere), for what it's worth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on all of that. But to argue the opposite side, from a pure closing standpoint, we're saying that it is an erroneous close. On average, an admin is less likely to to make a close in error than a non-admin, it could be the easiest most logical next step? Or to put it another way, what action would you expect from this venue? Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck my comment. A review here by multiple persons  is a good way to go. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your second point is incorrect; the result was suggested by a participant. wrote "Use "it" in most situations. "It" should be the default, but "she" should be allowed if a clear majority of recent sources (specialist or general) use that (if there is no clear majority for either, then use "it"), and obviously allow it in direct quotes. "It" is simply the overwhelming contemporary style in general sources, and Wikipedia is contemporary general purpose source. However, don't edit war and don't mass-change articles. (or nearly exactly what I said last time)." This statement aligns with what I found the consensus to be. Heartfox (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Corrected. It might have been suggested by a few participants, but it doesn't seem to have garnered the kind of support (or the significant amount of discussion) that would make it a consensus. As for comments regarding "contemporary style", there are plenty of guidelines which do not favour any style explicitly but simply say (and, experience will prove, are correct) that the simplest and most effective solution - to avoid edit wars and/or any wasteful discussions over it - is simply to stick with whatever was first present in the article (MOS:ERA, MOS:ENGVAR, ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Overturn and reclose as No Consensus largely per OP. This appears to be a remarkably poor reading of consensus. (Full Disclosure: I am INVOLVED and opposed the proposed changes to MOS.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not involved, but I agree with point #2. Also, the close contains variants of "therefore ... there is also a consensus" (etc), but their determination of consensus doesn't clearly follow from the preceding sentence, and it's not otherwise clear how the closer reached these conclusions. The closer's responses to questions/concerns on their talk isn't too illuminating, and their position seems a bit inconsistent. Unless they can explain the reasoning better here, I'd suggest they let someone else take a shot at closing it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm involved here as I supported the change and believe there was consensus for a change as discussions are not votes and all that. What I don't see is how a closer could find consensus for the change but also mandate an RFC-level discussion for every single ship article. Calidum  19:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how NOTAVOTE could justify a finding of consensus despite the lack of any clear majority here. Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. (from WP:CLOSE). The close does not explain why that would apply, nor can I find evidence of why that would apply. There might be a few arguments, on both sides, based purely on personal opinion - but discarding those wouldn't dramatically affect the outcome: once all the other arguments are taken into account, none are so convincing that they make others irrelevant, and none appear to have been convincing enough to a majority of the participants, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTAVOTE applies because comments like "Why do we even need to have these discussions?", "If you don't like the English language, others are available", "We need not reduce everything to bland, flavourless, wikistyle devoid of all colour and whimsy", "Personally I see it as a bit of harmless fun", "Soon everything will be boring objects", etc., etc. should carry little weight in a discussion. Ditto for the countless reminders that the last RFC on this matter was "only" two years ago. Calidum  20:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There were invalid arguments on both sides: Support this change - it's simply plain English (editor opinion); This will change on Wikipedia eventually, it's just a matter of time (a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?); It's outdated, plain and simple. We find both in print, but we all know which way the future is leaning (a mix of both of the above - so both forms are found in sources, but one is "outdated, plain and simple"?). Even if all such similar arguments are disregarded, there remain plenty of valid arguments on both sides, which is why it cannot be said that either has a convincing strength of argument to support it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is an "RFC-level discussion" mandated? Assessing usage of one variant or another (e.g. regarding capitalisation, national variety of English, etc.) is done day in day out in informal discussions on talk pages and in RM discussions, and I don't see anything in the close that implies discussions about she vs it would or should be held to a different standard. (disclosure: I supported the change, but have not looked to see whether the close reflected consensus and so I am explicitly expressing no opinion on that). Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The closer didn't specifically refer to future article level discussions as RFCs; I'm presuming that would be the case based on how stubborn users can be before changes are implemented. To use your page move analogy, note that only controversial moves require an RM; pages can and are moved without one. An RM is not required for every single page move, and a discussion should not be required before changing every ship's pronouns. Calidum  19:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn ( I was not involved) I think there was no consensus to change.  They tried to craft (or select a minority)  a "middle of the road" solution,  a nice move in most other venues but a super-vote in the context of a closer.  Overturn either to "no consensus to change" or else to needing a new close by and experienced admin.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Along with, during the overturn, thanking the previous closer for their work and efforts. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Book-read-white-bear-blue-toy-844152-pxhere-com.jpg comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) Is that a limo? Why would a bear need a limo? She is a beaut, though — the limo, not the bear. Okay, also the bear. El_C 12:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC) that's a locomotive.  SN54129  13:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Are locomotives also she?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)In Hebrew, a locomotive is a he, but a train is a she. Down with the rail patriarchy! Now, about that limo... El_C 02:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved—ambivalent about the MOS and downright uninterested in ships!—but as I wrote earlier, bore I knew of this discussion, .I.e., overturn to no consensus. No issue with the nac; per WP:NACRFC, ny non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.But without getting into the minutaie as to whether this even was an RfC, either...  SN54129  19:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn per RandomCanadian and several other opposers. I have just stumbled across this, am uninvolved and don't much care how it turns out, but it seems a staggeringly inappropriate close. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus. I supported the change, but I don't see a consensus emerging from this discussion. Editors couldn't even come to an agreement on how to evaluate usage in sources, let alone the relative weighting of policies. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn no consensus - the conversation very much ran its course, but it's also clear there isn't any consensus unless you count votes which we don't do. Also since it seems the question changed during the discussion, and the result wasn't an outcome of the question, it all seems just wrong not even counting the no clear consensus. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn & Close as "No Consensus" - In the closer's own words: "slightly more editors supporting the MOS change than those in favour of keeping the status quo", makes it clear there was no consensus in this lengthy, (at times highly-charged) and controversial debate. (ftr I !voted) -  wolf  20:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (involved comment) Overturn to no consensus - I just don't see how there is a consensus to this discussion - no argument really "won out", and there are policy-based arguments for both sides. Hog Farm Talk 20:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus (involved comment) - this was a pretty clear no-consensus to me Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus (involved) - there is no clear consensus, with both those supporting and opposing presenting strong arguments. Further, the RfC was flawed, being led for the first four days by a non-neutral statement, during which time the majority of !voters commented - when this non-neutral statement was removed, there was a strong swing towards oppose, suggesting that the statement did predispose editors towards a specific viewpoint, meaning the RfC should be closed as no consensus on those grounds alone. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus or new closure by admin panel. I come to this discussion, especially this discussion, with many preconceptions. I was born in a naval hospital, lived either on base or in family quarters, raised by a senior CPO and his very CPO wife. My first job, selling Navy Times in Pearl Harbor, involved boarding as many ships as possible, selling papers and getting tipped from enlisted and commissioned adults, heroes to me. Hundreds of vessels, tens of thousands of sailors. Then my dad retired and I didn't see the ocean again for six years. For the first time I lived among non-military families. It took time to accept any such existed. Other readers will may come to these pages with preconceptions they either don't recognize, didn't announce, or refuse to confront. I don't blame them; we share different experiences. There's a reason I digress so thoroughly. This non-admin close situation massively fails both BADNAC #2 and NACPIT #1. No matter what outcome the closer came to, no matter who the single closer was, this discussion on this board was going to occur. King Solomon wouldn't close this alone. Not foreseeing that is a disqualification for closing the discussion at all. reading this discussion, preconceptions on this issue appear deep and powerful. And mostly unconscious. There are reasons why ENGVAR exists. Regional variations in the English language are not merely taught and learned, they are felt. Unconsciously. Trying to enforce New England English on an Australian is just never going to work. Salt and lubber the same. Sorry for the length of this post. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BADNAC doesn't apply to non-deletion venues. Izno (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BADNAC and NACPIT are not policy but are part of an essay on all types of discussions, this would be a concern with the second cautionary reason to avoid with non admin closures it is still a valid point and valid reason to request an overturn of any discussion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've explained in my first reply above to North8000, we actually do want experienced non-admins to close discussions when possible. The problem is when the closure is not appropriate, and that happens both to admins and to non-admins. If an admin had made the exact same closure, the arguments for overturning it would be very much the same. Adminship is not a big deal, and it's not diplomatic immunity either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn and do new closure by a panel. This was an extremely contentious discussion that took a lot of time and energy from editors. Given this, it's probably best to do a panel close by a few experienced discussion closers. The use of a panel should reduce the risk of a supervote. And don't forget there is WP:DFD in case the closers need a place to discuss. The board is ripe for new participation. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:F4E8:3E1B:616:B8B3 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think having a panel close is worth the effort. There plainly was no consensus: having the close reviewed by the community here is as good as any panel. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, that was the wrong close. Overturn to no consensus per everyone above. There's no need for a panel to look at it when the whole AN is reviewing it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Please. Hebrew is sexist. Use Theybrew. GRuban (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Und in Deutsch, "Lokomotive" is feminine and "Zug" is masculine... Same in French [words the same spelling as in English: pronunciation, of course, a whole different ball game] (which doesn't have a neuter gender). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)]]
 * I see that mentioned Bringing actual style guides to bear, which seemed like a good idea, so I'm doing that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a cute picture. :) 2601:647:5800:1A1F:F4E8:3E1B:616:B8B3 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus (not involved) If ever there were no consensus, this is as clear an example as ever existed. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 00:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn, but to no consensus. I kept track, there's a sizeable numerical majority for preferring it (55% to 45%, 76-63) and if I weren't involved, I'd say the our more general rules on the use of pronouns and external style use in general works prefer it, which is what our MOS takes after. Either way, it should be a full reclose, not decided ad hoc at this forum. --Izno (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that 55% is a "sizeable" majority. In the US that'd be called a swing district. And besides, discussions are not votes to begin with (and if 55% was a "sizeable" majority, there would be far less no consensus closes than there actually are...). The counterpart to what you're saying is that Wikipedia rules generally don't care about English variety or stylistic choices like that, so long the article is internally consistent; and I think there are plenty of arguments and evidence which shows that both sides of this are defensible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors". In this case, I viewed "content" to be "she" or it", and I viewed there to be a consensus for both style guides and specialized sources as examples of "previously published information". Editors tended to argue for the legitimacy of one or the other, not that one or the other was illegitimate. I don't think multiple forms of legitimate previously published information means there is no consensus for either. People seem to be missing what the close is about. It does not ban "she"—it defers to the sources. If the relevant sources use "she" for a particular ship, then that's what could be used. Likewise for "it". But if "she" is used, it could be expressed to readers in some way why it is so, because it is an unfamiliar/confusing appellation.


 * All this close is about is that when "she" is used it should be clear to unspecialized readers why it is so. There was no consensus to change all "she" to "it" (as is noted in the close... I don't know what people mean when they support overturning this close to "no consensus"—this was a "no consensus" close in regard to changing all "she" to "it"). The thing is, there was a consensus that "she" for ships is an unfamiliar/confusing term to unspecialized readers/editors. I can't ignore this consensus just because it wasn't directly asked in the RfC question, which, as others have noted, was not even what guided the discussion to begin with. Heartfox (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:V applies to verifiable matters of fact in articles (such as saying that HMS Victory was at Trafalgar), not ruling whether the ship is a "she" or an "it" (for the record, Victory is absolutely "she", but that's not relevant to the close challenge here), which is stylistic decisions (there are plenty of places where one would expect to diverge from sources on style if one were to follow the MOS for internal consistency). there was a consensus that "she" for ships is an unfamiliar/confusing term to unspecialized readers/editors. No there wasn't. There were plenty of valid arguments that both forms are legitimate (as evidenced by usage in different forms of reliable sources). Given that, it's simply incorrect to conclude that one of the forms is "unfamiliar" or "confusing". There was plenty of back and forth on it, but I don't see the strength of argument, or the numerical support, to establish consensus. That ships (or other inanimate objects, or other concepts which technically don't have a gender) may be referred to in the feminine is a well known quirk of the English language (as many oppose !voters at the RfC argued). That ships are referred to in the feminine in plenty of reliable sources (such as history books) is another, presented by again a fair amount of oppose !voters. These certainly seem to be valid arguments, and I don't see how they can be ignored. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Overturn to no consensus: Only a small minority of editors even touched on whether "she" is a specialised usage, so I don't see how there was any consensus on that point. And the closer admits there was no consensus to outright ban "she". (Full Disclosure: I voted against the proposed change) Ficaia (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Does anyone here dispute any of the following?
 * Most style guides favor "it"
 * Most editors favor "it"
 * Our guidelines (MOS:GNL) already favor "it"
 * Does anyone think any of these three things will change at any point, ever? This is one of those perennial proposals where we all know it's gonna pass eventually (remember Kiev/Kyiv?), so why call 55% no consensus and delay what is obviously inevitable? (I am involved and supported the RfC.) Levivich 02:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No. 1 was quite explicitly disputed by many at the RfC, of which a good share argued that style guides are not the sine qua non of usage and that plenty of sources, do, in fact, favour "she". No. 2 is, self-evidently, not correct (given the number of editors - including those who write the actual articles about ships - who actually do favour "she") and also an ad populum. No. 3 is wrong. MOS:GNL quite explicitly says Ships may be referred to using either neuter forms ("it", "its") or feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. - which seems quite in line with other guidelines such as MOS:RETAIN, and with the very pragmatical advice of WP:AINTBROKE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I also find the argument that "it's gonna pass eventually" entirely unconvincing. A similar RfC was proposed a couple of years ago, and the result was not different from this one: in fact many of the arguments were the same, many of the participants were the same, and the margin was also very similar. If asking the same question at 2 1/2 years interval yields basically the same answer, I don't see what justification there would be to think that asking it again in x years is going to bring about a different one. Short, of course, of the ever so popular self-fulfilling prophecy... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Overturn to "no consensus". A good-faith attempt, but still a bad interpretation of consensus by the OP Original Closer. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "by the original closer?"<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...yes-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

SNOW ACTION? seems that this discussion at least has clear consensus, can an uninvolved admin action on this? <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was coming here expecting to close this discussion but I don't think it's actually snowing. There is a clear consensus that the current close should not stand. What's not clear is if it should be straight changed to no consensus or if it should be re-closed with more recent comments in this discussion leaning towards a re-close. So I think this should probably be given another day or two to see where the discussion is at because whether it's declared a no consensus (which would also mean there's no closing statement, just a link to this discussion) or is declared in need of a new close (with no consensus being the most likely, but not only, outcome but which would have a closing statement that might be helpful for the future) does seem material to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn Full disclosure: I participated, and while the closer did enact a result I favored, I cannot deny that it is difficult to read the discussion as anything except "no consensus" one way or the other. This should probably be overturned.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn In English, a consensus is "the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". A narrow majority is quite the opposite. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia's defines consensus differently. Per WP:DETCON "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Calidum  17:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And as shown previously, the quality of arguments was here and there on both sides. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We get it, you don't like the close. Calidum  17:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn because ships are female. (Unless they have expressed another preference, in which case of course we wouldn't want to upset the ships feelings.) -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 14:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reclose uninvolved, no to a two word close there is too much in that discussion for a two word close Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's always possible to link to this discussion; or for whoever closes this to write a short a thoughtful summary of the concerns with the original close when it's overturned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not good enough. The close of that discussion should cover the arguments, sources, policies, guidelines and sub issues. That is the only way to move forward with such an extensive discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt a single closer can do a better job than the community at AN (i.e. here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to No Consensus - Even by the closer's own words, this was fairly evenly split, which indicates there isn't a clear consensus to make a change. Perhaps in good faith, but seems to lack the experience to close complicated RFCs.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's obvious where this is going, so I'll just comment on the "good faith" part of Dennis's comment. A core tenet of this project is WP:BOLD.  Intrinsic in that is the acceptance that not every bold move will be correct.  When it's not, we just fix it and move on.  So, @Heartfox don't feel bad.  You made a good effort, and that's appreciated.  If it didn't work out, well, the only way to get better is to make mistakes and learn from them, and that's how the project keeps growing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed the close now. Heartfox (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close This Review has been open for most of two days and consensus is overwhelming. It's time to lower the curtain and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (and everyone else, if they hadn't noticed) The closer has altered their closing statement (although I think it lacks a bolded "no consensus" somewhere). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to close this. I am not a fan of piling on once consensus is clear. The closer acted in good faith. Let's not rub salt in any wounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the closer's remarks are lenghty, and the added statement that it's now a no-consensus is in the middle of them. Shouldn't it be placed at the top or bottom, to make it more clear what the outcome was? As to rubbing salt in wounds, I don't see how a minor modification would be a slight against the closer. -  wolf  05:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting no modification. I'm suggesting that we have a very strong consensus here and it's time to close the discussion. The closer, who IMO should probably be an admin, can handle the closing statement on the RfC however they wish, consistent with the clear consensus here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the purpose of my previous comment was not to pass judgement, or otherwise opine, about the closer, or the subject of that RfC or even this discussion. It was really just a question; don't closing statements typically begin with something like: "The result of this discussion was no consensus", (or "keep", "delete", "merge", etc. - in bold)...? It just makes it easier for people, than hunting through the closer's remarks. Anyway, like I said, just a question. And either way, this is likely my last comment here. Thanks -  wolf  17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2019 close result was neither at the beginning nor bolded. Heartfox (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merely because someone in the past did the wrong thing, doesn't bind everyone to continue to do the wrong thing forever. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about UPE (renamed from Misuse of powers)
The page Draft:BoAt Lifestyle is already accepted twice in AFC submission, but still, the page is been sent back to draft by who is already been warned in past. Initially, I thought he is admin, but he is not. Its a clear way to create a deadlock and disruption of Wikipedia. It seems like I should not submit any page in AFC in future due to such improper draftification. I am Sorry.Rickinmorty (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Rickinmorty; Thank you!, I acknowledge the tag and talk page update. The page was draftified by me becauase you reverted 's draftification move and moved it back to mainspace without waiting for an another AfC review. Besides that, you have 109 103 edits in your history so how come you know to use "Draft re cat" script? Well, will wait for others' opinion and then I'll chip in further. - Hatchens (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that User:Nomadicghumakkad accepted the draft in this edit. He should not have done that: it wasn't ready for mainspace.  There's scope for scrutiny of Nomadicghumakkad's other AfC passings, I think, because his standards are pretty far from where mine would be.  I think Hatchens was right to re-draftify.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with S Marshall on this which is why I draftified it in the first place. I'm not going to fully debate the merits of said article here but the sources are piss poor - mostly press releases, dubious and unreliable blackhat SEO outlets and WP:MILL. I too question Nomadicghumakkad's AFC editing but I don't have the mental or physical energy to bring it to a noticeboard myself. I also don't know where this recent idea i'm seeing everywhere came from, but AFC is not insulation against deletion. CUPIDICAE💕  17:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I am skeptical of the creators motivations here as well, but that's for COIN. That being said, I find it funny that several of the sources are just copies of one another and generally written by the same "author". CUPIDICAE💕  17:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that this article has been created by multiple sock farms in the past (User:Northern Escapee and User:Agastya11) and has been moved to various titles and is likely tied to WP:UPE.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets not get distract. The question and topic of this thread is about draftifying. Praxidicae draftification was fair. But Harchens draftification was against policy. In WP:DRAFT it is written, A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc. It had been moved to draft a single time already. So it is against policy to draftify again. They should have deleted it. No one is saying AFC is insulation. It is not even the point. The point is wrong draftification and going against policy even after being warned. The current draft is well sourced with neutral language. Rickinmorty (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that, after all of the comments here in this thread, Hatchens' move to draft space is no longer unilateral. You say we shouldn't get distracted, but that means you're asking us to look at the more minor issue here and ignore the bigger issue. It's a "beam in your own eye vs. the mote in someone else's" kind of thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When you bring an issue to ANI, you can expect all aspects of the issue to be examined. In this case, I see an article that has a long history of socking and UPE editing created with full referencing markup by an editor with two previous edits. Add that to the creation of several articles of individuals of dubious notability, and it's not surprising that editors and AfC reviewers who deal with paid editing day in and day out have reservations about your drafts. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to be that person, but does anyone else find the timestamps suspicious here? We have first submission template added, the eventual first reviewer editing the article 9 minutes after that, then after another intervening edit by OP, accepting it 8 minutes later. For the second go-round, we have the submission for review here, and then acceptance the very next minute? I'm not super familiar with the AfC standards and timelines, so if that's not weird or suspicious, fair enough. But that doesn't sound legit to me. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * you're not wrong and it is all very suspect, including Nomadic's acceptance but also Behind the moors which is without a doubt another paid account. There are multiple firms taht operate accounts like this that manage to get AFC (and some even NPR) that get paid to literally accept spam articles. I can say with certainty that BTM is one of those accounts. CUPIDICAE💕  19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The creating an article one word at a time to balloon edit count certainly is suspicious. This seems like EC gaming at the very least. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well this is no good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And here's the accepting reviewer, participating in the same AfD as - a sock who previously edited Draft:BoAt Lifestyle.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks like it might need a checkuser. Draft:PharmEasy seems to be another example like Draft:BoAt Lifestyle ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PharmEasy is absolutely some UPE garbage. I wish I could find where I saved the adver for Boat Lifestyle... CUPIDICAE💕 20:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Especially odd on an article that needs a random capital letter to avoid the logs at Draft:Boat Lifestyle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't want to reveal too much but this is known to many of us who are active in identifying UPE/spam wrt these firms operations. This and this (the last vote is from another Sanketio sock just like Ponyo linked) and this are another excellent example like what pointed out. Unfortunately CU isn't often reliable in these cases because 1.) it is often numerous people because it's part of a firm and 2.) the location where they're coming from is a shitshow CU wise (for lack of a better description.) It flies under the radar when paid editors vote delete in articles, because well, why would someone get paid to do that? Here's the reason: it's usually a competitors job/awarded offer and because they bid on it, at least on Freelancer and some other sites, they can see who the client actually is.  CUPIDICAE💕  20:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And of course this gem which includes both the reviewers in question agreeing with each other... CUPIDICAE💕 20:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that I've blocked and  as related accounts (whether it be closely-connected WP:MEAT or the same person). I think the issues with Nomadicghumakkad need to approached from a different angle. There have been concerns raised regarding their acceptance of articles not ready for article space and overlap with a number of UPE sock accounts, but they're not technically related to Behind the moors/GA99. As Prax mentions above, CU is a shitshow when it comes to this extensive web of UPE.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ponyo: then you ought to look at this particular AfD 1 where Nomadicghumakkad's "miraculous AfC approval" had been discussed (as far as I can recall, it was the same situation as explained above by, pinging for more clarity) and then have a look at the RattanIndia's current edit history, where GA99 and Sonofstar are the common denominators. A similar AfD 2, where Cunard is a common denominator when checked with RattanIndia's edit history and Afd 3 where Nomadicghumakkad and Chess are common denominators. Besides that, what is the most common activity among all these IDs? They all work on substandard company pages; do controversial edits, execute controversial AfC approvals (No idea of NPP), if pages are nominated for AfD, then they try to twist the narrative like in this AfD 4, where Cunard and Inchiquin are the common denominators. Now, if we connect the dots, in each above mentioned AfDs, one can find three editors (Nomadicghumakkad, Chess and Rickinmorty) who have dragged me to ANI on 3 different occasions - 1st one, 2nd one and this is the 3rd one; based on self-twisted interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and in some cases, playing the victimization card. This coordinated targeting makes the whole matter quite apprehensive. Despite knowing all this (also knowing about controversial AfC approval of Draft:BoAt Lifestyle), I decided to follow 's advise and tried to stay away from it... till they openly challenged 's draftification on the basis of past two "controversial" AfC approvals. - Hatchens (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. To me that was a well enough judged action. Different actions are available, of course, but this one has worked and brought it to the fore. Nothing else to add here except "Please can we slam the sock drawer shut on their fingers ?" 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I had no plans to come back any time soon but looks like I must (once again justifying, sigh.). These notes are for the closing admin and not a response to any editor. I do not intend to justify to other editors or engage in arguments since these conversations cause me undue anxiety.

Boat was reviewed/accepted with several other submissions made by same editor. Check the interaction here. After Praxi moved it to drafts, I suspected if I was wrong in my review and reached out to Highking to discuss it along with another page that I had draftified. Check here. They didn't give a positive response to my perspective of notability, hence left it in the drafts. What happened post that, none of my business. I didn't even want to come online for a long time.

Pharmeasy is not really garbage. If we see the talk page Draft talk:PharmEasy, notability was discussed and it was agreed that it is notable. Frankly, my understanding of notability has been mostly okay. Also, at times, it hasn't been (just like for other reviewers) and I have agreed and disagreed with folks - all of which is a part of the process. At times, there have been loops of understanding where I first thought it was notable, then thought it wasn't and nominated for deletion and then AFD resulted in Keep, indicating that my first review was indeed correct, at Falguni Nayar.

If I accept articles and others feel it was not the right move, NPP reviewers (or others) can nominate them for deletion. That's why that layer exists. Notability, as much as we choose to believe, is not black and white. Hope this helps. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Does this whole matter belong at SPI, then? N.B. I personally am convinced that Cunard isn't a sock or meat puppet but a good faith, highly inclusionist, highly prolific participant at AfD.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cunard? How did his name come up? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In Hatchens' post, above: suspicion exists because he's said keep in AfDs where alleged UPE editors said keep.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No way Cunard is a sock or in league with those guys. He's one of the better wikipedians out there even if (when) we don't see eye-to-eye. I don't see any real connection between Cunard or any other editor and the overlap with those editors is small. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is *any* issue with a draftification, put it back in mainspace and AfD it. Use of draftspace and AfC is *optional*. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But you can see why it's attractive to UPE editors. By using AfC they can select who the patroller is.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * COI editors are told to use AfC. UPE editors are told to disclose. Regardless, a disputed draftification goes to AfD, not AN. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with SJ. In the case of Draft:BoAt Lifestyle, this is an interesting submission. First declined and rejected by, and then all of a sudden Nomadic approves it, with which Prax disagrees, hence the submission is draftified again, though I believe it should have been straight away sent to AfD. Following this, it is once again approved by, now blocked, and then again draftified by Prax.  shouldn't have engaged in move-warring, but instead heard what Prax was telling them. If Hatchens reverts their false-move to mainspace, I don't see a problem with this. A little note, before blaming someone of misusing powers, did you try using your own powers in a legit way? Moving a rejected/declined AfC submission again and again to mainspace isn't something good.─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hatchens being hatchens. Sudshare - I nominated it myself for deletion after accepting since I was not sure of notability. This approach was suggested by Tim. I didn't even vote there. Rattan has been discussed so much. Nothing to add except that it was notable indeed. I see GA99 (now blocked) recreated Rattan for the reasons only known to them. My guess would be that they recognized it was notable and might help with a good AFC record. Nonetheless, I don't control how others behave. From the logic I read above, any two editors voting same are sock of each other (My guess is that I would have participated in around a 1000 AFDs). I am not sock to any one. Clearly, people have problem with my AFC accepts (all of them have been scrutinized by Hatchens twice and they nominated some that they found problematic for deletion. Some were kept, some were not; we all did learn something new though). But since, there are these suspicions and doubts on my quality of work, I have asked to give up my AFC rights . If admins feel there is substance in the arguments, against me, they can take actions they seem fit. I don't have a good feeling about hatchens though. I had analyzed them some time back but left it there for my own mental peace. But, I think I should raise these problematic NPP or accepts since they keep finding problems in my work. Editors can interpret this as they like


 * 1) Koenig Institute - NPP done by Hatchens. Zero notability as a company. Promo page.
 * 2) Prasun Chatterjee - AFC + NPP (Concerning)? No notability. An AIIMS doctor who did some charity. Their book has no reception. Created by a blocked user.
 * 3) Nikhil Kamath - AFC + NPP(?). Didn't have his own notability. Was moved to Praxi as a redirect to Zerodha with a remark 'not remotely close to being independently notable'. I had asked about this one before but they didn't respond then as well.
 * 4) Jawad Sharif - AFC + NPP. Created by utmost clear SPA. Hatchens didn't event put a COI tag there.
 * 5) I. M. Kadri - AFC. Created by clear SPA. The draft was accepted in state that is far from WP:NPOV.
 * 6) Everstone Group - AFC. Created by clear SPA. Didn't put any COI/UPE tag. Accepted in pathetic promo condition.

I think I can find more but this is sufficient to show that as an AFC/NPP editor, there are problems. We should see their allegations against me accepting COI/UPE/Substandard pages in light of their own accepts/work.

About AFD voting, I am sure if I find some time, I can find the patterns in their voting that they are making allegations of.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nomadicghumakkad, Thank you for the highlights and the Afd tags. So, let there be a natural process ahead. Now whatever reply I'll put it would not make any difference at your end because of you being in a "revenge mode" and showing your "true color" out of "sheer desperation". But, since its an ANI and I'm duty bound to give an appropriate reply;
 * Let's start with Koenig Institute. Yes, the institute is notable because it got extensively covered in various media outlet such as Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, Fortune etc for its involvement in the training of one of the most significant whistleblowers in the history of mankind. As long as the page is outwardly not a promo page and documents a very important moment of the history then I've no issue with accepting it with my NPP rights.
 * Prasun Chatterjee; satisfies WP:THREE - The New Indian Express, Business Standard, The Hindu (the last one is an interview, but since its with WP:THEHINDU/WP:RSP).
 * Nikhil Kamath, accepted it but redirected by to Zerodha. They are the authority and I accept their assessment. If I had been paid editor like Nomadic and having an army of UPEs, then I would had had tried to influence the outcome with second attempt, third attempt or nth attempt.
 * Jawad Sharif; satisfies WP:THREE - The Wire, The Dawn, The News, The Nation (the last one is an interview).
 * I. M. Kadri, accepted it as per the list of his architectural work and many of them have their Wikipedia pages. Besides that, kindly refer to the talk page Talk:I. M. Kadri, where I clearly put a statement - "I've accepted the draft. But, the review part, I will let it pass to more experienced editor or an editor who has the required subject matter expertise."
 * Everstone Group, on September 30, 2020, I was the one who had put up for an AfD tag on Everstone and reasons are quite well-defined. And, on March 14, 2021... it was me only who accepted this article through AfC and I gave a proper reason for acceptance at the Talk:Everstone_Group - "Six months ago, I myself nominated this company's article for an AfD discussion. At that time, the entity's page was purely promotional (WP:PROMO), was lacking credible citations as per the WP:RSP list and top of that series of WP:SOCKS were involved. Today, I accepted this draft on the basis of its content which satisfies WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RSP, WP:THREE... in true sense. If anyone agree otherwise, I'm open for it." 
 * Now comes the very important but a genuine question, and please do correct me... if an editor has an AfC reviewing rights with NPP rights? Can they use it in tandem? or is there any reservation on it?
 * By the way, If there had been a disturbing pattern, then you would had brought it to ANI way before... to save your skin. But its ok, just take your time. Unlike you, I know my editing history quite well and I believe it will itself speak for myself.
 * Others should duly note, Nomadicghumakkad, out of "sheer desperation" is now indulging in revenge based Afd tagging - Koenig Institute AfD, and Prasun Chatterjee AfD. I have no idea how we should account such behavior in LIVE ANI discussion. However, if its valid, then I'm OK with it. - Hatchens (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am only doing what you have always done with me when I have tried to question you, go and AFD my accepts. I haven't tagged my associates (like you tagged Aafi) because I don't have any.


 * 1) If you thinkKoenig Institute meets, WP:CORPDEPTH, I don't even know what to say anymore. I'd like other experienced editors and admins to note that Hatchens feel this page meets CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited. CORPDEPTH requires independent analysis, discussion and commentary on the subject. This could have been a mention on the whistleblower page and not more than that.


 * 1) Prasun Chatterjee - Did you see that BS is a PTI release? It contains a not below: (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.) I'd like other experienced editors and admins to note that Hatchens tried to provide a PTI feed as a source to establish notability. Do they understand what 'independent sources' mean?


 * 1) Nikhil Kamath - so if you accept Praxi's decision to redirect, you are fine. But if I accept their decision to let BoAT remain in draft, I am still a paid editor? You do agree you made a mistake then? Your mistakes are forgiven and mine are not? I still don't buy that if you do unerstand notability guidelines, you accepted AND NPP it.


 * 1) Jawad, I. M. Kadri - my question is not about notability. You clearly saw this is an SPA. Undeclared COI and possible UPE. I'd like experienced editors and admin to note that they still accepted them without (a) asking the editors to declare COI (b) putting a COI tag. In short, they accepted a SPA/COI article without flagging it. 


 * 1) Everstone - I did pretty much same with Sudshare. So what I did is problematic but what you did is not?


 * 1) Looking at creator of Koenig Institute and Hatchens, They both have edited Fore School of Management at time gap of 23 minutes . Creater of Koening RPSkokie is a major contributor to this page, adding a lot of non-NPOV content. Hatchens had moved it to drafts but were suddenly later okay with it. I see the page was closed as non-consensus in a recent AFD where Hatchens put a tag so they were aware this was happening. If they were okay with it, why they didn't put a keep there? I will further check the records of SPSkokie and the editor who finally accepted it.

AFC reviewers can NPP their own drafts. There is no rule against it but it is discouraged because the whole point of NPP is to provide an additional layer of review. The question is, you did AFC + NPP at Prasun Chatterjee (created by now blocked editor) AND Nikhil Kamath. I see this as an attempt to have them not appear in NPP feed so that it can slide by. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nomadicghumakkad, kindly note, you and I both are in ANI not at any regular AfD discussion. Let the competent authorities judge our editing history and behavior. If they find anything on me which compromises the very tenet of Wikipedia, then I'm ready accept their decision without a fuzz. And, please kindly keep your sassy fights with you only. - Hatchens (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I am only replicating your own past behaviors my friend. If you think I am a paid editor because you feel my accepts are sub-standard or the creators had COI/UPE, yours are clearly very same. Yours is next level - doing AFC AND NPP to COI pages to make them disappear from the feed altogether. Or, we agree that editors can have different perspectives of notability and they can be both right and wrong. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

PS: My request to give up AFC rights was accepted and I have been relieved from my AFC duties :) I encourage Hatchens to do the same till it is cleared. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Paid news in India

 * The difficulty with a lot of these sources is well explained in our article on Paid news in India. For anyone who hasn't read that recently, the executive summary is: (1) Most Indian news sources provide positive coverage for pay; and (2) They don't disclose when they've done it.  This practice is rotten to the core, and it means that we as Wikipedians can't accept most news sources based in India as reliable.  There are of course honourable exceptions, notably The Hindu and The Indian Express.This is deeply unfair on India because it means that we describe the US using American sources, and the United Kingdom using British sources, but we describe India using sources from Western democracies.  We call this unfairness "systemic bias".  But we can't make it any better without breaking our own rules on sourcing.This culture of paying for positive coverage also goes some way to explaining how many complaints about UPE we get about India-related topics.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoa! I was not aware of this. Shocking. background request. El_C 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can the interlocutors here, or should I say, "the interlockers," i.e. those whose horns of mind and tongue are interlocking, please describe in a short paragraph what is the nub of the issue? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like there may be multiple WP:UPEs who have infiltrated AFC review and NPP and battle it out for their employers against other UPEs through article creation and article deletion, and the possibility of pay-for-coverage in Indian media further complicates the issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler Ok, summarizing the whole thing... I've been accused for "Misuse of Powers" at Draft:BoAt Lifestyle by . But, the discussion had taken a turn towards blaming and counter blaming exercise between and me - mutually suspecting each other to be UPE/COI editors. So, I voluntarily submit myself for a background check. - Hatchens (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Going to rephrase this a bit. Started with Rick blaming Hatchens for improper draftifying. It then shifted where Folks pointed out that my accept for BoAT was not right. I showed them how after it was draftified, I discussed it with Highking and since they didn't give a positive response, I left it in the drafts. After that, they made further allegations on my editing. I demonstrated that the allegations they make, they do have same (and worse) behaviours. So, yeah, I guess that's where we are. 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadicghumakkad (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do have a question for both and   A very large number of your edits are in start class articles, or stubs.  Do you create those pages or simply fatten them up a little?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler: Generally I create and work on WP:NRHP articles which are sometime borderline start or stub class articles. But, recently I tried my hand in creating two Ukraine-focused articles. When it comes other stubs and start pages, its either marginal expansion to average expansion (if its possible) or most of the time, its either AfC review or NPP review work where newly launched pages are generally of these categories (start or stub) only. - Hatchens (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Fowler's expertise in India-related matters is widely respected but it's not obvious to me why ElC pinged them here. I think that what's needed is close scrutiny of editor intersections in India-related articles at AfC, in the light of jobs advertised on Freelancer and, likely, other boards like Freelancer.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think was looking for verification that paying for media coverage was commonplace in India. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right, I wanted confirmation, first and foremost (+ a bit of historical background on this new-to-me phenomenon). Was just trying to express that politely to you, S Marshall, is all. El_C 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, there's something suspicious about Hatchens that should not be mentioned here for OPSEC reasons. It is a huge red flag, but I don't have enough evidence of spamming or accepting spam to block. MER-C 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally don't work on contemporary India, actually contemporary anything, so I tend not to use newspapers for sourcing, Indian, British, or American. My learned (i.e. learnt in IE) knowledge of both Urdu and Hindi, such as it is, means that I have to work doubly hard to understand the content, sometimes to play TV reports again and again, or read newspaper reports again and again, like a child.  But once I understand, I do have a pretty good idea of the nuances.


 * It's true that many media outlets in India have caved in to the pressure brought to bear by the government in the last half a dozen years. But quite a few have not. Not just, The Hindu and a lesser extent the Indian Express, but also the Calcutta Telegraph and Statesman, and maybe the Deccan Chronicle, the Urdu The Siasat Daily. On TV, many people stand out, such as the Magsaysay Award-winner Ravish Kumar at NDTV's Hindi, the very articulate Urdu-Hindi presenter Arfa Khanum Sherwani on The Wire TV, NDTV's English Nidhi Razdan, or The Wires  English Karan Thapar.  They seem to be people of great integrity who I doubt could be bribed to spin a story your way.  The last-named, though, a stiffish holdover from the Raj, should be bribed with some of that which Bill Clinton did not inhale, for his own sake that is, not a story's.


 * There are quite a few magazines or online newspapers, such as Caravan, The Wire, Outlook, and Scroll, which too seem impervious to the charms of money.  And there is the famous Pakistani newspaper Dawn which routinely carries stories on India written by Indians.  The government probably doesn't care about them too much as its main support base is not English-literate, at least not at a level of comfort to make it their first choice for news. I did understand what El_C was looking for. I was asking the disputants the questions I was to get a feel for the kinds of news stories we are talking about, whether they were even in the pale of what these reporters or programs report on and I read.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My more philosophical question to these editors is: Why? Why would you create stub after stub and expect others to pick up after you?  There are thousands of topics,  that traditional encyclopedias care about, that lie withering on India-related WP.  Off the top of my head I can think of Alfred High School (Rajkot), Pye-dog, Bhola Paswan Shastri, Chettiar, or  Goshan, that await fattening up ... Why then such additions?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they're not paid to give a shit about those articles. Now, bear in mind, most of this comes from my experience working #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, where about 50-60% of users I've (attempted to) help have been from the Subcontinent, but these users generally have a monomania for their particular article, are resistant to any explanations as to why their sources are useless, (usually) have not disclosed, and very quick to try to justify their garbage article by pointing to poor articles, many of which predate 2011 and have lain mouldering in a corner. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 19:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying you are paid editors.  At least I have no evidence one way or another.  I did want to get a feel though for why you might prefer articles about these companies, to those such as the ones I mention above, or below.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Fowler, I created a lot of short articles at the starting of my journey. It's a good question that you ask - why create stubs and expect someone to pick them up. I had this dilemma myself - to contribute to existing articles or create new. I saw it from a reader point of view. So many readers look at Wikipedia for reliable information. Adding articles, for me, meant adding more topics for people to read, even if they were small. The length of the article also depends on the available sources. I am on the conservative side of WP:VER where I prefer to source everything from a good quality source (I also reject a lot of articles if they don't meet WP:VER and have been criticized for it). So sometimes, if you don't have a lot of sources, you might not have a big article. This was specifially true for some topics I picked from Women in Red project. Also, I have almost never classified any accepted article in a class better than start. I think again, I am conservative when i think of what a Class A article quality should look like. I don't prefer articles about these companies. I review them as part of my work as an AFC reviewer. They get flagged more often because WP:NCORP is a complicated policy and there can be polarizing interpretation of it. I have said this many times before, we pick and choose the part of policies that appeal to us. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler: I'm not into curating company articles. In fact, I'm more into reviewing them. And, with time, approvals of those drafts/articles (either at AfC or NPP) are low - mainly, because of semantics, doubtful sources, and getting seasoned. So, what I look at is one or more historical events or any independently verifiable events associated with those entities which are widely reported in the portals listed in RSP - but at the same time, satisfying other important criteria such as NCORP, NPOV, ORGIND, etc. Whenever I'm in doubt, I always ask for guidance from more senior and seasoned editors - many times they agree and disagree. But, when it comes to taking a call, I generally rely on HighKing (for policy-based assessment), TheAafi (for policy-based assessment as well as verifying the Indian sources), and Timtrent (for holistic guidance). Besides that, in recent times, it's extremely rare on my end...taking unilateral decisions on company pages (especially when it comes to  "acceptance"). When I look at Indian or any South Asian subject/entity, they all are treated on par with any other western subject/entity (as long as the text is written in English). As far as Indian/South Asian/Asian sources are concerned, I would refrain from passing any comment because of this August 2020 incident. After that (incident), I constantly relied on local Indian/Asian editors for an unbiased assessment. - Hatchens (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we are being a little unfair to India, and other non-Western countries, in that we are very quick to discard many media outlets on the basis of a few bad apples, but we tend to regard the bad apples in the West as simply aberrations in otherwise reliable media. My view is that the best way to approach this is to follow WP:NOT and to treat news reports, wherever they originate from, as the primary sources that any historian would tell you that they are. From previous discussions it seems that I am almost alone in that regard and that Wikipedia will continue to treat news reports as secondary sources, although nobody else does so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the idea that this is "a few bad apples" doesn't withstand the weight of sources in paid news in India. I was clear that there are honourable exceptions, but nevertheless, I think it's well established that both politicians and businesses pay news outlets for positive coverage in Indian news sources, and the Indian news sources don't disclose their financial relationship with their client.  We allow WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP, and Fowler gives other examples above, but if we haven't specifically evaluated them as reliable, then we've got to treat them as unreliable.  We do deprecate sources from Western democracies as well.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding to what is being discussed about paid news in India: it is a real problem but finally many publications have started to create a distinction. I remember seeing Business Standard flagging paid articles as BS Marketing Initiative, India today writing impact feature or something like that. For me, red flag with paid news is seeing an all praises article for biographies or companies. I think no good journalist will forgo objectivity when writing pieces. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SMI violation?
Hi everyone! I hope you're all having a great day, and that life is treating you well! :-) Is this kind of content allowed? It's zalgo text, which can cause issues with page, interface, and text rendering for some users on older browsers or hardware and in other situations. Per WP:SMI, we don't allow any kind of disruptive text or content that may interfere with the MediaWiki interface, or cause elements and content to be harder to read or navigate through. RD3 also allows for "browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS" to be redacted. These are the two policies / references that come to mind in regards to whether or not this user box is acceptable, but I'm wondering if this might be considered a "reach". Hence, why I am here, and my question: Is this kind of content (zalgo text) acceptable? Or do you believe that it is disruptive and, hence, should be redacted, removed, or deleted? I'd be interested in your thoughts, and I thank you in advance for sharing your input. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Oshwah seems to be capable of disrupting the interface, for example on w:en:User:BiscuitsToTheRescue it overlaps the control bar. — xaosflux  Talk 02:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CrazyMinecart88/user zalgo opened for more input. — xaosflux  Talk 02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Great link, Xaosflux - thank you! This is exactly what I'm talking about. Zalgo text, to me, is disruptive in that it disrupts the MediaWiki interface, content organization, and impacts how users interact with the page it's linked to (some users are impacted much more-so than others, of course). In the end, it serves no positive purpose, and I don't believe that it's acceptable here. But, who knows! The community may feel differently, which is why I opened a discussion here about it. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said at the MFD, it can also be disruptive for screen reader users like me (see this technical village pump thread). Graham 87 06:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not know whether this is related or not, but yesterday I blocked for vandalism which included inserting zalgo text to pages where it was clearly not appropriate. After this block, the user went to my Russian Wikipedia talk page (why?) and vandalised it with zalgo text twice.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter - Sounds like a really stand-up person. :-P Also, RD3'd. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a link to make clear to all what zalgo text even is...  Sandstein   14:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of those of us who are technologically challenged? (I remember the first time I saw and used an electric pencil sharpener and thinking "this is the future.") -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The short version is, computer text is allowed to have lots of marks added above and below it to help support a wide array of human and (not human) languages. By using characters with lots and lots of diacritic marks, you make letters that are of unexpected height. Any software that needs to interpret these oddly made letters has choices to make, and since those choices aren't the the same between say, Firefox, Chrome, and Edge, the displayed result can be unexpected. In general, it isn't malicious. But, poor software can't handle it well. This can lead to broken appearing interfaces in some cases. 107.115.5.118 (̤̤̤ẗ̤̤̤̤̈̈̈alk̤̤̤̤̈̈̈̈) 08:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Admin (or experienced editor) required to close new inactivity requirements RfC
A week ago, it was suggested that Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements could be closed, with no serious objections. Could somebody who hasn't taken part in the debate do so? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Closed, as relatively straight forward.Slywriter (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note, this RFC has passed, the new requirements will be enforced starting in January 2023. This will be included in WP:ADMINNEWS. —  xaosflux  Talk 13:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope this gets some publicity in the Signpost and Admins' Newsletter. This is a big change for inactive or relatively inactive admins. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I can't just write a quick hello to once every few years anymore? The nerve!  El_C 11:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Liz there's going to be a seperate talk page message for all admins about this change. If you're interested in weighing in on the wording we're having that discussion here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Heated discussion between two editors
Can an administrator perhaps keep an eye on this discussion, checking that WP:PERSONAL is not violated (too much). Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Some of the behaviour by there is already beyond the pale, see for instance this comment. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was considering going to ANI myself over this if the insults continued. Funcrunch (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I left a warning. That indeed is over the line. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Drmies - You beat me to it. ;-) Some users have taken to collapse that part of the discussion - I removed it. It is full of personal attacks, and very uncivil insults, tone, and demeanor. It has absolutely no place here, hence into the "remove pile" it goes! ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Oshwah, thanks--I was wondering about that too but didn't have the time to look at it more carefully. In hindsight (20/20) I should have done that too. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Drmies - No worries! You can't be expected to do everything around here. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oshwah: I didn't think it was my place to remove the discussion, so I chose the second best option which was to hide it. Thanks for deleting it, though. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 03:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Isabelle - No problem. The buck has to stop somewhere, right? So, I figured I'd be "that user" and do what really is needed. I really don't think anyone is going to run here and make a compelling argument as to why it should be kept. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Marcocapelle - Thanks for bringing this to our attention. There were a couple of editors who responded solely based out of personal emotions, thoughts, and feelings. I've responded to both of them. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately she is continuing the attacks on trans people. I recognize that she's trans herself (as am I), but this is absolutely unacceptable and I request you strongly consider a block at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Funcrunch - The user has been blocked for 36 hours for repeated incivility and personal attacks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Though based on her latest talk page remarks I think this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Funcrunch (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only NOTHERE, but this flies pretty firmly in the face of the gender/sexuality discretionary sanctions. I've made the editor aware of them now, doubt they will take heed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The discussion seems to have been posted on Twitter, which seems to be why Dakota Allie L. and some other new accounts and sleepers have found it. Given that she hasn't edited anything outside of this discussion and given the content of her edits I doubt much will be lost by an indef here.  Pinguinn     🐧   02:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Indef - Given this user's comments, especially the one noted above by Pinguinn, they are only here to right great wrongs, POV-push, and insult anyone who disagrees with them. They are not here to collaboratively edit. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * She is still at it, by the way. Almost all of her contributions so far have been to discuss the gender identity of other users, including transphobia against non-binary users. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like ToBeFree has blocked the editor indefinitely - thanks. Funcrunch (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, this was at AN too? Found this via WP:AIV. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Tom Devine
I have been blocked to make further changes to my bio. This is totally unacceptable: - have had to make corrections to errors made by others. - because of my public profile have attracted attention from hostile individuals who have removed information which has been validated in sources and recorded in bio to substantiate all information. - this is the second time I have been subjected to this behaviour. - I am now 76 years and not well.My recent changes to the bio have been to ensure my family have an accurate record of my career and achievements after my death. - how can I be assured that this disgraceful unwarranted online aggression will cease with immediate effect? Professor Emeritus Sir Tom Devine University of Edinburgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1394:9C00:A887:AD76:C6A:5590 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia - see What Wikipedia is not. If you want to keep records for your family, I suggest you find a more appropriate place to do so. Meanwhile, it is down to Wikipedia to decide what it thinks is appropriate in a biography: an article about the subject, rather than one created on their behalf. Having looked at the article in question earlier, I'm inclined to agree with suggestions that it was over-filled with information about awards etc, and lacking in substantive content which gave much in the way of an indication of what the awards were for. A biography of a distinguished historian ought surely to concentrate on their work, and on its critical reception, if it is to serve as any sort of historical record. Or even just as an explanation for the casual reader as to who the subject is, and why they keep getting awards...AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * See also the thread on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It appears that there is work being done to rectify some of the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said, Andy--thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am the editor who tagged the article for a promotional tone, and raised it at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and I had tried to tone down some of the language in it. I would like to assure Professor Devine that I have no hostility or animus against him, simply a desire to see the article conform to Wikipedia's standards. Indeed, one of the things I want to see in it is more in-depth information about his work over the years - the work that has led to him receiving so many awards. We want to know about it and its importance! Wikipedia is not the place however for an encomium, however well-deserved, and we do have strict rules about editing articles about yourself. I do appreciate how frustrating it can be for an editor unversed in our ways, and I hope the Professor makes use of Talk:Tom Devine to make constructive suggestions for the article. He may find it helpful to create an account, as that would, I think, make constructive communication between himself and other editors easier. DuncanHill (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom Devine. I am the admin who responded to the alert and who issued the block. Please note that this block is only partial. It does not prevent you from editing the article talk page, only the article itself. A discussion page which you are welcome to engage, with suggestions, corrections or anything else (you can also use the edit request procedure). Incidentally, I, too, am an historian, and though not familiar with your body work, it looks both impressive and interesting. Best wishes, El_C 02:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From an occasional content writer: Appropriate block for the mess that I'm only the latest in a long string of editors, from JzG and Materialscientist through David Tornheim and Richard Nevell and Victor Schmidt and Diannaa (all reverting this perennial barrage of the same stuff over and over for three years now &mdash; e.g. Special:Diff/1008368927) to the present, to have done cleanup on. From an administrator: The 455 deleted revisions were from a foundational copyright violation from 2005, text just taken wholesale from a potted biography for a conference. This content was being written in the same way, including the very same misleading phrasing implying a Royal Medal instead of a Royal Society of Edinburgh Medal.  (Special:Diff/895295467 is one of several times that this has been done by IP addresses.)  There was also a Prize that became a Medal, that .  Very appropriate block. Unfortunately, at this point I have to draw attention to  ("I am an academic."), , and other IP addresses including  and  and  and a bunch more.  It might be that autoconfirmed protection is instead the answer. Uncle G (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, shit. Okay, semi makes sense, then. To quote you-know-who: I will do it. El_C 12:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it depressing when we get a "" in a signature that holds a complaint. I woudl like to remind Tom Devine that even our founder has the same status in terms of his person in rank and status here, save for certain administration tasks, as does the least of our editors. I am sorry for your health conditions, Tom Devine. Wikipedia has no interest in what continues to be represented after your death nor in what you wish to say about yourself. Wikipedia does care about what is recorded about you in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources, and also has some interest in peer reviewed papers authored by you as references. It also cares about statements that disparage. "" is one of these. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that Prof Devine is a public figure of some significance in Scotland, and we have no confirmation that the IP editor actually is him: this could be an LTA joe job, or an attempt to publicly discredit him (think of the newspaper headlines - Tom Devine blocked from editing his own Wikipedia article). Prof Devine - if that is you, you can create an account and disclose your identity by following the guidance at WP:REALNAME - essentially, you would need to send an e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org from your University of Edinburgh e-mail account, making the connection between you and the account. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good advise. That's why I protected as WP:BLP, above all else, because we don't have actual confirmation. A matter which Uncle G's account of various long term problems further exacerbate. El_C 13:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/882335501 is a VRT confirmed edit request. Special:Diff/879550033/880776087 is one of these London-geolocating IP6 addresses making the referred to edits on the 29th.  I really really want this to be an impersonation.  But it was already good enough to fool info-en if so.  Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no. courtesy ping. El_C 14:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was the Volunteer Response Team agent who responded by private email in the ticket at Talk:Tom Devine. This was in 2019, but as I review the ticket, I do not think anything about the VRT response should be a factor in deciding next steps. VRT was just the process by means of which a user got a message posted to the talk page. Wikipedia editors and reviewers can respond as if the user had posted the talk page message themselves. Unless someone has further questions I think my part in this as messenger is resolved.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You put "from article subject" in your section heading. That's the relevant part.  Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not do any identity verification. If you would like to discuss the process of identity verification then I would join you at Identity verification.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information seems more appropriate. Part and parcel of not identifying people is not misidentifying them, either.  As you had not checked, you definitely should not have stated this person to be the "article subject" under the banner of VRT, twice, explicitly associating the article subject with two IP addresses.  Look at the consequences.  You almost got the real Tom Devine embroiled in the academic equivalent of stolen valour, and edits like Special:Diff/1057479562.  As I said above, I really really wanted this to be impersonation.  The geolocation and the sheer abysmal quality of the writing made me want it so.  Your misidentification of a public figure as an editor, under the VRT banner, outweighed that.  And coming back with with effectively "Oh, I just passed the message on. I'm out!" and only when pressed telling us that you didn't check, is not right.  You laundered an impersonator into "the subject of this article" through VRT.  We're supposed to be able to trust that VRT people don't do this with identifications.  Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RaeLynn
RaeLynn was moved to RaeLynn (singer) against consensus and without a move request. Can someone please G6 and move it back? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , can you point to where you have discussed this routine content dispute with the other editor before escalating to WP:AN? Have you left the required notification at User talk:Bookworm857158367? Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad, I thought that was only required at ANI. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are other articles about people also with the given name Raelynn and I just wrote Raelynn (given name), an article about the given name. Raelynn is properly a disambiguation page, Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why there's need to WP:G6 anything nor why this needs to be at AN even if this had been discussed with Bookworm857158367. Just make a WP:RM/TR for reversion of an undiscussed moved like normal. What's so special or urgent about this case it can't simply be handled with a technical request? Also unless I'm missing something it was possible for an ordinary editor to reverse this move before TenPoundHammer added the G6 tag [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RaeLynn&diff=1082787848&oldid=1080653184] as there were no other edits either on the old title [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RaeLynn&action=history] or old title's talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RaeLynn&action=history] so I'm even more mystified. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would oppose moving the article back for the reasons given above. That page should probably be a disambiguation page for people called Raelynn, not a redirect to the article about the singer. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for responding to one of my two questions. Can you please respond to my other question: Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I brought it to AN is because every single time I ask for a "speedy" deletion, it somehow takes three days to pass through the queue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

, that is most decidedly not an answer to my question. Do you intend to answer, or are you planning to blow off my question? Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not discuss it because I didn't know I had to. I was only looking to get a mod's attention to fix a technical request, nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (multiple EC) precisely my point. Why on earth do you think this is so special that it needs to happen more urgently than is normal for the reversions of the however many undiscussed moves that happen every week? Do we need to topic ban you from AN? Also your comment still makes no sense even if we accept there was urgency. Why on earth would you do something preventing yourself or some other editor from reverting the move just so it can be moved? Why not just complete the move yourself or at least leave it so an ordinary editor can revert the move? And WTF is a mod?  WP:RMUM is quite clear that while you can do bold moves in some circumstances if they are disputed and it hasn't been long enough for the new title to be established then they should be reverted. If you still think the new title is better than start a normal RM and make your case. Really it seems this is a very simple case that could have been handled by Anthony or whoever at RM/TR as I think many such cases are each week which from reason has been blown up by TPH into something it didn't need to be. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , there is a big red and orange box that displays whenever you edit this noticeboard that says in caps at the beginning . You have been here for many years and have been blocked six times in twelve years. I, on the other hand, have never been blocked. Are you really trying to convince us that you were unaware until April 2022 that you are supposed to discuss content disputes with the other editor before escalating to administrators noticeboards? That explanation strains credulity. Cullen328 (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't seeing it as a content dispute, but as an overly hasty attempt to fix an uncontroversial page move which I felt didn't need any other intervention. acted in good faith and I thought I was too. The page has been fixed and I'm working on smoothing things over with Bookworm now. Can we please drop this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I also see that at 03:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC), only five days ago, you received on your user talk page the exact type of WP:AN notification that you should have given the other editor. So, claiming that you did not know that this was "a thing" is pretty flimsy. We can certainly drop it when you acknowledge how this whole thing went sideways, and commit to avoiding this type of inappropriate filing in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. It was an act of haste, and I didn't think Bookworm needed to be notified because my sole goal was "can an admin G6 this because I always have shit luck with G6's somehow getting lost in the shuffle and queueing for days" -- something which I thought didn't need any intervention on Bookworm's part whatsoever (after all, I don't think Bookworm is an admin and therefore cannot delete something). I did make sure to notify Bookworm when this was pointed out, and I'll make sure to notify any other editors whenever I bring something to AN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:G6 is for uncontroversial actions. If another editor disagrees, it is by definition no longer uncontroversial, right? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't "reverting a page move that was done without consensus" uncontroversial though? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Quite the contrary,. Editors boldly move pages all the time without obtaining consensus, and there is no requirement to obtain consensus before moving a page. There is nothing obviously disruptive about this particular page move, and the other editor's argument is somewhat persuasive and far from spurious. You are supposed to discuss these things per WP:BRD, instead of dragging the editor you disagree with to a noticeboard. I know that BRD is not a formal policy but it is widely respected by experienced editors. You skipped that "discuss" step, and crawled out on a limb at this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Educate me, bad usernames
at 21:41, 14 April 2022 I see two bad names created, according to the abuse filter log, 𝙱𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚎𝚜𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚕𝚒𝚏𝚎12377 and 𝙴𝚗𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚘𝚜𝚞𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚏𝚊𝚗 except that isn't their names as there is some math code fudged in there to make linking to them impossible for me at least. Not sure what to do about those. Can't even click over to block them, so someone that knows more than I do might want to look. It has to be the same person, both triggered the same filter 1 minute apart, for characters and LTA, so a checkuser might be handy. And educate me on what to do so I understand a little, if you don't mind. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you see the word 'disallow' in the log, and you get the " is not registered on this wiki." error message, then they weren't created. See filter . People use weird unicode characters all the time (or try to) - I currently see no need to run a CU. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. That threw me because I saw LTA trigger as well, and two of them in a row, which was my only reason for thinking a CU might peek, but that makes sense.  Ok, learned something new then.  The "is not registered" I did see, btw, but wasn't sure if that was glitch, or it was denied, but again, now I understand. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll take this opportunity to point out, generally, that the filter log is a minefield of false positives, testing filters, non-block-worthy conditions, multiple log hits for the same edit, and often some rather unhelpful descriptions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I have noticed that as well, lot of good edits marked with a warning. Interesting though.  That is why I came here to ask, to better understand.  Basically, it's something I haven't done too much of, which is why I'm working on it now, to learn how to at least be competent at it.  Something new.  The "examine" feature is the ugliest and most piss poor example of "information" I've ever seen.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! I hate it. Doug Weller  talk 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Teyora - Development first look!
Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.

You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.

There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature

*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.

All the best, ✨ <span style="font-family:'Roboto',sans-serif;font-weight:300;text-shadow: 2px 2px 10px black;color:black;">Ed  talk!  ✨ 22:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Request about user message for MediaWiki:Sitenotice
Hi. Can You add this user message or similar for MediaWiki:Sitenotice with this text content:
 * Your RFC comment, on a one-time change of up to 3+% of all articles in the Main space, is welcome.

How long time period? Minimal one week, maximal 2 week.

Source of count page changes: User:Dušan_Kreheľ/Merging_simple_identical_references_by_bot.

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dušan Kreheľ this might be better off at WP:CENT than as a site notice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Now, this request on MediaWiki:Sitenotice is not actual. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Odd IP vandalism
I came across some IP vandalism on Peru-related articles that, on looking closer, seems to be broader than a few bits of vandalism, and wanted to bring it to admin attention.

If you look at this IP's edits you can see the type of edits being made - the particular phrase "Alex alexander huerta avendaño" appears in most cases. It popped up on several articles that I caught doing recent changes patrolling, mostly in Peru-related articles. The problem lies in the fact that this appears to have been going on for, literally, years and has not been caught on smaller articles. I did a Google search for that phrase, and found it all over the web, including lots of Wiki mirror pages that include it. I fixed this as one example, which had been there since last year. There are a fair number of law enforcement-related pages that seem to have been affected as well as regional articles, and it's possible these edits have slipped past. The editor appears to be on IPs starting with 181.176 for the most part.

I've left a note for WikiProject Peru to keep an eye out. Not totally sure what to do beyond that, honestly - the IP seems very, very focused. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, 'Alan alexander huerta avendaño' is presumably a reference to User:Alan Alexander huerta avendaño, FWIW. Hmm, I wonder if he is related to User:Wilmer Alexander huerta Avendaño? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The second one is exactly the same edit pattern, same article areas. I'm guessing the first would be tied to the whole lot as well. Whoever this is has made a living of making accounts and splashing that name(?) all over the Internet. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve protected DIRCOTE for a little while, that seems to be a current target. National Police of Peru has already been protected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Recently active in the last hour or so at Alexa; User:181.176.98.133 blocked by Widr. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, the range that seems to be creating most of these vandalistic edits is 181.176.0.0/16. It seems to be an extremely high traffic range. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:808A:F44B:E925:9190 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I suspect it’s just a few people using highly dynamic IPs; there may be some proxy use in the mix too. Our friend 'Alex alexander huerta avendaño' has been active again. He appears only interested in a handful of articles so I've now placed a lengthy partial block - as this has been going on for some years - on the /16 range for four articles that they seem to favour. We'll have to keep an eye on this one. (cc Tony Fox). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've got a few pages watchlisted. Persistent, ain't he? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They're now spamming at Talk:DIRCOTE in the form of sections titled 'Alex alexander huerta avendaño' with material such as "policia" and "metalrock". 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3581:FAF4:6129:CFEA (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, already reverted. Will keep an eye on this. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I found another account User:Alex alexander huerta avendaño 10255323. And of course, User:Alex alexander huerta avendaño. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear oh dear. And the second one was created in 2016! So two accounts that haven’t edited for a year and two that haven’t edited at all. None are causing a problem at present so I’m inclined not to do anything with them for now. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's okay, but keep an eye out for more sleepers, in case they become active again. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:FC97:4774:E325:9B2B (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do, 2601. Drop me a line on my talk page if you see anything. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Time to start an SPI? This looks suspicious. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B1AE:A56E:B4C:3EB3 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Talking about vandalism; you might want to search for "Mia Khalifa" every now and then; I have found that she has been the "head-mistress" of numerous schools, etc; just now I removed her beeing the manager of a foot-ball club. I am reminded of the old saying: "Good girls goes to heaven; bad girls goes everywhere", Huldra (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:HitBlitzKrieg
Need a second opinion on this user name. I was tempted to block immediately (a "soft" one), but it's early and I don't want to make such a decision before I have more coffee. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum:, if you're around, I'd like for you to run CU, where you will find a rangeblock you placed last year for "block evasion"--perhaps you remember something. You will also find a brand-new account there without any edits, and an earlier account but no valid ALT account reason that I can see (but with an interest in Nazi aces), so I think we're headed toward a bunch of CU blocks. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no admin, but their edits look constructive, and there's enough listings at Blitzkrieg (disambiguation) where it doesn't necessarily have to be related to something bad. I'd be tempted to let it ride until something with their editing posed a problem or suggested a link. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Eh, not seeing it here. If that's the case then we have a lot of users that need to be softblocked for having BlitzKrieg in their name. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We do? That's not funny. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Have a look at List_users. Couple hundred it looks like. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore, I'd rather not--thanks... But two names of that list "are" this user. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That in itself is a different story then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Blitzkrieg is not a Nazi term, it was a term coined by the media describing a military tactic first utilized by the German military. I would not support it being flagged as a Nazi term. Blitzkrieg is not inherently evil or discriminatory in any fashion. Unless the user has been making any nonconstructive edits I see no reason for any sort of block. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear--Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, again. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about war crimes of the German military during the period of the Nazi regime nor do I deny they ever committed any. I simply said Blitzkrieg is a military tactic, it is not a war crime or atrocity on to itself. Please do not put meaning into my words that I did not say. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Blitzkrieg is not a Nazi term" - The article for Blitzkrieg is in the Category:Nazi terminology cat.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't help that someone miscategorized it and would argue that it does not belong in that category. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Schwarzkopf's left hook in the Gulf War is commonly described as a Blitzkrieg attack, as are other amassed quick attacks. It also see a lot of usage outside of it's original meaning, including Metallica's "Blitzkrieg" and the Ramones "Blitzkrieg Bop". It ascribe it solely to the Nazi operations of WW2 is a very narrow view. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Would not be the first time nor the last time a wrong (or at least questionable) category was placed in an article. "Blitzkrieg" is an extension of the existing concept of Bewegungskrieg (maneuver warfare, which was not something particularly new by the time WW2 came around: what was new was its implementation with modern technology - although there again, if we're speaking of "Wehrmacht" and "myths",, a more à propos link in this particular instance would be something like this). But that's really a discussion for the article talk page and not for AN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they seem to be the same user that previously went by the nick User:RossiLeone, but as there is no overlap in time and the previous editor is not blocked, this isn't really an issue (though then they shouldn't pretend to be new). A name with "blitzkrieg" in it, while not in the best of taste, is not blockable: the combination with "Hit" immediately makes one think of Hitler though, which puts it closer to the border between acceptable and unacceptable. If I were them, I would rename my account. Fram (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On English Wikipedia, there are two major socks on that ISP. The first one is a genre warrior who often edits 1980s New Wave music.  The other one disruptively edits the critical reception of Hollywood films.  It's like a two-for-one special whenever you do a range block on that ISP because there's so little collateral damage, and that's what almost all of my blocks on that ISP are about.   User:HitBlitzKrieg is a ✅ sock puppet of User:RossiLeone, who you blocked on es.wiki.  User:BlitzkriegOle, too, but there are no edits to es.wiki (or en.wiki, for that matter). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So, we have RossiLeone, who has edited a lot of articles on Nazi-related articles and is happy to add their own book about the Germans who got the highest awards for bravery to nazi officials who got these awards. I don't think someone with these interests who believes it is a good idea to use a clear Hitler reference in their username, and has shown at eswiki to care little about policies, is a good fit for here. The least would be to get them to pick a username without any Nazi-reference, but just blocking him now and being done with it may be the simplest in the long run. Fram (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New sock: User:Tuttiperlavittoria, IP 186.177.54.210 probably as well. Note that "tutti per la vittoria" was an Italian fascist slogan... Fram (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the last edits of the previous incarnation was this antisemitic edit. Fram (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Any one of those things would probably be cause for a bit of concern at ANI: the usernames with questionable fascist overtones, the undisclosed alternate accounts, falsely claiming to be a new editor, etc. The combination of them is probably blockworthy.  I've blocked the accounts, but I'll leave the sock master's account blocked with a more generic block rationale so non-checkusers can resolve any unblock requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't see how that's antisemitic. There are 20 languages with the same official "recognized minority language" status as Yiddish in Romania, most of which are much more widely spoken; unless there's a particular reason to include Yiddish but not (e.g.) Polish, I'd say that's a correct call. (The word 'Yiddish' doesn't appear once in the article, so I assume the town doesn't hold some kind of special significance to the Yiddish language or vice versa.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're usually better at this, Iridescent :-) The article has a long section about the Satu Mare there, with special attention to what happened in WWII and the ghetto in the city. In 1941, of the 53K inhabitants of the city, 13K were Jewish or nearly 25% were Jewish. This is not some random place where a few Jews lived, it was an important center. Plus, when you have an editor with these other characteristics (name, interests, name of socks...) who is keen to add the German pronunciation of Danish cities, but who then suddenly removes the Yiddish name from a city like here, then to me the only logical reason for this is antisemitism. Fram (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fram, NinjaRobotPirate, thank you so much for your help. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "The map shown of INDIA"in uranium deposit
I as an Indian requesting Wikipedia to take action on the issue as mentioned above. That the information about the uranium reserve country the map of India is not correctly showned as per Indian govt map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:518A:3179:0:0:1468:68AD (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a content issue. Please raise it on the article talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Koavf’s behavior
Hi. I think that is about ready to be unblocked, because of his behavior on other wikis and more than 1,000,000 edits on this wiki.

Procedures:
 * Please warn Koavf on his talk page that he is reminded about WP:3RR.
 * Report any continous incidents to WP:ANI/WP:AIV/WP:AN3RR.

I respect your help. Regards, 172.58.19.84 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If Koavf wants to request an unblock, he should do so the normal way that we expect every blocked editor to do, not have some anonymous IP do it for him, no? CUPIDICAE💕  21:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Prax, This is just an community/advice thing. I did not expect you to reply immediately. 172.58.19.84 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your expectation of a reply is irrelevant, if Koavf wants to get unblocked I'm sure he knows how to do request it. CUPIDICAE💕  21:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of my confirmed and extended-confirmed user rights
I have no intention to edit articles locked by the grey and blue locks, though I had done so multiple times in the past. I do understand that this can be seen as an unnecessary move, however, I don't really like having user rights but not using them much. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to add or remove autoconfirmed status as it's an "implicit user group" that is applied by mediawiki. Extendedconfirmed can be removed though. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 192.76.8.70, I never knew that! Still, I don't think I'd have a need to edit blue-locked articles, as my main topic of interest is about aerospace stuff. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Should you want it back in the future, you can leave a message at my talk page or request it via the usual means. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Extended confirmed isn't really a higher bit, it just makes you a "normal editor". Not sure I like removing that from editors, and I worry that will cause more problems than it solves, as there will eventually be an article they want to edit that requires it.  EC protection on articles is becoming more common.  Normally, removing EC is only done as a sanction for gaming the system, and again, it isn't an advanced bit, just a normal one for anyone that's been here a few months.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand it when people request removal for philosophical reasons, and kind of understand it when the removal is intended as a symbolic "break" from Wikipedia. I share your ambivalence about other instances too, but it's certainly possible not to come across extended-confirmed pages for long periods of time if you don't edit in contentious/sockpuppet-ridden areas. For this case, if someone doesn't want it (and knows what it's about), I'm not going to force them to hold on to it. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to End topic Ban
Hi friends! In February 2021, I was unblocked by 331dot, agreeing to the topic ban about WP:ARBIPA for six months. There has been no breach from me in fourteen months. I request the topic ban should now be removed, so that I might keep on editing the maximum number of articles I know about. Thanks  Si nn er  ( speak ) 03:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)  Si nn er  ( speak ) 03:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This editor has just scrubbed their talk page, in an unsuccessful attempt to hide the context behind this topic ban. Articles for deletion/Nazim ZarSinner shows that they simply do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are trying their hardest to keep a mediocre self-promotional autobiography that utterly fails WP:AUTHOR. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. See also self-promotional linkspamming and this promotional draft  where Saair/Nazim ZarSinner refers to himself as an 'important poet'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with the decision made by administrators, now I want to create an article about well-known Indian poet and writer Koshy AV. I'll begin it in draft space and shall submit it for review rather than introducing it to article space myself. I agree, I have gone too much about myself and shall abstain from mentioning myself in article space in future. But, articles related to WP:ARBIPA should be considered separately from my person, they are about cities, cultures and festivals of mine and neighboring countries and will be a better space for me to participate than other topics.  Si nn er  ( speak ) 06:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Except, Nazim, if we can't trust you to follow some fairly simple rules about autobiographical content, then that will also make us reticent to believe you can engage in a controversial space effectively. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since being unblocked 14 months ago you have made 42 edits, 16 of which have been to articles. Of those 16 edits 13 have been self promotional spamming, two have been trivial punctuation fixes and this edit to an article on a village (and your comments on it's associated talk page ) seems to be skirting the boundaries of your topic ban from  WP:ARBIPA geography. Your remaining edits consist of you scrubbing your talk page of warnings, removing information that editors used to identify your COI, changing your username and trying to prevent your autobiography from being deleted. You have made nowhere near enough edits for anyone here to be able to judge if the issues that lead to the topic ban have been resolved, and many of the edits you have made are problematic in other ways. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Insufficient editing since sanction to demonstrate an ability to play nice with others, the actual few edits you've made haven't really helped the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as noted above you haven't made many edits since being unblocked, which means we don't have much evidence to tell whether you will create issues in these areas if you are unbanned. Normally for a request like this we would expect a substantial editing history which allows people to make that determination. The few edits you have made include deleting a load of relevant material from your talk page and defending an article about yourself at AfD, which is not a good start. And the topic ban wasn't for fix months, you weren't allowed to appeal it for six months.  Hut 8.5  09:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Editor Praxidicae Has Violated 3RR Rule
Soborno Isaac is Da Vinci Laureate (South Africa) & Hon. Mayor of Little Bangladesh.

The editor Praxidicae has violated Wikipedia's 3RR Rule, by reverting edits on one page at least three times in a 24-hour time period. Furthermore, that editor has repeatedly nominated the page for deletion, claiming that the subject of the page is not a "7 year old Professor", even though the page does not mention that. And even though the subject of the article is the Honorary Mayor of Little Bangladesh, Los Angeles, this editor took the liberty of going to the Little Bangladesh page and remove not only the subject's name, but also his citation, whilst citing "lol no". Finally, he wrote that the subject of the article is a "joke and hoax," which is derogatory language unfit for Wikipedia. Please take action.

--AnonMan64 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is patently ridiculous. I reverted obvious vandals REMOVING AN MFD where the instructions state "DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE" until it's closed. That is specifically WP:3RR exempt. I edited the Los Angeles page once and it wasn't reliably sourced and we don't generally include honorary mayors, especially without a reliable source in infoboxes, which you'd know had you bothered to even discuss it with me. CUPIDICAE💕 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also for the final time, I am not male. CUPIDICAE💕  19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing actionable here as far as I can see. First off I only count three reverts in the page history (,, and ), and secondly two of those three involve reverting the removal of a MfD notice which is forbidden to do, and which I would count under the vandalism criteria of WP:3RRNO -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  19:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That does not change the fact that Praxidicae has repeatedly used defamatory language to describe the subject of the article, stating they "appear to be a joke or hoax" and leaving the comment "lol no" after removing the subject's name from the Little Bangladesh page. Furthermore, there are other editors who can revert the MfD -- there is no need for Praxidicae to do it repeatedly. All of this suggests that Praxidicae may have a personal interest in the subject. KizWhalifa (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Get with the program, the wording that referred to it as a hoax is a DEFAULT WIKIPEDIA BASED TEMPLATE DECLINE. Get over it. CUPIDICAE💕  20:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Stating that the article submission is a joke or a hoax is a description of the article, not the subject of the article. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! May I ask how you found your way to this draft article after only a dozen edits? MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question awaits, . CUPIDICAE💕  20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting user name pattern I've seen before about 5-6 years ago when a certain editor was blocked ... but as far as I've known, then never socked, so this is probably someone else ... but all that will probably be discovered in the sockpuppet investigation. Steel1943  (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, turns out the editor I was referring to does have archived SPI reports, but none of the socks have the same naming pattern as the master, so feel free to disregard me on this! Steel1943  (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Might ARBPIA-rules be needed for the war in Ukraine?
Many articles related to the war in Ukraine see heavy edit warring and frequent policy violations from IPs and very new accounts, to such a level that it becomes detrimental. A similar rule as for WP:ARBPIA would probably be beneficial, in other words, users would need to:be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure. While many disputes would no doubt continue (just as on articles related to ARBPIA)), applying this rule to articles related to the war in Ukraine might go some way to reduce the worst disruptions. Jeppiz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually when restrictions are proposed for entire topics at this board hindsight has shown they weren't really necessary in the first place, though the community usually doesn't agree to repeal them. See the Uyghur GS authorisation which has been used for 4 page protections, various other stale GS authorisations, and the topic-wide ECP restriction for India/Pakistan conflicts, which went largely unenforced though the community did eventually repeal that one. The ARBPIA WP:ECR rule is a huge exception to the rule, and only exists for two topic areas currently. There should be a very high burden of evidence required to institute the restriction on more topic areas. The evidence should include showing a chronic pattern of topic-wide disruption, to levels far greater than the disruption naturally present in any contentious event, especially current ones (e.g. consider anything current and American Politics related). In the meantime, there is WP:ARBEE and discretionary per-page ECP protections, which AFAIK has been working well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for that at the moment - I think WP:ARBEE page-level and user-level actions are working well. A significant amount of the disruption I've seen has been from anonymous and/or new editors which can be contained via semi-protection, or ECP where warranted. Topic-level ECR would be using a sledgehammer to crack nuts at the moment. firefly  ( t · c ) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto, we already have tools in place to deal with this and by and large it seems to be working. signed,Rosguill talk 15:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with, I fear that an external campaign is being organized outside Wikipedia to influence some articles related to the conflict, which would explain the arrival of brand-new and single-purpose users who are engaging in discussions on hot issues. I think there is a need to protect this topic. Mhorg (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Intriguing, I must say! Would you be willing to cite some examples/suspects? Because if this is true, we must assuredly do all we can to flush them out! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, I would like to show you this small collection of data. These are just the single-purpose or dormant users, who in these days have taken action to remove the "neo-Nazi" label at the Azov Battalion. I fear that there is an ongoing campaign outside Wikipedia, perhaps through some blog\forum\reddit, to intervene on the article. Therefore I ask some admin to consider protecting the page from users with less than 500 changes. In addition to these users, there are dozens and dozens of anonymous users interventions, all pushing in that same direction:
 * Good dog rex 2 total edits: he says that the Azov Battalion isn't a part of the neo-nazi movement
 * OlgaAlska 2 total edits: says that the current article is "Russian propaganda"
 * Baylrock 3 total edits: join a RFC and says that the paragraph about "Nazism" is "a potential lie spread by Russian propaganda"
 * JKWMteam 3 total edits: says that "This article is deliberately and regularly edited with disinformation describing Azov as extremist and neo-nazi guilty of military crimes, with questionable sources as proof."
 * Wked00 3 total edits: says that they want to change "neo-Nazi" to "right-wing".
 * Averied 6 total edits says: "Could we just add "presumably neonazi"??"
 * Metalsand 9 total edits: says the group "is not strictly neo-nazi"
 * Editdone 21 total edits: says that the current article "is being used for propoganda"
 * Disconnected Phrases 86 total edits, single-purpose user for Azov Battalion: says that "The idea that the Azov Battalion is "a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine," is straight Russian propaganda". Literally, it would be propaganda a 2021 RFC in which dozens of users participated and defined that part of the text.
 * Berposen 88 edits on the English wiki, 37 edits from 2020 to 2021: says that "neonazi faction separated from the battalion" therefore: it would mean that the battalion is no longer neo-Nazi.
 * PompeyTheGreat 376 total edits with 8 edits in 2022: says "a lot of the claims in this article are either factually untrue, echo Russian propaganda"--Mhorg (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Many editors note issues with the Azov Battalion page. User:Mhorg was already reminded about NPA and SOAP here. There is a procedure for dealing with socks. Infinity Knight (talk)
 * New editors make a lot of very good points. Many of those that are coming to the Azov Battalion page are in Eastern Europe, possibly are active editors on other wikis, and often have better access to the facts on the ground. They may not always be neutral - I wouldn’t be either if my children were in danger — but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are making stuff up, or that they need to be excluded.
 * For instance, the claims in the article absolutely *do* echo Russian propaganda. I suppose it is possible that Russian propaganda could be correct, as they have such a high regard for the truth, but I personally prefer my Wikipedia articles to have reliable sources. The sources absolutely *were* questionable, and it’s not me saying it, it’s the reliable sources noticeboard. There is an arguable case to be made that the battalion *is* right-wing, or once *were* neoNazi. I have not yet looked at the new sources for “is neo-Nazi”. Possibly the admin that got involved on the RS page has managed to get them to find some actual sources, in which case yay and I will believe them. But as of yesterday or the day before, the sources for “is neo-Nazi” in the lede at Azov Battalion had been uniformly laughable.
 * I think that valid input is valid input. IPs and new users or not, the fact that people keep coming to the page to say it has problems may just possibly be not so much due to an “Azov Battalion edit-a-thon” as some have suggested —-they are rather too busy keeping Russians out of Europe for that—- as it is to the fact that the page does indeed have problems. If meat puppetry is suspected, then an SPI case is the remedy, not excluding valid input Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian-originated meatpuppetry has been a commonplace on this project for several years, and looked exactly like this one - dormant and new accounts and IPs showing up out of nowhere to make a point, not bothering (pr pretending not to bother) to read previous discussions, and hoping to win by a sheer number of votes. In most cases, CUs can not help, only blocks and protections can. Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. Given this situation, and since we are having an important RFC on this issue, wouldn't it be possible to prevent users under 500 edits from participating in these discussions? Mhorg (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can not act as administrator in this topic area, and honestly I think that a broad ban such as in PIA topic area is not yet needed. Even in the PIA topic area, non-extended-confirmed users may participate in the discussion. I do not have an opinion on the specific Azov discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, another dormant account jumped in the new RFC, Tristario with 12 total edits. I think it is not possible to have such an influence on the debate from this kind of users. There is a risk of distorting the content of the encyclopedia. , sorry for the ping, could you please check if this situation (including the 11 cases listed above) is normal? Mhorg (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Another brand-new account, AndrewDryga (3 total edits) on the Azov, writes: "Remove "neo-Nazi" from the definition of the battalion" Mhorg (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Another dormant user Mihaiam, first edit of the 2022, 120 edits on English wiki from 2007, says that "It's disrespectful to the Ukrainian government" to show the political orientation of the Azov Battalion. Please, can anyone take a look at all these cases?--Mhorg (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Another brand-new account, Radar2102 (19 total edits) on the Azov, writes: "The term “is a” neo Nazi unit conflicts with later information in this article that states the unit was depoliticized. It’s also very inflammatory".--Mhorg (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed motion to modify the Arbitration Committee Procedures
The Arbitration Committee is voting on a motion to modify the procedures to clarify activity expectations for its clerks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 08:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, Guerillero, where do I confirm [my] desire? El_C 22:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Bad faith editor at Intensive farming (possible sockmaster)
Lately I have been noticing that Wikipedia has an unlikely number of "incest" typos.

For example, the name "Winchester" is often mis-spelled as "Wincester" (wincest is an internet meme, for the few innocent souls who weren't aware by now).

While in certain cases these are accidental, in other cases they appear to be intentional.

See, for example, Keyboardwarrior23's edit at intensive farming. He mis-spelled "insecticide" as "incesticide" in the wiki but not in his edit summary.

I would have filed a COI case, but I don't know which sock this could be linked to, and the SPI are too heavily burdened right now for me to do that on a good conscience. Sorry, I just had to lay it on you folks for tonight. Thank you for your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In that diff, they spelled "insecticide" correctly once and incorrectly once, and the rest of the content they contributed seems reasonable. It may be that people are trying to sneak the word "incest" into the encyclopedia, but I do not believe this is a deliberate instance and I think you should look for patterns of behaviour before singling any individual editor out. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 00:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted, but see the username, and lack of other edits. It is puzzling to me that someone could accidentally mis-spell something when this appears to be copied & pasted, with the typo conveniently outside of the edit summary. But it is definitely happening elsewhere. -- Hunan201p (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Password resets blocked for blocked IPs?
I posted a question/section at Help talk:Reset password that may be of interest to administrators. The purpose of this section is to inquire why IP editors subject to a block (direct or range) do not have access to Special:PasswordReset, and I assume there may be administrators that either know why this is, or even may question why editors not logged and using a blocked IP do not have access. (I'm posting this notice here since I assume there are not a lot of page watchers for Help:Password reset.) Steel1943  (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * this sounds like T109909. — xaosflux  Talk 17:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that phabricator ticket. Seems that means this is an unintentional situation, and has been reported but not fixed after ... wow, almost 7 years. Dang. Steel1943  (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Steel1943 seems like it may have initially been a side affect, but may have become sometimes useful. I won't go in to the WP:BEANS issues here, but the overall situation appears not be upstream - not a local setting that we can do anything about. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux I noticed the same. I've added my grievance to the issue in the ticket notes, and I may add more based on the inquiry you stated since maybe this needs to be something that each individual Wikimedia project decides on rather than making it global. Steel1943  (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds to me from [//gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/core/+/326355/] that maybe the problem isn't so much that no one has bothered to fix it, but that's disagreement among developers over whether it should be fixed. However making it a setting each project can choose, that may involve a fair amount more effort. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something that the communities (plural) should decide, rather than devs, however. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Fuck, if you'll pardon the expression, me. I had to jump through hoops (and get treated like an idiot along the way) to get back into my account when hit by this years ago and it's still not fixed? DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the moment, it looks like blocked users see MediaWiki:Blockedtext when they visit Special:PasswordReset. It might be helpful to add a link or some information to that page about what users can do in this situation.   pointed out on Phabricator that any other user not affected by a block can reset another user's password, so the solution is as simple as using the IP talk page or UTRS to request that a reset link be sent.  Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it does require divulging your private email address. — xaosflux  Talk 14:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it can be done with just the username? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends if the user opted in to Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided. or not I suppose. — xaosflux  Talk 14:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

COI edits attempting to scrub/delete Monica Gandhi Wikipedia entry
The Monica Gandhi article has been repeatedly altered in the last few days by sockpuppets from University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), which is where Gandhi works. They have been deleting cited passages. In addition, one of the sockpuppets added the deletion template to the article a few hours ago after protection on the page lapsed:



Accounts in question:


 * Wikiscientist578
 * 128.218.42.66 (confirmed as UCSF)
 * 128.218.42.191 (confirmed as UCSF)
 * 128.218.42.215 (confirmed as UCSF)
 * 128.218.42.189 (confirmed as UCSF)
 * 128.218.42.107 (confirmed as UCSF)
 * 69.181.180.133

Asking for extended page protection and intervention with the sockpuppets. Thank you.

TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like it would be better suited to WP:COIN rather than AN. CUPIDICAE💕  19:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The unregistered editors all had their last edits before User:Wikiscientist578 was created, so I see no sockpuppetry here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ECP protection seems to be unwarranted at the moment. Furthermore, while COI-edits are likely and a concerns, 's ascribing those edits to the subject herself as in this section title, and in edit-summaries, is a BLP-violation, as are comments such as this one and this one. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've redacted one of the BLPvios on the talk page., you may want to self redact the others. BLP applies to talk space as well as article space. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I blocked Wikiscientist578 indefinitely. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

TheNewMinistry is clearly and unambiguously using biographies of living persons to promote a conspiracy theory: see Talk:Monica Gandhi, where this is made explicit. I can think of no reason at this point why at minimum a topic ban wouldn't be appropriate. To my mind, the only question is as to the scope. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I ran into this by RfPP patrol chance, but it seems like Monica Gandhi (whom I've never heard of prior to that) has some enemies. Perhaps deservedly, perhaps not, but it'd be best if whatever is going on there is kept away from Wikipedia. And who is TheNewMinistry ( an account created a couple of weeks ago ), a user who erroneously thinks that the point of the protection was to retain that addition, like, by fiat (what, because the original RfPP requestor labled that removal as "whitewashing"?). I have argued in detail that that this addition is WP:UNDUE, an argument which TheNewMinistry, upon reverting, did not respond to substantively. This is weird stuff and it makes me uneasy. El_C 22:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My account was created over 16 years ago.TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In which case you should have been fully aware of the Biographies of living persons policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Still, weirdly unsubstantive. El_C 22:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:FlightTime asked the now-blocked user on the talk page to wait for concensus before removal, but you went ahead and removed it anyway without allowing discussion. I was completely in the right to revert your edit, especially since you were playing the "I'm an admin but this isn't an admin edit" game.TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They can ask whatever they like, but WP:ONUS is still a thing. And I wasn't playing. After adding Ds/talk notice|topic=covid an hour earlier, I thought it was worth mentioning. El_C 23:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I could have invoked WP:BLP or WP:COVIDDS as an admin to remove that addition (at least until consensus for inclusion was clearly demonstrated), but I chose not to. Perhaps I was too naïve about the prospects of a reasoned and... substantive engagement. So maybe I should have done that. But it looks like more WP:BATTLEGROUND, either way. El_C 23:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's an emerging consensus against it, so I've removed it until there is consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a recent contested addition that is obviously BLP-sensitive, so it should at least wait until there's a clear consensus to include, yeah. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to emphasise what Phil Bridger said above, there's nothing wrong with an editor editing from IPs then deciding to register an account and only using that single account, actually it's very normal state of affairs and is definitely not sockpuppetry. Also editing without ever having registered an account is still something we allow, and this includes when using dynamic IPs. Again it's not sockpuppetry. The only exception would be if an editor uses the multiple IPs in such a way that they imply they are multiple people e.g. if they participate in a discussion and say I agree with the other IP even though the other IP is them. If an editor has an account and still edits without logging in, or edits from multiple accounts, that gets even more complicated but from what I can tell, there's no evidence that happened here. Since the account was blocked, if another account appears, or editing from those IPs resumes that would be a problem if they are indeed the same person. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw just now an edit summary where someone removed something for being "NPOV". People get the terminology mixed up, which really does not help.  Ironically, it's "conflict of interest" in the section heading above.  I edited without an account a long time before registering an account, too.  Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I now see Special:Diff/1077745306 and Special:Diff/1077922015 to Ashish Jha, which casts Talk:Monica Gandhi and Special:Diff/1083326240 in a different light. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's important for people looking up media talking heads on Wikipedia to know they may have ulterior motives. Otherwise this is just LinkedIn. Gandhi only has a page here because a user who has created thousands of profiles for arguably non-notable physicians authored Gandhi's page in July 2020 and then announced it on Twitter like she had completed a paid gig. I have a problem with that, and anyone concerned with the site's integrity should too.TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read the Law of holes article? If not, I'd recommend doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're the one issuing threats, I'm just explaining myself. No hard feelings, friend. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not 'issuing threats'. I'm making suggestions as to the appropriate response to someone who seems unable to understand even the basic principles of fundamental Wikipedia policies, and seems intent on self-destruction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to run a hypothetical by you. You know, since anything I say is a conspiracy now. Let's say, hypothetically, Emily Oster, leading advocate that kids don't get sick with COVID and that schools should never close, has been proven to be funded by billionaires Charles Koch and Peter Thiel. Let's say, hypothetically, that connection was reported at this link. Wouldn't it be prudent, since COVID cases are rising again, to include that disclosure as part of Oster's Wikipedia page? Wouldn't parents want to think twice about her dozens of op-eds claiming that masking children is akin to violence? Couldn't including that information on Wikipedia, in turn, save lives? TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what's prudent. What matters is what reliable secondary sources say, taking into account WP:BLP, WP:DUE weight and WP:NPOV in considering what we mention, which will entail considering things like the number and quality of sources. If you're here to WP:right great wrongs, you're at the wrong place. Start a blog or something. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TheNewMinistry is now using this noticeboard as a platform for multiple WP:BLP violations
See their posts in the section immediately above this one (and those at Talk:Monica Gandhi for further evidence). At this point, a topic ban, as I suggested earlier, may well not be sufficient. Wikipedia is not a platform for conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You implied I was a communist on Talk:Monica Gandhi and now are trying to silence me when I nicely ask you to discuss a reliable source whose topic raises a larger question. Same as it ever was. TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And for the record, AndyTheGrump admitted that he isn't neutral and always sides with the subject of articles regarding BLP matters when he was recently disciplined:
 * "And frankly, going off-topic slightly, I'd show a little more concern for Wikipedia's insistence on civility between contributors if Wikipedia wasn't routinely obnoxious to outsiders who get featured in e.g. biographies they haven't asked for, and complain, only to be showered with waffle about 'conflicts of interest' (which doesn't actually mean what Wikipedia thinks it does), and generally treated like something the dog dragged in for complaining that we've got things wrong. There are double standards involved, and they really don't cast Wikipedia in a good light."
 * I don't think anyone with this view should be addressing BLP matters and should recuse himself. TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand by everything I wrote in that comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I am asking you to recuse yourself. You have two dozen blocks on your account, so it seems like you don't know when to quit. I don't want any trouble, just a fair shake from someone without bias. Thank you. TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Recuse myself'? What the hell is that supposed to mean? This isn't ArbCom... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're trying to punish me for my political leanings - please do the proper thing and hand the case off to your contemporaries so you don't let emotions influence your conduct. Since you've been the only admin keeping this conversation going for the better part of 6 hours, I'd say you might alone in that pursuit. Can we be friends now? TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. I've never claimed to be an admin. I'm just someone who "sides with the subject of articles regarding BLP matters" when Wikipedia contributors abuse their editing privileges and violate fundamental Wikipedia policies to push their own agendas. And no, I'm not 'friends' with such people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Topic-banned: I have, as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBBLP, topic-banned from making BLP-related edits because over the course of this multiple-day discussion (here and at Talk:Monica Gandhi) they have demonstrated no understanding of the BLP policy or an intent to follow it. A longer explanation is available in the sanction notice. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (subst:AN-notice) template was never left on my talk page to inform me I was subject of discussion on the administrator's noticeboard per Wikipedia policy - misrepresented himself as an administrator and started new heading about my conduct without properly notifying me. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You started the discussion. You could have left yourself a message if that made you feel better. Subsections of existing discussions don't require new notices to be sent out (only if they include previously unaware editors). Furthermore, you were aware of this new subsection, you replied 9 minutes after it was opened. If you are trying to get a block in addition to your topic ban, feel free to continue with this wiki-lawyering. Otherwise, it might be wiser to drop this line of discussion completely. Fram (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * can you provide evidence AndyTheGrump has ever misrepresented themselves as an admin? Every editor who isn't restricted from doing so is welcome to participate at AN, so if you assumed that AndyTheGrump's comments meant they were an admin, sorry but that's your own fault. (There's virtual nowhere on Wikipedia which is restricted to admins with the exception admin sections on WP:A/R/E but non admins can still participate there just under a different section.) They definitely aren't the only non admin participant here besides yourself, there's me and others I won't bother to name since it's irrelevant. As for the rest, what Fram said. Since we analyse every participant's behaviour at ANI if you start a discussion you need to pay attention to it, no one is likely to inform you if we start discussing a boomerang. It doesn't matter whether we discuss it under the main thread or a subsection since that's simply a way of better segmenting or managing things, this discussion is still clearly part of the thread you started. Further you quickly became aware of it anyway so your complaint is just silly. Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I requested admins address an issue I had on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding COI. The situation was addressed and I thought it was a closed topic. But then I kept getting notifications from the Administrators' noticeboard yesterday, and like an admin confirmed to me last night, AndyTheGrump is just some random person who likes to backseat moderate and cheerlead. He has more edits on talk pages than he has actually contributing content to the encyclopedia. If I knew he was just some random person and not an actual admin waving his dick around (like I thought he was based on the way he was talking / threatening sanctions on my account) I never would have escalated/continued my conversation with him. I apologize to the admins - to the rest of you pretending to have authority...I don't know what purpose you serve here and ask that you stop confusing people. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You may want to lay off commenting on someone's edit ratio when they still have more mainspace edits than you have total edits. The ratios can be misleading, like my own. I've answered near on 10,000 edit requests, so I have a huge number of talk space edits.
 * As for authority, Wikipedia runs on consensus, so for the most part admins just have additional buttons, not much additional authority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for closure
Hi

I ask and admin or an experienced user to close Talk:Eastern_Ukraine_offensive. There are consensus to move to Donbas offensive.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Closure requests go to WP:ANRFC. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the functionary team
Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Ks0stm are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: 

67.53.214.86 and WP:BLP again
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338.

The same IP editor after 3 month block is still adding information to WP:BLPs that is sourced to definitely not reliable sources, such as compromat.ru for example, with concerning BLP implications: example, i.e. continuing the same destructive edits as Jayjg and Ymblanter noted before. --Xunks (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Blocked for 1 year.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How can I fix interwiki links when Wikidata does not allow me to
Permission to speak freely. I am sorely piffed. There's a page Fiano (grape) and a corresponding page on the Italian wikipedia, Fiano (vitigno). However the enwiki page does not link to the Italian one on the interwiki links. The problem is that the interwiki links are supplied through that expletive of a thing called "Wikidata". I have tried to fix this by clicking on "Edit links" and trying to add the "Fiano (vitigno)" from the Italian wiki to the Wikidata item, but ran into a problem (apparenly that article is already assigned a different Wikidata entry, so a merge is needed.)

I have absolutely no desire to participate in Wikidata.

So how can I improve Wikipedia, by linking to the appropriate article in a different-language Wikipedia, without dealing with that expletive Wikidata?

-- 2001:16B8:1E93:E600:8DF1:2D28:36CD:CB85 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can. I've gone ahead and merged the two items on Wikidata. Rather fond of the project myself, but your mileage varies. Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks! It's great there are helpful folks around this (and related) project(s). (And apologies for the rather Unparliamentary language above.) -- 2001:16B8:1E76:1100:8DF1:2D28:36CD:CB85 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Had a Wikidata merge not been possible here, putting a plug in for interwiki extra. I've used it on a number of pages where enwiki covers "Death of John Doe" but not "John Doe", while other wikis do it the opposite way. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 02:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

New(ish) edit non-admin closing AfDs - queries being ignored on Talk page
's account was created on 22nd January 2022 and immediately set about making gnomish edits on templates. Strange editing behaviour for a "new" editor. Their most recent bout of edits involved closing AfDs as a non-admin closer. This resulted in a number of editors questioning the rationale on KevinNov3's Talk page, including me. So far, the queries have been ignored even though this editor has made contributions since some of the queries were posted. I've looked through some of the AfDs including Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers (2nd nomination) which I commented on and a non-admin should not be closing these AfDs (and in my opinion, many of the close decisions are wrong). I'm not sure what the solution is but I think the AfD closes should be reverted and perhaps an admin might advise/warn this editor to keep away from AfDs at this time? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, between 0712 and 0720 UTC today they closed seven AfDs in eight minutes. Even if they are correct in their close, that's not much assessment going into it. It's not as if any of them were snow/speedy, with 20 !votes all saying keep, that hardly needs examination at all. But these are nuanced. Having said that, they do seem to have started at the back of the queue, which makes a change :)    SN54129  18:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh. Well they`ve certainly found the gadgets preference page. It`s however disconcerting that they do not respond to any comments on their talk page. Oz\InterAct 18:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am still on the first page of their contributions and I have reverted three AfD closes so far. Articles for deletion/Kirill Sinitsyn (closed as Keep despite a 6-3 Delete count) is a shocker - especially when you look at the Keep voters. I am going to keep combing through these and may partial block the editor from Wikipedia space if there are any more really egregious closes. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * <SMALL>I see you, like me, considered Articles for deletion/Hippogonal an OK close :)  but then, even a blind pig can find a mushroom in the dark...   SN54129  18:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)</SMALL>
 * Yeah, a couple are fine. I've since found two more that were wrong, though, so I've partial blocked the editor from Wikipedia space until they respond.  They don't appear to be using a  mobile device so they should be seeing their messages. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you also revert the close at Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers (2nd nomination) please so that I may respond to the latest comment? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Keep in mind that any experienced editor, or anyone for that matter, can revert an obvious case of a WP:BADNAC close. You certainly don't need to be an admin to do that. :) <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.3em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 21:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies @HighKing, I just saw this request. I'll revert my close. Wasn't aware of this thread at the time. Star   Mississippi  02:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A short block, partial or no, may get their attention. Looking at the contribs, I am not entirely sure this editor is acting in bad faith. They`ve just dived into actions better left for more experienced editors or admins. I also found on their talk page one word response to one notice, so at least they have responded to something. The user page indicates they are from the Philippines, so due to a possible language barrier, they may not understand completely what they`re doing. Oz\InterAct 18:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's more than just disconcerting that they do not respond to any comments on their talk page. WP:ADMINACCT requires that you explain your actions when questioned.  Failure to do so led to three desysoppings by arbcom earlier this year.  When you're performing a WP:NAC, you're acting in an administrative role, so this applies to NACs just as it applies to admin closes.  The pblock from project space which was imposed seems entirely justified. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Black Kite, I think that was the right call. Yesterday, I had to revert a particularly ambitious close they made at TFD that I wouldn't have attempted myself! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a shame we can't do partial blocks from e.g., because this does mean that KevinNov3 can't participate in this discussion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is - I did mention in the block notice that they should respond on their talk page, but to be honest the unblock request that you just declined does not fill me with hope anyway. Black Kite (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD is tremendously important, because it is the (almost) final arbiter of what material we have in Wikipedia. It's not logical that we permit anyone to close an AfD while we're very fussy about who carries out AfC reviewing, despite the fact that (1) AfC's criteria for acceptance defer to AfD (see WP:AFCPURPOSE), (2) anyone can bypass AfC at any stage, and (3) when this happens, it's AfD that makes the decision on whether the article stays. To create a practical example, if Joe Bloggs creates an account jbloggs and edits an article about Joe Bloggs (amazing person) and gets it declined at AfC, all he needs to do is move it to main space himself, wait for the nomination to AfD, create a suitable sock and close the AfD discussion as "No Consensus" despite all the sensible people saying "delete". The only way out is then to come to ANI, or start a sock-puppet investigation and all these time-consuming things. Wouldn't it be better if all AfD's were closed by trusted individuals who've demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills to do the job fairly? I appreciate that this isn't in keeping with Wikipedia's philosophy that all editors are equal; but we've already abandoned that philosophy in AfC, so shouldn't we also abandon it in the - more influential - AfD? Elemimele (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better if all AfD's were closed by trusted individuals who've demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills to do the job fairly?
 * It would be lovely, but there just aren't enough people willing to do the job for it to work that way. The backlog would become insane rather quickly. It's better to leave it open for non-admins to close the easy ones, and just deal with the occasional problem like this one. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all convinced we don't have enough admin willing to do the job. Some AfD discussions linger, because they're hard ones, but there are certainly more admins who close AfD discussions than any other XfD I'm aware of. Instead I see a fair amount of non-admins, as here, who jump at chances to close discussions rather than doing it because there's truly some backlog or need. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I used to quite regularly visit WP:AFD to tidy up old AfDs which were lingering, but in recent times backlogs have been minor and quite often (indeed, today is an example) there have been none to do at all. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought Black Kite's pblock to force discussion was a good action and anticipated that this discussion would end with some sort of topic ban from closing discussions (given Liz's comments about problems extending beyond AfD). However given their unblock attempts, the idea that a Wikipedia pblock might actually be what's necessary after all is increasing. Their inability to understand what was being asked of them - to communicate here - or even what the problem is suggests that they perhaps don't have the competence to do project space work. Hopefully they can still turn that around. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * They appear to lack the competence to edit here. I'm not sure whether it's a language or maturity issue. Star   Mississippi  19:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, it appears to be both. I think that they are on the way to a CIR indef.  Jip Orlando (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing AFDs
A good question has been raised, which maybe should be moved to Village Pump Policy, and that is who should be closing AFD discussions:
 * 1. Admins only.
 * 2. A subset of all editors or of all extended-confirmed editors, as is the case for AFC and for NPP.
 * 3. Any autoconfirmed editor, or any extended-confirmed editor.

It is currently any editor. Usually it works well enough, just as almost everything in Wikipedia usually works. Sometimes there are issues.

My own thought, to bounce around, maybe here, maybe at VPP, is: Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Define a privilege for the closing of AFDs.
 * B. Establish that editors having this privilege may close an AFD as Keep, No Consensus, Delete, or any other closure, and that non-admins may tag the article as G6.


 * WP:CREEP. As you say, usually it works just fine, and it's easy enough to correct when it doesn't.  We need fewer rules, not more.  I can barely keep up with the mountain of new policies over the last decade.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Washington shooting
Just as a heads up: these edits at Edmund Burke School are by an account that shares a name with the suspect, as noted by the  Washington Post. Possibly no action is needed but a few eyes could be of value. Abecedare (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The account should be blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE, and unblocked if they can confirm who they are - in which case a PBLOCK from that article may be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The account's first edit was on April 12th, making impersonation seem rather unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Confirming that the Functionaries team and WMF staff have been alerted to this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like account has been renamed, new username has been suppressed etc. Probably nothing more for AN to do. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

When a source removes information
If a source has been edited to remove information (such as a birthdate) do we remove it from our article or do we use web archive to "recover" the earlier version of the source to keep the information in our article? I find WP:BLPPRIVACY lacking guidance about this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the context. I would certainly treat removing a birth date from a publication as a red flag, possibly a sign of misinformation or a correction or some other good reason, and look at removing it here. I think BLP would probably say something about strong sourcing, which this doesn't sound like, in general. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zzuuzz I get the impression that online biographies, such as about key executives or academics, are these days leaving off such details due to concerns about identity theft and other personal online security concerns - issues that were not so prominent some years ago.
 * The example I found that prompted me to come here is a "professor profile" on a university website. It did state the subject's DOB when our article was originally written a decade ago but has since been edited to remove it. We have two options; dig up and cite the old version of the professor profile to maintain verifiability of the DOB, or else remove the DOB from our article.
 * Where does the balance lie between preserving key biographical detail, or respecting the privacy of a BLP subject by ommiting it? We could, in theory at least, wait until the subject dies and then use obituaries to reinsert the DOB, if following the current source by removing it (while the subject is alive) is the preferred option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In that particular case, I'd say if you can't dig up an archived version, it should go. If you can, and that is the only usable ref, it's up to local consensus, personally I'd say remove. As a middleground, you could use the archive to cite YOB and leave out DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Getting a general idea of the age of an individual is probably more important/useful than the exact age, so if the exact DOB has been pulled, I'd say it's reasonable to re-add the YOB with the archived ref. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. In some cultures many people don't even know the exact day when they were born - the celebration of birthdays is far from universal. For many subjects it is encyclopedic to know when they were born to within a few years, to place them in the right context, but the exact date is unimportant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a whole Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that specializes in this sort of question, note. Non-administrators deal in this stuff, too. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

CV revdel on sandbox
I found a copyvio, and had it revdelled, then checked their contribs to see if there was any other copyvios. Found one from the sandbox. I'm not sure how we go about getting cv revdels on the sandbox so I have had a go and used the CV Revdel template and added nobots to it as well, to stop the sandbox from being cleared before the revdel can be done. If this isn't how this is done, my apologies. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 04:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. That's probably worth a try if an admin happens to be passing and you're going to keep an eye on it, but the sandbox is a chaotic place. Poking an admin might usually work better, and linking the request might also help. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the advice. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 05:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

ＬＯＣＡＬ５８ＴＶ
Please create this R from stylisation to Local 58, as used in video titles (example). 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. (The message for blacklisted titles points people here, but it's actually something any template editor or page mover can do.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 09:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OMG me fan boy! El_C 11:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Pop Drunk Snot Bread
I put db-g4 on Pop Drunk Snot Bread, which was removed due to lack of Snowball consensus, which is irrelevant. The current article has one reference, and is very short. Please delete or redirect page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You should have notified, who declined your tag. Indeed, you should have discussed the issue before coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It didn't even have a consensus for deletion at AFD, so why would it be deleted now? The album has since been released and has further coverage. Sergecross73   msg me  13:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ^^ This. It came out two days ago, and there's plenty of reviews of it already.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Article now has only one review, is short, and has no indication of notability. I just filed a move request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop. You're not supposed to be adding speedy delete tags multiple times. In theory, the correct avenue would be to send to AFD again or have a merge discussion on the talk page, though I don't recommend either, as I'm finding sourcing out there that would lead to a "keep" result at either avenue. Sergecross73   msg me  14:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Bbb. I appreciate that G4 is very different to other criteria, but I have never seen a G4 based on a non-delete AfD – I've seen incorrect tags based on PRODs and soft deletes, but you need a positive consensus for deletion for it to be used. As G4 is built on consensus, being told that "clear consensus is besides the point" is worrying. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. To cite an AFD with zero delete !votes as a rationale to speedy delete an article is ridiculous. I don't particularly believe it's a misunderstanding - we cross paths in the music subject area and it isn't uncommon to see Jax double down on weird decisions like this. It's only not a problem because he generally yields to a consensus when it's established, and it's pretty easy to get a consensus against bad ideas like this. Sergecross73   msg me  19:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

An appeal
Regarding Multi-stage fitness test: content should be back, removing it is vandalism and impoverishing Wikipedia.

I am appealing the apalling decision to block me partially from editing Multi-stage fitness test by User:Cullen328.

What's happening with that entry is pure vandalism removing valuable content that has been there from the very beginning in 2006, a bunch of users through collusion are nixing the content under false pretexts, as it was sourced material being the source the beep test audio itself.

I would also like to bring to your attention that is a discussion that had already taken place back in 2020 with the result being that the content was back.(Talk:Multi-stage fitness test) Why? Because it's useful, informative, belongs to the wikipedia and despite what they might say it is sourced by the beep test audio itself.

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodersb (talk • contribs) 01:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Rodersb - If you think that removing the content from the article was vandalism, why are you reporting it here rather than the vandalism noticeboard? Maybe you are just yelling vandalim to "win" a content dispute.  Inappropriate charges of vandalism are a personal attack.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , I tried to clean up this awful mess you made here. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Rodersb (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything like a consensus for including that content on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a rant, not an appeal. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The notion that the test results generated by the topic of an article can be a reference to include challenged content within that article is bizarre and ludicrous. When I asked for an actual published reliable independent source, the OP called me Dumbo, which was obviously intended as an insult. I believe that elephants are morally superior to humans although the males have a serious testosterone problem. Plus, what is wrong with big ears? So, I contest the insult, although its intent is obvious and indicative of an unwillingness on the part of the OP to collaborate. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Having seen the inflammatory edit summaries used by the OP, a real block for several days is in order. Insulting edit summaries are especially serious because they can only be erased by administrative redaction.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only is this appeal not going to succeed but if Rodersb keeps up this behaviour then they aren't going to be here for much longer. This is a collaborative project, if your approach to any kind of disagreement is to insult people, edit war and refuse to listen to the advice you're given about how this place works then you'll just be blocked indefinitely. That wouldn't be an unreasonable action to take now.  Hut 8.5  07:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding clerk terms
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Please remove my rollback permission
Twinkle's client-side rollback feature is sufficient for my needs when I'm editing in my browser and I haven't been using Huggle enough recently to justify having access to perform a server-side rollback. Given that it's very easy to misclick the rollback button in the browser and I don't really see much of a benefit from having access to it (rather than just using Twinkle), I'd like to request that my rollback access be revoked. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Title blacklist requested pages
I request creation of the following redirects:, which match the title blacklist entry. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 10:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He Should Have Died Hereafter to Cyril Hare
 * I Should Have Died to Philippe Gigantès
 * Harry Potter Should Have Died, Harry Potter Should Have Died: Controversial Views from the Number 1 Fan Site, Harry Potter Should Have Died: Controversial Views from the No. 1 Fan Site, and Harry Potter Should Have Died: Controversial Views from the to MuggleNet: The full title, Harry Potter Should Have Died: Controversial Views from the #1 Fan Site, also contains the number sign and cannot be created as a redirect; the second and third proposals spell out this symbol, while the fourth proposal is the page title that would be visited by a link.
 * That title blacklist entry's purpose is to prevent attack pages, which these are not, so this doesn't look like it's going against that. The first two check out, and I've done them.  I've not checked the Harry Potter and it's also the complex one.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Football-related AFDs
Could an uninvolved admin please review the comments at Articles for deletion/Jeff Campbell (footballer) (and other open AFDs in the ). I closed the linked discussion with consensus to keep the article, but I am concerned about the decorum of some of the comments at that page. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 21:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * no notifications sent User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 21:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I see we're still dealing with people making arguments of "played XX game/tournament/ect" as a Keep argument. Are these editors aware that that has been completely deprecated as a valid argument for keeping a sports biography article? It looks like in this specific case, GNG was indeed shown, but any AfD that has people only making claims based on games played should have the closing admin completely disregard all votes, arguments, and editors making such claims. Silver  seren C 21:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the keep argument, User:Silver seren. The keep argument was GNG and no less than 27 references (some meeting GNG) were added to Jeff Campbell (footballer) since the AFD. The 16 international caps over a decade was that it isinconceivable that an All-Whites player with that many caps over a decade would not have received GNG coverage. Sure, we need referenced articles - but that doesn't mean that people should be bringing easily fixed, obviously notable, articles to AFD rather than applying WP:BEFORE. If only we had some guidelines which might draw some clear lines of when articles were likely to be notable, which would give editors pause, before creating an AFD. 07:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs)
 * complained on my talk page. I will not revert the "no consensus" closes. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 00:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your close arguments here and here seem inappropriate. By your claims there, you would have closed those discussions (and any NFOOTY-connected AfD discussion) as No Consensus because "the policy is uncertain" regardless of anything that happened in the AfD discussions themselves. Which, again, seems inappropriate and incorrect. Silver  seren C 00:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with my assessment of consensus, WP:DRV is over there. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 00:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not certain why you closed them at all; they were relisted on the 22nd, and Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer) had seen two !votes since then. They should have been left open for the full week. BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah this seems really indefensible. Also rudely telling one editor to come to AN and then rudely telling other editors at AN to go somewhere else is ... a thing. --JBL (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How is notifying everyone, with some humour, that there's a discussion about the issue going on at AN, "rude". Especially compared to your uncivil personal attack on him (which he quotes below)? Nfitz (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the "uncivil personal attack" was in response to Joseph2302 saying You don't have to reply and complain at everyone that votes a way you dislike- this is clear WP:HOUNDING. There are 32 sources, and seems to meet WP:GNG, no matter how much you shout at and harass people who say it passes GNG. - it was not in response to power.
 * Between the two, Joseph's comment appears less appropriate, both for being uncivil and for casting WP:ASPERSIONS. BilledMammal (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how JBL responding "Fuck Off" was less more appropriate. The first doesn't seem to be out of line - there are other examples of JBL being uncivil today. Though perhaps not as blatant. Simply (though bluntly) saying what they think someone is doing is neither uncivil nor a personal attack, if it's true. Though it's past my bedtime, so I'll leave the question of if there is a previous history of JBL's uncivility, and if Joseph's comment was not correct to others. If it's a one-off thing; admonish and move on. Nfitz (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You pinged me and mentioned the request I made on your talk page. Is there something about it that you'd like to discuss? –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have done is harassing or hounding anyone, let alone yelling — and I haven’t even !voted. So you can fuck right off, thanks. —JBL (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) - how is *that* defensible? You don't get a license to harass voters simply by not using a bolded comment.  I request that JayBeeEll be blocked for 19 days. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 01:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this...trolling? The specific phrasing of your last sentence there seems like trolling. Silver  seren C 01:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

All the highly experienced editors involved in this conversation are reminded that squabbling and bickering is not the sort of behavior that is expected on a collaborative project. WP:NFOOTY no longer exists, so AfD closures should be based only on providing or failing to provide evidence that the GNG has been met. That applies to Association football (soccer), and to the American and Canadian forms of Gridiron football and Australian rules football. It is worth noting, that for some reason, these disputes rarely arise in our coverage American and Canadian gridiron football, and maybe some PhD student in sociology could write a thesis on that. I do not recall disputes about the Australian version, but I imagine that there have been a few. So, my final comment is to advise all these editors to follow the current policies and guidelines, and lay off arguing for the sake of an argument. Cullen328 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fuck off"? Oh, yes, this is a barroom epithet, isn't it? 02:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeenAroundAWhile (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for reminding me why I very rarely have a drink in a bar, . Please remember to sign your comments. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Next round is on me! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we can add "starting a conversation about the behavior of another editor at AN without doing the mandatory notification" to the list of questionable behavior by the OP. --JBL (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Deletion reviews for Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan and Articles for deletion/Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer) have been opened at Deletion review/Log/2022 April 24. –dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hang on User:Dlthewave - you knew that the discussion had gone to AN, but you then chose to open two other discussions elsewhere? How is that not a WP:FORUMSHOP failure? Nfitz (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The correct place to review deletion discussions is WP:DRV, and the editor who closed the discussions, and opened this discussions, states above If you disagree with my assessment of consensus, WP:DRV is over there. BilledMammal (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It would have been correct to discuss them there, if they weren't already been discussed here. That User:力 would suggest that, only shows that he doesn't understand the processes; obviously a non-Admin closing those AFDs, and overriding User:Fenix down is not acceptable - even if Fenix appeared to be supervoting. I note that no one notified him about this AN discussion on an issue that he is very much involved. At the very minimum the DRV nomination should have mentioned the ongoing discussion here. Nfitz (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to have both threads. DRV reviews deletion decisions and, to that extent, has jurisdiction over content; it doesn't review conduct. AN doesn't make content decisions but does consider complaints about conduct. So here is the right place to talk about the sweary people in the AfD and what to do about them.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading the start of the thread again, User:S Marshall, yes, you are correct. It started out about the insults, but most of the discussion has been about the close itself. Which means the DRVs are entirely appropriate. My apologies Nfitz (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that telling people to f off isn't appropriate conduct. What I was saying was correct anyway- they shouldn't be replying to every single person that they disagree with, as it was clear bludgeoning. Fine to disagree with people, but talk about content not editors. The about of bad civility in sports AFDs at the moment, by a number of editors on both "sides" (by "sides" I mean generally pro-delete and generally pro-keep editors) is unacceptable. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What you were saying was uncivil, battleground behavior:
 * "someone who wants to delete all sports articles ... Listed things at not reliable sources because they're offline/you don't know thinks about them is bullshit ... an attempt to propaganda people"
 * "no matter how many time the anti-sports deletionists shout delete at it"
 * "no matter how much you shout at and harass people who say it passes GNG"
 * "people are being harassed for not being able to find online sources for a pre-Internet player from a non-English speaking country"
 * This comments are indicative of the insults and baseless accusations of bad faith you've been making since the NSPORTS RFC. Because of this, I don't care that someone told you to "f off".
 * Stop with this uncivil, battleground behavior. Levivich 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. Wanting to delete single-sentence stubs with no substantial sourcing is the same as wanting to delete AAAALLL the sports article on Wikipedia. Yeesh. It's funny how the people doing all the shouting and harassing are also the ones accusing others of that. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 04:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. JBL (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. Polite, reasonable requests for sources and reminders about current guidelines are being met with open hostility. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Jeff Campbell article was always going to be a keep, I did plenty of different google search strings there and saw there was an abundance of citations. The delete arguments for it were fatally floored, as I don't believe those editors have truly analysed the multitude of results. Every mention helps, it all builds a picture. It goes to show that in such a short period that many of the citations found went straight into the article. And there are more online that could easily be included. Simply analysing what's on an wikipedia article and saying, "ye that a delete", seems to be happening a lot now. It's even worse for historic sports men and women, when the majority are mentions in books with no references online. There is a heavily bias there. It shames me this whole conversation is here. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Though not required. I'd recommend only administrators be the ones to close AFDs. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Power, if that's how you're gonna close AFDs and respond to close challenges, then you shouldn't close AFDs. Do it right or not at all please. You know better than to make up new rules (no consensus because policy is "unclear"?), close right after a relist while it's still being actively voted on, and then refuse to discuss the close. This will end with your closes being overturned, which you should have been able to predict before you started this thread. Both sides will vote to overturn this. No one will agree with you. You're wasting a lot of editor time here, and frankly that's not like you to do. I really don't know what you were thinking with those closes (3 obviously bad ones at DRV so far, I hope there aren't more), the responses on your talk page, and opening this thread. Levivich 14:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why, there is clear consensus among editors that WP:GNG has been met. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not according to the three DRVs underway. Levivich 16:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Campbell obviously meets GNG, the other two should be relisted. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose in posting a comment here asserting that one of these articles meets GNG? Obviously I don't think it does, and saying it does is obviously not going to change my mind (or anyone else's who doesn't think it meets GNG). If you're actually trying to persuade people who disagree, do it by posting two GNG sources (I've only seen one). And do it in the DRV in support fo your endorse !votes or, if it's relisted, in the AFD. Levivich 16:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I alluded to below, the purpose is to try and cut down on the amount of time that is being wasted on these AfDs and DRVs by editors who should probably step back and do something more constructive instead. I am in no way an inclusionist, but some of the arguments that are being presented in these AfDs (both by people !voting Keep and Delete) are frankly nonsensical. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Every "keep" vote, in every AfD, should be discounted unless it comes with links to two GNG sources (or references another !vote with two GNG sources). Every delete !vote should be discounted unless it specifically says what is wrong with one or both of the sources (or points out that no one has yet presented two sources). After two sources have been presented and responded to, every subsequent !vote should be discounted unless it directly addresses the arguments pro/con the two proposed GNG sources (or adds a third). If AFD closers regularly and openly discounted votes like this, it would "teach" (Pavlovian style) AFD voters to keep their comments focused on two GNG sources. That in turn will lead to increased civility and better quality discussions, when everyone learns that their vote will be ignored if it isn't about "the two GNG sources" (pro or con). Levivich 17:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I pushed repeatedly for people to cite 2 sources for, but there was instead a barrage of comments that want to keep the article because the subject is currently in the news for not having things known about xem, and repeated handwaves. Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What delete arguments are nonsensical? Most of them are just enforcing what the guideline (GNG) requires (multiple SIGCOV sources) and disputing that a single piece of SIGCOV is acceptable. Meanwhile the majority of keeps are based entirely on a deprecated subguideline that never even conferred notability anyway, and the few that aren't just assert GNG is met without demonstrating there is SIGCOV in multiple RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, NSPORTS was revised per the RFC so that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources was added to WP:SPORTBASIC. There's no firm rule that there has to be more than one GNG source. Though I think we've more than achieved that for the article in question - which is what one would expect for a play with almost a decade of All-White caps. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says I guess that's not a firm rule? Levivich 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've clarified my comment above User:Levivich - I apologize that I wasn't clear. There's no firm rule that there has to be more than one GNG source. Nfitz (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two such rules for biographies: WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTBASIC both require sources. Levivich 20:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No one would say they are firm rules though, User:Levivich. Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They still represent higher levels of consensus than individual AfDs, and the arguments for exceptions usually boil down to vaguewaves or special pleading anyway. Avilich (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead to SPORTBASIC is clear that presumption of notability is contingent on more than one SIGCOV source being identified: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (emphasis mine) Multiplicity is right there alongside "independent" and "secondary". JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's not a firm rule. And besides if it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Sources don't have to be provided immediately; not relevant for this particular AFD as there are sources, but another simultaneous AFD from User:力 relates to player who played 80-years ago where no one yet has access to archives where such sources would expect to be (or not be) found. In cases like that, we can remember that there is WP:NORUSH and that Wikipedia articles are not a final draft. Ultimately access to such databases will available. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been a firm rule since I invented the formulation. User:Uncle G/On notability.  One work is not enough, for a whole bunch of reasons from the ability to cross check and to sanity check to the far greater surety that it provides that the coverage is rounded.  Imagine if we thought it sufficient to base a biography of, say,  on just 1 Daily Beast article.  Uncle G (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just commented on the DRVs, but apart from that I think there are a few editors here (on both "sides") that probably need to step away from these sports AfDs for a while, because it would be not be a good outcome for otherwise productive editors to get blocked over something so trivial. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am glad that the conduct comments are getting some discussion upthread. But I want to echo what several at DRV have said and what Levivich is saying here about power's closes themselves. I think these were poor candidates for non-admin closes, for reasons DRV participants are saying pretty uniformly, and to the extent that they were going to be closed by a non-admin that these were not done well. Power has posted a delayed retirement message on their user talk - saying they're going to retire next weekend - so perhaps they are operating in a bit of a DGAF mode. Whether or not that's true, these closes were not done well and are serving as a strain on the community's time in a contentious area. Personally I think power needs to seriously consider stepping back from closing all AfDs based on the actions displayed here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Something needs to happen to resolve this chaotic mess about sports AFDs, but I have no clue what. The only thing I know for sure is that the argument "all articles must meet GNG regardless of whether they meet a SNG" is nonsense, because otherwise SNGs would be otiose. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think nonexistent SNGs should trump GNG? Avilich (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * GNG is the ultimate test; the SNGs only act as a guide as to which kind of articles might meet GNG. GiantSnowman 18:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed back when I had a bit more involvement in the area (perhaps ~2010), I thought all SNGs as well as the GNG itself made it clear that ultimately articles needed to meet GNG. SNGs were intended as useful guideline for when articles almost definitely meet GNG but perhaps no one had found the sources yet because they were offline, in limited libraries etc especially in cases where systemic bias applied like developing countries or particularly non English speaking developing countries. It seemed a reasonable idea that often worked, although the question of what to do do when an article meet some SNG but editor/s said they'd made an effort but didn't find sources and it was unlikely they existed, wasn't always clear and did sometimes lead to dispute. (My memory was in cricket articles.) I was surprised when read a few years ago this was no longer clearly the case and some SNGs were seen as sufficient in an of themselves and there was no requirement the article must eventually been shown to meet GNG. Nil Einne (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating that "SNGs would be otiose" line every time this comes up, but this makes no sense as half of all SNGs do ultimately require GNG (or equivalent) sourcing. And in this case, the SNG in question (NSPORT) doesn't even have guidance on the footballers in question, so your comment is just totally out of touch and irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A well written SNG is not otiose, because it will prove, over time, to be a highly useful tool for separating articles very likely to pass the GNG from those much less likely to pass the GNG, allowing editors to focus their limited time on assessing the notability of the second group of articles. Failed and deprecated SNGs like PORNBIO and NFOOTY were written in a way too lenient fashion, enabling fan editors to write way to many poorly referenced articles about essentially non-notable people. We always hear these arguments about offline sources from the pre-internet era. OK, find them. Go to a brick and mortar library in the subject's home town, or the city where they played professionally. The professional librarians will be delighted to help you search for sources. Go to a newspaper archive and learn how to use a microfiche reader. Search online bookstores and actually buy and read the books and cite them. Do not claim that sources must exist. Actually find a few solid sources, cite them, and save the article that way. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want to fund the plane fare User:Cullen328; I'm yet to ever encounter an AFD where accessing a local library/microfilms/newspaper archive would be of assistance; mostly because in this city, hundreds of years of local newspapers are available, scanned and indexed, through the local library (which I use very frequently). Few have ever said that articles should be kept forever because there must be sources somewhere. People have suggested that there is WP:NORUSH and no harm in waiting until ultimately all paper and microfilmed material is available. There's no firm rule that says we must delete articles for subjects that we can verify, but can't find a GNG-quality reference. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Plane fare? You must be kidding me., the answer is no. I am not willing to donate any of my own money to help editors who claim that reliable sources must exist but are not able to spend the money or the time or the interlibrary loan effort to uncover the sources. I spend money to improve and save articles that I care about. I have driven many miles a day and gone out of my way to take photos of notable topics, and track down and cite reliable sources. I have purchased many books to help provide references to improve Wikipedia articles. I have one such book sitting on my bedside table right now and expect to reference it in days and weeks to come. So, when I look at the many books that I have purchased since 2009 to help improve this encyclopedia, then I am proud. But please do not try to tax me to support editors unprepared to put their own money where their own mouths are. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What about air miles? Nfitz (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you not know what the words "interlibrary loan" in Cullen's post mean? JBL (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * SNGs are meant to balance the desire to have articles that have a good chance to be notable to be worked on in an open wiki environment, against the desired around WP:NOT to only have articles that show significant coverage and have been expanded to reasonable encyclopedic size. Its why all SNGs and the GNG work on the idea that they are rebuttable presumptions - we default to allowing standalone articles to be created as long as reasonably low bars that suggest notability will ultimately be met are there, so that editors have the time and help from all Wikipedians to expand. So the balance in this AFDs should be that if there has been reasonable demonstration by those seeking deletion that they have reasonable exhausted all possible sources, and those seeking retention that (assuming a claim that all possible sources were exhausted) to find additional sources. When we are talking foreign athletes like those in Asia and Africa, this is where I doubt either can be done easily, even with ILLoans. Hence why both sides of such AFDs should be careful because again, we're looking at SNGs that act as a type of middle ground, and not absolutes. --M asem (t) 12:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As Cullen says! I just stood in line for two hours on Saturday to buy some books at the local Friends of the Library sale that I hope to use for improving various articles. I ocassionally spend time at the public library searching reference books, and have used ILL to access books I can't justifying buying and are not in my local library. I realize that not everybody has even that level of access to potential sources, but I believe that users should not be trying to add material about a particular subject to Wikipedia if they do not have access to reliable sources. Donald Albury 16:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To return to discussing conduct, one of the issues I have with that discussion is that rather than focusing on whether the subject is notable several editors are casting WP:ASPERSIONS, accusing editors of failing to conduct WP:BEFORE searches. This can be seen in the Jeff Campbell AFD, where editors who themselves couldn't find significant coverage cast that aspersion, as well as in articles where no one could find significant coverage, such as Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan. This isn't a new issue, but it is becoming much more frequent and editors need to remember that if they wish to make such accusations they need to do so with evidence, and they need to do so in the appropriate location - either the editors talk page, or WP:ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you not, yourself, casting WP:ASPERSIONS about User:GiantSnowman, who first raise BEFORE at Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan? Presumably this is more of a reference to a string of AFDs from User:Ficaia, where there was no evidence of BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also your "source evaluation" on Jeff Campbell AFD was just calling almost every source questionably reliable, with no justifications. Which is why it needed to be called out, because it could have had some weight in discussing the outcome (GNG is met, no matter how much you want to say otherwise). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The source evaluation by BilledMammal in the AfD is pretty spot on. Alvaldi (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't it listed things as unreliable because they couldn't access them. And listed a national newspaper (the Fiji Sun) as questionably reliable. Which wasn't correct at all. But unsurprising that someone committed to deletions is using all the tools available to vote delete everywhere. Considering the two months of sports discussion, most of which seems to end with massive arguments, is it any surprise that the level of tolerance has gone down? And I'm not in either camp- I've voted delete for many sportspeople but also keep for some others 9, but I think there are groups of editors who come and vote keep or delete at every single AFD. And that cannot be a policy-based approach. Combined with the fact that some other users nominate loads of articles in a short space of time with no WP:BEFORE ever done, this whole thing is way out of hand. Yes, the sports notability has been depreciated, but that doesn't mean that all these articles need to be immediately put up for AFD. The sheer volumes of AFDs is ridiculous at the moment, and that's what is leading to editors being frustrated at each other in my opinion. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You misread the source evaluation. The only source I couldn't access was listed as both reliable and independent, but of unknown significance (it was later found to not be significant). The Fiji Sun source was listed as unknown reliability - I did not spend the time determining whether it was reliable or not because it did not contain WP:SIGCOV and thus does not count towards GNG either way. BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Only source User:BilledMammal? As far as I can see, there are 13 references listed in your assessment in the AFD, but 32 references listed in Jeff Campbell (footballer). Or are we talking about a different AFD? Nfitz (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When I created the table at 05:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC), If the article is relisted, I will assess the references that were added after that time. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Many days passed after that you didn't update it, despite not revisiting your "vote". With the DRV in process, perhaps that is the time to update the table! Though given that the keep looks to be endorsed, despite how blatantly wrong the close was, there's probably no point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like nobody is interested in discussing the sweary behaviour at AfD. I can't see anything else for admins to do here.  Shall we move this thread or close it?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that's no surprise (because they came in response to some clear personal attacks, albeit not-sweary). Personally, I would like to see the discussion of Joseph2302's behavior develop (ideally into a stern warning from an administrator). --JBL (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've done anything wrong, other than call people out when I believe that they're wrong. People are entitled to disagree, and I don't believe I've violated WP:CIVIL, although uninvolved admins are of course allowed to disagree. JBL: you were replying to every person that disagreed with you, and that is bludgeoning the AFD thread. It's also ridiculous to single me out for anything when the whole area of sports AFDs has been a civility minefield in the last few weeks, and my comments were tame and out of frustration, no malicious intentions. Referring to people who vote delete in almost 100% of AFDs as "deletionists" is not an attack. And nor is asking nominators to actually do a WP:BEFORE, or questioning source evaluations that don't seem correct. FYI, this is exactly why I'm trying to take a wikibreak, because I'm fed up by the sheer volume and uncollaboration of these AFDs. But when I'm getting accused of stuff like this, of course I will reply. Maybe people should spend more time trying to improve articles, because the amount of decent sports article content being added is probably lower right now because of all this AFD hype. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can tell you're very passionate about this Joseph2302, but when I see you criticising others for bludgeoning, I can only admire your unselfconsciousness.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Referring to people as "deletionists" very much is an attack. I coined Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's Law in 2009, on the next-door noticeboard: The only times that people use "deletionist" and "inclusionist" is to call other editors names. Their use has never improved a discussion. Any editor who resorts to such name calling is indicating that xe has run out of proper, valid, arguments to make.  The whole sorry history, that experts outwith Wikipedia have clearly not read the edit histories or the mailing list discussions to find, is at User:Uncle G/The "dirty '-ista's".  These were name-calling devices and solely name-calling devices right from the start.  They have never been anything else.  You, Joseph2302, like any one else using these, are name-calling. Uncle G (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Referring to people as "deletionists" very much is an attack. That was not my intention, and I was only trying to use it as a comparison of the two "sides" to all these sports debates. Because these discussion always seem to be massively polarised. There are people who vote keep to almost everything (often not in line with policies) and there are some people who vote delete to almost everything (again, not always in line with policy), and I was trying to just refer to people by groups. I have been to real-life Wiki meetups where people refer to themselves as inclusionists or deletionists, so I don't consider these terms as offensive/attacks. If that is the way Wikipedians on-wiki interpret these terms, I will refrain from using them in future. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Uncle G, I've referred to myself as an inclusionist. Obviously though not everything is worth including - but like most things, it's not black and white, but different people are on different places on the spectrum. I do vote delete - though far less often, mostly because my prime belief is one should thoroughly research something if they are too vote; and it's a lot less effort to do so when there are sources. But if I put a lot of energy into something, and it's very clearly a delete, I'll say so. We have people who cast many delete votes in a day, often about one every minute or so; I have difficulty even reading an article in that time - let alone do a basic search and reading the article. We even have people who will cast 500 delete votes in a row, with nothing else - not even a redirect. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have been calling yourself names. &#9786;  Read the history.  And then Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron and the several times that this has come up over the years.  It is sobering and saddening to look at something that we know was made up as a joke with zero actual research, evidence, or indeed factual basis, because the mailing list posts and the diffs are right there, and see it erroneously considered true by people who came along even a little while later, as well as by the rest of the world.  They're name-calling labels, and have never been anything else.  Anyone foolishly thinking them to be genuine philosophies will be making the same error of blinding xyrself to the actual truth of what people think, as the researchers and journalists did when giving Stevertigo's and Angela's stuff back to us as citogenesis.  Uncle G (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase, "It wasn't that I was exhibiting battleground behavior, it's just that I thought it was very important to delineate exactly who is on which side, and then respond based on what group they belong to." Can I refer you back to S Marshall's comment? --JBL (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * JBL, how about you apologise for telling me to fuck off, instead of trying to bait me? If people make direct comments about me like they have on this thread, of course I should reply to them. If an admin feels I've actually done wrong, they can tell me that. If admins think others like you were in the wrong, they should tell those people. Otherwise, no point in discussing as it seems people are annoyed and argumentative, but no actual rules were broken. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fuck off" is impolite, but accepted depending on the context. And if you can't under the issue with the context - why your comments were uncivil and battleground behaviour (see quotes provided by Levivich, and the edit summaries of some of them) - then I think we need a formal reminder or warning. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet being impolite violates the WP:CIVIL. The only times that Fuck off would be acceptable, was if it was said to oneself, or WAS polite ... which is going to be extremely rarely in written form, due to the lack of verbal emphasis. If it offends the recipient, then it's not acceptable. The only times I've seen it successfully argued that it is acceptable, is when the person saying it has had a lot more privilidge than the person receiving it; which doesn't seem right to me. User:Uncle G - I've never seen any discussion or offence taken by either word before. I guess I will have to fuck off and stop calling myself an inclusionist! ☺ Nfitz (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:FUCKSCONTEXT - while it's general uncivil, context matters. I would recommend that JBL doesn't use it in the future, but given the context I don't believe it is actionable here. The bigger issue is the context, and if Joseph2302 can't see the issue with that context (and I note that this context is not limited to calling editors "deletionist") then I believe we need a warning or a reminder. BilledMammal (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fuck me - I just reinvented the wheel! I'd missed that discussion. And I mostly agree with both it and your comment. I think JBL's comment is sanctionable - but that other than an admonishment, no further action is necessary. I don't see that a formal proposal is necessary on this. Nfitz (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please remove my rollback permission
Per the above, the number of times I’ve accidentally clicked the rollback button is once too many. I don’t need the right now, and I won’t need it in the future. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User name issue
Can we please not block for a username violation just yet? They've been made aware of the issue and I've PBLOCKED from the Upminster Windmill article. Would like to see if constructive discussion can be had and a way forward can be found. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

user Artoriusfadianus
Hi,

Hopefully this is the correct place to put this I wish to report a user who appears to be promoting a fringe theory attempting to link the 2nd/3rd century Roman officer, Lucius Artorius Castus with the much later Arthurian legend. As such she has made multiple changes to various pages, mostly Lucius Artorius Castus and also the Historicity of King Arthur.

The problem is she presents hugely speculative statements, and at times demonstrably false ones, as fact. I have attempted to give evidence with references in the talk section and posted a message to the users page. I think there is danger of an edit war.

Here is the user's history page



I believe this was the same person from a time before

The page below may be relevant as I think there may have been a name change

regards

Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonySullivanBooks (talk • contribs) 08:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please protect this page and ban the vandal
Hi, I am a wikifa admin. I am active in enwikni as well. It is a while that this article has been under heavy attacks by vandals due to an accident in the real life of the subject. The page has been recently protected for a few days after my request. Please check the edit history and the recent page move (Gooz is a farsi word for Flatulence written in english alphabets). Please kindly protect the page for at least 6 months to the level of admins and extended confirmed users. And please review User:Wikinforg's edits in this page and has moved the page recently. Thanks. <b style="color:navy;">Gharouni</b><i style="color:orange">Talk</i> 15:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What's up with this?
For some reason, when I look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user I see WikiProject Alabama. Wikiproject Alabama has not been edited since September 1. I can find nothing on Wikiproject Alabama that explains why it is showing up on the speedy deletion category. I can't figure out how to fix it. Am I the only one seeing that? Can anyone figure out what's going on? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I purged the caches for a couple of pages. That seems to have done the trick. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Range block
I was advised to ask help here. Per User_talk:El_C, I'd like to request a range block for WP:SPA genocide denying IP, - this is one of the many addresses they used. Besides the Talk:Armenian_genocide page soapbox and genocide denial, they're disrupting articles like this with a partisan source and harassing my talk page,. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @ZaniGiovanni what other IPs have been used?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * EvergreenFir There were couple others, all starting with 176.219. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a dishonest misrepresentation of my opinions. I am not a 'genocide denier' as you falsely accuse. I recognize that a great number of Armenian perished during the deportations and massacres of 1915. However, I do not believe it constitutes a genocide under UN Genocide Convention definition. This viewpoint is also shared by a great number of scholars.
 * EvergreenFir There were couple others, all starting with 176.219. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a dishonest misrepresentation of my opinions. I am not a 'genocide denier' as you falsely accuse. I recognize that a great number of Armenian perished during the deportations and massacres of 1915. However, I do not believe it constitutes a genocide under UN Genocide Convention definition. This viewpoint is also shared by a great number of scholars.
 * EvergreenFir There were couple others, all starting with 176.219. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a dishonest misrepresentation of my opinions. I am not a 'genocide denier' as you falsely accuse. I recognize that a great number of Armenian perished during the deportations and massacres of 1915. However, I do not believe it constitutes a genocide under UN Genocide Convention definition. This viewpoint is also shared by a great number of scholars.
 * EvergreenFir There were couple others, all starting with 176.219. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a dishonest misrepresentation of my opinions. I am not a 'genocide denier' as you falsely accuse. I recognize that a great number of Armenian perished during the deportations and massacres of 1915. However, I do not believe it constitutes a genocide under UN Genocide Convention definition. This viewpoint is also shared by a great number of scholars.


 * Secondly, claiming that I 'harassed your talk page' is a subversion of the narrative. In reality, you've been labeling me as a 'genocide denier' like you just did here and also previously at other pages. I warned you because *this* was an harassment and it was disruptive.


 * Lastly, the sources I cited are not partisan. They are academic references that has been peer-reviewed. Best regards.--176.219.213.179 (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the WP:RS you talk about and how you're not a denialist? In talk pages, you only cited known genocide deniers like Bernard Lewis, Justin McCarthy while ignoring what the vast majority of historians write. You're the definition of a denialist and unfortunately, that seems to be your only goal here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If your problem is about whether the sources I cited are unreliable, you should visit Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead. Bernard Lewis and Justin McCarthy are influential scholars who have thousands of citations. Citing them doesn't make me a 'denialist'. 176.219.213.179 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User:CaribDigita
This user has contacted me on Commons that they are unable to edit on English Wikipedia, including their talk page. The user is not listed on the block log, so I suspect they're caught in an IP range block. It's likely not a global block, as they can edit on Commons. Moreover, they report receiving a templated message without information, instead only variable names (eg - ) instead of values (such as the date it should represent. The discussion I've had with the user is at Commons:User talk:Mindmatrix Can someone who has a bit of time check this out. Thanks.  Mind  matrix  20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will read into this further. 130.44.131.72 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you, thank you, thank you- to whomever altered, changed, or otherwise 'plugged' something back-in. Thanks also to MindMatrix for all your help, I literally could not have done anything without you. Everything seems to be working (again?).  The message I was getting was super cryptic. I had no idea how to interpret it and so big thanks to all on the 'cloud' who helped. Being able to see everything on WP but not edit feels a bit like an out of body experience. Good to be among the living again so to speak. CaribDigita (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Doublecheck of a user
Hello, my request is to quickly check an already banned user. The reason for it is this comment, where the word Schleiden gets used. Schleiden is a city and roughly the location of this IP. I assume that is also recognizable by the IP. The name of that user sounds a lot like an alternate. If it is visible that this user also has other accounts, please take action against these as well. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.231.93 (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The editor has been indefinitely blocked by someone. I don't know if I'd say their username sounds like an "alternate" but it does sound like someone who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. I'm also not sure whether it's enough to justify a checkuser for other accounts, seems more the sort of everyday unconstructive editor we block and move on. Don't quite understand your comment about Schleiden. Are you saying it's the rough geolocation for the 91.41.250.68 IP? If so then yes this is something that anyone who edits from IPs gives away and it's acceptable to mention on Wikipedia when relevant although I wouldn't say it's appropriate for it to be mentioned the way XDloltrolol did. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NOTHERE is better described. And yes, Schleiden is a relatively small town which is roughly from the location from which I (above meant IP and also mine at the moment) are editing. I assume it's not a big feat to figure that out in terms of computer technology.
 * I think it is good and right if someone who foes that far and names this from third parties is also prosecuted on their own other accounts (WP:HOUNDING?). If there are any other and if this is technically comprehensible. Otherwise it wasn't a direct threat and it's okay to close my request again.
 * 87.152.231.93 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Neil Parish
I've just semi'd the Neil Parish article for a month, expiring on May 29. More eyes on the article might not be a bad thing. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Protection has been reduced to a week, FYI. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 172, have discussed with the other admin and the duration has been restored to a month. I've also created an edit notice, so hopefully we won't need to go to EC protection. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Article now placed under EC protection. Suggest any editor who violates BLP is blocked. There is an edit notice in place. That and EC protection should be sufficient notice to an editor to tread carefully. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Requests for page protection/Increase are not being processed.
Hi, I just added an entry for Neil Parish to Requests for page protection/Increase only to find mine was about the sixth one. They aren't being processed. Visiting this page, I don't see an entry for that Requests page in the dashboard at the top. Perhaps it should be added? Ralph Corderoy (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For those who came in late, this request was posted to the /increase page five times. Apparently, did not transclude over to the main page. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 15:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * protection log -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 15:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The page was protected five minutes (14:39) after the first request (14:34) (and three minutes before yours (14:42)), which is pretty good going. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)