Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344

Addition of new alphabet for be-tarask wikipedia
1) What's the proposal? Adding Belarusian Latin alphabet to be-tarask wikipedia, like it's already present for Kazakh, Uzbek, Serbian, Tajik and other. 2) Why? Łacinka is the original, or "co-original", Belarusian alphabet, that moreover still has some usage today. In addition, Taraškievič's orthography is preferred by the diaspora, for whom Cyrillic is not the primary script. Plus why then Tajik has Latin script in Wikipedia, if it's neither official nor used anywhere? 3) How do I suggest doing it? this Python written function can translate Belarusian Cyrillics into Łacinka (+ transliterate extra Russian symbols like ъ, щ, и, that aren't present in Belarusian)

def translate(text): lat=tuple(i for i in "a b v h g d ž z i j k ł m n o p r s t u ŭ f ch c č š y e i A B V H G D Ž Z I J K Ł M N O P R S T U Ŭ F Ch C Č Š Y E I".split) for count,karacter in enumerate((i for i in "абвгґджзійклмнопрстуўфхцчшыэиАБВГҐДЖЗІЙКЛМНОПРСТУЎФХЦЧШЫЭИ")): text=text.replace(karacter, lat[count]) jed=tuple(i for i in "ć ń ś ź le lo lu la l li Ć Ń Ś Ź Le Lo Lu La L Li Ć Ń Ś Ź LE LO LU LA L LI šč Šč".split) for count,karacter in enumerate((i for i in "cь nь sь zь łе łё łю łя łь łi Cь Nь Sь Zь Łе Łё Łю Łя Łь Łi CЬ NЬ SЬ ZЬ ŁЕ ŁЁ ŁЮ ŁЯ ŁЬ ŁI щ Щ".split)): text=text.replace(karacter,jed[count]) for j,vowel in enumerate(("е", "ё", "ю", "я", "Е", "Ё", "Ю", "Я")): while text.count(vowel)>0: co0=text.find(vowel) if co0==0 or text[co0-1] not in 'bcfghkmnpsvzBCFGHKMNPSVZ': tr=("je", "jo", "ju", "ja", "Je", "Jo", "Ju", "Ja") else: tr=("ie", "io", "iu", "ia", "IE", "IO", "IU", "IA") text=text.replace(text[:co0+1], text[:co0]+tr[j]) text=text.replace("'", '') text=text.replace("ъ", '') text=text.replace('ь', 'i') return text

The method used to choose between the scripts can be the same as in Uzbek, Serbian, etc. Wikipedias, meaning this fragment of HTML code:

   łacinka/кірыліца  łacinka/кірыліца  łacinka  кірыліца </ul> This is an example for Jackson Pollock's wiki page, that I've copied from another wiki page in Uzbek.

4) In case I'm writing this to a wrong place, please redirect me. Thank you very much in advance PS) I'm sorry for not putting codes in there properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreativnaabenuceyrnameyr (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If I read this right, your request involves another language version of Wikipedia- as each version is a separate, independent project with their own editors and policies, please ask on whatever forum that version of Wikipedia has for such requests. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kreativnaabenuceyrnameyr, you should discuss this proposal first at the be-tarask project, and if there is support for it, you will need to ask the software developers (either directly via Phabricator or by going through meta wiki first) for help. This page here is only for admin issues on the English Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Kobi Arad


Hello, this name seems to be blocked, I assume to prior issues he has had with prior editors that didnt disclose paid editing, as he has explained to me. I have been hired to retry the page and would like to submit to AFC. I have already disclosed on my user page that he has hired me. He now qualifies due to recent win of HMMA Awards and Global Music Awards, which means he meets qualifications for artists. Please unlock his name. Thanks. Dwnloda (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Draft:Kobi Arad is not protected. You may create it via WP:AfC. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The first attempt to create an article on Kobi Arad was in 2010. At that time the reviewing editors complained about sources of low quality, advertising, copyvio, socking and paid editing. See the discussions at:
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad,
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129/Archive
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MusicLover650/Archive (from 2016).
 * These problems should not prevent User:Dwnloda from attempting a new draft. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am getting error message when I try to create it. It says:
 * "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Creation of this page (Draft:Kobi Arad) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists."Dwnloda (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strange, the article Kobi Arad is protected. Draft:Kobi Arad says not.
 * That protection expired is 2018.
 * I set it to no protection manually, so it should work. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 12:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's blacklisted. Beyond my ability to fix. Can someone who does the blacklists have a look.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 12:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant. See the hits at query/65355; there was, it appears, a lot of title gaming, though some of those deleted titles may have existed before the afds and mfd - I haven't looked at most of them.  The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same.  Courtesy ping MER-C, who first blacklisted it. —Cryptic 13:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Also advise anyone against taking any action here without thoroughly familiarizing themselves with the history. WP:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (2nd nomination), from 2020, is an ok start. —Cryptic 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "I have been hired to retry the page" Here's my standard response to paid editors - you wouldn't pay someone to fix your bathroom without knowledge of plumbing. So why would somebody pay you - who joined Wikipedia less than 24 hours ago and have less than 20 edits to your name - to write a Wikipedia article that has already been deleted multiple times and whose last iteration (available to admins) looks like a really awful lop-sided non-neutral over-promotional piece of writing (and that's putting it politely)? I strongly oppose recreation. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To Richie333: I admit that I may not be familiar with all the rules, but I have an IT and web design background. I have worked on Kobi's Website and am aware of his past declines. I have learned many things ever since he last tried to have a page. He has made some mistakes and hired people that did not comply with the rules of disclosing paid editing. I have done a fair amount of research before trying this and along with Kobi, we interviewed some Wikipedia freelancers, but decided that I would do it. Several experts have reviewed the draft and told us that he would qualify and the only reason for his past declines is because of undisclosed paid editing issues. In addition, we were told that he meets the qualifications of Artists due to his Hollywood Music In Media (HMMA) Awar d, which is a recent achievement and not on prior versions of his page. And he also has other awards like the IMA award. If it is OK, I can take MER-C's advice and post the draft in the Userpage and then ask it to be moved. I also have made sure to make the page non-promotional. If you see promotional issues, then I would be glad to revise. I will appreciate your kind advise and guidance on how to make it legit this time. Dwnloda (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't remember telling you that. My advice to you is to forget about this commission, tell your client "no", log out, and scramble your password. MER-C 01:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies, @MER-C it was @Cryptic's advise. he said "The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same." However I did think it was a good one since the way I was brought up was to give people opportunity, and not block & judge people for past mistakes / being new users. As a new user I would want to feel welcomed by Wikipedia's staff, and not be told to "Scramble my password". I would appreciate that you, like Cryptic consider and give this new article (and myself) a fair chance, and share your expertise in legitimizing this article. Dwnloda (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't realised yet, this is a volunteer run encyclopedia. You're not a volunteer and you're representing a serial abuser of Wikipedia for self-promotion. MER-C 02:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just spoke to Kobe, and on his behalf I apologize. He says that he got ripped off by various freelancers in the past and that no one ever told him it was against policy not to disclosure paid editing. I feel it is not fair to blame him and call him "a serial abuser." In fact he says previous year he hired another person again but this person disclosed that he was a paid editor, but the page unfairly got declined because all admins seem to be against paid editors. There seems to be an unfair prejudice against paid editors. I am trying to do it fairly based on the rules and it is not fair to me or Kobi to decline us based on other's abuse of the system. And in addition, he has now won an HMMA award, this is one of the biggest awards for those that make music for films in Hollywood, so just based on that he meets the qualification guidelines.
 * If u wish to discourage / uproot hired editing, the way to do that is through appealing for new rules in Wikipedia, and not by bullying editors who follow the allowed rules. There is civil way to do everything. Dwnloda (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it may be possible to write an article on Arad, but it should be done by somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the biographies of living persons policy and understands what are suitable sources of material, and which will avoid the article getting deleted as before. On that note, I see we have over 1,750 unreferenced biographies, any of all of which could contain libel. That is what paid editors should be doing - cleaning up the bits of the encyclopedia that nobody else wants to do, but which somebody needs to. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pointless, Arad is not notable. Not in Hebrew and not in English.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the arguments, blacklists, etc would prevent the OP from creating a draft at User:Dwnloda/sandbox that would allow the OP to argue for removing the blocks and/or blacklists with a completed article to move into main space.  While the history has created a difficult challenge, rather then arguing the potential of an article to meet criteria, write the article in your sandbox.  Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @חוקרת As a beginner editor myself, and seeing you've been around only 4 months: I suggest we trust admins with decisions such as that. However, upon reading, I've learned that winning two notable awards, as my client did, establishes notability. Please check the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Dwnloda (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * to be blunt here, the experience you describe is useless when it comes to creating an article suitable for Wikipedia. In fact, I'd go further than that and say it's actively harmful. Knowing how to create a personal website for someone does not help you make a suitable encyclopaedic article. Personal websites are not intended to be neutral or balanced, and don't generally require reliable sources or anything like that, and heck even when there are similarities they're still likely to be quite different (for example primary sources or links to places that sell albums may be preferred on a personal website but they are not here). Instead they're expected to be puffy and promotional. So if your experience is in that area, you probably even more likely to do that than the average inexperienced paid editor who may do it because they think it's what the client wants but at least may not be experienced in doing it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne @Ritchie333 @Jeepday @Cryptic @Deepfriedokra @EdJohnston The issue here is not whether my writing will be fit or not. That can be fixed if it is an issue. I have also been a Wikipedia reader since 2000s and I have familiarized myself to the style of writing on Wikipedia before I took on this task. I have been studying all the guidelines for several weeks now.  I was going to do an AFC, so if the writing is bad it can be declined, but just to decline even the chance to make this draft is not fair to Kobi Arad who is an award winning musician. The issue is that Kobi is not being given any chance to try it. I don't appreciate that I am getting attacked for being a new user. I am trying to learn. I have also been looking at many AFC submissions, and 90% look crap and trust me I can write much better, so please do not insult my intelligence. I am college educated with a degree from a respectable US university.  So are you basically saying no new user should attempt to make pages? Let's get to the bottom of this. I already made the draft here in my userpage  User:Dwnloda/sandbox, so I would appreciate any feedback . Again if there are any issues with the writing or if it sounds promotional, just let me know and I will fix it. But if we were going to base the decision on WP:MUSICBIO then Kobi Arad is notable to have a page. Dwnloda (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not say that. You wrote, "not fair to Kobi Arad." That implies your purpose is to help your client, not to build Wikipedia.  It is not an attack to say you lack the needed experience. We all start new, we all need to learn. Article creation  is hard. You might want to gain  more experience before trying to start a new article. And you might want to  not write  your first article about a subject that seems desperate to an an encyclopedia article about them.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 10:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Deepfriedokra When I said "not fair" I meant it in a global way - just being humanly sensitive. Arad, if qualifies (and according to WP... he does), deserves a page. Due to sock puppetry, promo issues and prior lack of evidence his attempts were not given a go. But as you said - those past mistakes should not affect the approval of a new article. I already agreed, as hired editor to do this. And prepared an article, which seems in my eyes as legit according to what I read. Please give it a fair chance and review it.  All we want is to have his name unblocked so we can submit to AFC. Whether I personally am experienced or not, should not have any bearing on this and should not be the reason the request gets pushed away.  Being an experienced editor or not is not a reason to push away someone from trying to have a page. At least you should give them the chance to submit an AFC. You can check the draft now and tell me what you think. If you think it does not have a good quality, we can hire an experienced Wikipedia editor to improve it,  someone that is known to comply with the disclosure policies and has a history of pages getting accepted. Dwnloda (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'd find much agreement that someone who, at most, barely passes our notability requirements "deserves a page" or at least that it's a good way to think of things. And I'd emphasise the 'at most' bit a lot. The interaction between WP:GNG and subject notability guidelines has recently received a lot of attention in the are of WP:NSPORTS, although at least in that case the vast majority of these came from volunteers. Even before then, many of us are naturally suspicious when a subject is allegedly notable under some WP:SNG, but there's no ability to demonstrate WP:GNG despite extensive efforts as we can assume you've done here, especially in the case where the specific area of the subject is one where we'd expected decent coverage (a musician involved in mainstream generally popular Western and often specifically American music). The SNG do make it clear "" Anyway back to my earlier point when you say stuff like that "deserve" bit, you're heading in the direction of editors who are creating problems for the subject you represent. You need to cut out any sense of entitlement if you want to engage productively with editors here. I'm going to AGF that this entitlement is only coming from you and not the subject despite the strong evidence to the contrary from the history, however if I'm AGFing too far, you need to convey the same message to them.  If someone passes our notability requirements, then we will generally keep an article if someone creates one that demonstrates that it meets the requirements; and it's of acceptable quality that it can appear in main space. Speaking of them "deserving" a page is at best unhelpful and at worse misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia and our notability guidelines. The quality part is a big issue here since articles created by paid editors are rarely suitable for main space being too promotional, lacking of sources etc.  There are plenty of subjects, including people, with significantly clearer notability, many of these in areas which we have poor coverage of who are far more "deserving" of an article, who volunteer editors are likely to be far more interested in spending their time on, than helping out a paid editor create an article on a subject we've already wasted way too much volunteer time on. Especially a paid editor who thinks we owe something to their client. Our lack of coverage in these areas, as far more unfair from the PoV of I expect nearly everyone here.  Further, as others have already said, there are plenty of existing articles which are a big mess, including many on living persons, which volunteers would much rather spend their time on. This includes unsourced controversies and other major problems which are far more unfair, in many cases where the subject never wanted an article. (Which is not to say it's fair to punish a subject by keeping a mess just because they helped create it.)  Another key point arises from this. As a WP:BLP/N regular I have ample experience on how articles on people who barely meet our notability guidelines are a maintenance mess especially when no volunteer is interested in creating one. (As that suggest no one volunteer is likely to maintain it, which is not to say articles created by volunteers have no problems just that the percentages are probably better.) In the case where these came from paid editors, either they stick around often unfairly removing content they shouldn't while continually adding promotional stuff, or they don't.  The later may seem great and it can be fine if nothing major happens and some troll doesn't come across the article. But every so often the subject gets into some mess/controversy. If we're lucky no decent sources cover it, then we just have to keep out editors trying to add this, which can be a problem if no one is paying attention. If we're unlucky decent sources do. And we then have to decide how to handle the situation where we have almost no coverage of the subject in decent sources other than whatever mess they got themselves in to. One common result of this is we end up deleting the article, which the subject if they're still around tends to now be very happy about.  Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne I thank you for your response. Although, you have neither agreed or disagreed if Kobi's name can be unblocked, which is the main issue. Again, my inexperience should have nothing to do with whether his name gets unblocked or not. All I am asking is to unblock his name so I can submit the page to AFC and someone can decide if its good. Rather than spending 10 minutes writing this long response, you could have simply just viewed the draft that I already posted in my Sandbox User:Dwnloda/sandbox and then tell us what you think about it. So would you mind to take 5 minutes and review it and then tell me if you can vote to unblock his name so we can submit an AFC? Dwnloda (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne Also, Check this list of paid editors who have many pages approved:
 * User:BC1278, User:SBCornelius. User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Work), User:16912 Rhiannon, User:CorporateM
 * So obviously they did quality work, so it is not right to attack paid editors or claim they do poor work. If it turns out my work is poor, we can hire one of these guys, so again Kobi should not be pushed away just because a paid editor is involved, which seems to be most of the opposing arguments above. It appears that everyone here hates paid editors so there is prejudice going on. I am automatically considered a low quality editor, without anyone even checking the draft that I made and posting any issues with it. Dwnloda (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors rightfully have a low tolerance for undisclosed paid editing, and an even lower one for sockpuppeting and attempts to ignore or bypass policy. If you're not coming here with the purpose of building an encyclopedia - even as a paid editor - you're doing it wrong. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) I am not an undisclosed paid editor. Just like you I have disclosed my paid editing. As a new editor I am willing to put in further time to edit more of the wikipedia and I promise that. However, again I feel like am personally being attacked. This decision of unblocking Kobi's name should not be because I am inexperienced. If I am the issue, then we can hire someone like you. I would appreciate if you can review the draft I posted in my user space User:Dwnloda/sandbox and tell me what you think. Do you think there are any issues with it? Dwnloda (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Everybody's Got Somebody but Me
I was trying to move Everybody's Got Somebody but Me to the correct title, as "but" is a conjunction and should be lowercase. However, I fatfingered and accidentally put a symbol in the title. Could someone please clean this up for me? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, although not as cleanly as a more competent admin would have done. i think everything is now in the right place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Page blanking that is impossible to revert due to proxy links
Hi, I'm not sure where to post this, but Confederate States of America was recently blanked in this edit here, creating a cyclic redirect to Confederate States and back. If I try and revert that edit, I get an error message about proxy links, and it won't let me publish my edit. Does anyone know how to solve this issue? Endwise (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * - done. There was a proxy link at the end of the sub-section titled "Horses and mules" (4.3.1). I removed it and replaced it with a CN tag.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Only the link had to be removed, not the reference. It's also on the publisher's site at https://www.historynet.com/southern-horse/. 82.132.185.134 (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lugnuts what is a proxy link? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - I only found out what this was today! OK, if you go to this version of that page, click edit and then publish you should get a big pink box at the top of the page with more info. That's the version of the page before it was blanked BTW.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The info in the pink box for those who don't want to take the trouble:
 * Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes a link or reference running through a local proxy – typically, the links include '.proxy.', '.gate.', 'ebsco', 'oclc' or similar in the domain. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy (sometimes even only in your current login session). The link is (often completely) useless for anyone who does not have access to the proxy of the institution that you are in.


 * NOTE: you will NOT be able to save this edit if you do not resolve the issue with the proxy link that you added in your edit.


 * Please replace the proxy links with direct links that do not use a proxy. Thanks!
 * TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing this. I can’t help but imagine this is problematic in general though — couldn’t any vandal target a page with proxy links, remove them in their edit along with their vandalism, and make it really hard for anyone to revert them? Endwise (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Short answer - yes. Although this is the first time (that I can recall) ever seeing this in all the years I've been here, so hopefully not a big problem (famous last words)...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You can often revert stuff like this with the rollback button, even if a standard edit or undo won't allow it. Unless they have gotten around to fixing that undocumented feature. MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've encountered it once, and looking at the search results for the various proxy addresses it seems that the use of these links is quite common - which is a problem beyond the issues it causes when a vandal removes them. However, it seems that some of these links can be converted to functional links through a replicable process; perhaps a task for a bot? BilledMammal (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I blocked the editor who made the change. The sum total of their edits so far are to break DAB pages by turning them into redirects and other nonsenese.  All have been reverted.  Whether it is perpetual innocent mistakes (WP:CIR) or intentional, I have no idea, but their editing is disrupting the rest of the encyclopedia, thus an indef block is warranted until they convince another admin they can edit without doing so.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dennis Brown: See also Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2. It's probably a LTA with at least one confirmed sock. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good find. I've tagged as such. No need for a SPI case.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for assistance to revert the article name
Hello admins, if in case my concerns were not intended in this section please consider addressing it to the correct section. Thank you. Recently, i created an article regarding the members of the Filipino boy group BGYO, but my concerns are the edits or the contributions made by on the following pages:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelo_(singer) = originally, the name of this article was Angelo Troy Rivera 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JL_(singer) = originally, the name of this article was John Lloyd Toreliza

I believe the changes in the article names were unnecessary and not constructive. Please help me to revert it to the original article names. Thank you admins.Troy26Castillo (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Troy26Castillo: You can move the pages back to their original title yourself by following the steps at Help:How to move a page. If you need any further assistance, please let me know. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @CX Zoom Thank you for the help. Much appreciation. Troy26Castillo (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought the last edit I made in the articles will return the original state of the page but as I can see now it's the article's original name only. I reviewed it again and it says like this: The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection. I believe I have a wrong question last time but what I truly meant is to revert the unnecessary changes made by in the articles. I am sorry for the confusion I caused regarding this matter. But for the last time, Is it possible to retrieve the original state of the articles? not as the redirected version. Thank you. Troy26Castillo (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Troy26Castillo: No you're alright, the page history shows only one activity from Kwikilover88. They moved "Angelo Troy Rivera" to "Gelo (singer)". Then you moved it back to "Angelo Troy Rivera". So, in a sense, you already undid it. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I did not get the notification. In the original edit you forgot to add the ping template. So you added it in a later edit. Pings work only when your signature is added in the same edit. If you ever forget pinging in original edit, just add a new line, with the ping and your signature. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @CX Zoom okey then. I thought I made a mistake. Thanks again.Troy26Castillo (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Firefly promoted to full clerk
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who meets the expectations for appointment and would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Duplicate
Two duplicate articles of Pakistan Premier League


 * 2021 Pakistan Premier League, created with wrong title on 15 October 2020


 * 2021–22 Pakistan Premier League, created with correct title on 28 January 2022. 103.141.159.231 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2021–22 Pakistan Premier League was copied from 2021 Pakistan Premier League; I've tagged it for speedy deletion, and then we can move the older article to the correct title. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved, though for the record db-move is better than db-a10 in these situations. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Eyes on J. K. Rowling TFA
J. K. Rowling, a WP:MILLION BLP subject to some controversy and under double discretionary sanctions (BLP and Gender) recently passed a rigorous Featured article review and will be Today's featured article on the mainpage this Sunday, June 26. Extra eyes appreciated, and especially, help with delivering discretionary sanction alert notices.

The article content enjoys broad consensus, after the most widely attended FAR I've ever witnessed, including five pages of talk discussion archives conducted in a fine collaborative effort among a couple dozen editors of varied opinions and editing strengths. The article content, lead, gender section, and TFA blurb were worked without acrimony; a hopeful example of Wikipedia collaborative effort at its finest. Thanks for any extra eyes on TFA day. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with someone adding extended-confirmed protection for a few days before it becomes necessary, contrary to the usual practice of not doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll call it now: this is absolutely, 100%, no-doubt-it going to blow up in our faces. Remind me not to log in tomorrow. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Distruption is likely to spill out to talk pages, and sub articles like Political views of J. K. Rowling. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's ever a case for IAR extended confirmed protection, this is it. I think we all know how this is going to end if we don't protect it ... Hog Farm Talk 15:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the need for semi, but why do we expect many autoconfirmed problem users? —Kusma (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because of the strength of feeling on all sides of the discussion, and our policies in the "controversial" area. I support the call for some protection btw. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as I haven't seen any evidence that semi has been insufficient on previous TFAs, I oppose increasing the protection level. —Kusma (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This also isn't a typical TFA - Battle of St. Charles (June 17) and Banksia canei (June 4) aren't exactly comparable in level of controversy. Although per Sandy I would like to hear the thoughts of the significant contributors to the article and the FAR. Hog Farm Talk 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not anticipate a call for more protection when I made this post asking for more eyes. Because of the exemplary collaborative effort that got the article to this point, I'd be in favor of at least giving it a chance, and only increasing protection if the community is unable to deal with any issues. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , most significant contributors, for their ideas as well. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is already semi-ed and has over 1,300+ watchers. I don't think we should preemptively increase the protection level. That can be done when a clear need arises, which may well happen tomorrow UTC but isn't guaranteed to. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason for increasing protection, unless the 'consensus'-in-question is changing. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also don't see the need for any pre-emptive increase in the protection level, as long as people are watching this and admins are prepared to increase the protection level if (probably when) necessary. A pre-emptive increase would seem like admitting that the Wikipedia model cannot deal with trolls, which I do not believe to be true. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No need for an increase in protection. All Sandy was calling for was an increase in watchers, which seems sensible. I will add it to my watchlist. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the Main Page is highly protected anyway. Not even I, can edit it. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The TFA blurb will be fully protected, yes, but the article itself is currently at the semi-protected level. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I know this couldn't have been foreseen, but the timing of this with the Roe decision and everything is pretty bad. Hilariously bad, even. One of the more tone-deaf options bad. Silver  seren C 21:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's quite possibly one of the worst TFA decisions in the history of Wikipedia. WaltCip- (talk)  16:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The 25th anniversary of Harry Potter seems like the perfect day for this article to me. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But poor timing for a person who has been consistently anti-feminist for the past several years. If the TFA was something that was actually Harry Potter for the anniversary, then things would be different. Silver  seren C 17:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When would be a good time? —Kusma (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A week ago or any time since April. Like I said, this couldn't have been foreseen, but with events on Friday, that ended up putting this TFA in an incredibly tone-deaf front page time period. Silver  seren C 18:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should a US supreme court ruling that applies to 4% of the world's population affect the running of an article about a British author on the main page? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it still affects the entire world in one way or another and affects movement of peoples internationally, along with potential rights implications elsewhere. And this British author is one who has been actively making herself the world representation for the anti-feminism groups through her actions (including all of the ones in the United States) and is thus one of the primary visual representations of them. Silver  seren C 19:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Her article does not seem to mention either her position on abortion or any opposition to feminism – do you think these are missing so the article is not comprehensive? As far as I am aware, the Rowling controversy is about transgender rights, not about reproductive rights. If I am wrong, then perhaps her article needs to be updated. —Kusma (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to get into a discussion of how the anti-trans groups are also anti-feminist groups working alongside various far right conservative groups against women's rights? There's a reason why it's being noted that various of the women Rowling hangs out with and supports by name have been making statements of "abortion rights being an acceptable sacrifice" over this weekend. But, again, is this really a conversation we need to have, here especially? Silver  seren C 19:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes: you said it is obvious that JKR is a bad choice as TFA (a completely unsupported claim), and I am telling you it is not obvious at all (it is different from, say, featuring Osama bin Laden on 9/11). "We can't have her on the Main Page because she hangs out with the wrong kind of people" isn't an argument I find acceptable in a neutral encyclopaedia. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see it both ways. While the 25th anniversary of the release of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a natural time to have a TFA on that book's author per Kusma, I also agree with Silverseren that given the news that broke on Friday with respect to Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that given the controversy surrounding Rowling on feminist issues (particularly transgender people and transfeminism) it does seem rather tone deaf.
 * I will say however that this TFA was drafted, discussed, and approved back in April, long before we could have anticipated the judgement of Dobbs being released. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that these sorts of arguments can effectively be used to prevent the TFA being ever run - effectively subjecting the front page to external censorship.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. "Tone deaf" is a less-than-useful complaint to bring up because virtually any date can have "bad optics", especially for an encyclopedia with a global purview. You could argue given the state of LGBT rights in the world there's never a good time to run Rowling's article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All of this is hopefully good advertising for wider participation at WP:TFAR. TFAs are scheduled based on community consensus: get involved there if you disagree with the scheduling. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Close it
Assuming that the bio-in-question is sufficiently being watched, more now then ever. Why is this AN report still open? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As the person who opened the thread, asking for more eyes, I would be fine should someone decide now to close it. TFA has served its purpose; some article improvements have occurred as a result of more eyes on the article, some issues have been raised that are being worked on, and contrary to some opinions expressed early on, Wikipedia did not break and in fact, did just fine.  The JKR FAR experience has been the very example of how collaborative editing is intended to work.  Thanks to all who lent a hand. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is fine to close this thread, but I would like to note that the article had only just above 50 edits today so far (many of them minor copyedits, or attempts at that) and has not required increased protection. —Kusma (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We've had an interesting BLPN thread (ping ) and an AE block (ping ); the initially proposed extended-confirmed protection would indeed not have had an effect on edits by these experienced users. There has been less controversy than perhaps expected, but not none. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

your close indicates "off main page"; it still has several hours to run. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Adjusted. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Appealing the closure of an RfC
I was told: "I believe WP:AN is the default venue for appeals of miscellaneous closures that aren't covered by the RM and AFD processes mentioned above..." 

I'd therefore like to initiate an appeal regarding the closure of this RfC. It seems like the closing administrator did not actually review the extensive body of arguments. Israell (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you try talking to them instead of about them as a first step? and, why didn't you recommend this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment by closing admin: my RFC closure was directly related to the ANI closure. Review of the RFC should include the ANI. Also pinging  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO the closure of the RfC is fine. It's No Consensus anyway, even without the involvement of some highly suspect account behaviour (as listed in the ANI) which all !voted "Support". There is a certain irony to the OP's suggestion that there was an "extensive body of arguments" as many of the possibly-canvassed accounts are merely parroting - sometimes badly - the comments of others. Black Kite (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse. One could see range of arguments from both sides so a 'no consensus' close could be recommendable. It needs to be noted that the RfC closure was reflecting the chain of events such as subsequent accusations of canvassing, ANI thread, accusation of racism, etc. and that's why it was a valid closure. Orientls (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding accusations of canvassing, the same observations were made against some of those editors who voted “Oppose.” With all due respect, what makes this RfC particular is that admins generally do not understand how the sales are calculated. If we reword anything, it would have to include a mathematical equation that anyone can look at and agree to. The problem is, the equation that Harout72 uses for these pages ONLY exists on Wikipedia. It is also unsourced and his own original research, and it's been that way for 12 years. WP:NOR

Another problem is the fact that record sales of Michael Jackson are largely uncertified. According to ‘Guinness’, the ‘Thriller’ album sold 4 million units in Brazil, but it was not certified there, whereas Madonna is certified for almost 4 million records in that country. Michael has almost no certifications in Brazil but has still verifiably sold millions there.

ChartMasters is a great source for record sales figures, but it was proscribed on Wikipedia—unduly so, I believe. Taking digital certifications along with the physical certifications into consideration, tens of millions of new certifications of Michael Jackson are missing. Updating the sales of ‘Thriller’ to 100 million is much reasonable, esp. since it is a figure given by many reliable sources incl. USA RIAA, UK BPI, Rolling Stones, CNN, Broadway World, New York Times, Telegraph and MTV.

And just because some editors agree with one another doesn’t mean they are just “parroting” one another. Once again, such observations have been made regarding both sides. It was never determined for certain that such mass-canvassing had taken place; the closure should therefore not have been influenced by such allegations. Israell (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg
Hi, I’m here to fill a complaint against user:Xpërt3 for vandalizing File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg, I uploaded a file from someone’s work on Wikipedia and it really matched the once’s on the royal decree’s source on the summary, meanwhile that user is reverting the edits Because of his speculations and interpretations. Saying that the royal court’s ones doesn’t look like my version and the one he uploaded does which in fact doesn’t make sense at all since his version is from an unreliable source (Construction Sheet) while my is from government especially the constitution, I don’t want to dispute with him and going further and further with him, all I want is to give him some warning or Barring him from editing that file since my position is very clear and I don’t need to put myself into an endless disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz bm (talk • contribs) 04:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not notify, as is required for ANI reports involving a specific user. Additionally, the file is hosted on Commons, so this issue is outside the scope of Wikipedia; the edit warring issue should be raised at c:COM:ANI instead, and I am doing so for you. I would also open an RfC at Talk:Flag of Saudi Arabia ver. As the version by Xpërt3 is identical to the status quo, I'll side with them as the naïve position, and since your version is identical to File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg, I have restored the status quo.For those who do not recognize the difference between the two contested versions, the one that Aziz bm asserts is wrong has a different calligraphy, which matches the 1938–1973 version: –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 08:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see c:Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems for more details; there is still a heated dispute over which flag should be used, as both versions of the calligraphy seem to be in use. Captions above are now obsolete. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 17:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Page creation and move confusion
Can someone with a brain working better than mine is today look at Special:Contributions/Wangbeotkkot 2022 and try to make sense of what's going on? There are page moves, pages created in the Wikipedia space, user pages... I'm not sure what the target for this user is, could someone else review please? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article from Kim Ku Lim to Kim Ku Lim (which has now been moved to Kim Kulim) and tagged User:Kim Kulim for deletion (per WP:U2). There are a couple redirects at Kim Kulim and Kim Ku-lim that should be deleted as well (they are redirects to User:Kim Kulim). -Niceguyedc (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. I couldn't parse anything that was going on there. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The article was moved to Draft:Kim Kulim without a redirect, but the user in question copy/pasted the article back at Kim Kulim. So now there is a copy in both draftspace and mainspace. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A somewhat puzzling topic
This editor / user along with two or more of their friends try to take over articles. On top of that they seek to draw other users into a debate, argument, conflict, or such and get them into a difficulty with 3RR or other reverting.

There is no recourse other than going to ANI or almost canvassing for admins to stop the problems. Said users ignore their talk pages, often pay no attention to efforts to get a consensus through talk pages on a page, etc.

These users evidently aren't going to go anywhere. Must we leave 2 or 3 dozen "pop culture" articles to their usurpation? No good options here.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: Pictureperfect2 has now opened a similar thread on WP:ANI. It would probably be better dealt with there, assuming some actual evidence is provided... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A probably related thread by FrB.TG involving pictureperfect2 exists at WP:AN3. Duonaut(talk &#124; contribs) 11:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Duonaut, you're hardly editing and now you're here on noticeboards? You said your editing interests have been clerical.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the existence of a related thread is the sort of thing I'd expect from an editor who's interest is clerical so I don't know where you're going with that. Whatever the case I'm certain it is no where good so I suggest you drop it and concentrate on the ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Partial block question
Recently, I issued an indefinite partial block for a user on a specific page for BLP violations. Another admin added a second page to the partial block. Then the user continued to spread the BLP violation on the first article's talk page and I issued a full sitewide block for one week. After the full block expired, the partial blocks were gone. Is there any way that indefinite partial blocks can remain after the expiration of a temporary sitewide block? I know the non-technical answer is to do what I did, reissue the partial blocks after the sitewide block expired, but I wish this was automatic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I too often issue partial blocks which I call pageblocks, and find quite useful. It would be very useful to have the automatic functionality that Mobushgu describes without the administrator having to remember to go back and reimpose the partial blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You were that other admin I was referring to. You probably remember the user I'm alluding to. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328, FWIW, the User:SD0001/W-Ping script is great. You can set it to ping you to any page after any length of time. valereee (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a way: Implementing phabricator task T202673 in MediaWiki. Or in other words, there is no way for us yet. For IP address blocks, you can create multiple blocks on overlapping ranges (such as a partial block on two IPv6 /65 ranges supplementing a sitewide block on the /64 that encompasses both). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would need to go back to college at age 70 to learn how to do that, which would require deep study of the meaning of what you just wrote, . That is not going to happen. If I went back to college, it would be to take a class in painting or writing poetry. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is currently not possible to place multiple blocks on the same Wikipedia account at the same time. For example, it is not possible to block an account from editing the page Earth for two weeks while also blocking them from editing Mars for three weeks.
 * However, if we're dealing with someone who does not use an account, we see their IP address. It is possible to place multiple blocks on the same IP address at the same time. For example, it is possible to block all IP addresses starting with "123.456." from editing Earth for two weeks, while also blocking all IP addresses starting with "123." from editing Mars for three weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Kashmir Files RfC
This is a request to review the close at Talk:The Kashmir Files to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer here. I believe the closure's assertion that arguments for option C being against NPOV were not refuted was incorrect, and an incorrect summary and reading of the discussion, as multiple editors argued for the neutrality of option C and it's adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I request that this RfC be reclosed. regards, TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am loathe to challenge experienced closers but you do appear to be right... Perhaps its just an error in phrasing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Multiple editors gave detailed reasons as to why option C failed NPOV. Nobody refuted that in any way, simply asserted it. If option C fails NPOV it cannot be considered, and given the multiple editors demonstrating that it did fail NPOV and nobody offering any reason for why it does not I couldnt give preference to those arguing for strict adherence to FLIMLEAD over NPOV. That left A and B, and the objections to B were much stronger than A. Beyond that, while Option C did have numerous supports, it also had numerous explicit opposes. I also slightly discounted the handful of users with a trivial number of edits prior to that discussion. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are aware that "no consensus" is an option? The fact pattern you've laid out only makes sense if the closer is being forced to pick one of the options, but thats just not the case IRL. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware, but I also see consensus against option B, and see option A as having general support. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So was "That left A and B" just a slip of the tongue and you meant "That left A, B, and no consensus"? You're also skipping past the point that option C appears to have significant support which you can't handwave away with "one guy said it didn't meet NPOV and nobody ever directly refuted them." I've never seen a closer do that and I'm pretty sure theres a good reason for that... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasnt one guy, and sure no consensus was always an option. And yes, I addressed option C already. It is not handwaving to say that one of the options was convincingly shown to be a NPOV violation and that was not addressed, and per NPOV that rules it out, no matter how many people raise their hand for it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (Commenting as as an admin involved with the page) Note that a no-consensus close would leave the status quo wording in place per the page restricton I had imposed and that is a version that has so little (no?) support that it was not even nominated as one of the proposals in the pre-RFC discussion. Abecedare (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats very interesting, but it doesn't appear that the closer was aware of that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * the "detailed arguments" were assertions by Fowler et al that the film was controversial and the lead must call it "fictional" to have a "countervailing effect". this was refuted by many others who pointed out that controversy, political or not, is no reason to stuff criticism into the first paragraph as shown by hundreds of popular film articles, such as Cuties, other propagandist political films, and whole film section of Featured articles. I don't see how that claim is tenable in any sense.
 * The claims of other editors pulling out FRINGE etc were already discussed and refuted in the pre-RfC discussions with Fowler. Perhaps the closer missed that background. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not read anything besides the RFC no. I think you are understating the NPOV arguments. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Involved !voter - The closer appears to have missed my rejoinder to V93 where I emphasized that there is no policy or practice which imposes upon us to ensure NPOV in every single line of content, divorced from its succeeding content. Policies request of us to write a NPOV lead; not "NPOV first line", "NPOV second line", and so on. I have nothing significant against A but this closure is ridiculous. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I did see that, but I also saw you say C >~ A and that you I can see the grounds for a possible exception given the constant efforts of the film-maker to market it as a documentary that unearths the TRUTH of Kashmir. I actually found your comment to be very well put and substantive and was one of the reasons I found consensus for A. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will not oppose but you needed to write a better and more detailed closing statement. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no way to close this as anything other than "Strong opposition to B; almost equal well-argued support for A and C". The closer cannot cast a supervote to decide whether my or V93's arguments win. That Abecedare's restriction necessitates a winner: do a headcount between A and C. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont know what supervote I cast here. The only viewpoint I presented is that NPOV trumps FILMLEAD, and that if NPOV is violated it doesnt matter if FILMLEAD is met. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed! NPOV is a "non-negotiable policy" and FILMLEAD is just a style guide. People don't seem to understand the difference! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was about to write the same, that NPOV must be achieved while FILMLEAD (MOS) ought to be achieved — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , The question isn't whether FILMLEAD triumphs NPOV. of course it doesn't. it's about the correct reading of the discussion and whether or not it's even true that option C violated NPOV. the closer's assertion are not supported by the discussion—I believe all arguments against the neutrality of option C were adequately answered, by multiple editors, multiple times. other than that we only have brute assertions and "perceptions" that it isn't neutral, which flies in the face of all logic and Wikipedia precedent on the interpretation of policy. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is mainly that the discussion found no consensus that option C violated NPOV. There were assertions, arguments and counterarguments. The closer's decision to ignore all that and imply the supporters of option C are ignoring NPOV without presenting any counterarguments is a misreading of the discussion and constitutes a supervote. As such, the RfC needs a reclose. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support for the closure. As the initiator of proposal B, and as the author of every phrase, every clause, and every sentence of proposal A, except for felicitous moderation by Mathsci's fine ear for the language, and some minor reshuffling by others, I support this decision. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Agnihotri has other fish to fry. Good job Nableezy!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Without pointing to anyone in particular, the pussyfooters who appeared on this page to dicker with the lead after the film's director's temper tantrum on Twitter about Wikipedia's unfair coverage, or the drivebys-of-the-moment who have appeared at the RfC, treating this glorified and dangerous propaganda film&mdash;to be on par with Pather Panchali, Rashomon, or the masterpieces of Lang, Eisenstein, De Sica, or Goddard, when in fact as a propaganda film it does not rise to Riefenstahl's 1933 effort let alone Triumph of Will or Olympia&mdash;to be deserving of the ministrations of FILMLEAD and proposing that this is only a film article, are in my view, interfering with Wikipedia's primary purpose of telling the reliable truth, and of bearing witness without let or hindrance.  This is all I have to say on this matter.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Your repeated attempts, throughout the pre-RfC discussions and now here, to cast aspersions at the motives of editors in good standing borders on assuming bad faith. 2. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Our goal is to present a neutral summary of the subject. Whether or not the various proposals achieve that has already been discussed in the RfC and before, the contention here is whether the close assessed the consensus of the discussions correctly. The question never was of deciding between FILMLEAD and NPOV—but whether there even is a conflict between the two in this case. I believe the consensus emerges in the discussion that there isn't—option C fulfills both. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't recall seeing a more cringe-evoking comment on Wikipedia. User:Fowler&fowler, thanks for gracing us with your "I am very smart" wall of text. Best wishes, NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. This specific brand of chest-thumping would be parsed as parody coming from most people, but peculiarly seems to be the editor's default mode of communication. I assume it works well on Reddit or something. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do the hard work and you get to facilely Wikilawyer? How is that uncringeworthy? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You = the lot of you. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse the close I don't see anything wrong with the close maybe it could have been worded better for some, but undoing the close for that is unnecessary. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * B definitely fails, based on that discussion, so the closer's got to choose between A, C, and the status quo ("no consensus"). Status quo in the case of that article is a moving target, because it changed rapidly during the discussion, and it's also basically a bad close because editors went to RFC looking for a way on, and no consensus doesn't do that. This case called for a decision rather than a compromise. I believe that I too would have preferred A over C, had I been the closer.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse B fails, A is better than C in summarizing the article as 'dramatization' is pretty close to a weasel word looking to obscure the reality of the article. Slywriter (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh crumbs, I've made yet another misteak
Articles for deletion/Clavius Base should be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clavius Base Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(2nd nomination) Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think you mean Articles for deletion/Clavius Base (2nd nomination), but you never made any addition or contributed any text to an AFD (anywhere) that I can see, so I can't copy anything over. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see where it entered the log or did anything except put the template on the page. I would just revert the template and try again.  Odd that it was deleted on Jan 31 2006, and recreated in Feb of the same year and has hung on since then.  I don't think we can G4 it, given the time since recreation.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism from 176*
There is vandalism coming from this IP range; the vandal replaces reliable sources with their own fantasies (for example, they remove the origins of the names of Russian rivers which are sourced to the Fasmer dictionary and writes their Sanscrit names instead, which of course have no relation to the names which are not of Indo-European origin), or sometimes adds gibberish to the articles. So far I have identified and blocked three IPs. Could somebody please help me to identify the relevant range (so that I can revert the edits) and see whether a range block, possibly a long-term one, would be in order? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked the /25 for a couple of weeks,, on the principle of minimum force; happy to widen or extend that if needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/176.65.112.0/25. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, much appreciated. Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC shutdown request due to sockpuppets Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling
Can you check the sockpuppet issue here and shut down RFC? Sockpuppets are voting the same way as initiator.

Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

ANI ongoing here - hopefully you can coordinate. Thanks. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've shut down the RM (not sure if I've done it correctly) & as far as I know, nobody's opened up an SPI on anyone. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * unfortunately closing down an RM is a little more complex than just removing the tag at the top of the section. In general a closure needs a formal rationale, even if it's a procedural one. There are some instructions at WP:RMCI if you're interested! For now I have closed it myself, with a rationale of "withdrawn by nominator" with a note about the confusion that the apparent socking had caused. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

admin accounts offered for sale in an online forum


Hi, I found this post, where some accounts from the en.wiki are listed for selling: https://www.playerup.com/threads/selling-old-wikipedia-admins-accounts-6-years-to-20-years.5416388/

this includes @Slavuta33 @RegentsPark @Pschaeffer @Jorrojorro @Elli and @RHB100 ඞඞඞHatsuneMilku(&#61;^ ◡ ^&#61;) (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dunno what playerup.com is, but I'm sure not clicking on that link. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a forum showing a post where someone has, likely doctored, screenshots showing them logged in with admin accounts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PlayerUp is a site where people can sell accounts to various sites. It's shady as all get out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Only RegentsPark is an admin... they and Elli are the only active accounts, so if the others start editing again I'd say a block is appropriate for being compromised, but otherwise I don't think there's anything going here. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Those two editors have been notified, btw. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you're selling your account for $1,000, . That's outrageous! What are you thinking? As we all know, admin accounts cost $500, not a penny more. If you want $1,000, you're gonna need to run for crat first. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 13:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do they do any discount for bulk purchase? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hold on, so there's an option for me to A) make money and B) break my Wikipedia addiction? <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And with inflation like it is, really how can you afford to not sell your account? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Jorrojorro has been blocked for almost 4 years for disruption as well. Also I looked at the link and it's a bad PS job on those screen shots. Also, I'll settle for no less than $2,500. Not one penny less. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't believe someone would open photoshop for that, when they could just edit the HTML to change the name displayed. Inefficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * User talk:Elli/Archive 8:
 * Nardog (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Who cares about admin accounts for sale? The far more interesting question is: how much is the indef-blocked account going for?  This is like the underpants gnomes business plan, except instead of "?", step 2 is apparently "find someone who will pay money for an indef-blocked account". --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * aw, man. too slow again.  feel free to delete or archive if you feel the need. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, I figured the silliness would continue past it, I just wanted an obvious indicator that this wasn't a five-alarm fire. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think anybody would support me? -Roxy the bad tempered dog 14:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

About User:Eric multiple deleted entries about climate data.
User:Eric has repeatedly deliberately deleted parts of the article about climate without any valid reason, and its behavior involved inappropriate behavior under WP:POINT. After his disruptive editing behavior was discouraged by multiple users, he still went his own way. Hope the admins will consider topic ban on the climate topic as appropriate for this inappropriate behavior.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 迷斯拉10032号 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * From the instructions for posting in this forum: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. In this and the previous frivolous posting here regarding my clean-up efforts, the above user has failed to notify me of the posting. I would suggest that the user endeavor to become more familiar with procedures before calling out to admins. Eric talk 14:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have a question since you've provided no diffs. When you say "After his disruptive editing behavior was discouraged by multiple users", where are you referring to? I looked at your previous AN/I thread about this topic as well as the WikiProject Weather discussion and I don't see what you're describing. If anything, I see agreement with Eric that the content is problematic in their current state. I think it would be helpful to provide diffs to back up what you're saying, or at minimum provide links to these prior discussions you're referring to. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I went for a deeper look to maybe see if I could find what you're referring to, but I came up empty. You say that he deleted edits without any valid reason, yet reasons were given, both in edit summaries and in the discussion on WikiProject Weather. Just because you disagree with the reason doesn't mean it's not a valid reason. You say he's being WP:POINTy, but looking through his recent diffs I can't find any evidence of such, and would highly advise you to read WP:NOTPOINTy. Not a single thing you have said can be substantiated based on a review of his recent contributions, so I have to ask, can you provide proof for any of these claims? - Aoidh (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But "reverting addition of unnecessary climate section that dwarfs the rest of the article" is not a valid reason for removal of properly sourced contents. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 23:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, Ohana. Did you visit the WikiProject Weather discussion linked above? Eric talk 00:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I think there can be an argument that it's putting too much weight on a climate table when ~53% of an article's size is one table with a single source, especially when there's a smaller more concise template that can be used, and when there's some agreement on the WikiProject talk page that such content is too much for a smaller article. I'm not saying it's a perfect argument, but I do think it's one that does have some rationale behind it. - Aoidh (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I read about this type of article, because comparing the French original with the current English entry, there is a lot to be translated in the French version. All entries are never a final result, and the weight of a source within an article (provided it must be reliable) cannot be a reason for its removal.
 * In addition, I also had a period of editing experience on Chinese Wikipedia. The behavior of User:Eric is actually in line with the Chinese Wikipedia's judgment on the behavior of WP:GAME, but the English Wikipedia seems to This definition is rather vague. Before this there was a case where User:離心力青蛙/w:zh:LTA:FROG was blocked indefinitely. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, where are the diffs showing that "multiple editors" discouraged his editing? Where is the evidence that his edits violated WP:POINT? - Aoidh (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See edit history for page Ciboure, with User:Canterbury Tail's revocation, User:Eric stopped disrupting the page. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh he stopped? But above you said he ignored multiple other editors and continued? Which is it? That page's edit history doesn't even come close to supporting the claims you made in your comment above. This is so contrary to what you claimed about multiple editors commenting on his disruptive behavior to the point where I'd argue that you're bordering on personal attacks by making such baseless claims against another editor. I'm guessing your comment about WP:POINT is equally as baseless since you have not supplied any evidence for that claim either. - Aoidh (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * each Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines. While experience in editing other Wikipedia is often useful, you need to ensure you comply with the policies and guidelines on the Wikipedia you are on. And whatever you do in the Chinese Wikipedia, content being sourced does not mean it always belongs despite the unfortunate implication of OhanaUnited's comment above. Some content despite being covered in sources simple does not belong on the English Wikipedia because it's not the sort of thing we cover or because it's way too much information for any encyclopaedia article. To give an obvious related example, there's a good chance that large table of some random specific location's detailed historic climate data going back 100 years is not something that belongs in any English Wikipedia article.. I said below I'm not intending to comment on the content issue, at the time I hadn't looked at the content. Now that I have it's the sort of thing we do normally allow so I'm unconvinced about the removal, however I stick by my main comment which is that ultimately that's a decision for discussion and the mere presence of sources does not mean it belongs. Also if you're going to imply that a 16 year old account is somehow related to a sock, you need very good evidence or you should withdraw your suggestion or face a block for a personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just citing the case of a user on Chinese Wikipedia, not that he abused multiple accounts. At the same time, I exercise restraint and ensure that my actions are in line with the community's requirements for WP:CIV. While most of his editorial behavior seems fairly normal, the deliberate removal of climate data templates from articles without justification is inherently inappropriate. I hope that the party User:Eric will recognize the mistake and withdraw all controversial deletions. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * can't say I agree. Sure the comment should have referred more to specific policies and guidelines but such a comment seems to obviously raise WP:UNDUE and maybe WP:NOT concerns. Content being sourced doesn't mean it belongs. To be clear, I have no opinion on whether the content belongs, that's a discussion for the article talk pages or something. Maybe a centralised discussion if it concerns multiple article. I'm simply pointing out that a comment like "reverting addition of unnecessary climate section that dwarfs the rest of the article" does raise even if not in a well explained way legitimate content concerns that should be discussed rather than simply dismissed because they were not perfectly explained. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all Meteo-France is the official data platform of the French Meteorological Service, and France is a member of the World Meteorological Organization, and its data is also recognized by WMO, so it should be a reliable source. In addition, if you think that climate data accounts for too much of the article, you can consider other ways to optimize, such as setting the climate data template to be off by default. In addition, I can describe the climate of the place in three sentences at most. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * UNDUE what? Don't randomly cite policies without actually reading what the policy is about. UNDUE policy is in reference to viewpoints that are published in reliable sources and avoid giving minority views too much detail. And MeteoFrance is a French government department that participates in WMO (just like NOAA). Their data 100% meets the reliable source criteria. The climate box that 迷斯拉10032号 contained only facts that are properly sourced. The numbers are impartial and did not have any text that advocate certain views. It certainly is encyclopedic content. This discussion is about why Eric removed these contents while not having any policies to back it up. Revert wars are user conduct disputes. And 迷斯拉10032号 is right to bring it here because it is of interest to admins. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 18:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why you assume Nil Einne didn't read WP:UNDUE, or why you suggest that content having reliable sources means that it must be included in an article, especially through the lens of other policies such as WP:VNOT. Neutral point of view says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject..." and the argument that historical weather data is a minor aspect that probably should not take up over half of the article is a valid argument under that policy. While you personally may not agree that the information is undue, and consensus may end up being against Eric, that doesn't mean that he removed the content "while not having any policies to back it up." - Aoidh (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello all- Though I don't think this is the ideal place to discuss the content I reverted, as I attempted to address that elsewhere from the outset; In the interest of providing context, here is an example of what I see to be an unhelpful addition to a short article on a village of 362 people in France: Quintenic before, Quintenic after. While I do not see the utility of an extended climate narrative and large data table to any article on an individual municipality, I could see an argument for it in an article covering a country or a large region. Eric talk 11:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I reiterate that neither of your reasons for removing climate data from your article without reason is justified. You said that adding a climate template in the article affects the layout of the article, and you said that adding a template for climate data in a village with a few hundred people makes no sense. The reality is that these two reasons of yours are not tenable at all, because there are so many articles like Antipayuta, Deputatsky, Grise Fiord, Resolute], King Salmon, and Makkovik, there are hundreds of such articles on the English Wikipedia. Why is there no problem with people writing climate data, but a problem with me? Also, I have withdrawn all of your actions to delete climate data. If you are determined to delete it, I will apply for a topic ban for you in accordance with the regulations, and finally know that your account has been blocked. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All disruptive deletions made by User:Eric have been withdrawn, and if persistent, the person will be notified of a level 4 (most severe) warning. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why your argument is basically irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make the same point I made the last time this came up. I have no view on whether or not the template should be included, but when added it really must be added with "| width=auto" as a parameter to stop it from taking up its own full lines and taking over the articles. And preferably with "| collapsed = true" for small articles. This stops the takeover of articles (and I don't know why these aren't in the template by default.) <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether to report this user or simply ignore the edit-warring and tendentious statements: Special:Contributions/迷斯拉10032号. Rather than engaging in a collaborative manner in content discussion on the topic's project talkpage, the user makes frivolous reports here, issuing diatribes and dire warnings without substantiation. Advice, anyone? Eric talk 14:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a content issue, which is outside this noticeboard's purview and should learn to first start a new topic in a user's talk page to engage in discussion before running straight to AN(I). I'm not amused by 迷斯拉10032号's casting of aspersions in their edit summaries, see  and  for examples. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

1Lib1RefNG junk-references
I don't know who is running this edit-a-thon, but they seem to be going for quantity and have no idea about WP:RS. Common cites being added include Google books that are copy-paste of enwiki content (that do not cite us!), various wikipedia mirror or aggregation sites, and other collected-search-results links. If anyone can trace the origin, might want to alert them how poorly it seems to be going. DMacks (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, this again... Wikimedia User Group Nigeria is responsible, you can find them at Meta. Fram (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Olaniyan Olushola is their chairman, their secretary is banned from enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And User:Atibrarian seems to be responsible for the 1Lib1RefNG campaign. Fram (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have started handing out short-term WP:DE blocks for hashtag-campaign offenders after a single warning, because contacting the coordinators has (so far) been unsuccessful in getting things changed. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Fram,
 * Thanks for the TAG, however, insinuating I am responsible for the campaign is a kind of tool bold statement to make when you have already ascertained that [| Wikimedia User Group Nigeria] "is responsible" for the program.
 * I am only a participant interested in improving Wikipedia with reliable and verifiable references.
 * Going forward, i will notify the organisers to look into the concerns raised by User:DMacks.
 * Warm regards. Fatimah (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good start. DMacks (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really a good start, when they don't want to take responsability for their own actions: this makes it pretty clear that you are responsible for the campaign, and your comment above about me "insinuating" the same looks really poor. You are the contact person, you are asking for a grant, you should take the responsability, not act as if you have little or nothing to do with it and are "only a participant" who will "notify the organisers". Fram (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that in response to the question in the grant application "How have you let relevant Wikimedia communities know about this proposal? You are required to provide links to on-wiki pages to inform these communities about your proposed work. Examples of places where this can be done include community discussion pages, affiliate discussion pages, or relevant project talk pages." the organiser provided a link to Meta. Is the English Wikipedia not a relevant community? Where did the organiser notify us? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have not meticulously gone through this [| proposal] to see it's not an approved grant. The proposed date of execution has elapsed without approval and yet you are referring to it as evidence. Fatimah (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So you made a grant proposal for this, with you as the contact person: but because the grant isn't approved, you no longer are responsible and your project spontaneously started, after you posted on the user group that it started. Sure... Fram (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Fram, Is it possible to kick off a program that wasn't discussed let alone being funded?
 * I honestly don't know or understand the point you are trying to prove with your continued claims that I am responsible for the edit-a-thon.
 * Here is a link to the project meta page and here dashboard link in which the organisers and coordinator/facilitator is obvious, you rather have me to accept your unsubstantiated claims than reach out to the organizers yourself. Quite unfortunate.
 * Regards. Fatimah (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. You can also reach out to the organizer here. Warm Regards. Fatimah (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095 for a previous similar issue with low-quality edits from an initiative by the same people (before that it was a photography contest from WPNigeria where pictures were added left and right indiscriminately, and before that probably others I don't remember now). Fram (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another thread from March 2022 at the AN archives. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hashtag search in case it helps anyone else. —Kusma (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to investigate further, but I'm seeing a lot of references to Nigeria's version of the Who's Who guide (called BLERF). Sounds less pay-money-to-be-listed than Who's Who, though. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Review admin block and subsequent admin action of UTRS appeal by Swarm
I would just like to get a general feeler for this because I felt it was an incorrect usage of the tools and then violation of policy to action the same admin action. I will try to list out the bullets, but the full timeline and comments are on my talk page here: User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_11
 * I was blocked for a tban violation.
 * I was having a conversation regarding the block on my own talk page
 * I complained about it and vented a bit.
 * The person who initiated it gave their reasoning.
 * I responded I am OK with a block and I am OK with taking time off, I just didn't like how it went down, and then told them to stay off my talk page.
 * Swarm then came in and said I was being disruptive, reset the block and revoked talk page access.
 * I filed an UTRS appeal
 * Swarm posted that the UTRS appeal is denied

I don't want to relitigate anything or discuss anything but posting on your own talk page, and posting about an immediate block isn't disruptive and is usually not seen as such in past history, especially when you are not forced to be there. Acting on an appeal of a block you initiated is also not something that I think is within policy.

Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you asking for a review of a block from October 2019? Because I'm pretty sure that isn't going to be happening. The time to do this would have been, well, then. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I wanted the block removed from my log because in my experience it's used against me. I followed procedure and asked ARBCOM. ARBCOM said they need to hear from the community because the policy says ARBCOM or community can decide. I am asking now because I don't think it's fair to have this (or others) in my log. I am also not asking for a full review, just if it's usual policy to block on talk pages and action on a UTRS for your own block. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You've got at least seven (or is it eight?) non-overturned blocks in your block log (it's a bit difficult to read), and we don't generally edit block logs. I don't think the last one is particularly an issue, especially as it wasn't a block in itself (that was set by Yunshui), but merely a reset of four days by Swarm for misusing a talk page.  But even without that ... Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're asking for log deletion? Or log suppression? Because you didn't mention that above. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to wikilawyer (but I will anyway), and Sir Joseph, I do understand the impetus for the request, but I have to believe this is one where something like the doctrine of laches applies. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like the bad blocks to be removed from my block log so it's not seen. If that can be done by suppression, then fine. I do agree with Dumuzid that it's been a while, but I don't think that should stop a discussion on this. Plus, I did appeal to ARBCOM right away, I just took a wikibreak and I don't usually edit certain areas anymore, but there are times when people have used my log in a conversation and I feel if I can remove even a couple, then that is worthwhile.
 * I don't want to relitigate, but just wanted to get feelers out to see if the actions were appropriate. (This is why I posted on AN and not ANI.) Sir Joseph (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to understand what procedure/policy you were referring to above, because as far as I'm aware logs are only removed in extraordinary circumstances and usually by ArbCom or the oversight team. What exactly did ArbCom ask you to ask the community for here? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They told me they couldn't do it without input from the community quoting the policy that community or ARBCOM can decide to suppress. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I make no comment on what, if anything, should or is likely to happen now. But as a general principle, it is clearly wrong for an admin to revoke talk page access and then reject the UTRS appeal against that revocation - it should be left to another admin to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But is that what happened? The only UTRS appeal on that talk page archive is, which was handled solely by . Sir Joseph's timeline above doesn't seem to match what's on the talk page or UTRS. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what happened as I can't see UTRS, and I haven't commented on that. I merely stated a general principle which should apply in such cases. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, yes, it's settled policy that you don't decline appeals of your own blocks. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * From the above it appears that Swarm simply posted the result of 331dot reviewing the appeal. I don't see anything exceptional in this case that would justify removing a log entry. If I get wrongly blocked there will be a log entry for it, and I will expain the circumstances if necessary. A log is simply a record of what happened, whether right or wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the UTRS log #27110 timed 2019-10-12 21:56:59 and can confirm that it was 331dot who declined Sir Joseph's request for talk page access to be restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I don't think it's hard to presume why I thought otherwise. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been a misunderstanding. Can we close this now? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious about the revocation of talk page access, especially after I said I was done with the conversation. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Typically, talk page access is provided so the blocked user can post a block appeal. If they use it otherwise then talk page access may be removed. As this was reviewed by 331dot at the time and the block is long expired, I don’t propose to look into it further. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Close as stale The only other outstanding issue, of who denied the unblock, has been answered and there isn't a basis for action here. This isn't saying Swarm was right/wrong/harsh/gentle, just that it's a bit late to appeal.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the log; no convincing reason for log deletion was presented so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , the advice that I would give to you is to conduct yourself going forward in a way that no credible editor and no competent administrator would ever think about recommending a block or actually blocking you. In other words, do not push any envelopes. That has been my editing philosophy for 13 years, and it has worked out very well for me. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While I think that is good advice, I also think there is a difference in subjects we edit. Editing in certain areas, and then editing as a minority and then getting frustrated, etc. is not always a piece of cake. My block log has a few blocks that I feel were possibly warranted and then a few that weren't, but because of the power dynamics, there's basically nothing to be done about it. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet advice pls
Concern is expressed at Articles for deletion/Keffals about the nominator (and I see at least one other contributor) who have no other edits outside this AfD, giving rise to the suspicion that they may be sockpuppets using WD as single purpose accounts (SPAs) - in this case, for what appears to be TERFy purposes.

Presuming these are SPAs, do we just have to accept that shit happens, or is it in order to checkuser the accounts to dig a little deeper? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That sock farm in full:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PurpleTurdle
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stircla
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AustralianFarmer
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MerlinsSister
 * Again: please advise on how much seeming manipulation of an AfD is required to trigger further action. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * First, you MUST notify these users that you've reported them here. You've been around long enough to know that. I'm not going to do it for you. Second, your report was enough for me to take a look, but these four accounts are ❌ technically. It could be a case of off-wiki coordination, but they are not the same person. Katietalk 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * do we just have to accept that shit happens I mean... kinda? At least now that a check's been run. When outright sockpuppetry has been ruled out and the disruption is limited to just the one discussion, I think usually the best approach is to just deploy {{subst:spa}} as needed (which others have done), slap notavote at the top (which I've just done), and trust that the closer is smart enough to know which comments to weight downward. I've seen heavily-canvassed AfDs that were closed in favor of a position that, by a pure head count, less than 10% supported. If a closer does do a head-count close when there's obvious canvassing involved, that's probably getting overturned. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories
User attempting to add a Fox News conspiracy theory about Israel to the page. Andrevan@ 08:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edits from the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverting war on File:Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg
User @Xpërt3 has started a reversion war on this file without being warned or blocked and therefore I’m complaining against him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz bm (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * I have been working on the Arabian and Islamic side of Wikipedia for a little over a year now, and I have noticed a few problems. I recently got into a confict with Aziz bm User talk:Aziz bm over his constant reverting of the File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. Although his reverts are backed up with a governmental document, it is partially outdated. There are signs of age of that document, such as the design of the Coat of Arms for the Crown Prince (2nd flag on page 10), which does not even match what is use today. Additionally, the colors of the flag on that document have also changed (Page 10). There is definitely another document or royal decree that released for the updating of this flag. Additionally, on Page 12, it shows the calligraphic difference, proving part of my point!!!


 * To make it clear, the current version of the Saudi Arabian flag on File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg is used by civilians mainly, but not used in the governmental settings. The current version of the File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg is used in governmental settings, as evidenced by this:


 * Aziz bm User talk:Aziz bm showed me instances of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg on User talk:Xpërt3 and then starts to threaten me about how my edits will "cost me suspension", etc. He is still reverting other files such as Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg, which is not even backed by his evidence. Here is an example of that file in use with the flag version I have been reverting back to:

1- 2-
 * On Admins Noticeboard page, I referenced another users response from around a year ago about the same issue, and here is what the user said:


 * Zyido states, "I've tried to gather examples of the flag in official use: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10. As you can see, the VM version appears inside the royal court, when receiving dignitaries, and on flagpoles in the country. In addition, here, you can see a video shot inside the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization (SASO), the body responsible for maintaining the flag specifications, with the VM version flag in the office. On the other hand, there are, at least, some examples of the FOTW version being used in an official capacity, but they are fewer in comparison: Example A, Example B. In both instances I could find, the flags have been hoisted on the wrong side, indicating they've been set up by the non-Saudi counterpart. Given all this evidence, I am led to believe that the VM version is at least an official, if not the official, current version of the flag. The FOTW version does have an official origin though: It appears to be based on one of several diagrams in the appendix of the 1973 decree (Page 10, Page 11, Page 12) which established the basis of the current flag law. I've been looking through documents all day trying to find a definitive answer on where the VM version came from. It is my understanding that an official flag construction sheet was created in 1984 and attached to a SASO document numbered م ق س 403-1984. I'm still trying to hunt down this document. I am curious to know everyone's thoughts and how we can proceed with this information, and what the relevant Commons/Wikipedia rules are. My proposal is for both flags to appear on the Wikipedia page as alternatives/variants in some way once we decide which one is the "main" one."


 * This is not incorrect calligraphy, as proven by the sources I have provided above. The admin, User:LaundryPizza03 was convinced by Aziz bm's reverts but in my view he didn't look far enough and made a poor decision. I tried contacting the admin to look at the noticeboard and the information I put there but he didn't respond, hence I came here to express my view of the issue. Both flags are correct, but the flag I'm arguing for is used in governmental settings. If one flag had to be used on the Wikipedia page, it should be File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg as the government uses this flag. Xpërt3 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * From this point on, I will stop this edit war as it is unconstructive, but I request a decision to be made on this issue as soon as possible. Thank you. Xpërt3 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you maybe give a tl;dr summary of the problem here? I read this and have absolutely no idea what action you're looking for. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights, so Aziz bm was reverting the previous versions of the Saudi Arabian Flag (which is File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg now). I told him to upload the alternate calligraphy to another file but he did not insist on doing so. In addition, he has been reverting Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg to a much older version of a flag that is inaccurate and is not officially used today by the Saudi Gov. The reverting war is the problem. Xpërt3 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a dispute over which of two images that represent the flag of Saudi Arabia should be used in Wikipedia articles. If so, this is a content dispute that should be resolved by discussion by the community and consensus, and not by administrators. WP:Dispute resolution is useful here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. It appears most of the conduct issues, such as warring over uploads of images, is occurring on Commons thus will be for Commons administrators to handle. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Unban request of Shoot for the Stars
The following is the request of Shoot for the Stars to have their community ban removed. I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. The discussion establishing the ban is here. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been nearly a year since I was banned from Wikipedia. Starting in August 2021, I continued to upload rapper mugshots without stopping. I received numerous warnings from people to stop, but ignored them and continued to do it. Another instance that resulted in my ban involved events that occurred when I was 16 years old in 2019. I posted countless fake Beatles covers to articles despite editors' warnings not to do so. I didn't listen to them and continued my reckless behavior. I was only recently diagnosed with Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which I now realize was a huge factor that contributed to my disruptive and repetitive behavior that lead to my ban. Subsequently, rather than making an effort to avoid using Wikipedia while I was suspended, I repeatedly engaged in Sockpuppetry, first by using the accounts user:TheCleanestBestPleasure and user:Beatlesfan210, and then by using a variety of different IP addresses. I really missed editing Wikipedia so much that I lost all self-control. During my time on Wikipedia, I have also lied to a number of editors. Back then, I was a terrible person. To get around the system, I would pretend to be at school even if I wasn't. During my time of Wiki, I completed my freshman year of college and began my sophomore year last month. I completed a variety of classes that helped me broaden my vocabulary and improve my conversational abilities. I made a lot of mistakes on Wikipedia, but I also did a lot of good. I have improved and created over fifty articles to Good Article status. I would be in support of a TBAN to not upload any images of any kind for a year. If my account was unblock, I would finish updating Pop Smoke's remaining Wikipedia music articles to Good Article Status, start editing video game articles like Five Nights at Freddy's, and seek mentorship from experienced editors who I have contacted or worked with in the past. I am very sorry for what caused my ban. If I could have controlled my serious urgencies and tendencies back then, I would still be editing and not banned. I am now going to start attending therapy so I could get help with my problems that have led me to get me banned from what I loved doing for many years.


 * Oppose for the sake of this user's own personal health. Get the therapy first; only come back once your doctor gives you the green light. There are so many more things out there for you better than Wikipedia. Wikipedia will still be here when you're older. Best rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait -- I also suffer from OCD so I'm sympathetic to this type of thing. The editor should absolutely go through therapy first and get the go ahead from his doctor before being allowed back on, for his sake. Like Bison says, Wikipedia will be here when he's older. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I read the ban here, I think multiple years need to pass before considering a unblock. Jeepday (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least right now. There is a whole lot more in this world than just Wikipedia. Take time, get yourself better, and once you've gotten a handle on that and yourself I would request again, and I believe you would be welcomed back much more openly. But first, take care of yourself and get the help you need. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Request to discuss Article
I would kindly like to request that Draft:Uncle Waffles be discussed if it meets inclusion or not. The article creation has been met with challenges from other editors. I was first accused of sock puppet. But no evidence was presented. Now I'm having challenges to expand the subject since other users before me previously contemimated the history of the article Please make time and check the article before its resubmitted for AFC. Thanks Skhofeni (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss this is on the draft talk page, not WP:AN. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the correct spelling of a name?
I had created the article Cătălin Tecuceanu as it is written in its original language. The article has been moved with the justification that it must be written as is in the language of the new citizenship. How are things? --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The correct answer depends on how English-language sources handle the situation since this person changed his name. 93.172.251.109 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has been moved back. I'm in favour of using diacritics, considering that we have the technology to use them. As long as redirects are created from non-diacritic titles there really isn't an issue. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never have & never will be in favour of using diacritics in article titles. I'd rather we used the english alphabet, rather then another languages' alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap. I think that arguments over what should be the primary title of an article are silly if we have redirects from all of the plausible versions of the title.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ...so we should just deliberately misspell the names of thousands of people? (Including some English names.) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Noel Coward. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * However this goes I do not believe that the person's citizenship should be the deciding factor. What would we then do about the many subjects with dual citizenship? Otherwise I agree with Robert, and believe that we should concentrate on more important things. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Off-WP discussion
Qhnbgjt (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , is there a point to this? Slywriter (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point either. Discussing Wikipedia articles outside Wikipedia is entirely allowed. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet rollback?
RE:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Betteruser, This sock tree is insanely huge. The issue currently is a lot of the edits made by the socks that were most recently blocked on 27 June were never reverted; per WP:BE, these should be reverted, right? Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This sock in particular made a lot of edits. Am I correct in assuming that you can use your super-special-mass-rollback-tool-thingy for this? Sorry if these questions are stupid or obvious, this isn't a field I foray into very often. Curbon7 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on the "super-special-mass-rollback-tool-thingy" but I do know these type of reverts are easier to do if they are the last edit to the article in question. I believe once other edits have been made to pages, I think the reverts have to be done manually which, when you are talking about a lot of edits, can be very time-consuming. However, these type of reverts don't need to be done by an admin so any editor can proceed once an editor is confirmed as a sockpuppet of a block evading editor. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 18:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

WPWP query
I was looking into some edits that somehow led me to this AN discussion on WPWP from last summer about editing activity caused a lot of disruption and initiated discussion around filters and throttle messages. Since WPWP 2021 was a summer project last year, I looked to see if it was happening again this year and, yes, there will be a WPWP 2022. However, this year, there is no cash prize for the winners, just a plaque award and some WPWP swag so it might be less of a circus. But I thought since the contest started on July 1st and runs for two months, I'd bring it up here now because in the AN 2021 thread there were suggestions about how to handle this contest in the future and, well, the future is here! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * One of the other recent contests (possibly something relating to 1LIB1REF) also had no cash prize but still got into a lot of controversy. (I'm fairly sure whatever it was had no crash prize since there was a lot of fuss about the cash prize at one of the thread which confused me since I didn't see any mention of it although to be fair details seemed sparse. I eventually worked out it was confusion from the grant request amount which was to be used for various thing but not a cash prize. While I didn't pay much attention to the thread after that, I'm sure one of the organisers confirmed there was no cash prize.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also noted that this year they've put in a few more good rules, including an age minimum of a year for all participating accounts, clear instructions to leave edit summaries, don't add the hashtag to pages, etc so hopefully this year will be less disruptive. In Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335 there was consensus to implement a throttling filter and warning messages, which live in and should still be life. Failing that and if it gets out of control again this year the above AN discussion also found consensus to in a worst case scenario ban the event entirely. --  Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  06:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Still needs the hashtag Secretlondon (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't think so? Last years is still in the filter, and I don't think they've changed it from what I can see (the filter is checking for ). However, I just noted that the filter has been disabled after last years contest ended. If a passing EFM sees this could they please reenable the filter? Given that the contest has started again its needed again, and consencus hasn't been revoked in the meantime as far as I'm aware. Thanks in advance. --  Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  20:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've re-enabled 1158 given that there was no mention of limiting the throttling to the 2021 contest in the discussion and poll that led to the filter being created, and (to my knowledge) no complaints about its operation or effects. I've also tweaked the message shown to users when they're throttled accordingly. If any admin/EFM disagrees with my interpretation they are of course free to revert this. :) firefly  ( t · c ) 11:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling this, Firefly. I think it's better to review this situation early because it might help us avoid problems in July and August. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 18:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also noting to everybody who might not have seen it yet that is also still active, and tracks every edit made as part of this contest (and other similar contest, although I think WPWP is the only one of the tracked set running right now). --  Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  18:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Another question about a moving
For the World Athletics is Diego Aldo Pettorossi, for the FIDAL is Diego Aldo Pettorossi. I created the article as Diego Aldo Pettorossi but the article has been moved to Diego Pettorossi. I would like to point out that at the first request for arbitration I had already obtained the moving of the article Cătălin Tecuceanu, but the article has been moved again. Here I warned in his talk the admin that I had made the moving. I would also like to point out that the user is a friend of mine and it is not absolutely necessary to open an ANI, perhaps and only a little distracted, however I had informed him of the facts (his moving of the articles a little "bold") on his talk page. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * So... what are you looking for? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would pray that an admin would make the moving of the two artcles for me. Kasper2006 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kasper2006, I think you're saying the page is at Diego Pettorossi but belongs at Diego Aldo Pettorossi because according to both WA and FIDAL that is his formal name? W/re: Catalin Tecuceanu...you are arguing the diacritics need to be put back?
 * To me this looks like a content dispute, unless you are saying that the other editor has moved these for nationalistic reasons?
 * You are required to notify the other editor. I have done that for you. valereee (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do confirm that doesn't understand well my moves that are correct (COMMON NAME, from Manual of Style/Biography). Nobody gives the 2 first names to Diego Pettorossi in the |Italian sources (even if Diego Aldo is the correct full name). It is not an Admin issue but an editorial one, by the way.--Arorae (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have looked a bit at this, and I agree with User:Valereee that this is a content issue and does not require administrator attention. This should be taken up at WP:RM. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

CSD backlog
There are 24 pending CSD nominations at CAT:CSD. I'm not sure how many is typical, but Draft:New York Arm Wrestling Association has had the db-g11 tag for over 44 hours. Normally, these are handled within a day. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll work on them  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Back in the day when new accounts could create articles, 200 was fairly common. —Kusma (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. These days 10-20 (total) at any given time is pretty typical, as opposed to refreshing each CSD subcat to find 10-20 new pages each time (I don't miss those days). Primefac (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can attest it wasn't any fun deleting or tagging that volume. Glad to see it's not as frantic as it used to be. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to note that all CSD categories are not treated equally. There are some criteria (like G3, G7 and G8) that are handled almost immediately upon page tagging while other criteria (most notably G4 and G12) where pages can sit for a while before being reviewed. 24 pages doesn't seem like a serious backlog, I remember being shocked months ago when I saw that there were 0 tagged pages to be reviewed! It's since happened again but it was a shock the first time to see no pages that had been tagged needed to be reviewed. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 18:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think G4 and G12 take more time/effort to determine if they are valid than things like G3, G7, and G8. So they would sit there longer, both because they take longer to handle and because speedy deletion is supposed to be for pretty obvious, quick, no-brainer decisions.  So admins check the speedy queue if they are looking for something to do quickly, so they ignore those that just inherently take a little longer. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got chewed out at a Deletion review for a G4 deletion I made months ago that I thought was appropriate but where the consensus was instead to restore the page and move it to Draft space. How closely do an old and new version of an article need to be to be considered basically "identical"? So, yes, G4s take more time to evaluate than when a page creator tags their pages for CSD G7 deletion. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing that really gets me about G4 is that the non-admin tagging it has no way of seeing the deleted version, so they just end up tagging anything at the same title as a previously deleted article, because they don't know. I think we should add a time limit to G4 - 12-24 months or so.  Because something that is truly G4-qualified is likely to be reposted relatively soon after the original deletion.  Whereas if the article was AFD'd 5+ years ago, it's unlikely to be identical - probably by a different creator and even if it isn't, if the (person, band, company, whatever) was not notable 5 years ago they may be now.  At any rate they've likely done something different in that time.  I probably turn down 80% or more of the G4s I review, and 100% of the ones where the original deletion was 5 or more years ago. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request by Sucker for All
Sucker for All is requesting an unblock:

See User talk:Sucker for All for more details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like I'm the blocking admin (what do you know?), but I don't really have a firm recollection of the block to provide much input, though their talk page does speak to chronic disruption. El_C 18:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also was a blocking admin, actually the first. The major problem here was SfA refusing to accept advice from other editors on their misinterpretation of policy. I do not have an objection to an unblock to allow this editor to try to show us that they have learned policy and will accept advice from more experienced editors. valereee (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've interacted with SfA a few different times, and while I'm not wholly against an unblock, I think this statement is insufficient at the moment. The issues that led to a block are not solely "belittling the opinions of others" or being "rude"; there was also an issue with the understanding and implementation of the policies on original research, synthesis, and primary sources (especially as it pertains to press releases). See this thread on their talk page and the "approximately 15000 of its residents following this religion" thread on this article talk page. If their express desire is to add references to articles, I feel that we need something more about adherence to our policies and standards on sourcing first. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse unblock You kinda hafta read the talk page to get the full gist. What they wrote to be carried over lacks the full substance. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 08:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * is there a way to prevent the archive bot from arching open unblock requests? -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 14:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They waited patiently, they asked nicely, what more can we ask? Deserves a second chance. Support per SO and ROPE. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be good if they showed a bit more awareness of why they were blocked (not so much rudeness as a refusal to accept that their interpretations of policy were not automatically correct, and a WP:IDHT behaviour that wasted a lot of editor time); this is a little concerning since it looks like they don't realise that their discussion style was a substantial part of the problem. I also agree with Writ Keeper, and wonder what kind of sources SfA would be using and which specific edits they are thinking about making. --bonadea contributions talk 19:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting transfer of user rights
Hello, I created this account a few days ago. I am not a new editor. I am just returning to edit Wikipedia from what I thought would be my indefinite departure. My original account was User:Jerm, but I lost my password and had no email assigned via made this account to edit again. I can't really prove that I'm the same editor, so I ask that a checkuser could do it for me, to prove that I'm using the exact same private network/IP, thanks. Judekkan (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, access logs are kept for 3 months so you might have been just outside that range by a few days. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 00:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The more important issue is that performing such a check would be contrary to CU policy, per WP:CHECKME. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, I ran it anyway, I'll wait for the nastygram from arbcom. Jerm is indeed . GeneralNotability (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So I’m going to work without my user permissions. That’s fine. I just need rollback and page move rights really. Extended confirm and Autopatrolled I’ll get again naturally. I’m also trying to get twinkle activated, but I don’t see it in my preferences. Judekkan (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Preferences, Gadgets, then Browsing. Zaathras (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve already tried that, there’s no Twinkle. Judekkan (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to be autoconfirmed to use Twinkle – that should happen in about 16 hours. DanCherek (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I manually added +c to expire in a week based on this. — xaosflux  Talk 22:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting me rollback. As for page move rights, I'll get that naturally as with the other user rights I had. Judekkan (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I took this pic with my iPhone XR: File:Moth IMG 01926345.jpg. Is it possible if I take a new photo with the same phone that it can be identified as the exact unique individual device? Anyone know if that’s possible in WikiCommons? Judekkan (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The pic doesn't contain any unique device ID, which could probably be spoofed anyway, so no. Apparently 77.4 million other people have this device. I've granted you rollback. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zzuuzz I’m convinced, same person. Doug Weller  talk 18:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like to have User:Jerm page deleted then recreated as a redirect to my new user page. I don't want the page history there, just want to start anew (somewhat). If there is some satisfactory that I can provide that I'm indeed the same person Jerm, I've already created a new barnstar via the Deaf Barnstar. I'vs also been bold in moving my talk page archives from Jerm to my new account and had User talk:Jerm redirected. Judekkan (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , . I think I now how to prove who I say I am. File:WikiFilterLogo.png for Edit filter helper, I still have the filter just by itself when I was putting the icon together. Judekkan (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The filter "by itself" is just from File:Filter.svg; it looks like someone already took care of the deletion as well - is everything needed in the short-term done now? — xaosflux  Talk 22:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and uploaded my filter that I used to create the EFH icon via File:EFH filter.png. That is the exact one. Judekkan (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

COI
Hello all, I am back after a long absence and several articles that I have started have been tagged with COI for the past 8 months. The |discussion about a COI did not reach any conclusions. I am asking to remove the tags from the articles - editors have had eight months to deal with any issues with the articles and no coi was proven. I removed the tags o two of the articles today, but an IP 192.76.8.85 (I will notify them) puts them back and will not discuss. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am currently in the middle of writing a response at talk:Greg Koch (musician), give me some time to finish writing it. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer to hear what administrators say. Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your framing of this as me being unwilling to discuss this is not accurate. You made a bold edit and removed the COI tags. I reverted stating that as the person suspected of having a COI it was inappropriate for you to be removing those tags. You reverted my reverts quoting WP:BRD, despite you being the one who made the bold edit and who should have been attempting to gain consensus for your edits. I reverted again, restoring the article to the status quo and started writing a response to your comment on the talk page, at which point you left me a warning for edit warring and brought me to ANI. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We can restart the COIN, now that LB is back, if he's seriously going to deny his relationship with, e.g. Greg Koch (musician) and others. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 02:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How many times? 2 3 4? Until you get the answer you want? You are a long time antagonist and your efforts in this area do not improve the project. We don't tag articles in perpetuity. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want to just concede the COI and just edit other stuff that you don't have a COI with and we can forget about this, or shall I email the off-wiki evidence you know I have to arbcom? Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 04:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the tags-in-question & I've no COI in the matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there are more. Apparently every article I wrote where I met the person constitutes a coi. What rot. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Lee Vilenski



Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Nihiltres

Technical news
 * is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users.

Arbitration
 * An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous
 * The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

long running dispute
There has been a dispute that has been going on for quite some time now on the 2022 Laguna Woods shooting article and the talks to resolve it have been going nowhere. Some admin help to break the deadlock would be great Thundercloss (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments
Hi, hoping you can help. A couple of editors are repeatedly deleting an IP user's comments on Talk:Graham Linehan, namely User:Newimpartial and User:Sideswipe9th. The comment is plainly and explicitly about the article's treatment of its subject, which WP:TPG seems to suggest should not be deleted. When I told them that I would post on an adminstrators' noticeboard to try to get outside input and find a resolution, they took that as a prompt to race me to it and post a complaint about me edit-warring - especially baffling since they were the ones attempting to make the same deletions and edits *to someone else's talk page comment* again and again with minor differences. I don't know if they're hoping to side-step suggestions that they're edit-warring themselves by splitting the deletions between two editors so that I reach three reversions first, but it's very plain that they're effectively working in tandem, and not at all clear that they're allowed to delete that comment in the first place. Surely this isn't acceptable? Grateful for your advice, whoever picks this up. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to be using that talkpage as a soapbox, rather than providing specific, sourced suggestions for article improvement. You also appear to be forum-shopping. The correct response to a complaint at AN3 is to constructively address it there, not at yet another noticeboard. I advise you to self-revert as requested at AN3.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Clicriffhard, you can hardly expect the admin community to address the situation appropriately if you do not describe it accurately. Apart from all the aspersions, you are leaving out the fact that you have reverted four times in four hours on the same page, without any claim to 3RRNO that I can see (documented here). You also claim that editors are repeatedly deleting an IP user's comments, but in reality no editor has done that more than once; the version that prompted your fourth revert contained all the content of the original IP edit, but hatted according to the WP:TPG.
 * If you have the idea that it was inappropriate for another editor to post your edit warring to WP:3RRN just because you had expressed the intention of consulting an administrator (!?), I can't see the logic in that. Intending to post something to a noticeboard isn't a license for edit-warring beyond the scope of WP:3RRNO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP post in question is a textbook WP:NOTAFORUM post, thinly-veiled concern trolling. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 02:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it; that comment isn't needed in any serious forum about the subject and does violate NOTAFORUM, and reversion is justified. Stop restoring it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And do not revert again.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, Clicriffhard is now making accusations of hypocrisy, the game-playing, and the bullying over at the . Which seems a bold choice given this is about talk page content on a page subject to two discretionary sanctions (BLP and GENSEX). Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, Clicriffhard is continuing to make personal attacks while blocked. Saying that an editor is actual poison, and claiming them to be exhibiting manipulative behaviour while questioning their integrity . Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And now it's progressed from questioning an editor's integrity to saying you do not know what integrity is.  I'm sorry for pinging, but as the blocking admin could you step in here please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The most evocative line has been, "you don't know what integrity is". Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Usually in these situations. The 'discussion' is hatted & collapsed with a title 'NOTFORUM', rather then outright deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:TALKOFFTOPIC gives three options for dealing with off-topic posts. Hatting is one such option, but in my experience with this sort of comment deletion is the more frequently used option. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so. But the 'deletion' method tends create the most irritation from the editor, who post was deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, The content of the post justified full removal to me. No need to keep 'this site lies' and a polemic IP drive-by on that page (they haven't edited eight hours since), and it's in the history. I doubt they'll be back on that one.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Clicriffhard hasn't claimed to be the IP in question; to the contrary. And the third and fourth reverts were to the 'hatting' method, not the 'deletion' method. Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, though this seems moot in this case as the irritation as you put it is from another editor and I would not want to speculate on whether Clicriffhard is or is not the IP editor who made the off-topic comment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, "hatting" was the nature of my last two edits that Clicriffhard reverted (the third and fourth reverts). Newimpartial (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing such comments with a "WP:NOTAFORUM" edit summary is entirely appropriate in such cases and I do that all the time. This is not true deletion because that NOTAFORUM content is still visible in the page history. Only far more objectionable content would be revision deleted, or in the very worst cases, suppressed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And I've blocked Clicriffhard for 24 hours for continuing to make personal attacks and general IDHT behavior in the primary AN3 thread.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to calm the lad down, now that he's on a 24-hr 'break'. My task would be made easier, if anyone he's steamed at, doesn't contact him any further during his 24-hr break, ok? GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Had Clicriffhard not continued to make personal attacks while escalating their nature after the block, I'd have said this was worth a try. However given that your first attempt was bad advice, and the nature of the attacks has deepened I'm afraid that this will both fall upon deaf ears and be ultimately unnecessary as it seems to me as though that block will be extended. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the lad's sake, it may be best that his talkpage rights be revoked for the duration of his block. That will hold off any more possible anger and/or taunting issues. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The second attempt has also been in a less than civil manner. And based on that message, I do not think they want to be unblocked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve removed talkpage access to keep them from digging the hole yet deeper. I endorse GoodDay’s advice to leave them alone.  Acroterion   (talk)   05:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have reverted the post under discussion on sight had I been the first one there. It's inflammatory (as has been proven) but provides no actionable content or specific direction in which to discuss improvement of the article.Comments like you are trying to game the system by splitting your edit-warring between the two of you and then claiming it's a simple numbers game (diff) are hard to square with the understanding that if your change is contested, you should engage in discussion; reinstating a change known to be disputed is edit warring, which Clicriffhard is obviously aware of.The accusation that the same group of editors enforce the same possessive strictures on the article in question over a long period (diff) is, well, a description of the consensus-based mechanism of Wikipedia, unless the allegation is that these editors are violating the more broader community's rules and norms, in which case breaking 3RR over reinstating a vague complaint of bias is not the way to solve things. Instead you should raise the issue at a broader forum (NPOVN or Arbcom or wherever).We should expect mature volunteers to moderate their emotions, keep things in proportion and take accountability for their actions. This short block will do no good if Clicriffhard admits no wrongdoing and see no issue with their edits here. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

, I believe you may have to step in & separate a couple of editors. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Liam wigley
The behaviour of has started be a concern. They have repeatedly tried to start an article about Princess Mirror-Belle, a TV show on the BBC, but the best they have managed is to copy-paste content from So Awkward and leave it at that. Now first things first, Princess Mirror-Belle exists, so it's not something Liam wigley made up. For my part, I have never seen the show and know nothing more about it than it is a real existing show.

Liam wigley has repeatedly been contacted on their talk page about the article Princess Mirror-Belle but they have so far failed to respond to any of the comments. Because of repeated misconduct, the article Princess Mirror-Belle was deleted and salted, and Liam wigley was temporarily blocked.

I am inclined to think Liam wigley is still acting in good faith here, but they are misguided. This is made even worse by their lack of communication. I am inclined to give Liam wigley the benefit of the doubt and remove the salt from Princess Mirror-Belle, if someone won't do it for me before it. But I fear Liam wigley will recreate it with copy-pasted content. J I P &#124; Talk 00:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The protection can stay, although the user tried to create it at a different title Princess Mirror-Belle (TV series) because of the protection. And it's the same with Lagging (TV series) which I speedy deleted twice, however it has not been protected. Jay (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I became aware of that editor when they created Lagging (TV series), which was not about that TV series, and, like Princess Mirror-Belle, was mostly copied from So Awkward. I nominated it for deletion, and it was then speedied.  The editor will come off a 31-hour block in a few hours.  If they don't provide an explanation soon, I would suggest an indefinite block as playing silly games or otherwise not here to edit constructively.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The programme exists at the very least, so I think a redirect to List of BBC children's television programmes (while remaining protected) is at the very least proper. But a much better article needs to be drafted before it hits article space, because Liam's versions have all been poor.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Princess Mirror-Belle (TV series) also needs to be protected as the user tried to create it again, and was speedy deleted. Jay (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Princess Mirror-Belle and Princess Mirror-Belle (TV series) have been changed into redirects to List of BBC children's television programmes and protected. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Liam wigley has now been indefinitely blocked by User:Bbb23. Perhaps this means the pages protected during this process can be unprotected, in case someone wants to expand them into real articles. J I P &#124; Talk 00:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The pages have been unprotected as protection is no longer needed. They can be protected again if further vandalism arises. J I P  &#124; Talk 08:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Rock balancing
Rock balancing is an "art" or "sport" that reliable sources mostly cover as a behavior that's generally considered obnoxious and bad for the environment , , , , , , , ,, But there are communities of stone stackers out there on the internet, so of course there's controversy on WP's low traffic Rock balancing article by users that don't seem to understand Neutral Point of View. Apparently, according to, stone balancers who are offended by the article are circulating memes about it. There's a defective RfC (courtesy of ) with multiple editors arguing about their sense of fairness instead of policy. Also I'm apparently a fascist for deleting unsourced rants by SPAs. , restored by Lord Belbury.

The talk page would benefit from being moderated by uninvolved admins, the ongoing RfC should be reviewed as to whether or not it's useful enough to be allowed to be continued, and if so, it needs participation from experienced users that understand policy, preferably who aren't being influenced off-wiki. Geogene (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's a direct link to that RfC, which has been open for a couple of weeks: Talk:Rock_balancing. I entirely agree that it may be time to close it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kobi_Arad
i wish to add a wikiproject header for this article, but can't because the creation is restricted to admins.

the code would be. thank you in advance! lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ The name is blacklisted. A relevant thread is just above: Administrators' noticeboard. Probably it should come off the blacklist? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks, @Malcolmxl5! (also, your edit summary made me look like i reported it on the dramaboard, lol.)  lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I forgot where I was (never mind!). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch

 * WP:CRP: Ghazaalch has been edit-warring their preferred version into this article non-stop: Content 1: (----) and Content 2: (---)


 * WP:NPOV. Ghazaalch  does this while removing other content (from the same sources) without proper explanation: (-----)


 * Many warnings (at first they appear to have self-reverted, but now they seem to have lost any regard for policy): (---)


 * Ghazaalch's other disruption: tampering RFCs (--), not giving explanations in the talk page when asked to explain reverts (-), making false narratives, stonewalling (-), and other forms of WP:GAMING (such as WP:BADFAITHNEG ). There is also WP:Tag-teaming, all of which can be discussed if anybody wants, but the above may be the worst of it since at this point Ghazaalch seems to have lost any regard for policy (particularly WP:CRP ). ~

Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Iraniangal777 This probably belongs at WP:ANI. I would encourage you to move the discussion. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not look at the diffs, nor am I planning to take any position on this, but I just wanted to note that since this is WP:ARBIRP-related (see also here a month ago) the proper venue for this would rather be WP:AE. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 12:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Apaugasma and Ad Orientem. I will try at WP:AE to see if anyone is willing to look at the diffs there. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions
My topic ban was lifted some 8 years ago, I volunteered a restriction to stick to 1RR, which I have stuck with. After 8 years of trouble free editing I would like to request this is removed. As this was a voluntary restriction on my part I'm not sure whether this has to be formally lifted but I would like to ask for community input. I don't intend to change my behaviour, however, on a couple of occasions I've seen multiple examples of vandalism on my watch list but refrained from action if I'd already reverted that day. I would like to be able to deal with vandalism when I see it. WCM email 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I have never seen WCM (whose username I have always admired) do anything problematic in my time here, if there have been no issues in eight years (certainly there have been no blocks, and I'm not aware of any complaints) then the restriction is no longer required. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I commend WCM for abiding by their voluntary restriction for so long. As they don’t intend to change their behaviour, the restriction is no longer needed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - You didn't sock during all that time. That's good enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. As a side note, reverting obvious is vandalism is an exception to edit warring restrictions of any kind. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian
Hello! I wanted to get some admin attention for the Nicholas Alahverdian description in the first sentence of the article. I edited the first sentence from "convicted American sex offender" to "American convicted sex offender". I was reverted by @Aoidh, who opened a talk page discussion, which I appreciated since we did not agree. From my reading of the talk page discussion, there is a (weak) consensus of three editors who believe the wording should be "American sex offender", dropping the "convicted". When I updated the talk page with the consensus three editors had agreed to this, with only one editor (Aoidh) opposing, I implemented the change. Aoidh immediately reverted my change twice, stating there was "no consensus". In my view, there is a consensus and some OWN issues going on, along with ONUS. Any thoughts or suggestions appreciated. Cheers! Kbabej (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It should be "American sex offender" now - it's well established he's convicted so in that sense it is redundant. Overall I agree with Kbabej on this matter and think this silly edit war needs to stop. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * As I explained in the talk page, this is how multiple reliable sources describe it. Saying "three editors had agreed to this" is completely inaccurate, and I would invite you to provide diffs supporting that claim. One editor made a comment that it should use American English, to which I supplied numerous sources showing that the current wording was American English. That editor did not comment further and did not support any removal of the wording. One editor did suggest removing it, to which you agreed and removed it. However this is the wording reliable sources used, and it is the WP:STATUSQUO version. You have refused to address why you think it should be removed and when asked for evidence of a prior consensus you alluded to, ignored it and decided there was a consensus for your version. I have reverted it per WP:STATUSQUO because two editors saying a word should be removed when reliable sources very clearly use that exact phrasing is not a consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh, respectfully, that editor (@Praxidicae) just commented above your reply they support the removal of the wording definitively. I believe the consensus is clear. --Kbabej (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That editor had not commented when you made your edits, so my point stands on that matter. You cited a consensus that did not exist, three editors had not agreed with you when you made your edits to the article. You bringing this here is inappropriate as it requires no administrative intervention, and your accusations of WP:OWN are a personal attack for which you have no evidence. If you believe I have exhibited WP:OWN I welcome you to provide diffs of that, but acting in good faith to restore a wording consistent with reliable sources because the other editor says they don't like the way it sounds is not WP:OWN, when (at the time you made the edit) only one other editor had suggested it be removed. I suggest you retract that personal attack or provide diffs to support it. Which part of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR have I exhibited? A disagreement over content is not WP:OWN. - Aoidh (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh, my goal is not to attack you in any way. In my reading, there was consensus on this point, and with the clarity of Praxidicae's further comments, that was confirmed. I do not think bringing issues to the attention of admins is inappropriate either. Perhaps there was another noticeboard that would have been better utilized, which would be a (welcome) learning opportunity for me. I did believe there were OWN issues going on with the content based on the vehemency in which you guarded the description, but in checking the top editors of the article you're listed at 23 with me actually appearing before you at 22, both of us with 0%. So I apologize on that front.
 * As for the noticeboard, I do not think an apology is necessary. After consensus had been reached, you reverted the change, posted on my talk page about edit warring, and stated there was no consensus on the talk page. I believed it needed to be addressed at that point, as that was clearly overkill.
 * I would like to step back from the conversation, as I think that "personal attack" aspersions are pretty escalated given the simple issue at hand: whether a word should be included in a lead's short description. As an aside, thank you for reverting back to the consensus. I'm going to unfollow this page, so if any other editors have a concern (ie: posting at a better noticeboard) please ping me. Be well, all! --Kbabej (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You said "after consensus had been reached" but one editor suggested something, you agreed and quickly made the change knowing it was disputed. That is not a consensus. You accusing me of WP:OWN without evidence is a personal attack, per WP:NPA. Both of the things that you ran here to accuse me of are meritless. - Aoidh (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I struck my OWN comment in the opening paragraph of this discussion after an apology to @Aoidh. --Kbabej (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I obviously can't be the judge of whether administrative action is required against me, but if the WP:OWN claim is retracted I don't see that anything further is needed here. - Aoidh (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's t-ban of GoodDay

 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, link to WP:AE report-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I've just been indef topic-banned from anything to do with WP:GENSEX, broadly construed. IMHO, this is a harsh/punitive ruling by. I've not broken any DS rules on GENSEX-related pages. If I was to be t-banned? It should've been from only GENSEX-related talkpages & any discussions of GENSEX on any user's talkpages. If I had (for example) edited in "Her" or "She" into Eliot Page's BLP, then 'broadly construed' would've been proper. Same thing at Jordan Peterson's article, concerning Eliot Page. But I haven't done those things. T-bans are suppose to be preventative? Then why am I being t-banned from hundreds of bios? of which I've not made any (to my memory) disruptive edits to? Keep me away from the discussions? Yes. But main space? No. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  who were administrators who participated in the discussion.
 * "Broadly construed" is vanilla language that is included in all topic bans. Adding "broadly construed" is ubiquitous with topic bans, and is neither punitive nor harsh, but is designed to clarify the ban and prevent wikilawyering with edge edits.  I'm happy to let others opine and share their own experiences.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, pleases consider whether you really think it's possible to be an effective editor on any article page without participating on the associated talk page.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a gnome editor. 78% of my edits are on main space. Only 7.5% is on talkpages. Indeed, in the last decade alone, my main space percentage must be around 90%. Under this 'current restriction', I could make a grammar correction or a birthdate/death correction on a bio article & 'not' notice it has a connection to LGBTQ issues & end up getting blocked. This 'broadly construed' restriction is gonna require me to read entirely 'any' page I'm about to edit, for fear there might be something there related to the LGBTQ topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a gnome editor. 78% of my edits are on main space. Only 7.5% is on talkpages. Indeed, in the last decade alone, my main space percentage must be around 90%. Under this 'current restriction', I could make a grammar correction or a birthdate/death correction on a bio article & 'not' notice it has a connection to LGBTQ issues & end up getting blocked. This 'broadly construed' restriction is gonna require me to read entirely 'any' page I'm about to edit, for fear there might be something there related to the LGBTQ topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Heck, if I so much as 'revert' vandalism on an article. I run the risk of being blocked, if the article has even the slimmest connection to LGBTQ issues & I didn't notice it. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you edited an article on a gay actor, adding their newest movie, you would not be blocked. If you started editing who they were dating, you would.  Some articles must be avoided altogether, others, you just need to stay away from anything gender/sex related.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you give me a bio as an example? That way, I could demonstrate to you 'how' I would edit it. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * About to eat dinner here, but you can always ask ANY admin about an edit before you make it, to be sure, and you aren't going to get blocked for making it with their blessing. This will only be needed a few times.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Janetta Johnson might be entirely off-limits, though if you are making gnoming edits that dont relate to the GENSEX topic at all it may also be fine. Just dont touch anything gender related, it shouldnt be that hard to get. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just made a minor edit to that BLP, to show what I'm going on about. Don't know how to link it 'here', but it's an example. PS - In that bios case, the LGBTQ info was in the intro, so that help me to know what I could & couldn't do, under the current restriction. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Any BLP that is for a person who is primarily known for gender issues should be completely avoided. Any BLP where their gender or sexual orientation (or activism re: gender) has nothing to do with their notability can be edited as long as you stay away from anything gender related.  In other words, 90% of the BLPs are fair game, 5% you need to avoid the gender related issues, and 5% you need to avoid altogether. Keep in mind, it only takes ONE admin to think you are veering too close to the subject matter to get sanctioned.  DS sanctions do not require discussion or consensus, they are unilateral.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt anybody would have a problem of you happening across an article through the random article link and making that edit. Somebody may have a problem with you purposely making it a test case to see in practice what the limits of your ban are however, and IMO it was a silly thing for you to do right now. But you were sanctioned because of your actions, and the result of that sanction is that you do need to pay a bit more attention to what articles you are editing. And you should not use the article space to purposely test the limits of your ban. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to avoid the figurative minefields. I firmly believe that Arbcom's Gender Identity ruling, was made with the hope that it would bring editors together. I truly hope, it hasn't done the opposite. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just want to note that SPECIFICO repeatedly referred to an editor as “it” and received another one of their 14+ warnings. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason why you feel that you've been "over-punished" - as you put it on your user talk page - is because you haven't really taken on board how seriously objectionable it is to misgender someone, and then to double down and call them an "it". You're lucky that Dennis Brown closed the discussion first; as Black Kite and MastCell noted at AE your hurtful and childish behavior was certainly blockworthy.
 * And now you're playing games with trying to make test-case edits that push at the boundaries of your topic ban, which does not speak well of your judgement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me. But it's best that I not get into this with you. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you appeal an admin action on an admin board, you're going to get admin commenting. You don't really have a choice.  Best to just accept the comment and not reply at all then.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , why have you not linked to the discussion wherein the TBan was implemented/decided? Not doing that makes this thread feel like a one-sided rant, and in bad faith. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't certain if I was allowed to. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm also quite shocked at how un-remorseful this appeal is. It's more focused on the fact you feel direly wronged and punished when a better angle would have been to explain that you know where you went wrong, but the sanction was procedurally incorrect. This sanction really has been a long time coming. At Talk:Demi Lovato, you sided morally with an editor who did not believe in NB people. You continued this on the editor's talk page. When I expressed that your comments were off-topic and unhelpful, you struck your comments out but were not apologetic at all. Your stance is obvious, but there was nothing blockable or sanctionable about that whole thing. It does, however, make it way more shocking when you tripled down on misgendering . It's the most disgusting thing you could do online to a trans person, and you really meant what you said. Your apology was really only a pact to not say that again, because the unfortunate fact here which we all know is that, in your head, what you said was reality and you really really meant that. And there's nothing you could do to change that fact, but you could at least pretend to give a fuck about your fellow editor. — VersaceSpace  🌃 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Took the words right out of my mouth Versace. The fact that GoodDay took the easy way out of TenOfAllTrades' message speaks volumes. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 01:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Now he's implying that it's the gender and identity arbcom ruling that is dividing editors, and not...I'm sure you get what I'm saying. He clearly does not understand why he was sanctioned to begin with and because of that I strongly endorse the TBAN. — VersaceSpace  🌃 02:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: as I understand it, AN appeals are eventually decided by consensus of uninvolved editors. I haven't seen enough of them to be confident enough to make this move myself, but shouldn't we create subsections for comments from uninvolved vs. involved editors? It will be challenging, I think, for a closer to determine the relevant consensus if everything is mixed together, and so far no one has disclosed their involvement status. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Would I be involved? To be honest I'm not really sure, since I responded to him at talk:Demi Lovato. — VersaceSpace  🌃 01:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Great question! I also am unsure if I'm involved, having commented at the AE request. Trying to take it one question at a time. (If you want my opinion, no, you're not involved) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If we had used Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal, we'd have gotten this guidance: Note that this seems mainly geared toward AE appeals (as opposed to AN), but I think most of the advice works. By this measure, I'm involved, and VersaceSpace, you might be depending on how "current" the Lovato dispute is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse TBAN (uninvolved editor) . It was decided by three admins, two of whom would have preferred a block. Editor can always wait six months to a year or so and appeal the TBAN, assuming they acknowledge their problematic behavior that led to the TBAN (which hasn't even been done here), and with the understanding that their editing in the meantime will be scrutinized. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

As I have done at WP:AE (repeatedly), I now do so here. Two or so days ago (maybe more), I lost my 'cool', when something happened to a post of mine at a BLP discussion (for more details on the situation? read the WP:AE report) & mentioned this situation, on another editor's talkpage & used a word, that wasn't acceptable. To. I humbly, apologise for the word-in-question, that I used to describe you & hope that you'll accept. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to AGF (and be a good restorative justice person) in these edits. While they mention a 1-way IBAN, I recognized in a later edit that a TBAN would also work, and explained how I propose (not) to interact going forward. I am unaware of anything that has happened since then that would change the perspective I set out in those (fairly considered) comments. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Please note, an appeal of a AE sanction is to find if there was an error in judgement or an error in procedure. It is NOT a second bite at the apple.  You can either endorse the existing close, or you can overturn (revert my close, which no single admin can do, only the community can do) it and it can be reopened and another admin can take action, but AE actions are not decided by the community, but by uninvolved admin at AE itself.  Two other admin have already participated, leaning towards blocks, so likely one of those would close it.  Again, this is an Arbitration Enforcement case, not an ANI case or random admin action. All we can do here is leave it as is, or reopen it there.  This is why I'm a bit surprised it was appealed, since the sanction given was the mildest of all suggestions there.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse, a moderate and thoroughly defensible sanction. After calling an editor "it" you were damn lucky not to get indeffed.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 02:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Question If I read this correctly, GoodDay referred to a trans editor as "it", was given a topic ban on all things gender/sex related, and then in the course of this discussion edited the page of a trans rights activist? Why were they not blocked in the first instance and how have they not been blocked for a flagrant violation of their topic ban? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it was explained to me that such edits wouldn't be a breach, if they weren't related to the LGBTQ topic. Changing an 'endash', is (as I've been given to understand) not a breach. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the order of events: It was certainly some dangerous water-testing. It was not "explained to you the such edits wouldn't be a breach", and you missed DB's clear advice about how to proceed if unsure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought was an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, after receiving the advice from a non-admin that Janetta Johnson might be off-limits, you went and scanned her article for any errors and made a selective MOS edit, in direct violation of your topic ban (broadly construed, as we both recall). Again, not the best reflection of your judgment. This is the demeanor expected of a teenager, not a grown and aging man. — VersaceSpace  🌃 04:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm an idiot, scum, fungus, etc. I've asked for my appeal to be withdrawn over an hour ago. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * if you're an administrator. Would you close this thread as appeal withdrawn? Dennis, has been off the 'pedia for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, GoodDay. I'm not confident enough in this process to know if I could close the discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain if I can either. Might be a COI thing, if I did. So, I figured I'd avoid any dispute over it. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay You were just topic banned from gender/sex pages because of an offensive somment yu made towards a trans editor and you chose to edit a page about a trans rights activist? Why would you do that? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point. No matter what I do or don't do, I'm wrong. I'm a piece of garbage, a disgusting figure, a individual who doesn't deserve to live, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are your words, not mine. No one has said anything like that. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Appeal withdrawn
After 3 'edit conflicts'. I wish the appeal to be withdrawn & I request that administrator Dennis Brown perform the task. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for block of GoodDay
I just did a search and found out that GoodDay was a subject of an Arbitration Committee case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. He was given a topic ban as the result of that case. He was also blocked more than once for violating that topic ban. GoodDay should therefore be aware of what a topic ban means. His edit to the page of a trans rights activist was deliberately provocative and a clear violation of his recently imposed topic ban on gender/sex topics. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

IP editor continuing to add spam links despite warnings
The IP editor 66.249.253.246 has been given three warnings to stop adding Sweetwater Sound spam links to articles but has not stopped. Please could an administrator take a look. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My instincts tells me, the IP is likely a ban evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP is registered to the company they are spamming a link to, I've reported them to WP:AIV P HANTOM T ECH (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Unlocking page for Kobi Arad
I had posted about this before, but the thread just timed out and got archived. The issue that I am facing is that Kobi Arad's name was blocked due to prior issues with sock poppets and UPE. Some admins posted reluctance to unlock the page citing the reason as me being a new editor and inexperienced. I went ahead and posted the draft in my userpage here User:Dwnloda/sandbox, so I could get comments on its quality, but no one bothered to review it. So I went ahead an posted a request in 3 other forums and have gotten favorable reviews of the draft. Some provided advice to fix a few things, which I have done now. Overall they said it was fine to be submitted to AFC. For details, please check these links: Help Desk, Tea House and Wiki Project Muscians. Could you let me know if you agree with my request now and unlock the page? Dwnloda (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have moved your sandbox draft to the encyclopedia. Well done. Please add categories. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. Sincerely appreciated!!!! Dwnloda (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RPP
Fairly large backlog, also if some one could review this request. Thanx, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Storch request has been removed, seems to be true. Backlog remains. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Just noting, the RFPP backlog is at 53 pending requests as of this writing. Musashi1600 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The RFPP backlog is all the way down to 13 pending requests. Thanks to Praxidicae, ToBeFree, Favonian, Bbb23, Malcolmxl5, Mifter, and Tamzin, among other admins, for their work in bringing that number down over the past couple days. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin but you're welcome :P <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Challenging closure of Political legacies thread
Hi. "This is a request to review the close of the Political legacies thread in the Donald Trump page, performed by User:SPECIFICO (henceforward "the closer"), on 14:11, 25 June 2022, in order to determine whether I discussed the closure with the closer in their talk page—following the guidance in WP:Close and Challenging other closures—in a thread titled Request to reopen discussion."
 * 1) the closer,
 * 2) was an editor who should have closed,
 * 3) used a proper reason to close,
 * 4) interpreted the consensus incorrectly.
 * 5) and if the thread should be reopened

I did investigate policies and guidelines for hours before doing so. Unfortunately, a couple more editors joined and the discussion devolved in some uncivil and baseless accusations against me, for example telling me that I was "pestering", something I attribute to they, consciously or subconsciously, not agreeing with my opinion or trying to shut off discussion. After doing a lot of work in preparation for a discussion, such accusations can be very disappointing. I did tell the closer that I did not want further processes with administrators, not as a warning or threat, but rather because it involves effort and time that I wanted to spend elsewhere and in my view my argument was pretty evident. But here I am, having taken 3 or more hours to write this presentation.

Following are my points regarding the closure and the respective support by Wikipedia guidance. 1.The closer
 * 1) was not an editor who should have closed the discussion, because the closer was an involved editor in the thread dispute.
 * 2) per WP:Involved, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." Although this is an administrator policy, the mentioned text applies to all editors.
 * 3) Per WP:Close, "Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins."
 * 4) I have to point out that this was a contentious circumstance where the editor who started the thread didn't agree with other editors and at least one editor apparently supported or understood support for inclusion of some of the text in dispute.
 * 5) Per WP:Talk, "Any uninvolved editor may write a closing statement for most discussions, not just admins."
 * 6) Per Template:Hidden archive top (the template the closer used), "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."
 * 7) Per WP:Refactor, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to any refactoring that was performed, those changes should be reverted."
 * 8) didn't use a proper reason to close. The stated summary of the closing was, " actually, we won't "be here all day", because the WP:BURDEN is entirely on you to show that your proposed content comports with our Policies and Guidelines regarding Verification, Neutral Point of View, and article Lead sections. If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here. Nobody is obligated to respond to you."
 * 9) Per WP:Talk, "A rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this."
 * 10) The closer stated in their talk page challenge discussion, "OP said they would not further contest the consenus [sic]", but in the closure summary, the closer wrote, "If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here." While telling SandRand97 (henceforward, "the OP") to present the arguments, the closer closed discussion, which is contradictory to the invitation to "present them here", discouraging a new thread and it is pointless starting a new thread about the same issue. Furthermore, although the OP wrote, "It’s a fact that the original imposition of Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional, not an opinion. I’m not going to argue about it because there’s nothing to argue about", the OP didn't want to argue about the constitutionality, not necessarily about the removal of their post, which was the topic of the thread. In addition, the OP did reply after writing this.
 * 11) The closer stated in the OP thread, "Again I don’t want to get into an argument about this because we’ll be here all day and I’m sure we all have better things to do." The closer urge was apparently to keep with their affairs elsewhere, not seemingly caring about trying to reach consensus in the regular alloted time.
 * 12) Per WP:Consensus, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
 * 13) The closer in the stated closure summary did not make a legitimate effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. The discussion was closed in less than five hours without reaching consensus and without resolving the issue properly, because the closer or other editors didn't want to or wasn't going to "be here all day".
 * 14) interpreted the consensus incorrectly. As mentioned before, the discussion was closed prematurely as to be able to reach consensus, the closer failed to properly take into account or interpret the comments by the OP and JLo-Watson, and didn't follow the spirit of the purpose of discussion to try to reach consensus.

Per the aforementioned reasons, <BR> 2.It is my opinion that the Political legacies thread should be reopened. Thinker78  (talk)  19:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinker, in your point 1.2.2 above you have reversed OP and Closer in the attribution of the quotation from the talk page. You may wish to reconsider your interpretation of the quoted text.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It was just a whinge by a drive-by new user, upset at being reverted, and said user never even returned to the topic to contribute after the initial post. The Donald Trump archives are littered with these one-and-done topics that are just complaints, not serious or worthwhile editing concerns. This was also almost a week ago, and you (Thinker78) didn't even participate in it to begin with. Surely there's better things to do with your time rather than officious rules-lawyering? ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * (uninvolved) and trout the OP for this time-wasting exercise. For the record, the proposed text under consideration was for the lead of Donald Trump to say: Editors were right to object to the proposal on NPOV or V grounds, and SPECIFICO did us all a favor in closing an infeasibly fruitful discussion. I had previously counseled Thinker78 to start a new discussion if there were a part of the proposal they liked rather than waste time on process discussions. I am sorry to see this posting, which they spent three hours on, instead of a talk page post. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I won't challenge this non-admin close, even though the nonadmin closer User:Objective3000 is an involved editor (, but it does irk me, since I had already spent an hour compiling diffs to request DS- US politics- boomerang block against User:Thinker78 to prevent future harassment. I reserve option of using this history if I make such a filing in the future.  @Thinker78, The goal is prevention  not punishment.  Please review WP:CIR as you contemplate "prevention not punishment" being the goal of our block policy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that per WP:CLOSE, SPECIFICO should not have closed a discussion they were participating in. Or if they thought the discussion violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they should not have posted to it, but just closed it.
 * Personally, I believe that closing was correct because of the tone of the original editor. When judges err in law, we do not say they acted unconstitutionally, unless they knowingly did so. And labelling mainstream opinion "left-wing" gives a false equivalency to fringe right-wing views, which is not how weight is determined. The article on Trump should be mostly negative, because that is how he is covered in reliable sources. But many of these types of articles are more negative than the source material and should be corrected.
 * I have never seen objections to closings brought to ANI and suggest it be dealt with on the talk page. If no progress is made there, then it could be taken to a content noticeboard. But make sure that the objection is based on policy or guidelines and is phrased in a neutral, non-combative tone.
 * TFD (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that Thinker78 did follow the advice of an info page when they posted to this forum. However, Thinker78 may not be aware that "information pages" are comparable to essays, and just reflect the opinions of someone-or-other, but they're not formal WP:Policies and guidelines.  Personally, I don't care what forum in indicated.  But whatever forum that may be, the info page should be verified  or modified to say so clearly, to help the next person who wants to challenge a closure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not understanding why some editors are saying this is an improper forum or to take it to the talk page. I followed literally what Close says. It states, in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, "Depending on the type of discussion, a review will take place at one of several review boards, and distinct criteria are used for each board. In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review, moves are discussed at WP:Move review, and other closures (including requests for comment ) are discussed at WP:AN." Later on, it states, under "Challenging other closures", "For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." I did my due diligence researching the proper policies and guidelines and User:Objective3000 and other editors could at the very least cite ONE guideline or policy from where they base their actions or opinions telling me that this is not the proper venue, because it is starting to look very arbitrary if they just cite their opinions out of the blue, and all the implied threats against me going on. Thinker78   (talk)  22:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you ask a valuable procedural question, viz-a-viz, what is the "proper" way to challenge a closure? And though we have often butted heads, I applaud your research and following the available info and posting here, just as the info page instructs.  HOWEVER... FYI, "information" pages have the same wikilawyer "validity" as essays which is to say..... not a hell of a lot, unless the community has been thundering about them for a long time, which in this case they have not.  So in short, I am also confused as to the correct forum for such conversations, and I'm hopeful that one constructive result of this debate is a clarification in our much more heavy-hitting WP:P&G NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A few editors are telling me to bring this closure discussion to the article talk page, but Per WP:TALK, under "How to use article talk pages", "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article" and "No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace." Thinker78   (talk)  22:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy, WP:Close may be an information page but it provides guidance that I didn't find contradicted elsewhere. In addition, it is cited by the consensus policy WP:DETCON.-- Thinker78   (talk)  22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a closure of an WP:RfC, WP:AfD or the like. A discussion was hatted. You could have then made a suggestion to improve the article on the TP; instead of attempting to bring in an administrator. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * O3000, Ret. That's your interpretation, but my interpretation is that WP:CLOSE (Wikipedia:Closing discussions), is precisely that, a guide to close discussions. A discussion was closed, then I based my challenge to the closure on the guidance provided by Wikipedia:Closing discussions. In addition, I cited Wikipedia guidance, whereas you just closed the above without citing any single Wikipedia guidance, just your subjective, arbitrary, threatening opinion. Although Im not sure if you intended to threaten/warn me or you were trying, in your view, to prevent me getting in trouble by other editors. Btw, what is TP? Thinker78   (talk)  22:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, who freaking cares, you are picking the most ridiculously-small molehill and building Mt. Everest out of it. In all this rules-citing and such, have you by chance come across WP:NOTBURO yet? It is kinda applicable here. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Zaathras, per WP:NOTBURO, "Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles." I did consider the principles of the guidance I cited in my challenge. An editor, SandRand97, may have worked a couple of hours in an edit, was mercilessly reverted, and the discussion where they wanted to discuss the issue was even closed in a matter of hours. I don't think that is an adequate practice to follow. If their long work was reverted, at least properly discuss it to try to reach consensus in a reasonable length of time, not in a few hours. Granted, now I see that SandRand97 bailed out, but we need to see that they were probably frustrated their edit was reverted. So in my opinion it was time for the community to keep discussing whether the reverted text, part of it or a form of it could be included in the article. Thinker78   (talk)  23:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "mercilessly reverted". Good lord, the hyperbole... Zaathras (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * if an editor works 2 hours on something that is fundamentally against our content policies that's on them not us. But also, 2 hours or not, allowing them to waste even more of their time, and our time, discussing something that has no chance in hell of being implemented isn't helping anyone in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne Well, you think that, evidently that other editor didn't think that. The issue is that there are quite a few editors who are too prone to try to quash as soon as possible those who don't think like them. That's one reason why it's a good idea to respect the regular time to determine consensus of at least 7 days. Not thinking about anyone in particular, but in general many times some editors even resort to phony accusations to try to shut down debate, like tendentious editing, disruptive editing, not getting the point, and the like. Not saying that these kind of edits don't happen, but the point is that such accusations are used sometimes in an illegitimate and dishonest way to silence others, specially editors who are not in the mainstream line of narrative. For some reason, some don't like the idea of free flow of information and debate to determine consensus in a reasonable manner. And this is actually a reflection of life outside of Wikipedia and attitudes of people with one another. Thinker78   (talk)  16:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote Well, you think that, evidently that other editor didn't think that. - Could you clarify what you mean by "that" and who you mean by "that other editor" about whom you claim there's evidence of their view? Thanks.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO "Well, you think that", referring to the opinion of Nil Einne; "evidently that other editor didn't think that", referring to SandRand97, who in my opinion didn't think according to Nil Einne's aforementioned opinion. Why work knowingly for 2 hours against policies and guidelines? Evidently the editor didn't share the opinion they was working "fundamentally against our content policies". Thinker78   (talk)  19:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the article talk page discussion, inserting WP:OR directly into the lead of a Politics article is indeed "fundamentally against our content policies" regardless of who may or may not believe it to be the case. Thanks for the clarification.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * DS-Alerted editor on a mission, e.g. ..I do want to see more accommodation according to Wikipedia's guidance to seemingly conservative posts and critiques... Well that's fine, but to my knowledge in this specific dispute they have not discussed any sources much less suggested any of their own, much less shown any unreasonable bias against such sources.... even though several of us have invited their input at article talk, and pointed out they can start a new thread for this constructive purpose at any time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In this noticeboard my aim is not discussing the disputed removed content, I am discussing the closure of the discussion to determine consensus about that text. Thinker78   (talk)  16:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Final words

 * Can some administrators provide some final words to this discussion before it gets archived? I know most editors think this discussion is focusing too much on process, but I believe that sometimes focusing on the details provides higher quality and better guidance. Evidently the consensus seems to point out that editors agree with the close, but it is my opinion that most of their basis are erroneous. For example, an editor may have said that WP:CLOSE, which I used as a basis to file in this noticeboard, is only an information page, but there is no other guidance I found on this matter that would contradict WP:CLOSE or that would supersede it. Other editors, including the editor who closed the initial discussion, indicated I should have posted this challenge in the article talk page, but per WP:TALK, no meta should be discussed there and I didn't find myself welcome in the talk page of the editor I challenged. ValarianB stated, "It was just a whinge by a drive-by new user", but actually the user (User talk:SandRand97) was not a new user and was not a drive-by, it was seemingly anywhere from 20 minutes to a couple hours worth of work, even taking the time to write in the talk page to challenge the revert. Finally, NewsAndEvent said I was on a mission and that may be true. I am against undue bias and undue censorship. I'd like to see more openness, proper reception of criticism by editors, even fans of Trump, and answers without hostility and trying to respond in an adequate and welcoming manner to concerns, to try to dispel the notion that Wikipedia is a biased project with a political agenda. Thinker78   (talk)  18:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The original post was 100% WP:OR and contained zero RS citations. Thus it was not "proper criticism" but SOAP and closed per the TPG. Worse, despite multiple invites to make "proper criticism" with RS and suggested text about Trump's legacy........ which you could do at any time...........we're all still waiting.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When you edit this page, you receive the following admonition: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." As no admin has added to this thread, it would seem it is not an issue affecting administrators generally. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * O3000, Ret. I would appreciate at least guidance to an alternative procedure to challenge talk page discussion closures after no consensus is reached when contacting a closer (keep in mind that WP:TALK says no meta discussions in article talk page). I followed the steps found in WP:CLOSE, because it says "closing discussions". I'm surprised administrators wouldn't even step in to guide me. I am disappointed.  Thinker78   (talk)  14:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy I was focused on this challenge and if the discussion was reopened I was planning on checking it out. But I will gladly open a new thread in the article talk page to discuss. Thinker78   (talk)  14:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that you are trying to use WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as a guide. But, this wasn’t a "close" in that sense. Close generally refers to page deletions, moves, merges, splits, RfCs, and other major forms of discussion which normally have suggested minimum time periods. What you are challenging is a simple hatting. As has been suggested by multiple folk, you can handle this at the article talk page by asking why it was hatted or by suggesting a resolution – like alternative text. In any case, this is something the community handles, not administrators (in their admin role); unless the hatting is part of disruptive behavior, which could be handled at WP:ANI or some other drama board. (This is not a suggestion to visit ANI.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As others have said, you're encouraged to begin a fresh thread on the article talk page, addressing the problems that several editors pointed out before the thread was hatted. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not like Bitcoin mining, where you get rewarded for "work". Here, we create value by sticking to the Policies and Guidelines, again as several editors have explained. Good luck.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * O3000, Ret., I guess I will open a new thread in a talk page to look for clarification about WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, because when I read "closing discussions" I interpret it to mean every discussion according to the categories listed therein. When I type wp:hatting in the Wikipedia search box, I am redirected to Closing discussions, where it states, "Closing a discussion means putting a box around it for the purpose of discouraging further contributions to that discussion". Regarding your advise to challenge the closure of the discussion—or the hatting—in the article talk page, I think WP:TALK advises not to, unless I am not understanding the guideline properly. It states, "No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace." Can you tell me your opinion about this latter guideline and its relevancy to the closure of the hatting discussion in the article talk page? Thinker78   (talk)  23:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I will not answer that question because this is boring everyone. Just do what everyone advises. And do so with fewer words. Unlike what some are taught in schools at various levels; 'Brevity is the soul of wit' O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ADMIN GUY COMMENT - We generally do not review closures of informal discussion. It isn't a function of administrators nor the community on the whole.  Hatted comments can be reverted for cause, or you can start a new conversation.  However, it often does good to read why they hatted it, as they may be right.  Administrative review of closures is generally reserved only for formal discussions, like AFD, RFC or (rarely) when there is some kind of abuse or conduct issue at stake in someone archiving/hatting/closing an informal discussion.  This doesn't seem to be the case.  This IS an admin board, which means we try to stay uninvolved with content disputes and focus only on procedure and behavior.  There isn't any hard and fast rules for closing or not closing an informal discussion.  This is particularly true in this case, as all SPECIFICO did was hat a discussion he felt was straying into a WP:FORUM violation.  It could be argued that it really wasn't, but that alone isn't a reason for an admin to get involved.  Closing the discussion above was correct, in my view, and SPECIFICO hatting was questionable, but your options for dealing with it don't include admin intervention at this stage. ie: it isn't a big deal, revert, or don't, and move on.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Repeated interference and conflict of interest
There is an unconfirmed editor (with no page) with a self-admitted conflict of interest, continually removing valid information and vandalizing a controversial Wikipedia page, Sexy Vegan. The editor is Kristin carlicci. I am not sure how to stop this, as reasonable talks with them and attempts to refer them to Wikipedia standards (also from another member, Hey man im josh, who had to revert several of their edits) has not deterred them. PetSematary182 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182


 * Wow, that article is a dumpster fire, there are BLPvios all over the place, horrible sourcing and it's just generally bad. There's currently edit warring over if they're an amatuer musician and "informal political candidate," whatever that is. 's behavior is bad, but no one is covered in glory here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's my question: Are they even notable enough for an article? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but no one wants to deal with the fanpeople footwork of an AFD <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈  17:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just watch me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was about to start looking and removing, so I guess we'll see? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll openly admit to being covered in not-glory. I try to avoid BLP altogether, but like you said, I saw a lot of room for improvement, mostly through deletion. I tempered my approach and tried to only axe what I was sure was problematic but I'm still inexperienced in BLP. I apologize d if I caused any issues. If I made any big mistakes, please let me know. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In the future, if you see something that looks like a problem, feel free to reach out at WP:BLPN for assistance. There's normally a pretty quick turn-around for getting assistance with BLP issues there from editors who are familiar with the sourcing requirements around BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, you didn't notify them of this thread, which is required. I have left them the required notice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted 3 of 's edits. They are continuing to ignore the warnings on their talk page (including two of my own) and inserting unsourced material into the Sexy Vegan article. For the mean time I've requested EC page protection for the article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, User:Kristin carlicci is a likely sockpuppet of User:Dantebish. Both are SPA's dedicated to promoting the same individual (Sexy Vegan) across multiple different pages, and continuously edit warring to get their preferred revisions of pages restored. I have filed a report at SPI here because of this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dantebish" is most likely Sexy Vegan himself. Sexy Vegan as "Hanz DeBartolo" wrote a book called After Death through an Amazon vanity press (CreateSpace); the main character's name is, I kid you not, "Dante Bish". I don't want to say for certain (it could just be a fan of Vegan's), but if you see this editor or any sockpuppets, it is probably Vegan himself, or a fan/supporter of his. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This may or may not shed light on events. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Lovely. He's paying people off to delete Wikipedia articles. Somehow though, after all this nonsense today with that Kristin carlicci person (BTW as far as I know that name is of another fictional character from one of Vegan's self-published books), I'm really not at all surprised. 🙄 PetSematary182 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Does he really think an administrator will jeopardize his position for $10? Donald Albury 22:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not an admin who badgered the article into deletion. Kristin carlicci is an unconfirmed user whose only editing history is of the one Sexy Vegan page now slated for deletion. I can't imagine any seasoned Wikipedia editor/administrator who would have stooped to that level themselves. PetSematary182 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Lovely indeed. If such a job were to take place, it would mean severe consequences for both the poster of the job and the admin who took it. J I P  &#124; Talk 23:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In full disclosure I'm the person who nominated the article for deletion. Had this never come to AN, I'd likely never come across the article. However, since it was visible it is to be blunt, an absolute mess of an article about someone that isn't really notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling it an absolute mess might be putting it lightly. I'm glad it's looking like WP:SNOW even if I'm unhappy they're going to succeed at paying to get their way. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is going to get deleted anyway because of WP:SNOW, so if the subject of the article did not get to pay anyone to delete it for them, no harm will be done. J I P  &#124; Talk 01:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for wikipedia page creation for "MVDM: The Magical Volumes Vol​.​1: The Magick Volume of Dark Madder"
Hello!! I want to create a page for "MVDM: The Magical Volumes Vol​.​1: The Magick Volume of Dark Madder", a EP/21 minute long song by Gospel (hardcore punk band). There is plenty of sources that I can work with. Unfortunately, It apparently has a "non breaking space" which I have tried removing, to no avail. I still want to create this page so can I have this page created? Many thanks. Chchcheckit (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chchcheckit Try MVDM: The Magical Volumes Vol.1: The Magick Volume of Dark Madder. P HANTOM T ECH (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's great, thank you! Chchcheckit (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

JIP
I am very concerned about the terrible sourcing for articles being translated from fi.wiki by JIP, large numbers of articles causing large amounts of work for other editors cleaning up after them.

I first approached JIP about this at Articles for deletion/Suomenlinna Brewery, pinging them to my comment. They didn’t respond to the ping. I approached them on their talk at User_talk:JIP/Archive_38. It archived with no response. A couple of weeks later, working at NPP in the Food & Drink section, I came across multiple articles from JIP that had been translated from fi.wiki and that just had terrible sourcing. For instance Lordi's Rocktaurant, which had been AfD’d with a result of redirect to Lordi in 2009. The restaurant closed in 2011. JIP translated and created this article in May. Restaurants do not typically become notable after they close. When I got there. Lordi’s Rocktaurant took me a half hour to check references, find out if the wayback machine had links that were dead (JIP left permanently dead links to self-sources in the references section), pull out the dreck (stuff was sourced to a bare mention in a Master's thesis), and decide that yeah, this isn’t notable. Nominated and discovered it was nominated 12 years ago and closed as redirect. JIP’s archives are littered with notifications of AfDs that did not end in Keep. I am concerned not only that this is someone who is highly experienced and doesn’t seem to understand our sourcing requirements, not only that they are refusing to communicate, but that this is an admin doing these things. This is a huge timesink for other editors. It shouldn't be happening. valereee (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ugh. And then we have things like this which may or may not be notable but are nothing more than a product placement. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also could an admin who wasn't involved in recreating Hotel Korpilampi please evaluate the status of the G4 that JIP removed themselves? Also that's an involved CSD removal if I ever saw one. This appears to be a long term problem, per Savoy (restaurant) their removal here too, which  attempted (ultimately futile) discuss with them. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈  19:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The deleted version was five sentences long and reffed only   ; the first and third of those are in the recreation.  I wouldn't have G4d it.  Still shouldn't have been JIP to remove the tag. —Cryptic 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine - and what I was looking for but my original point still stands that they shouldn't have been the one to remove it, nor should they have done so on the other articles they've created. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll note that this editor started editing several hours ago and has edited as recently as an hour ago. I'd opened this here because I thought it might be a kinder place to handle what surely couldn't be intentional misbehavior, but now I'm wondering if I should move it to ANI. Would anyone object to that move? valereee (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think AN is probably more appropriate given it's about admin "powers" and the next step would be arbcom. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. valereee (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It is not my intention to vandalise Wikipedia but to improve it. The articles come from the Finnish Wikipedia where they usually have been edited and reviewed for years so the Finnish Wikipedia seems to have accepted them. Apparently the English Wikipedia has stricter rules for article contents. Some of the Finnish articles do have quite little in the way of sources so I try to pick articles that are long enough and have enough sources. I admit I should not be removing deletion notices from articles I have created myself, but otherwise I don't see why this is such a huge issue. Also I don't see how this counts as an abuse of admin powers when I haven't even used my admin powers in creating these articles. J I P  &#124; Talk 16:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No-one has mentioned vandalism. WP:ADMINCOND does not just cover admin actions but also policy knowledge, and it is concerning that you only now seem to be aware that apparently the English Wikipedia has stricter rules for article contents. Also, if you have not been responding to valereee's concerns, then that would raises issues of WP:ADMINACCT as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You created an article which had been g4'd, recreated it and then declined the deletion tag. That is involved to the nth degree, among other issues. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it shouldn't take multiple editors and an AN thread discussing potentially taking this to arbcom to get you to comply with WP:ADMINACCT <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It has already been established that the article I created about Hotel Korpilampi was not substantially identical to the deleted version, being over two and a half times as long as the deleted version. Still I must admit I acted wrongly in removing the speedy deletion notice straight away, I should have discussed it on your talk page first. Anyway, what happened with this one article should not have much negative impact on other translations from the Finnish Wikipedia, they should be viewed as articles on their own. J I P  &#124; Talk 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The concerns raised here aren't just about one article... Levivich 23:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're still wildly missing the point and haven't begun to address the crux of the problem. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * JIP, you've been an admin for 17 years, and you're essentially admitting to not understanding basic content policies, basic deletion policies, and a basic understanding of WP:INVOLVED. Is this really the path you want to go down? This is somewhat concerning. <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 01:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would have to echo Scottywong's concerns here. None of us admin are specialists in all areas, but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of our most basic content policies, as well as WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINCOND, as well as WP:ADMINACCT, even if the tools aren't being used.  The community has been very aggressive in policing admin who are out of touch with basic conduct expectations, and a number of admin have found it in their best interest (and the best interest of enwp) to simply resign the bit and be a non-admin editor.  Is this one of those cases, or are you saying you are going to devote all your time to get up to speed with expectations that are placed on EVERY admin here? There really isn't a third option. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish to remain an admin and to get up to speed with the expectations. I will continue my work here as normal but also take greater care of Wikipedia policies and admin accountability. J I P  &#124; Talk 23:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a page for admins becoming more involved after a period of reduced activity or absence: WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * JIP, you literally created Harri Hylje yesterday with an edit summary of "this is now ready to be moved into article namespace". As far as I can tell not a single one of those sources is okay. valereee (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I almost posted this myself, thanks for doing it. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @JIP, you can't go and just directly translate articles from the Finnish Wikipedia without checking their sources. Many of the sources used for this article are dead. Apparently your source for your articles is the Finnish Wikipedia, which is a wiki, hence not a reliable source. Sure, most of the time, wikis get it right, but to produce something truly reliable, we need to check what we are doing. (I know and remember from my own translations that things were different ten years ago, but we try to be much better and verifiably correct these days). —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Translations from fi.wiki started by 2005 and number certainly in the hundreds. Ugh. valereee (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The articles would have been fine by 2000s standards. Just standards have changed very much. —Kusma (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know. I was just thinking about cleanup. valereee (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an admin however wondering about the Lordi article and it being mentioned here. Why is this tiny article even being mentioned? If JIP is editing many articles incorrectly naming only one makes very little sense.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be looking at revoking somebody's admin bit if they're not abusing the tools. Yes, WP:ADMINCOND does talk about consistent or egregious poor judgment even in the context of non-admin edits, but I don't think we're there yet.  I'm going to WP:AGF that JIP has taken a wake-up call about how they have not kept up with our evolving policies over the years.  They have already stated that they will get up to speed with the expectations.  I suggest we take them at their word on that, close this thread, and see how things go.  If there's further problems, we can pick this up again.
 * I will note that we've got an arbcom this year which has clearly demonstrated that they won't give a free ride to legacy admins who have failed to keep up. And if there's one key takeaway from the three cases early this year, it's that the "Failure to communicate" clause of WP:ADMINACCT is on everybody's hot button.  You can get away with almost any mistake if you respond to questions when asked about it.  Ignoring queries is a quick path to an arbcom case which ends badly.  By the same token, asking questions when you're not sure is always a good plan, and WP:Noticeboards lists the appropriate places for various types of questions.  If you prefer, I'm sure any of the admins who have participated in this thread would be happy to answer questions off-wiki if you email them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith, did you see the fact that within minutes of saying they'd get up to speed, they added yet another terribly-sourced translation from fi.wiki? Like 10 minutes after saying that, up went Harri Hylje. So, no, I don't think we can take them at their word. And this person is not responding to pings from AN. They were pinged four days ago and still haven't responded. So... valereee (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my sigh, it means, "No, I hadn't read that far, and now that I have, it makes me sad". -- RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. valereee (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * And now, following the last, we now have Main Guard Post, Helsinki. The first source is offline and I do not have immediate access to it (nor can I read Finnish), but the second source is a blog, and the third seems only (as best as I can tell from machine translation) to mention the building in brief passing. I don't see any reason to believe that it clears notability, nor that any reasonable editor, let alone an administrator, would have thought that it does. JJP has stated that he will undertake to bring himself up to speed on the English Wikipedia's policies, yet seems to have just carried on doing the exact same thing without any effort to do so. With any other editor, who carried on creating inappropriate articles despite assurances that they would stop that and familiarize themself with policy first, I would very likely block them until the matter could be satisfactorily resolved., can you offer any reason why that shouldn't happen here? Because if anything, we should hold admins to a higher standard, and I don't see you meeting that here at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't replied here for a while. I am still trying to both improve my conduct and improve Wikipedia. I am not acting on bad faith here, at least not intentionally. Not all of my translations from the Finnish Wikipedia have been problematic but some have. The Finnish Wikipedia has quite many articles that are poorly sourced. I would like to have translated fi:viinakortti (a card that used to be required in Finland to be able to buy alcohol) or fi:Vadelmavenepakolainen (a book about a Finnish boy who wants to be Swedish), but the former has only two sources, one of which seems to be only a passing mention, and the latter is not sourced at all. I myself put an "unreferenced" template in the article. I try to pick articles that are long enough and well enough sourced. The deletion discussion about Main Guard Post, Helsinki seems to have some "keep" votes as the building is notable, but that still does not make the article well enough sourced at this point. There are further sources listed at the deletion discussion, I can make use of them to improve on the article. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that none of the creations are notable. They're saying you aren't bothering to support that notability and seem to be struggling even with the concept here.
 * @JIP, I have no doubt that you are well-intentioned. But you are not qualified to be working as an admin, and you should voluntarily set down tools. IMO that is a minimum for you getting back to editing. You don't need adminship to translate from fi.wiki or to learn policy.
 * You also need to start using AfC to submit articles you translate until you have learned what does and doesn't represent adequate sourcing. With some work you should be able to get your AfCs up to snuff, and then maybe you can start creating in main space yourself again. You also need to commit to responding promptly to concerns expressed on your user talk and when pinged to other discussions of your work. This is a minimum for being an actual good editor rather than just a well-intentioned one.  valereee (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from issues understanding notability, has there been any issues with JIP's use of the tools? If not, then I don't think there is any real disruption here that warrants relinquishing them; they shouldn't be closing deletion discussions, and they should be sending articles through AfC, but there are plenty of unrelated admin tasks that need to be completed, and looking at their logs they do perform those tasks. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * considering they used their tools to recreate/restore deleted content against consensus and also decline speedies as an admin, yeah I'd say it involves their tool use. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, see the following proposal; given the issues are restricted to article creation and deletion, I believe a topic ban is a suitable remedy - I also note that them resigning the tools won't address most of the issues, as it won't prevent them from creating problematic articles. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal
To address the issues raised in the previous discussion: JIP is topic-banned by the community from closing or relisting deletion discussions, from declining speedy deletes, from restoring deleted articles, and from creating new articles in mainspace or moving articles to mainspace; they are permitted to submit articles to Articles for Creation for review by an independent editor. This restriction can be appealed in six months.


 * Support as proposer. This editor has some mild competence issues with regards to their understanding of notability which is causing disruption in the narrow area of article creation and deletion. This topic ban will address that disruption without requiring that we lose another otherwise-productive admin. In regards to appealing, I would recommend that they do not do so until they can demonstrate that AfC is consistently approving the articles they create. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And do we think they have the policy knowledge to make other judgement calls w/re tool use? Also this proposal isn't addressing communication issues.
 * We might as well just admit it: this community is simply unwilling to consider the idea of whether an admin simply shouldn't be an admin. valereee (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The community might be unwilling, but whether they are willing or not isn't relevant; only ArbCom can remove an admins tools, and I don't think they would do so in this case - I think this is more similar to the recent Timwi case than the Geschichte or Jonathunder cases.
 * As for general policy knowledge, we don't know if JIP has enough to make other judgement calls; if it is discovered that they don't, and they are still unwilling to relinquish the tools, then that can be presented as evidence in an ArbCom case, but for now I believe the most we should do is use the tools we have available to prevent further disruption of the type currently seen. BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you'll notice my suggestion was for a voluntary desysop. valereee (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you believe the solution isn't suitable, I'm happy to withdraw it; I was looking for a way that we could resolve the situation without them needing to give up the tools, but if this isn't it then it's just a distraction from the broader conversation. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is basically a community desysop in all but name. There is no way that an admin the community doesn't trust to close AfDs, respond to CSDs, or create articles, will be an admin for much longer. Having said that, my reading of the discussion above is that JIP has readily admitted to making mistakes and is trying to get back up to speed with enwiki policies, and that appetite for sanctioning him is at best mixed, so I don't see how this is a productive proposal at this point. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe, how are you reading this as 'at best mixed'? I am not seeing anyone saying no action is needed; the closest I'm seeing is a couple people changing their minds once they've actually been made aware of the entire discussion. What are you seeing as 'at best mixed' in anyone's comments here?
 * And what are you seeing as sincerely and competently trying to get up to speed? JIP, after having promised to do so and then creating another poorly sourced article ten minutes later, continues to explain they try to pick articles that are 'long enough and well-sourced' but their understanding of that seems to be 'has multiple sources listed' with no recognition that 10 bad sources are not a reason to choose an article to create here. And once again they're editing without responding to a ping here. They shouldn't have to be pinged here, it should be their responsibility to keep up with this discussion and respond when someone addresses them directly. This is IMO evidence of ignoring something in hopes it will go away. That is not operating in good faith. This is an admin doing these things. By which I mean "if this were not an admin someone would have blocked them days ago." valereee (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but, conversely, only you and Prax have explicitly called for immediate action. Hence 'mixed'.
 * Clearly there is a difference of opinion here in terms of what counts as a good enough article to translate. That JIP has not immediately swung round to your point of view does not mean that he's not listening. Nor does not responding to every single comment here and on his talk page make him unresponsive. Kusma has already pointed out that these articles would have been fine 10 years ago. In my RfA five years ago, I got a bit of flak for doing exactly the same thing as JIP with Novoarkhanhelsk, but nobody opposed because of it. So while yes, our standards evolve and JIP should try to get up to speed, I don't think it's changed so much that translating imperfect articles is grounds for a desysop. The argument that a poorly-sourced translation is a better starting point for a good article than a red link is still within the wiki-Overton window, I think. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am really not enjoying being the loud one here, but just to clarify, you seem to be saying that when multiple people are expressing a valid concern about your competence to edit, either at your talk or at a noticeboard, it's fine if you keep making the same kinds of incompetent edits (ten minutes after promising not to) and it's also fine if you just don't respond to those concerns, over and over and over again, by either archiving the posts unanswered or by ignoring noticeboard discussions for days at a time? Because I am finding this very surprising. I would have thought that most admins would be saying the opposite. valereee (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that JIP probably doesn't see his edits as incompetent and that, after acknowledging and saying he'll act on the criticisms he's received here, it's reasonable if he wants to busy himself with other things. For me, personally, that isn't conduct that screams out for sanctions, though I absolutely see why you brought this here in the first place. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Next time I won't bother. valereee (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My "sigh" comment, and the subsequent clarification notwithstanding, I don't believe any action is needed at this time. JIP has been around for 17 years.  I'm not saying that makes him WP:UNBLOCKABLE, but let's give him some time to absorb what people are saying without feeling backed into a corner. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because admins need more time than non-admins to be able to absorb what people are saying without being backed into a corner. Ok. valereee (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * JIP this morning archived unreplied this edit from a few hours ago, which was made in response to the notification of this AfD, which mentions that the nominator tried to discuss the Pizzataxi article with JIP, but their post on JIP's talk was archived without response. valereee (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly, they've given up on all those pages and are archive-and-forgetting...? I haven't read the material in this thread closely, but I agree that such a broad TBAN is not really suitable for admins. If a desysop is warranted, which it may well be, it should happen at WP:RFAR. Additional sanctions, such as the aforementioned TBAN could follow that (imposed by ARBCOM), or brought up to the community separately.
 * I'm just not sure immediate action by way of this thread/proposal is that feasible. I think the issue of JIP's advanced permissions ought to be tackled first. In my view, it would reflect poorly on the project to have a sysop who'd be unable to do what virtually every other user could. This isn't like the (now-expired) TBAN of admin (whom I sanctioned) from Kyiv — again, it is very broad. El_C 18:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They this morning archived the post which was made this morning after the AfD notification had been posted this morning and someone responded this morning.
 * The AfD which was posted this morning included an explanation that, six weeks ago, the person making the nom had tried to contact JIP about the article being poorly sourced and JIP didn't bother to respond.
 * As has happened multiple times before, JIP just let the orginal post from six weeks ago expressing concern get archived. Then this morning, they very quickly archived posts about it. So, no. This wasn't because they're archiving and forgetting. This is an ongoing problem that happened again this morning.
 * I keep thinking I should stop responding. But I feel like I have to respond to what seems like a misunderstanding. This isn't archiving-and-forgetting. This is happening in real time, now, after over two weeks of discussion, much of which JIP hasn't bothered to respond to. valereee (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, either they're done, or they're not. I don't know which it is. But if they gave up on those pages (and creating ones like them), then they don't really need to do anything. Granted, it's poor form not to say anything (and to leave us guessing as to the meaning of their recent archiving), especially after the broken promises, but in my view, that action still wouldn't be sanctionable yet. Yours and others' mileage may vary, though. And as noted, mine was just a passing comment. I don't know a great deal about this case to be able to remark on it with confidence, so FWIW. El_C 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just this morning, I received thirty notices that VR train templates I had originally created in 2007 were nominated for deletion because they were unused and obsolete. I routinely archive my talk page once it goes past thirty topics, so the previous discussions got archived in the process. I was not the only editor who got multiple notices about obsolete VR train templates. I intend to take this matter up on some forum later, that could it be possible to prevent so many mass notices in one go. J I P  &#124; Talk 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now manually moved the Pizzataxi deletion discussion notification back to my active talk page and replied to it. J I P  &#124; Talk 22:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, per RoySmith. If this wasn't an admin, we wouldn't be rushing to sanction, we would mentor, or have this discussion and give it a chance to sink in.  Admin don't need special treatment, but let's give him equal treatment.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm only commenting on one small piece of this (and not even hinting anything more than that) which is new/imported article creation which is much-discussed above.  In NPP work I've looked at about 1,000 new articles in the last month (including maybe 200 imported ones).  Creating new articles without including GNG-establishing sourcing (where wp:notability looks like at least a plausible possibility), while it makes our NPP life hell, and while I would advocate draftifying to lean on the creator to add such sources, is a common practice and not a conduct problem. Even more so for creating a new article with other flaws in it......such can be considered merely an article that needs work / development. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'd agree but have you ever tried to draftify an article created by an administrator? <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I just mentioned that as a sidebar. My only real points were very narrow: 1. That those particular poor practices that I mentioned are not a mis-conduct issue. 2. That other flaws in an article are common, not a misconduct issue. I agree that something should be done. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any case at all being made for most of this."Closing and relisting deletion discussions": Which deletion discussions has he closed or relisted improperly? Really, what deletion discussions has he recently closed or relisted at all?  The only ones he's even edited this year that I see are WP:Articles for deletion/Cultural differences between Kazakhstan and Malaysia, WP:Articles for deletion/Lordi's Rocktaurant (2nd nomination) (for an article he started), and several discussions on WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17."from declining speedy deletes": There's no evidence of this being a problem in general, only for his removal of the db-g4 from Hotel Korpilampi, an article he created.  That one case, though, is deeply problematic.  JIP, we block people for that, when repeated after a warning.  It happens often enough that we have specific warning templates for it, uw-speedy1-uw-speedy4.  It's especially bad when it's an administrator or other very experienced editor that does it, since it looks like a "Rules for thee, not for me" kind of situation.  You screwed up, we've warned you, don't do it again.  That should be the end of it."Restoring deleted articles": No reason's been put forward why this is a problem, except when combined with the fourth arm,..."from creating new articles in mainspace or moving articles to mainspace": This is the only part with any kind of evidence of a broad problem here.  Like Dennis Brown, though, I don't think we'd be topic banning a non-administrator editor here yet.  Removing autopatrolled?  Yes, in a heartbeat.  But JIP's not autopatrolled. —Cryptic 23:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This pile-on looks more like general skepticism of legacy admins than any solid case for action. The involved removal of the CSD tag was an obvious error which JIP admitted. Trout for that. They probably should be more communicative for their own good, if nothing else. That was their other major error -- not knowing (or not fully appreciating) that if you don't respond very promptly when people raise problems, then things will go badly for you at AN/ANI (especially if you're an admin ... why don't we have more of those again? ). Looks like some of their articles are being merged, some kept, some edited, etc. I'm just not sold that there are egregious problems here that call for dumping a ton of bricks on them. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note, if anyone is wondering, I did not create the original version of the article Hotel Korpilampi, it was created by another user. I only created the second version, after the original version had been deleted. The reason the versions are so similar is that they had been translated from the same article on the Finnish Wikipedia. I did not use my admin tools to recreate the article but instead created it by hand. J I P  &#124; Talk 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I hate to play devil's advocate, but it seems that this is their only warning, so I think they should get their WP:ROPE. If their behavior doesn't stop, I support this, but for now, I don't support this. C LYDE (TALK) @PING ME! 03:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per WP:ADMINACCT, only the Arbitration Committee has the prerogative to sanction or de-sysop an admin in this manner.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  11:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe your technicality depends on how one interprets Administrators ... may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee from that section; to me, that reads as "may be sanctioned" OR "have their rights removed by the Arbitration Committee"; ArbCom definitely has the sole ability (at current) to remove rights, but I do not feel that we are the only ones who can even give regular sanctions to admins. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It might well be an issue of wording. If the intent of that statement is to allow admins to be sanctioned by their peers, it might be worth clarifying that to prevent future Wiki-lawyering. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely a fair point, and likely something to discuss in a separate thread. I will note that in March 2021 an admin was successfully topic-banned at ANI, so there is a small precedent. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:ADMINACCT is that only arbcom can sanction an admin's use of the admin tools. It's rare that arbcom imposes any sanction short of being desysopped but it does happen; I had to go back to 2017 to find an example: Magioladitis is restricted from unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator (although, they did get a full desysop not long after that).  And,, it's not an admin's peers that can impose sanctions.  Arbcom is not a peer, they're a supervisor.  The topic ban being discussed here would cover:
 * closing or relisting deletion discussions
 * declining speedy deletes
 * restoring deleted articles
 * creating new articles in mainspace
 * moving articles to mainspace
 * Of those, only the "restoring deleted articles" item requires the use of admin tools, so I would think that's something the community cannot do, but all the others are within scope of WP:CBAN.
 * I'm not saying we should do any of those things. I'm just responding to the narrow question of what a CBAN can cover vs what requires arbcom action. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * it's not an admin's peers that can impose sanctions. Arbcom is not a peer That is my argument, that regular admins can't sanction other admins; only Arbcom can. That differs from your reading, of course, which is that they can so long as it's not prohibiting admin actions.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User cannot edit their GA nom
Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I believe an administrator would be the best person to solve this problem, so I'll take a go at it.

User Moonlight+BLONK nominated Thank U, Next for good article status yesterday. I picked up the nomination later the same day. I began reviewing the nomination, and among the article's several issues (a cn-tag among them), I noticed that the nominator had 1. never edited the article before and 2. wasn't extended-confirmed and therefore is unable to edit the article. This is a major problem, obviously, as the nominator is the main one who's supposed to be doing the fixing, and the user cannot implement the fixes I recommended.

So, even though neither of these are really permitted (or expressly permitted) by policy, I'd like to request that either:

a. Moonlight+BLONK be granted with early extended-confirmed permissions for the purpose of editing this article (or some sort of perm to edit this specific article) or b. The protection for Thank U, Next be reduced to auto-confirmed (at least until the review is done).

Again, I do not even know if this is the correct venue to ask this at, if not, please assist me. I probably could have quick-failed the article, but I do not want to intimidate a well-meaning contributor. -- VersaceSpace  🌃 16:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Is EC permission overridable? We seem to have two choices here, either place the GA Nom on hold until such time as Moonlight+BLONK gains EC permission, or if it is possible, a temporary granting of EC permission to allow editing the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's a "time" issue. The user has had an account for over a year, it's the 500 edits part that's holding this up. The editor has ~130 edits. -- VersaceSpace  🌃 19:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the article still need to be EC protected? Does the reason given on 4 November 2020 still apply? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging the protecting administrator RoySmith for your input please. Can the protection be lowered to semi-protection? Noting that there was a sockpuppetry problem. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The associated SPI case for the most recent page protection is still active (MariaJaydHicky), but not sure if extended confirmed protection is needed. Semi protection is probably fine. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't remember any of the details of the block, but sure, semi-protection seems perfectly reasonable. I've reduced the protection level to that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- VersaceSpace  🌃 19:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, for future reference, WP:RPP is the official place for these kinds of requests. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, but I didn't have a based reason for requesting this so I figured it would make more sense to discuss it here. -- VersaceSpace  🌃 19:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any better policy than, This will help get an article to GA -- RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing content model of a user page
Primefac (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding comments to a closed RM
In these two edits, two comments were added to a closed RM. Both users are relatively new (one is a new account from earlier this year, the other has just over 500 edits), so I don’t want to “bite the newbie”. Also I was an “involved” party in the RM. Please could an admin advise on the right action to take? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was also involved, but it was an archived discussion so I just moved those comments to outside of the archived area. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 09:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since all you were doing was clerking the discussion without changing the words, I don't think "involved" is at issue. And moving them outside the closed discussion is exactly what I would have done, so anyone looking at it later would understand they weren't included in the final decision.  That's the least drama causing solution.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Raphael Gomes
I wish to review Draft:Raphael Gomes; please could someone restore it as a draft, or to my user space, or email me the markup? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't WP:RFUD be more appropriate to request this than AN? <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Restored, . But as above, WP:REFUND is probably the best place for requests of this kind. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

French Wikipedia
Ask the French Wikipedia administrators to follow the normal Wikipedia format. The new French format is unhelpful and unpractical. 70.30.78.143 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We have no control over how the French Wikipedia is administrated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

fr.wiki has made Vector 2022 the default skin.- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban requested for multiple users on American History articles
In the talk page of Founding Fathers of the United States, a number of RFCs have been initiated on the question about signers of the Continental Association (CA) should being described or not in that article as Founding Fathers. The pattern is that the RFCs go against the viewpoints and preferences of certain contributors so they initiate new discussions such as this or new RFCs, i.e. this RFC, this, and this (denoted as "revisited"), with essentially the exact same purpose, i.e. how to categorize in Wikipedia the CA signers as Founding Fathers.There is no use in rehashing the long arguments here once more, nor should that be allowed: This is about certain contributors explicitly violating consensus. (See Allreet's firm objection to the practice.) Therefore, and without taking any joy in it, I propose that a topic ban be applied for all articles about the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period of the history of the United States on users Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging: Binksternet, Gog the Mild, Robert McClenon, North8000, Orson12345, and Pincrete. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging: Gwillhickers, TheVirginiaHistorian, Mhawk10, Sideswipe9th, Randy Kryn, and Allreet. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging: Thucydides411, Firefangledfeathers, Rjensen, and Atsme. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * Proud to be among those named in this weird and, if I may say, misguided request. Please realize that consensus has not been violated, not once, and also please realize that Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian are two of the longest serving, most trusted, and productive members building and refining Wikipedia's American founding documents and founding events collection, and in the recent discussions have provided so many productive edits and analysis that it seems The Gnome is working from an alternate Wikipedia than I've visited. I would not recommend a boomerang for The Gnome (too easy, although a trout or two not out of the realm of supplemental fish). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's check the veracity the absurd claim that "consensus has not been violated", on which, moreover, a boomerang threat is plugged.
 * Chronologically, this RfC was the first one. Its decision, by three editors, mind you, was quite clear (emphasis in the original): "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 and guidelines, not as the result of a vote. And, through that lens, editors achieved a rough consensus that the article should not list the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers on that basis alone." Note that a rough consensus is still a consensus.
 * After one month, a 2nd RfC was initiated. The question posed is essentially the same as in the previous one. The discussion metammorphoses into an expanded, long discussion without closure, although the suggestions ran 6-5 against "the signers of the Articles of Confederation be[ing] listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States."
 * After about one month, we get hit by a third RfC, stating inter alia, that "there was only a consensus to remove names of those who only signed the Continental Association." and yhat "there was nothing said in that RfC about removing the entire C.A. listing." That RfC as well, soon degenerates into an exchange of the same viewpoints, again and again, yet no consensus changing the original RfC's decision is met, by any stretch. On top of this, one of the three editors named in this proposal takes it upon themselves to claim a "proposal to reinstate the signers of the Continental Association in the Chart of Founders"! Which goes beyond WP:BOLD and well into the realm of total arbitrariness and a disregard for consensus. This whole episode of trying to re-write History-per-sources by first trying to sneak the re-write into Wikipedia is getting nauseous. -The Gnome (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your third RfC isn't an RfC (please look again). The 2nd RfC you mention is on an entirely different topic (reading comprehension comes into question). If you feel sick, Pepto-Dismal may help. I've trouted you for not realizing that consensus hasn't been broken by either of the two long-term productive topic editors you mention (or by me either) and, once realizing that, not removing this misinformed complaint (this is actually my first trout, as I gave up fishing once I caught an Alligator gar and let it swim free after realized the majesty of such a thing in nature). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

, your involvement here has started out in a violation of noticeboard rules. At the top of the noticeboard, in bold red letters, it says, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You failed to do this in your apparent rush to crucify multiple long time contributors. Thanks.
 * Instead of posting up in talk pages, I acted in an equivalent manner by pinging here not just the three editors but everyone involved in the relevant discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The notice at the top of this page, and the edit notice, both explicitly state that pings are not sufficient notifications for AN discussions. Pings and talkpage notices are not equivalent because you can opt out of recieving pings, whereas there is no way to opt out of web notifications for talkpage messages. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your unfounded accusations: This whole episode of trying to re-write History-per-sources by first trying to sneak the re-write into Wikipedia is getting nauseous.- What is actually "nauseous" are these trumped up weasel accusations. — "sneak the re-write into Wikipedia"?? — No edits have been made in violation of the RfC ruling. It is not a violation of the RfC ruling to discuss new developments since that ruling.

" This is about certain contributors explicitly violating consensus" There has been ongoing discussions over the many new sources that have been introduced to the talk page. Even the ruling of the RfC in question clearly states:



Rather than trying to vilify multiple editors with such ridiculous claims, you might try looking into the many new sources, and see why there is new discussions occurring, ones where Allreet has been an active participant in his challenges. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I had tried to help out navigating the situation at that article and was "up to speed" at that time but subsequently left. The situation there is a large complicated one.   The RFC resolved one specific question but IMO that article has a fundamental structural problem embedded in it (in it's title)  which will likely prevent any real resolution. In essence trying to define defining the scope and topic of a historical article using a variable-meaning 20th century term.  Any statement that implies that the narrow answer from the RFC somehow defined an overall course for the article in the disputed area(s) is not correct. Hence, any statement of a potential behavioral problem would need to be  far more specific to go any further or to expect others to review it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The main problem with the listed editors is that they have decided collectively to violate WP:No original research by taking one or more topic definitions and applying those definitions to other articles, to create a novel synthesis. Specifically, if the term "Founding Fathers" can be said to include anyone who signed a particular document, then everyone who signed it can be called a founding father, despite the utter absence of sources saying the person was a founding father. Randy Kryn applied that concept here at the biography of young Thomas Lynch Jr who was filling in for his influential father. No historian says directly that Junior was a Founding Father; the connection can only be inferred. Randy Kryn edit-warred to keep that term in the biography, where it remains today, a black mark on WP:NOR. In talk page discussions and in practice, Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian have agreed that we can bypass WP:V and apply the term "Founding Fathers" to a wide variety of American revolutionary figures, without having those figures explicitly named as such in reliable sources. It's a travesty. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? Thomas Lynch Jr. signed the Declaration of Independence so is considered a Founding Father by every schoolchild (or at least used to be when schoolchildren knew what the declaration accomplished)., please set this fellow straight. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to WP:V being returned as a hard policy. This notional "every schoolchild" assertion is another gaseous claim. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * True, they undeniably don't, I wish every American schoolchild still knew this. A Wikipedian can dream. Randy Kryn (talk)


 * , regarding this statement: "This is yet another unfounded accusation. Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian have agreed that we can bypass WP:V. Nonsense — we have not "agreed" to any such thing. Please quote any such statement. On the contrary, we have referred to an array of new sources so as to bolster WP:V. Add: there has been no "novel synthesis".  The sources clearly support the idea that e.g.TheFirst Continental Congress, which btw, included Washington, Patrick Henry, John and Samuel Adams and other such notable people, are among the founders and that the documents they produced, which introduced independent colonial representation, a bill of colonial rights, natural law, clearly contributed to the founding of a nation.  You could have participated in those discussions, rather than resorting to these inflated accusations on a noticeboard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable -- an attempt to ban multiple editors from American Revolution history articles in general.


 * No violation of the RfC ruling has occurred in the article. Since the ruling many, not just a few, new sources have come to light, and all we are doing is discussing them and suggesting ways for their inclusion in the article - again through discussion. These sources can be viewed here and here. It is only fair that they be considered by other editors. IMO this noticeboard is being manipulated in a rather obvious attempt to ignore the sources and stop any further discussion over them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your lists of sources are all about applying an external rule to Wikipedia, to blanket the topic with hundreds of "Founding Fathers" by showing that writers on the topic consider signing a particular document evidence that the signers are founding fathers. But the only thing we should be doing with that information is summarizing it for the reader. We can say that this source, that source, et cetera, define the topic in some manner. But we can't carry that definition over to the Thomas Lynch Jr biography and apply the external rule to say that the very uninvolved Lynch Jr was a "Founding Father", a label which cannot be found by itself in any reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article already has close to 200 names listed and many of them lack individual citations because its understood that their collective involvements, in e.g. the Constitution, make them founders, per sources. No one wants to add "hundreds" of other names, just the dozen or so that were removed. Assertions were made that few sources support the idea that some individuals were involved in the founding. I provided an array of sources that show the claim to be without much merit, where they cover events that were important in the founding. Also, the opinion that I'm trying to create some "external rule" is yet another rather wild accusation. In any case, this noticeboard is based on the accusation that the RfC ruling has been violated, which is equally without basis, as no one has made any edits to the article that go against that ruling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Outside of Wikipedia, you can take whatever "array of sources" is available and apply their ideas to related situations. Inside of Wikipedia, what you are describing is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Nobody ever said that Thomas Lynch Jr was a founding father, largely because he didn't do anything notable to organize the colonists, compose a constitution, etc. All he did was was sit in his father's place and exercise his writing arm to sign the Declaration of Independence. Your external rule cannot and should not be applied to Thomas Lynch Jr by Randy Kryn because it's "understood' that Junior was in the group of founding fathers.
 * This is all related to the continual tendentiousness of the RfC process, which continues to be used to exhaust the community's patience. We are talking about behavior here, by editors who should know better than to violate SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is classic WP:SYNTH. Citing 15 sources to infer something from them which none of them directly states. Any statement you want to make in a Wikipedia article that is actually verifiable should need no more than one or two sources. When editors come forward with a large heap of them, it's almost always because none of them actually supports the statement, like is the case here. If this is part of a sustained effort to present the signers of the Continental Congress as Founding Fathers of the United States when no reliable source actually does that, it is indeed concerning. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I just mentioned above, a "heap of sources" were introduced because of the claim that there were not enough sources to merit including some of the names in question. Statements from the sources were not cherry picked and strung together in some attempt to introduce some bizzar or unusual idea to the article, but only to show the validity of their involvements in the founding, one source at a time. You can disagree with this of course, but this is not a "violation" of consensus or the RfC ruling. This noticeboard discussion is now turning into the same debate over sources that's been going on in the Founding Fathers Talk page, and not about a "violation" of consensus. No one has made edits to the actual article going against the RfC ruling. What should "concern" you is an attempt to ban three long time contributors from 'all' American Revolution related articles, and all for asserting an opinion in one article's Talk page, which is where disagreements are discussed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the inferred statement is bizarre and unusual or not, if it's not in the sources, it's synth. Now some forms of synth can be acceptable in certain contexts, but not for anything over which there is editorial controversy. None of these sources labels any individual, nor the signatories of the Continental Congress as a group, 'Founding Fathers'. Notice the upper case: as suggested above it is perhaps a problematic label, but precisely for this reason it can't be applied to anyone to whom the sources do not explicitly apply it. I have no opinion on topic bans at this time, and no interest in the content, I just thought you should know that what you're doing is considered 'original research'. Please read the applicable policy pages closely. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apaugasma, many of the existing names are not cited individually by name but are considered founders because their involvements with e.g.the Constitution, establishes them as founders. Members of the First Continental Congress, esp the delegates, are considered by various sources to be founders. In the same way signers of the Constitution are listed as founders the members of that congress should so be considered. Of course you have every right to disagree with this perspective but then this should apply to the entire article.  I agree than some forms of synth are acceptable, but when there is editorial controversy no edits should be made to the article involving the disputed ideas, and this has not happened. In any case, this noticeboard discussion isn't about which sources we should use and how. It is based on the accusation that violations against the RfC consensus were committed, and that has not happened, and the accusation to that effect is totally unfair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand. It does seem a bit unfair to me too. Don't worry too much about it, if you try to take criticism on board you'll be fine. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your words of conciliation. They are much appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Accused reply - TheVirginiaHistorian

 * 1. I do now CONCUR with the “First RfC” without apology, yielding to concerns expressed by User:Allreet at the dangers of making the article sprawling and therefore unreadable for the WP international reader with English as a second language, one of User:Robert McClenon’s concerns, and though I have discussed its conclusion in relation to the article SCOPE, I have never violated the conclusion of the first RfC in the mainspace article narrative in practice;
 * 2. Subsequent to the First RfC, a decades’ long collaborator of mine, asked me to become active again to contribute to the ‘Founders’ Talk page. - (2.a) My initial position on joining Talk was to support inclusion of the Articles as a ‘founding document’; - (2.b) my subsequent position in half a dozen posts in as many threads was to try to distinguish between actors and events in the following two (2) ways, enumerated as (i) and (ii):
 * (2.b.i) leading to Joseph Ellis’ Declaration “First founding” and
 * (2.b.ii) leading to Ellis’ “constitutional settlement” in the Constitution “Second founding” as sourced in my posts from a link supplied by User:Allreet in our collaborative discussions with User: Gwillhickers and User:Randy Kyrn.
 * 3. In the User:The Gnome Topic Ban request here, he has NOT yet provided any article history links to support the that I have disrupted the article to violate the RfC conclusion that Gnome linked in the ban introduction: “Editors attained a rough consensus against categorizing signers of the Continental Association as … Founding Fathers, [per se]".
 * 4. My latest post-proposal is to maintain the wp:consensus list of Founders of the “First Founding” as Founding Fathers = Declaration Signers (vs. the "100s" imagined elsewhere), then add COLUMNS-NOT-NAMES for those documents for the unchanging list of names in the CONSENSUS Constitution signatories who are ALSO found as signatories in documents that meet both of TWO (2) verifiable criteria enumerated as (a) and (b) (unlike speculation that I may not not use verifiable relatable scholarly sources at TALK):
 * => THE VISUAL EFFECT of adding columns of additional 'Founders roles' in the chart is to present a graphic depiction of the breadth of the many contributions by a very few Founding Fathers across many critical junctures BOTH (a) in the founding of the nation-state and (b) in the founding of a nationhood becoming the Declarations's "one people" in the Constitution's "We the people" (see Ellis 2000, p.9).
 * - QUERY: If my intent as posted and sourced, is to limit the Founding Fathers list for an expressed editorial effect, how can that be characterized in wp:good faith as expanding the list by "100s" without "wp:verification" as I am accused by editors here?
 * - ASSERTION: Surely my tormentors seen here "piling on" unwarranted accusations in their administrative disruption of my editing contributions to the Foundation's English encyclopedia, must be WP administratively banned from stalking me in the future at my posts to Articles and Talk pages of history and politics from 1500 to the present. This is my welcome back after a 3-month Wiki-break?
 * - (4.a) User:Gwillhickers’ REFERENCED among the 1927 Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States ; AND
 * - (4.b) “founding documents” as CONFIRMED among User:Allreet’s "modern" scholars. I suggest an operational definition of “modern” to be those published within the last 50 years 1970-2020. The two sources I have used at TALK are suggested by Allreet: Bernstein (2009) and Ellis (2000).
 * - (4.c) criteria for the Ellis’ “second founding”, in which I rely on User:Allreet’s reference the National Archives exhibition, “Charters of Freedom”, the Declaration, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Additional columns for a chart of article consensus Founding Fathers-as-SIGNERS of the DECLARATION and CONSTITUTION may be extended to those few most prominent in achieving the BILL of RIGHTS enumerated at (i) and (ii):
 * (4.c.i) Bernstein’s “Chronology” (2009) applies, “ Ratification Conventions ” in the states – which in turn accommodates much of User:Gwillhickers’ concern to include ARTICLES signers or its important defenders because the few most prominent as sourced in Pauline Maier’s Ratification (2010), such as Articles defenders Patrick Henry and George Mason (VA) and Elbridge Gerry (MA & ex-officio in CT).
 * (4.c.ii) Bernstein’s chronology also applies to include Articles signers and article consensus Constitution signers for COLUMNS of those signers in the First Congress James Madison, First President & Cabinet George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, First Supreme Court John Jay, encompassing the First Session of Congress reporting the BILL of RIGHTS as the first ten Amendments ratified by the States.
 * 5. I submit that neither my last | post at 5:05am, nor any previous posts on the Talk page in my effort to reconcile the well-researched positions of two opposing fellow editors there, should not have triggered a Topic Ban on me at 13:22pm for the American “Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary” historical periods 1763-1824 in the chronologies under discussion at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States, and under review at this Topic Ban for my participation there during the month of July 2022 . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Correction and Comment
I have not recently been following the controversy at Founding Fathers of the United States closely because it has become repetitive, and am not ready to provide diffs or other details. However, a correction is in order, even before I do any further review. User:The Gnome refers to a first, second, and third RFC, and implies that the second RFC was an attempt to set aside the first one. Neither the first nor the second RFC was submitted by the editors in question, User:Randy Kryn, User:Gwillhickers, or User:TheVirginiaHistorian. I became aware of the controversy when a case was filed at DRN, which was moderated by User:Casualdejekyll. I took part in the DRN as a participant (not as a moderator). The first two parties to this dispute had been disagreeing with User:Allreet and others about whether the signers of any of four documents should be considered Founding Fathers of the United States by reason of their signing of those documents. The four documents are the:
 * Continental Association (1774)
 * US Declaration of Independence (1776)
 * Articles of Confederation (1777)
 * United States Constitution (1787)

There is widespread agreement that the Signers (of the Declaration) and the Framers (of the Constitution) are often considered founders. It is the other two documents that are the issue.

The discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States, has been a mess, with discussion simultaneously in multiple sections, and multiple pinging across sections.

I started the first RFC, on whether signers of the Continental Association are founding fathers by virtue of signing that document. It was not started by the subject editors. They did, in my opinion, behave tendentiously, and at one point said that the RFC should be closed as yes, although the !votes were running to No, because they had found a particularly good source. That is the usual pattern. They find a good source and say that the matter is resolved and settled. They did demand that a panel rather than one closer close the RFC. It was closed as no. The second RFC was not on the same subject, but on whether signers of the Articles of Confederation should be considered founding fathers. I also originated the second RFC. The second RFC has expired, and has not been formally closed, and it looks as though a closer would say No Consensus. The so-called third RFC is only a discussion of whether either to ignore the first RFC or to start the first RFC over until we get the right answer.

In my opinion, Randy Kryn and Gwillhickers have been tendentious and should be warned. I haven't seen anything that would call for a topic-ban, but I haven't recently reviewed the history. I found much of the discussion to be repetitious. I thought that this would be a quick comment, but it is not quick. Nothing in this controversy is brief. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, User:TheVirginiaHistorian has done nothing hat should even remotely be considered a conduct issue. Robert McCletnon (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks, that seems a fair summary. I've been a son of a Wikipedian sometimes within it, but please remember that this discussion passed its six-month anniversary about a week ago and editors have become familiar with each other in such a way that we can bicker sometimes. But the issue here is a specific accusation that the three scoundrels routinely toss consensus to the wind so let's ban them from any and all articles on the founding of America or, by gum, anything remotely connected to it. There have been statements from almost all of us involved that none of us has broken consensus. It is hard to tell why The Gnome thinks that three of us did, jumping to a good faith conclusion somehow (which is why I would oppose a boomerang, to be so wrong has to have a good faith reason, and I personally settled for giving my first trout in recognition of the silliness of banning Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian from a topic area where they have excelled for many productive years), but I'm actually glad this was taken here so that more eyes and researchers can give some attention to Wikipedia's amazing collection of American Founding articles as the 250th anniversaries near. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Can someone undo my mistaken overwritten redirect?
Context here but the gist is that I moved Pass Me By (R5 song) back to its original title of Pass Me By (song) when I shouldn't have because there was a move discussion for it being at that former title. I apologize. I was going through redirects in the new pages feed because I was thinking this is something I'm less likely to mess up, but I made this mistake anyways. While I'm at it, can someone check to make sure I haven't made any other mistakes? I think most of the redirects I've patrolled have been fairly uncontroversial, but it seems like a good idea to make sure I'm not getting the wrong idea in regards to other things. Clover moss (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it's already been fixed. I started panicking and thinking that this is something I'd need help from on here. Clover moss  (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SMNI 43
For God's sake, User:Sammi Brie placed a proposed deletion on my article SMNI 43 cause no information can sustained for a separate article and suggest recreation if the station is akready built. Please dont delete it, check the sources. Same issue as AMBS Manila, but does nit happened and reviwed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodvibes500 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am new here after 3 to 4 months, and I dont know yoir guidelines. Please dont delete it, double check the sources. Unfair for AMBS Manila😭😭😭 Goodvibes500 (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ban removal appeal of PotsdamLamb aka Galendalia
The following is the appeal of PotsdamLamb for the removal of their ban. I am placing this here as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I am requesting an unblock on enWiki as I have made significant changes to the way in which I behave and interact with others. I fully understand my previous behavior was extremely rude and downright gross to other editors. The insults I hurled at others were uncalled for and would never happen again. Granted I may get upset again, however, I handle it with a conversation that is non-derogatory and constructive without name-calling, blaming, etc. The entire block was based on my behavior and which has now changed.Thank you very much for your attention to this unblock request and I look forward to the results. You can see a lot of the work I have done on simple Wikipedia. All of my accounts were locked by a user who falsely listed information about my account and they have since been unlocked. I work directly with stewards and and admins (we do not have many experienced editors on simple) on IRC when I have questions and the appropriate places to go when I have questions. I have learned a lot more about the workings of WP. I was blocked for 6 months late last year for the calling someone a name but have not done so since and I have had great, calm discussions since. I have expanded one article to a great extent and am working on my second one which is a BLP that I was able to save from being deleted. Just as a side note when I look back at the discussions on WP:ANI I disgust myself for that behavior. I am willing to take the standard offer. I do not have access to any of my other accounts (as stated above) because I use a password creator and my passwords range from 40-90 characters if allowed. This is my only active account I use and I am working on a bot on media that I am developing and that name is PDLArchiveer Bot (I believe). These are my only accounts. I look forward to getting the feedback from the community and being unbanned.


 * Per the information provided above, TonyBallioni has performed the CU check and has verified no login from my account and no socking. He asked me to repost this on IRC. This was his statement Prefer public, but basically I told 331dot that since there are no logins I can see through CU, I believe your story on loss of access and there does not exist from a CU perspective any reason that would prevent an unblock. Since you're banned, it now has to go to AN. I would post a new appeal on the current account and ask an admin to copy it to AN. If there are any questions, you should be able to reply using PDL The prefer public was from me asking him if he wanted to chat in a DM or in public.

With that said, I am asking for this to be moved over to WP:AN and I will add the page to my watchlist. Thank you for your time and consideration. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 23:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose gave permission to unblock on CU grounds and on this account as there's nothing from a CU angle preventing it, but as the original blocking admin of the main account looking at the recent activity at w:simple:User talk:PotsdamLamb/Archive 3 reminds me a lot of what was experienced here before the initial block. There's a lot of rushing into things without understanding what is going on, discussions with admins and other experienced users with a lot of back and forth and an assurance in the rightness of their views. I don't see any personal attacks in the simple archive, but I didn't dive too deeply. In short: while socking does not prevent an unblock of this account and if the community wishes to unban it certainly can, I do not think the potential for positive contributions outweighs the risk of known disruption at this time. Note: I don't plan on following this discussion and I don't have AN watchlisted so pings/replies might go unresponded to, especially since I'm around less these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As one of the (many) admins previously involved with the account, I am skeptical towards unblocking and unfortunately this appeal does not really convince me otherwise. This appeal mostly focuses on issues of incivility and rudeness towards other editors, which would arise from when Galendalia would make problematic edits and then face warnings or reminders as a result. That disruptive and hasty editing is key to why Galendalia was blocked in the first place- and this appeal really doesn't address it. While I could go into all the various issues which can be seen at Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038, User_talk:Galendalia/Archive_1, User talk:Galendalia/Archive 2, and especially User_talk:Galendalia, I don't think the energy is worth it. At this time, there's nothing that convinces me that unblocking won't lead to another demoralizing time sink. Sorry, no. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As some who talked with and who was his short lived mentor, I'm leaning towards opposing his unblock request. Seeing the appeal doesn't install confidence in me. I agree with Tony that this shows us that a lot of that problems that Galendalia had before getting banned (e.g., rushing into things without really knowing what is really going on), haven't really been fixed. Although I no longer consider Galendalia at risk of socking again, I think Galendalia needs to sort the problems that led to his ban first before appealing. I'm sorry Galendalia, but at time, I simply can't support a unban. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (Talk) (Contributions) 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * (from their TP) I have been reading my appeal, however, I cannot post on ANI, but I wanted to answer the question that seems to be lingering. My edit count on simple is over 1k with no rollbacks of my changes (other than vandals). All of my contributions have been a net positive. I have expanded numerous articles, as well as, handling a lot of formatting issues, organizing page sections, cleared numerous categories with backlogs that had some sort of error on the articles and many other things. I also do have rollback rights on simple. One issue I had in the beginning on simple was with categories, which has since been remedied. I have stayed within what I know and have gone slowly and a matter of fact I posted that same advice to someone who was just blocked on enWP and started in on everything possible and caused some issues. I advised them to slow down, read through all of the policies, go very slow, preview all edits and if you are not sure, hold off and ask others for their opinions. I know it may be hard to determine if I would be a net positive on enWP, which is why I stated I would be willing to accept the standard offer to show the enWP admins and editors of what I can do so the proper determination can be made, without referring to the edits and arguments in the past I have had with editors and admins. Thank you and if you have any questions, I can directly answer them on my talk page here PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Jv.anthonny again


Already blocked once and also reported here before by, Jv.anthonny has been adding unsourced recording dates to infoboxes for a long time and have been given way too many "final" warnings, with no effect. Yes, WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, but this has to stop. Perhaps a longer block with a pointer to the talk page will make them communicate? --Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and partial blocked from article space indefinitely and invited them to discuss here. Any admin can unblock at their discretion w/o jumping through hoops. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 21:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

gadget notice
EditNoticesOnMobile will be launching as a default gadget. It is limited to mobile users who are using Minerva skin. A waved approach is being done, wave one is only admins. Should something break, it can be instantly disabled via MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. Please report any issues to Wikipedia talk:EditNoticesOnMobile. You (admins) should not see anything from this unless you edit an article with an edit notice, while logged in as an admin, while on mobile with Minerva (en.m.wikipedia.org mobile front end site). Best regards, — xaosflux  Talk 23:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Closure requests
Reposting here per Dennis Brown, I posted this to BN and he suggested I bring it here. I was adding something to this closure requests page and I noticed what appears to be a very long backlog. Maybe some admins could pop by and close some RFCs? Seeing some very very old discussions there ahead of that one I added that makes me worried about whether this backlog is getting enough attention from consensus-judging-experienced admins and editors. Best wishes, <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 12:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I've knocked out most of these. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Many thanks !! <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 19:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just noting that the other categories of closure requests could also use some TLC :). Femke (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata templates on biography articles
This may perhaps be more suited to the Village Pump, but I'm looking at this from more of a policy standpoint. Does anyone know of a discussion or RFC that would allow for the use of to be mass added to articles? had added the template to a large number of articles, many of which were reverted by due to sourcing issues. Matsmetal is now restoring the templates claiming talk page consensus is needed to remove them and noting that discretionary sanctions are involved. My overriding concern is that the addition of the template is adding an infobox to each article that includes information not supported by reliably sourced article content contrary to Template:Infobox person. In addition, the template adds an infobox that is not locally editable as it's importing the data from another project. This all seems...less than ideal. I've raised my concerns on Matsmetal's talk page, but am asking for additional input from a wider audience here. Is this common practice and I've only just now stumbled across it?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently Matsmetal has been edit warring to restore the disputed template for months. Per their talk page they believe that Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions applies, though the dispute isn't as to whether an infobox should be included, but if this specific wikidata template should be used given the referencing concerns.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall reading at some point that there was actually consensus against importing wikidata info like that. Seems like something would be familiar with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I found Wikidata which mentioned Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also Village pump (policy)/Archive 128 Nthep (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From my reading of the 2018 RfC linked by Bison X, there was consensus that the inclusion of the wikidata templates to articles could be allowed if and when the concerns regarding reliability were addressed. That does not support the mass addition of the template across biography articles, nor edit edit warring to restore them when concerns regarding the reliability of the data are raised.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikidata says these should be done carefully and deliberately, that certainly doesn't appear to be the case here. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As Mats has shown no indication that they intend to stop performing these edits while the issue is under discussion, or to discuss it, I have blocked them temporarily from article space. Any administrator should feel free to undo this block without further discussion with me. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting that their very first edit here was to add the wikidata template to Milad Doueihi.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A large proportion of these infoboxes seem to highlight Guggenheim awards, which used to be tracked as a category until it was deleted in April 2020. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I would support that block under WP:DE simply because they are continuing to perform actions they know are contentious rather than WP:COMMUNICATE. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite the interesting behavioural overlap with these blocked Slowking4 socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sphere Matchers


This draft is a hoax created by LTA LiliaMiller2002

He have a long history of creating Wiki articles about non-existent video games allegedly developed by notable companies.

Please see here Trade (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you post this here rather than simply tagging the draft as a hoax and, if you wish, putting in the above explanation on the draft Talk page. In any event, I've deleted the draft.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because this is not the user's home wiki? I don't see the harm in bringing cross-wiki vandalism to the attention of the admins in this board. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That and i also posted here so the admins would not move the item to the draft next time. --Trade (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Chaudhry Masood Ahmad
Could someone please protect the page? Trade (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for one week - BLP violations sourced to a YouTube video. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Exclusion of Mathematical Finance From Financial Economics
A new editor (formerly editing on the topic with IP) User:Thesmeagol2 is trying to exclude my discussion of mathematical finance on grounds that I (professor of mathematical finance) have a conflict of interest. See Talk:Financial economics. It would be interesting to see why experts in a field can be excluded from commenting on it, say Medical Doctors prevented from discussing issues in medicine. (Let us ignore the separate issue of the conflation of the problem by editor User:SPECIFICO on the difference between the academic fields of finance and financial economics). I am certain that excluding topic experts from an encyclopedia is ultimately against the rules, but it would be interesting to see under which arguments. Limit-theorem (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you asking admins to do here? Among several sensible things Thesmeagol2 said something a bit silly. The reaction should be to simply point out that it is silly and carry on with the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First off, claiming you are a topic expert is irrelevant and counterproductive. Second, yes the other editor may be misusing the term COI as we define it here. Third, this article remains in very poor shape, starting with the garbled lead which is not supported by well-sourced article content -- in particular the opening sentence which is nonsense and cited to a self-published webpage bit, ostensibly a college course handout by Prof. Bill Sharpe. On the merits, the new editor's contributions have been positive, including some of the content they have removed. I have suggested on the article talk page that this page should be merged with Finance, our article on the topic that is currently in much better shape and could easily absorb whatever relevant material from this page does not already appear at that one.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguments pertaining to Randy in Boise aside, generally Wikipedia is governed by the principles of reliable sources and citations. There is no inherent policy that allows for the exclusion of scientists and experts on a particular subject, but experts cannot use their own expertise as a source unless it is backed up by secondary peer review from a reputable journal.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I suggest that you read Expert editors. There is some excellent advice there. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you, I always provide citations. My problem is exclusion because of expertise. Best, Limit-theorem (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has excluded you, so -- fortunately -- that is not "your problem". As far as I can tell, the edit of yours that  reverted did not provide a citation. Nor, btw is it clearly written so as to convey any specific meaning, as far as I can tell. Their edit summary said "deleted un-cited speculative commentary..." <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I added 2 citations, very senior ones. My Reversion came in two parts. And they reverted my text and citations. Limit-theorem (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, you had to "add" them because you had already twice inserted your text with no source citations. But we should not be adding such content directly to the lead and the content and any sources will -- except for inherently contentious text -- be taken from the article body. Moreover, having looked at the sources you added, they are quite weak sources and do not really verify the text you keep reinserting. You should have used the article talk page to discuss and gain consensus for your proposed content. Instead, you claimed that you are a professor or teacher of some related topic and dismissed the editor's concern out of hand.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They are not weak sources; one is an assigned textbook. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway I came to confirm that expertise is not COI and citations >> no citations. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The textbook you cited is an undergraduate text in practical calculations for finance practitioners. That's not a good source for lead content on the broad subject of Finance, or as the article is titled, "Financial Economics. Please also, to ensure you don't suffer any more COI allegations, stop calling yourself an expert. And don't make easily refuted claims such as that you always provided sourcing when the other editor apparently was motivated in part when they saw your speculative unsourced ramble about math models in Finance.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a personal attack? Limit-theorem (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling a "speculative unsource ramble" professionally phrased comments that were neither speculative nor unsourced nor a ramble? Not helpful For an encyclopedia contributor.    Limit-theorem (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you tell this one has never made it through peer review? Thesmeagol2 (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not replying to your comment to argue, but to state to other editors the procedural fact that all Spinger Nature books are peer-reviewed, with the same standards found in Nature, see https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/book-publishing-policies (look under books). This is particularly applicable to mathematics books. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect that what meant was that if you had ever had your own work published and gone through the peer review process, you'd have a thicker skin and be more inclined to accept and respond constructively to well-founded criticism of your work.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

DeaconShotFire
It's going on 2 weeks now. Would an administrator make a decision on 's reinstatement request, please? Best to not leave such things open ended. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief. Please let admins handle this sort of thing. Will carry it over when I have time.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

is requesting unblock.

Please see block log].

Preamble blocked indefinitely (~eight months ago) "After three shot-across-the-bow blocks in a month, with no improvement of the user's disruptiveness". In the run-up to the indef, there were three short blocks, and there was edit warring, accusing Bish of clearly loving exercising her fake power, and when called on that, asking if she was the back up. Not to mention disruption and personal attacks at Talk:Donald Trump. User lost talk page access, but it was restored by Yamla after.

Unblock request--- ''I'm requesting an unblock because I find it now to be unnecessary. I admit to engaging in harassment, edit warring, and an unsubstantiated accusation of political bias, which can be found quoted through this link. I had 4 blocks last year, ending with the indefinite one in October. Instead of harassing people and brute forcing my edits to articles, I intend to engage with articles' talk pages (particularly now that I have more time to afford to Wikipedia). If this proves to be insufficient, I will engage on the policy application noticeboards, dispute resolution noticeboard, or begin an RfC (which I've participated in previously). I have a history of edits that are still in place today on major articles. In fact, the only reason I'm requesting this now is because every time I read an article and see something improper, I have the urge to correct it. I understand concerns held by the blocking administrator and those handling my UTRS; and I don't believe they are still warranted now that I know more about Wikipedia and its customs. Many thanks. DeaconShotFire (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)''

carried over by me, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse unblock Don't think the problems will recur. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 20:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not seeing a need for a TBAN or 1RR. No need. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 01:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose unblock for now, with a real chance I'll change my vote in the future. I expect DeaconShotFire to account for their behaviour as described by Bishonen here, but I don't see that this has happened yet. Perhaps these concerns could be addressed with a topic ban on politics and WP:1RR, or perhaps there are other ways to convince the community that it would be a good idea to unblock this user. Note that I was tempted to vote "weak support" on the basis that reblocks are easy. I'm not convinced this user will follow up, though, given they haven't edited in more than two weeks. That could be our fault, though, not carrying this unblock request to the board quickly enough. --Yamla (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the not posting relentlessly seeking unblock, but instead patiently waiting, might indicate a readiness to return.   -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 21:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're still here, please respond to the concern raised by Yamla/Bishonen. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 21:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply carried over Response to @Yamla from WP:AN: It's unclear what you meant when you said I haven't accounted for the behaviour listed by the other user; I've apologised for it and stated I have no intention of repeating it or anything akin to it. Furthermore, why would I edit anything in the past three weeks? I only yesterday received any kind of reponse. DeaconShotFire (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * carried over by me from user talk -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 02:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral - If he gets unblocked? It'll be up to him to practice what he promises. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why this is at AN? I understand the need for transparency but it could have been done at DeaconShotFire's talk page, as he is not community banned - although he effectively will be if this appeal is declined here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cause it set for two weeks, and I felt I owed it to them to bring it here. I mean, two weeks without a decline or accept tells me that no one is ready to commit on it on their own either way. Certainly I was not. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was involved in the talk page discussion that immediately preceded the indef. I an unblock, seeing as it's been long enough and he's acknowledged some of the reasons behind the block. His unblock request and reply to Yamla miss some of the block's rationale, including the battleground behavior. The articles he intends to edit make future content disputes likely. A recognition of past battleground behavior and a commitment to avoid it in the future are my only conditions for support.  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply carried over Response to Firefangledfeathers from WP:AN: I've addressed the reasoning and my prior battleground behaviour behind the block; I've stated I intend to utilise talk pages, RfCs, and noticeboards, rather than brute forcing my edits and engaging in behaviour like I did. That content disputes are likely if I'm unblocked and edit pages such as the ones I've listed on my talk page is irrelevant when I've stated I won't be engaging like I did previously. Many thanks. DeaconShotFire (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * carried over by me from user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi DSF. In your unblock request you acknowledge "harassment, edit warring, and an unsubstantiated accusation of political bias". It is my understanding that you engaged in battleground behavior that extended beyond those three forms of misconduct and that this additional misconduct was named and explained in Bishonen's block rationale. It would be very possible for you to reengage in that behavior while still adhering to your commitment to "utilise talk pages, RfCs, and noticeboards". I can't support an unblock without an addendum to your acknowledgements and commitments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply carried over I'll say here and now that I won't be engaging in battleground behaviour. Many thanks. DeaconShotFire (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * carried over by me from user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is a little less than I had hoped for, but the future-facing part is far more important than the historical acknowledgement. This pushes me to . Good luck, DSF. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (unarchoived as unclosed. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 16:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC))
 * Support unblock I see I commented earlier; let's just resolve this as it's not fair to DeaconShotFire to have it dragging on. The responses are satisfactory, I think they deserve another chance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support unblock Since this wasn't a community block & even the admin who opposed isn't strongly opposed, IMO their patience during this month+ long wait would warrant a ROPE/SO situation. Battleground tendencies can be tempered with such patience.  If they are unblocked with a TBAN or 1RR (or with a threat thereof), that suits me, too. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. If nobody has seen a good reason to decline the request in nearly two months, unblock by default. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Worth taking the risk. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - fully agree with Boing! said Zebedee. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Quick protection of new Indian president's page
Already pending request. See Talk:Droupadi Murmu. Venkat TL (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected by for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request (not privacy related)
This. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Why? The revision is 15 years old and existed for less than a minute – and it's a garden-variety complaint. Which criterion of WP:CRD do you believe it meets? --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Threatening legal action. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * a) Please make your posts a bit more informative. "This" is about as opaque as it gets, and your fellow editors are not mindreaders. b) That still doesn't answer the question "Which criterion of WP:CRD do you believe it meets?". Legal threats are not routinely redacted. c) That's not a legal threat unless you look at it sideways and squint a bit. d) It's 15 years old. --bonadea contributions talk 09:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with bonadea on this one. Primefac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The Equalizer
There was an oppose consensus to move back on 10 February 2021 from the talk page. I see yesterday evening it got moved without any consensus by. I am not good at moves, don't want to mess it up. Maybe someone can fix it back? Govvy (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , the sole oppose struck their vote a couple of days ago, which likely prompted the move today. Is there still an issue? Primefac (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Govvy, you appear to have missed the requested move discussion dated 11 July 2022. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, strange,
 * 1; Having another look, I seem to have missed the bot post which is at Talk:The Equalizer (1985 TV series). Had no real idea there was a move discussion as it was on a brand new page I didn't see, have on my watchlist.
 * 2; Shame I didn't get a curtesy ping! Since I was on the last comment.
 * 3; The move discussion didn't seem open that long for a move discussion! O well!! Govvy (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE
Getting a bit backed up and stale, if any admin has the time to help out. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this request. Huldra (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Help
My userspace has been taken by vandal redirects -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I see you're currently active, pleae help. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like this has been fixed and the editor responsible blocked. --Hipal (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123
I have blocked longtime user User:Martinevans123 and removed his Autopatrolled right due to persistent copyright problems. I see on his talk page three postings regarding violations of the copyright policy this year alone (March, June, today), and he has received numerous additional warnings (I see six warnings from myself alone in his archives; there are likely others). He has twice been blocked for copyvio (two short blocks: 2018, 2019). I am noting my actions on this board given the extent of the problem, as he has ~200,000 edits. A CCI will likely have to be opened. — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Disappointing. I thought better of them. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 21:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If the community thinks it would be constructive, and if Martin is agreeable, I offer to provide supervision/mentoring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 21:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you're the right person to act as a mentor, since with the edit I posted about on his talk page back in March.  — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If people don't want me to, I won't. But I want to correct what you said about me, because I feel like it's a bit condescending. You linked to a version of his talk page, as of that comment that I made (a somewhat facetious comment, starting with an offer to spank him). But there was further discussion after that. Here is a link to the full discussion: . I actually did take it seriously, offered to help with a serious rewrite, and did a genuine rewrite myself, including the source material that Martin wanted to include, but rewriting it in a copyright-compliant manner. Here is the combined diff of my edits: . And here is a link to the source: ; anyone please feel free to check/compare. And Martin was cooperative with me. I'm a retired tenured university professor, and I find the opinion that I am poorly equipped to recognize plagiarism, well, troubling. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also been editing here since 2007, including FA work, and have never had issues with copyvio or close paraphrasing in my own editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In spite of your initial flip remarks to which I linked, your proposed rewrite does look okay according to Earwig's tool. I want to say though, that your jocularity about the problem impeded my efforts to get him to take the copyright matter seriously. — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, there are times when editors, and particularly administrators, take themselves too seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My experience with Martinevans is that I have not seen him take any criticism seriously. In my opinion, he seems to have lots of banterbuddies on this site, and seems he to navigate articles and issues with an unwarranted degree of entitlement. The cited thread regarding the copyvio seems typical.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, I'm not one of his "banterbuddies", but having seen/interacted Martin over the years I think that's overly harsh. Sure, he does default to flippancy generally (not just specifically in relation to criticism) which is not necessarily everyone'e cup of tea. But I don't recognise "unwarranted degree of entitlement". I have to say that Martin's flippant responses are often in contexts when other editors might well have got aggressive, genuinely uncivil, downright PA etc or is in the face of other editors' aggression, incivility, PAs etc. A little facetiousness is a small price to pay when it defuses/avoids what so often otherwise happens on WP. As far as the Copyvio is concerned, I have no comment other than if Tryptofish is willing to mentor and Martin is willing to go down that route then after his 200k+ edits, 100+ articles created and 15 years I would hope and expect that to be solution. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never been a fan of the way Martinevans123 responds to stuff but that's neither here nor there. But I feel I should repeat something I've said before thought. While Martinevans123 is ultimately responsible for their actions, editors should consider whether the way they've responded in trying to support a friend who may be unhappy with a situation, have unfortunately contributed to this editor not understanding the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for reform. This doesn't mean editors cannot offer words of support for their friend, simply that it should not come the the expense communicating the gravity of the situation. If not in the initial support, then later when their friend has had a chance to calm down. Since ultimately their friend changing their behaviour is not only for the benefit of the project, but likely the friend themselves. (As a lot of the time, we end up with this result where whatever problems their friend is causing can no longer be ignored so a long term block results.) To be clear, this is a comment on how we ended up here, I have no problem with the mentorship. Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with Tryptofish mentoring. None of us are perfect, but Trypofish has the skills, and Martin will listen to him, which is just as important.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am okay with mentorship as a last chance, but I am not optimistic that he will change his ways. People who get warned repeatedly for copyright infringement usually don't come back. SPECIFICO's comments make me even less optimistic. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this probably needs a CCI. Harry van der Weyden is also copyvio from (tagged instead of deleting to let others double check). There's also at least a sentence of straight copypaste at Lawrence Mynott. I'm sure there is more than what I can find in 5 minutes. —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Coincidentally I have been writing a guide to copyright blocks at User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks, which contains advice on when to block and how to appeal. I doubt it will be completely useful in this situation, but who knows. I do want to say though, I do not want to see conflict between people I care about here. I really hope that doesn't happen. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've enjoyed the odd bit of banter in the past with Martinevans123, and I think that SPECIFICO's comments above are unnecessary, and rather unkind in the circumstances. I cannot find fault with this block however - that latest Sam Smith article was indeed a direct cooy/paste job of an entire article - no one should be doing stuff like that, far less an experienced user whose Autopatrolled flag means that issues are less likely to be detected by others. Tryptofish's offer is generous, I hope that will offer a route out of this situation that gives us confidence that there will be no more similar occurrences. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at that Sam Smith issue, too, and it's a clear copy-paste-edit-save. valereee (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's very disappointing and concerning considering the number of warnings he has been given. I like Martin a lot but he does seem to have a blind spot when it comes to this sort of thing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very reticent to support any mentoring because this isn't something that should require mentoring. These are the most basic copyright violations you can make. Someone with 200,000 edits should not be making them. This is a basic question of competence, and Martinevans spent all the time he was being given warnings continuing to use his talk page as water cool and soapbox, rather than changing his behavior. He can't even say anything close to a "my bad" or "I understand" the issue on his talk page—and has met previous warnings with hostility or contempt. What indication has been made that anything will be different after all these blocks and warnings? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse block, I'm sorry to say this about a longtime and valued contributor. But copyvios are serious as it runs afoul our licensing, as noted at WP:Copyright violations; and may cause legal problems.  RD1 is specifically for this purpose.  Indeed, the editing window has the disclaimer on it.  If it's a copyvio: We. Can't. Keep. It.  I am ambivalent on Trypto's offer, which is kind.  It may help but these are persistent problems and unblocking should not occur without a very strong understanding about what is acceptable and not.  Maybe wait 6 months and apply for the standard offer with a detailed appeal that describes what went wrong?  Again, I'm sorry to say this because I believe Martin is here in good faith, but these are serious issues.  Best, Jip Orlando (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the kind comments about my offer from some of the editors here. And I recognize that there may not be consensus for mentoring. Perhaps I did myself no favor by offering; Wikipedia can be a very insensitive place. But Martin has been a long-time editor and a net positive, and there is a difference between pride, and bad faith or incompetence. I am well aware of the fact that he has already had multiple previous warnings, and has a concerning history of recidivism. Despite my wiki-friendship, it has bothered me, too. In my professional life, I have been a hard-ass about not tolerating plagiarism – just ask the students that I flunked. I'm not naive about it. And I want to make it clear that my offer is not intended as a get out of jail free card. I would see it as something with:
 * a 6-month community editing restriction where he could not start new pages or make additions to content without my prior approval.
 * And I would treat it as:
 * making him learn, not as me rewriting it for him.
 * And finally,
 * a failure on his part to reform would lead to a reinstatement of the indef block.
 * I don't see that as a risk to the project. I wouldn't offer this if I didn't believe in doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * he could not ... make additions to content without my prior approval. Is that practicable? That seems like potentially a lot of oversight. I don't know enough about how he works and how much content addition is what he does though. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good question. I would likely slow him down, and that would be part of the price he would pay. I would assume that a failure to wait for me would result in a block. The way I see it, he would have to make a draft version in draft space or user space, and I would have to review it before it could go into main space. And any version that fails the test would be subject to revision deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't fault the block - the article in question was a clear copyvio and had obviously been written by taking the biography on the subject's website and changing the odd word. It comes off the back of two prior blocks and two warnings from this year alone. The responses to the prior warnings were very flippant and to one of the very few people here who does much text copyright work. I'm also very dubious about mentorship for similar reasons to David Fuchs above.  Hut 8.5  16:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that I should say that I don't fault the block either. I really don't. I'm just trying to offer a solution. (And although it's true that some people simply cannot learn, that's not something that's true of everybody.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At his talk page, Martin has agreed to a variation on this, with the block still in place (but with continuing talkpage access): . --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly a daft question, but where is the (C) copyright text at http://sam-smith.org/ ? Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Copyright is automatic, it doesn't have specific copyright text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I love that question, and if I can stop laughing long enough to show off my knowledge of the copyright policy, I'll try to answer it. There does not have to be an assertion of copyright for Wikipedia to recognize copyright. Absent an explicit licensing to the contrary, it is always taken as a given that the author of a work owns the copyright. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be patronising - I understand that copyright is fixed as soon as the material is, but I was just wondering if that might have been the issue here? Only Martin can answer that, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, Black Kite, I'm so sorry, I truly did not intend that to be patronizing. Sorry it came off that way. I was genuinely trying to explain how this works, and I genuinely was amused by the thought that the block might have had an incorrect rationale if there were no copyright violation – just think how pointless this whole discussion would have been if it were. Martin should have known that copyright applied, even without a notice about it, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My fault, I should have been clearer the first time. This is what happens when you edit in record temperatures (39C here when I typed that!) Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Berne Convention is relevant here. Basically tl;dr in the absence of a disclaimer otherwise, it's subject to copyright. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an example of why it'd be better if we all stopped talking about "copyvio" and "copyright violation", because those are complicated legal terms that none of us really understand, and instead talked about "license violation", because that's really the problem, which is that the text we're purporting to license CC-BY-SA is not actually properly attributed to the actual author. Forget about how close is too close paraphrasing and whether something is covered by copyright law in what jurisdiction or what notices or disclaimers it has... if the text we publish is not actually written by us, we are violating our own license. Every time we publish in mainspace, we're purporting to license the prose we publish CC-BY-SA, and we cannot re-license prose that was written by someone else. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (Forewarning: all of the following is a side note from the original issue.) The license that has to be considered is the one for the original text, and whether or not it is compatible with being relicensed as CC-BY-SA. If the text was released in the public domain, for example, and so all reuses are freely allowed, then it can be licensed as CC-BY-SA without attribution. If the text has a CC-BY-SA license, it too can be reused, though it has to be attributed (see the bottom of Length measurement for an example). Close paraphrasing often does have to get discussed, for better or worse, since many instances of copied text are done with some modifications. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Case requested. This will take years to clean up with how little people actually care to clean up copyright issues. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 19:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting that going, and for tracking it down. About the time and effort needed for cleanup, that is indeed a significant problem across the copyvio area. Martin has indicated on his talk page that he is going to pitch in and clean up after himself (in userspace). I would hope that he will save other editors a lot of work, as well as demonstrate his willingness and competence to reform. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how things are developing, I think we can save editors some time and energy by no longer discussing the block here. Martin is accepting it and not going to contest it, and instead pursue an effort in user space to demonstrate his good will. There's no need to close the discussion, just that it seems settled that there will be no unblock for now. And editors can wait and see what happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the timing of the first edit made on Wikipedia, I would have thought the experience would be enough for Martin not to add copyrighted material in addition to numerous warnings. One bit of assistance between Martin and I recently was to try and stop content dispute on Will Young which has stopped thanks to a partial block. Hopefully the user will come back with a clearer mind on copyrighted content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iggy the Swan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Given how much time and effort it takes other people to clean up copyvio issues, I've never understood why there isn't a sanction that goes like this "Until your CCI is complete, you can choose to be blocked or help clean up. If the latter, you may not add anything to any article except in the course of cleaning up past articles under the guidance of volunteers at CCI." I don't understand how we have (a) several CCIs open while the editors people are cleaning up after continue to edit other articles without pitching in; (b) people blocked who are willing to help with their own CCI, unless they're somehow totally helpless in understanding copy/pasting and close paraphrasing. In the immediate, this means: if Martin is down to help clean up, let him try before indeffing, and indef if there are any edits outside of the scope of the CCI. YMMV. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 20:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good point. I guess that when it comes to laying down the law, Wikipedia would rather cut off our nose to spite our face. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen and heard from others, these efforts generally simmer out after a few months. On a MUCH more positive note, people helping out with cleaning up their own messes makes it easier on us, especially if they're not WMF, Community, or 3X banned on other merits. As for why blocks first; people don't just stop when we request them to. We don't know if they're going to really go and help out at their CCI or are going to make more work for us, and we don't know if they even understand copyright. If they continue to edit as we open a CCI, we have to expand the list with even more edits. And especially to our copyright admins, they do not have the time to babysit an editor that they unblocked looking for edits that aren't in the vein of cleanup. I can see Martin getting an unblock, or at least a downgrade to a p-block from mainspace, if mentoring goes well, if he demonstrates understanding of copyright, and especially if he helps clean it up. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not just downgrade to p-block from mainspace now? Levivich (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good point. Why not? Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking earlier that part of the mentoring should ideally be helping to clean up the mess that a CCI would likely be. In terms of the more general point though I don't see how allowing someone to continue to edit but demanding they participate in a CCI is helpful by itself. The whole point is that by the time we're blocking someone, they've been warned repeatedly but have demonstrated that they can't be trusted to avoid creating copyright problems, we can assume because they don't understand the problem. They have to demonstrate an understanding before their efforts to help out at CCI are going to be useful. This isn't like someone vandalising Wikipedia where we can assume they know. The alternative is they do know but don't care which is far more serious and I think many will be reluctant to trust them ever again even if they seem to be make a genuine effort at their CCI. Of course partial blocks are also still newish but still I'm not sure a change to practice is called for. Remember such blocks are one of several examples where indefinite does not have to mean infinite or even very long but the editor needs to convince an admin before we can allow them to return. And an editor can still use CCI to help demonstrate their understanding, just that they need should use their talk page since we can't trust their efforts as being useful. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I agree in theory with having editors clean up after themselves before doing anything else, I appreciate in practice, letting editors continue with other activities is the carrot to get them to help, rather than just leaving. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of those who get blocked for copyright violations don't offer to help out at the subsequent CCI. If they do offer to help out and are subsequently unblocked, few actually help out at the CCI. Forcing them to help as an unblock condition has provided mixed results when I've done it. For the "try before indeffing" comment; if I understand what you are saying correctly, something similar used to be tried in the early days of CCI; a 48 hour block or so would be applied or the contributor would be warned after the CCI was opened instead of a block. This almost always lead to further violations, leading to that practice being discontinued. Just in the last year, I've had to block two users for copyright violations that occurred after their CCI was opened, when they should've been just blocked at the time (both cases were opened in 2014). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind that I moved your response down for chronology reasons. But yeah, I was actually thinking of something I've seen you say in the past about a giant pile of work created by people who don't lift a finger to help clean it up yet somehow continue to work on other content (paraphrasing). It was frustrating to hear. I thought then -- and still do -- that in the cases where the workload is large, where people have been given lots of warnings and guidance, etc., that they should be required to help clean it up if they want to stick around. I get that many people would just head for the hills, but if they want to stick around, then great -- here's how to fix the mess. My suggestion wasn't quite what Trypto proposed, but pretty close: choose between being blocked and helping clean up, and if the latter and edits to articles unrelated to the cleanup will get you reblocked. What he proposed was close enough, and simpler, though I don't know how much an articlespace tban inhibits helping out with the cleanup. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The CCI has been opened at Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 (numbered names are used for real names/privacy related reasons.) It won't be filled out for a few days or so due to the large number of edits. For those wanting to help out, I have written a guide to CCI at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * MER-C has filled out and culled the CCI at this point. I recommend collaboration to clean everything up. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 01:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try and set up a cleanup page soon. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The mentorship idea, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: change to a mainspace p-block
Per the last couple of comments above, I propose that the community endorse the idea that the indef block will be changed to a p-block from mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To expand on why I support this, there would be zero risk of anything becoming a problem in article space, and it would create a situation in which Martin could actually help clean up the CCI, as I believe he will, reducing the workload on other editors. He can demonstrate whether he can remain a net positive, and editors will be able to evaluate that. Should things turn out wrong, the block can always be changed back to an indef. What matters most is improving articles, not making an example of an otherwise good member of the community, and this is a risk-free way to accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per, well, my support above. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There are issues that need to be resolved for sure, and there are people willing to work toward that end. For all that's gone wrong in the past, let's try and get this long-term contributor back on track rather than show them the door. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would not advise extending trust to someone who has repeatedly been warned and blocked about this single issue and yet is too lazy to obey a very clear rule. Anyone so foolish is not a value-add to this endeavor, even if other Wikipedians find them to be pleasant to get along with. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It works in reverse, too; trust me. Also, "lazy" is too harsh; go with something more sympathetic, like "stupid". Levivich (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (Non-administrator spewing of bile) To be blunt, that's childish. At his talk page, you can see me explaining this "very clear rule" (which, somehow, an awful lot of people find sufficiently unclear in real life, that it has to be taught to them), and him acknowledging that he feels badly that he previously misunderstood some of the distinctions between attribution and original writing. The rule that violations are bad is a very clear rule, but the line between what is and what is not a violation is something that needs to be learned. I spent considerable amounts of time explaining it to university students, including graduate students. And only on Wikipedia would it be considered a virtue not to be appreciated by one's colleagues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and he wouldn't be getting away with anything, unless the goal is for other editors to do more work just to make a point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, he can help with the CCI (and elsewhere) and there'd be no risk of making the CCI worse by adding more mainspace edits. No evidence of disruption outside mainspace. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as a final chance to change his editing. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my support. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as a first step, hopefully some mentoring and discussion and soul searching will lead to a full lift of the block. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose what exactly are we gaining by an editor who cannot be trusted to edit all of articlespace? I don't think stuff like keeping his political enemies list up to date is dearly needed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this being changed to an indef P-block from (Article) and/or Draft: space, since that's how I typically make my copyright blocks. The change is mostly semantic, and it can make appealing easier. I'm not sure this whole proposal is needed though, you could just ask if she'd consider changing it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per what I said just above this section. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 03:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't know (non admin comment) I've only just arrived here, and don't know the backstory, but as Tryptofish asks for community input here's mine.... as a "virgin" editor unfamiliar with this behavior and this user, I'd like to hear something - anything - from  that seems convincing of their grasp of the problem and feedback without straying into WP:GASLIGHT territory, or other form of WP:GAMING.  If they can do that, then sure, do a temporary p-block from main space.  But if they can not or do not provide such a statement, why are we talking about anything short of a global indef?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the only thing close to a "global indef" would be a global lock or global ban and would have to be proposed on Meta. These only occur where there has been abuse on multiple projects or they are a spambot, which doesn't appear to be the case here given their history. The SandDoctor  Talk 05:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess I'll plead lowly regular editor (not admin) naivete. When I said "global" I just meant indef from the english wikipedia. Of course, a preferable result would be a demonstration from this editor that they can modify their contribs in response to abundant feedback. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Sorry for doing this as an IP - I don't edit much anymore - but Martinevans123 is a significant net positive to the project.  The issue here, for those who know him, is that he is a very relaxed and casual funny person.  I think he felt that copying text off low-grade sites with no obvious copyright and with some paraphrasing was okay (what BlackKite was referring to earlier).  From this process, he now clearly realizes that this is not the case (i.e. copyright is automatic and a serious issue regardless of origin), and will try and fix his problems.  Experienced editors helping to fix their own CCI in a good faith manner, is a far better solution all round. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose if someone can't be trusted to edit mainspace then they shouldn't be editing here. Mainspace is, after all, the main point of the encyclopedia. This strikes me as very generous treatment for someone who hasn't shown any particular interest in the idea.  Hut 8.5  11:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It will not be doing Martinevans any favors, trying to sugarcoat this. He and his friends still appear to be somewhat in denial about the crux of the issue. It's not that he misunderstood something or other about our core writing and sourcing practices. The block is because he did not respond to feedback from others. That's not something that can be wiki-tweaked away. A hiatus and time for off-wiki reflection is the most likely to lead to a change of approach, and it would be doing him a disservice to keep him here, on-wiki but in a cage -- surrounded by well-intentioned friends who will only distract him from confronting the fundamental problem.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Martinevans123 has now put up a Wikibreak template, so a partial unblock seems unneccessary at this time. Perhaps if/when he returns, a partial unblock might be useful. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, someone else put the template there, and it's now been removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, he did add the template to his talk page, and it is still there. He mentioned he was unable to add it also to his user page, so I did it trying to help out, but was reverted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - thanks for the explanation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that Martin has made it very clear on his user page that he wants to take some quiet time away from here, I guess I agree that the immediate issue in this discussion has become moot. But I think that a basic human decency requires considering what he has actually said on his talk page, rather than just making shit up about what he supposedly thinks, which is what multiple editors, including some who should know better, have been doing here. He appears to intend to come back, but he wants to take his time and think seriously about the issues raised, noting that he wants to remove a lot of pages from his current watchlist so that he can focus on the content that will need to be fixed. He has been engaging with other editors there, who have been offering advice about the correct way to write content, and he is showing every sign of taking that input seriously. No flippant dismissal of any of it. He clearly wishes to get his act together, and eventually return to being an editor in good standing. As for such comments here as he cannot be trusted, that he keeps an enemies list (Are you kidding me? It's about Putin and Ukraine, not other editors!), that he is showing no interest in improving, and that he and his wiki-friends are in denial (Are you talking about me? Go ahead and answer that, I dare you!) – well, all of that reflects more on the editors who are saying those things, than on Martin and anyone else the comments are directed at. And those of you who are proud of having drawn a line in the sand, well you can go now and do the laborious work of trudging through the CCI without any help. Have a good time. Revised: I'm very sure that quite a few editors who opposed based on the callous and counter-factual reasons I listed here are not going to help with the CCI, although I respect and appreciate those who will help. Unfortunately, they will do that work without any help from Martin, even though he explicitly offered to do so. That's sad, very sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish "And those of you who are proud of having drawn a line in the sand, well you can go now and do the laborious work of trudging through the CCI without any help. Have a good time." I don't think that's a very fair thing to say to people who might work on it. I am going to try organizing a cleanup for the CCI and I will probably be the person who spends the most time working on it (I spent at least 500 hours cleaning up the Blofeld one). Like all other CCIs I want to complete it as soon as possible with minimal drama. I don't think my comments above are drawing any lines in the sand, I am trying to work through this peacefully. The less help we have, the longer it will take to complete the CCI- I don't think it's fair to Martinevans to have it open for so long, whether he wants to return to editing or not. It seems counterintuitive to want it to be open for longer to spite those not wanting to change the block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just re-checked your own comment about this proposal, and you are not one of the people who opposed it. In fact, you said that you would be fine with changing the block (perhaps without a full discussion, although Dianaa has opposed the proposal, so I doubt that she would have made the change as you suggested). All of that taken together, I too do not think of you as having drawn a line in the sand. I wasn't directing that comment at you, and I wouldn't want you to take it personally. I recognize and appreciate that you have been, throughout this dispute, trying to resolve it peacefully. Indeed, when I first made that mentoring offering, so was I – but we can see where that went. So I'm not spiting those who want to work on the CCI, so much as those who wanted to spite Martin, and who, in so doing, are going to make it harder for you. How ironic: there are editors who opposed this proposal, and who will then have created more work for you. You should ask them if they are going to help you, before you ask me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish, who exactly are "those who wanted to spite Martin"? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First, Moneytrees said "to spite those not wanting to change the block." I didn't say that. Then I said "So I'm not spiting those who want to work on the CCI, so much as those who wanted to spite Martin, and who, in so doing, are going to make it harder for you." Let's not take words out of context. Yes, it will be more CCI work without Martin helping, than with him helping. We can quibble over whether or not all those who oppose the not-unblock-but-alter-it are doing it out of spite, but there are certainly some who are doing it for really flawed and really insensitive reasons. And some of them have no intention of helping out with the CCI. Indeed, I pointed out a large number of supposed reasons that are counterfactual, and only one editor has responded to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily expect everyone who participates in a noticeboard discussion about a copyright block to participate in the CCI. I would expect the person volunteering to mentor the blocked party to assist with it, if only to have it be closed faster, although I could understand if you quietly chose not to - it's shit work, firmly in the no fun zone.
 * But you are going further than that, making sure to sarcastically announce that you will not be helping out and casting aspersions about "those who wanted to spite Martin". Your response to me doubles down with the suggestion that there are people doing this to spite Martin for some reason, even as you refuse to identify who those mysterious parties might be.
 * This behavior is beneath you as an experienced editor. No one in this discussion that I have seen appears to be forming their opinion based on a personal grudge against Martin specifically. I hope you strike your aspersions, and I hope you rethink assisting with the CCI - if not for the sake of the regulars there, then certainly for Martin's sake. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it sufficiently clear, but my major concern in saying that was that, as a result of being blocked, Martin, not me, would be prevented from helping with the CCI, even though he had said explicitly that he felt bad and wanted to help. (OK, maybe belatedly.) At the start of this AN thread, I offered to help by mentoring. I'm pretty sure that was a constructive offer, and I said it very sincerely. I've been quite taken aback by how that turned into criticism of me, even though I'm not the topic of this discussion. I don't know, maybe it's the weather. But I've had some time to calm down, and I see a lot of other editors have, too. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow! I did not mean to upset you any further. In lieu of "somewhat in denial", I could have said "denying", "ignoring", "failing to confront" the crux of the problem. I can see that "in denial" might suggest to an already aroused reader that I was saying that some users were in need of mental health intervention. But I don't think that's suggested by the text, context, or tone of my remark. Nor have I seen anyone else who was offended by the wording.
 * I must say that your "how dare you?" -- an elevated response to my comment -- does seem consistent with my few brief comments on this page. To answer your direct question, I was referring to a group and its interactions. You are among those in the group, so that's the extent to which I was referring to you. My view hasn't changed, and its unclear to me why this heated discussion is still ongoing.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for actually replying to my question, which I had not expected. And I appreciate your effort at clarification. To clarify my own comment, I'm not upset, but rather objecting to what I think were wrong-minded comments. I actually am taking on board the feedback I've been getting here, even if that isn't obvious, but my views haven't changed either. As for why this discussion is still going on, I said yesterday that I thought it had already become moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Absolutely not. Martinevans has had numerous warnings and numerous chances to correct his behavior. An editor without his level of clout would have been indeffed long ago. He can come back when his CCI is completed; I look forward to his unblock in 2032. This isn't a daycare, this is an encyclopedia, and Martinevans is either unwilling or unable to respect our copyright policies. I don't care if he wrote 5 million articles, he doesn't get special treatment. Copyright infringement puts Wikipedia at risk and cannot be tolerated at all. There are no exceptions, no matter how much one likes the editor in question. I'm quite disappointed by the old boy network that has shown up to protect one of their own here. Until he shows a full and complete understanding of the issues that lead to his block, he should not be allowed to return in any capacity. And no, before someone claims otherwise, he has not done that yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm an old fish, so don't call me a boy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. A block should be the minimum needed to prevent problematic behaviour, and that behaviour has only been in mainspace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what a p-block would achieve here. Maybe I've missed something, but it feels like the real-world equivalent of putting petrol in your car and then tossing your keys into the river. I don't know if Martin has made an unblock request, but if he does, and it comes with the usual of admitting their edits are an issue, not to do it again AND to help out with the copyvios that would be a better option IMO.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't understand the supposed benefit to the project here. These copyright investigations are necessary and an enormous drain on everyone's time. If you don't understand how copyright works then you really can't participate in this sort of project. It's at the core of everything we do here. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note: there are some accusations of "old boy networks" and "friends" that are showing up to defend Martin. When the decision isn't [block/do nothing] but [block/completely ban from mainspace], it's hard to see this as a case of WP:UNBLOCKABLES. Nobody seems to be advocating for doing nothing. Speaking as one of the people "defending him" (by supporting a ban from articlespace to try to get him to help clean up the messes he made), I don't know if we've ever interacted outside of perhaps an old noticeboard thread. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even though nobody is suggesting a complete unblock here, this is still extremely generous treatment for someone who has done something like this, especially without so much as an unblock request. Normally an experienced editor would get an indefinite block and would only be unblocked if they could make an unblock request showing they understood the problem and that it wouldn't happen again. The exceptions are cases when the blocked editor has a "fan club" who are willing to push back on their behalf in noticeboard discussions, as WP:UNBLOCKABLES describes. Tryptofish has 132 edits to Martinevans123's talk page.  Hut 8.5  19:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for counting. If you had bothered to read them, you would have found ones, prior to the start of this dispute, where I advised him that he was doing some things wrong, including some about copyvio, and offered to help him fix it. As for the lack of an unblock request, Martin did say at his talk that he would welcome the opportunity to do something like this, and I was influenced by that when I proposed it, but once he stated that he had decided instead to take a break and reflect on it, I posted here that I thought the proposal was now moot. Personally, I use the phrase "fan club" to refer to those who are unfair critics, looking for a chance to score points, so I guess I'll add you to mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 's flippant remarks TNT (talk • she/her) 18:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems incredibly unfair. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Though not as unfair as "And those of you who are proud of having drawn a line in the sand, well you can go now and do the laborious work of trudging through the CCI without any help. Have a good time." — with friends like these.... 😌 — TNT (talk • she/her) 18:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No Id say just as unfair if not more. Because as disappointing and mean-spirited as that comment is, Martinevans123 didnt make it, and a sanction against Martinevans123 should be based on his actions and words, not anybody elses. Otherwise yes, just as unfair and mean-spirited. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the supportive words, and I obviously agree with you about guilt by association as a rhetorical dodge. I've been around this rodeo enough times that I'm able to brush off these things, although I do push back at them. As for, I would have expected better from someone with oversight and checkuser responsibilities, but I'll choose to take it as just a flippant remark. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest it wasnt supportive of you, I think your comment up above was also unfair to the people who perform thankless tasks like CCI clean up. Diannaa does a ton of work here, and it is mostly tedious and boring and thankless, and to assume that her opposition, or anybody else's, is based on spite is also unfair and mean-spirited. It doesnt excuse a freaking functionary responding in kind though, much less to a third party who is in no way responsible for your words. You are. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the distinction that you are making, and that's entirely fair. And you'll see that I previously said that I have no problem with Diannaa's block; and it's also obvious that she is someone who does work on CCIs, so she is not among those I criticized for opposing the block change without being willing to do the CCI work that has to be done. ("So I'm not spiting those who want to work on the CCI, so much as those who wanted to spite Martin, and who, in so doing, are going to make it harder for you.") But I still thank you for pushing back against the guilt by association. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * AGF means that unless you can demonstrate otherwise you need to at least publicly pretend you believe that those opposed to you are operating in good faith, and not out of spite. And if you did that at least this one oppose !vote may not have even happened. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, duly noted. But let's follow your own advice, and keep this about Martin and not about me. I don't think it makes any difference at this point what the !vote count is going to be; Martin says that he's accepting the existing block and using it to reflect. I do wish that more editors here would have shown more AGF towards Martin, instead of making up things about an enemies list. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @TheresNoTime, this is quite inappropriate. Please reconsider. No editor should be held responsible for a comment made by another editor. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps it would be best if we all stopped badgering my oppose? Dear me... — TNT (talk • she/her) 23:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you deserve a bit more badgering for that. Opposing one user's block reduction to make a point about another user? Grow up. Our elite editors playing little games like this is why self-governance on Wikipedia is failing (and will end up being ceded to the WMF). Levivich (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All of this is only cementing my opinion that the old boys club is out in force. Jeeez, y'all heard of being subtle? — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Tryp and I fought for years about Sashi (he won), we barely tolerate each other, and Nableezy is the only editor banned from my talk page, he took me to ANI last month. Dennis Brown supports this and he just blocked me a few days ago; Rhodo supports this and Rhodo said Dennis's block of me was within discretion at XRV. Some "old boys club"! You think Girth and Black Kite, or Money, who's a CCI admin (all supporting), are also part of this old boys club? You've now moved from opposing one user's block downgrade to make a point about another user, to defending yourself by throwing around labels. Really, really unimpressive. Levivich (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry which "labels" do you think I'm throwing around? — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Old boys club" Levivich (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I see.. sorry. I've struck it — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see you've also struck your oppose vote; just to be clear, don't take any issue with you (or anyone else) opposing the proposal (on the merits). Levivich (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not every day that we see a steward brazenly troll a block review thread on AN. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh I'm an enwp editor first, always will be. Little on the nose for you of all people to accuse my oppose of trolling 🤣 — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you are putting the 'pedia first by using personal attacks to double-down on a spite vote. You clearly know nothing about me, or you would realize I am the furthest thing from an 'old boys club' member. Nobody is out to get you; we'd just like to see some acknowledgement that every editor (including those with perfectly valid indef blocks for copyright vios) should be given the basic courtesy of not having to answer for someone else's behavior. Is this really so complicated? Do you have nothing better to offer in response than flippant red herrings? L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm. You're right. I've struck that. Thank you. — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Badgering would be showing up on your talk page demanding you resign all your advanced permissions. After you had already struck your troll-level !vote of course. Ill never get the cliques of this place. Youre a freaking functionary, jfc. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're referring to a recent RfA there — if so, you're also aware I apologized, and there's no hard feelings. But by all means leave that out 🤷‍♀️ — TNT (talk • she/her) 00:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Im glad you did so there, and Im glad you struck this here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - This would only be workable, if his mentor is shown what he wants to add or delete from a page. The mentor would then judge the proposed edit as acceptable or not (i.e. if it's copyright violation or not). If acceptable the mentor would be allowed to make that (via proxy) edit. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct about that. It's what I offered to do – on those terms – at the start of the discussion, but clearly that is something that will have to be postponed to some later time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a grand proposal & hopefully will be adopted, someday. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ban Tryptofish, mainly per their remark below regarding Ritchie. I suggest a ban since it is the standard procedure for failed standard offers. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yawn. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Misread Tryptofish's request. In this case, I have no further comments. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - if he requests this and agrees to use his time here to help out in the CCI then support. But allowing somebody to muse in userspace or project space without doing the work to fix their mistakes to me is a non-starter. He has to IMO a. want and request such an unblock, and b. agree to help out in the CCI. Then sure p-block. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - AGF. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 16:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikipedia's copyright policies are very important. (They're very important to me personally, too). Kudos to those editors who invest a lot of time an energy in this sloping field of scree. Kindness is important. (Again, to me personally as well). Kudos to Tryptofish for overall tryptic and inspiring kindness. ---Sluzzelin  talk  19:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're thanking the editor who's repeatedly attacked others in this very thread for kindness? Are we even reading the same discussion? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we're reading it differently, that's all. Not that uncommon in my world. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's remember, on Wikipedia, it's unkind to offer to mentor a user who needs help, and it's unkind to take up an idea first raised by other editors, and make a proposal that, in fact, would still have left the blocked user largely blocked, and it's most definitely unkind not to let falsehoods stand. After all, criticizing someone via false statements in an oppose is just AGF, but pointing out the falsehoods is a failure of AGF, because everyone has a right to oppose a proposal without having anyone else reply to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll note I have not criticized you for offering to mentor Martinevans123. I don't necessarily have any problem with that, though I think it's also a nonstarter until and unless Martinevans actually fully addresses the issues that lead to him being blocked. You can want to help him, but he also has to be willing to be helped, and to demonstrate he understands copyright, what a copyright violation is, and how to create articles without violating copyright in the process. I don't have an issue with him as a person, but his editing has been wholly unacceptable, as demonstrated in detail by SandyGeorgia farther down this thread. What I do have a problem with is you repeatedly casting aspersions, assuming bad faith, and in general bludgeoning the hell out of this thread (I count 36 comments by you here thus far). Your snarky comments and borderline attacks on CCI editors were totally uncalled for. In a nutshell, you've more than made your point of view clear here. Continuing to comment on everything is not doing you any favors, and you've toed if not crossed the line several times as far as ABF and casting aspersions are concerned. I recommend you let other people have a say. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My objection is to your bludgeoning harshly criticizing someone else, who merely committed the sin of thanking me. You could have expressed your say without condemning someone just for having said thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please review the definition of bludgeoning (WP:BLUDGEON) . "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." I have made 4 comments here, including this one. You have made 38 and counting. It is completely wrong, and a personal attack, for you to falsely accuse me of "bludgeoning", as described at No personal attacks, which includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Review your own behavior, which by and large has been reprehensible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck and revised the word bludgeoning. You want diffs? Here they are:, , , , , , , , and . Every one of those is a diff by Martin on his talk page, expressing sincere remorse over what he did, seeking to better understand how to do it the right way, and expressing a wish to clean up after himself. I'll stipulate that this is all post-block, and not everything is perfect. But I've shown, with no shortage of diffs, that he is willing to be helped. You said just above, without diffs, that he still has to show that he is willing to be helped. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, isn't it an attack to fault someone for thanking someone else, and in so doing, attack the person who was being thanked? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When an editor withdraws a comment by striking through it they are acknowledging they were wrong to make it and apologizing for it. Continuing to hold it over them is just as crappy as having made it to begin with. Though Tryptofish, and I say this as somebody who has trouble not responding to crap when I see it, there comes a point where the number of times a username appears has a direct negative correlation with their preferred action occurring. Being able to recognize that point with my own username is still a weak spot, but I can sure as hell see it in other usernames. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose having looked at this list, individual clearly has complete and utter disregard for copyright and is a liability to the project, being a longstanding editor, there really is no excuse for not comprehending policy. Embarrassing. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've been here since 2016, and just since the beginning of last year, you have about 7 warnings for edit-warring and the like on your talk page. Embarrassing? (Yes, I know I should probably back out of here, but sheesh.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * a petty comment that's almost as embarrassing as the list of egregious copyvios. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 22:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment pretty much exactly tracked yours. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No your comment is a petty ad hominem. You feel disgruntled that an editor has a view that runs contrary to yours. In your imagined hierarchical ordering of things "experienced" editors deserve a carte blanche when it comes to laissez faire editing. That my friend is some bullshit right here. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 08:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But telling me what I believe, even when it's contrary to what I've said, is not petty. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * whoa, my friend, are you that bored? seriously, step away from the screen. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 20:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We can all see this user's talk page, their edits and the nature of their comments here, and can make our own obvious assessment. Nothing to be gained from responding. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Acousmana ...aside from that, to be clear, not every edit on that list is a copyright violation- it's simply a review of every major edit the user has made. In fact, the vast majority of them are most likely not, I would guess only 20% at maximum are issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ah, OK, so only about 1057 violations then. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 22:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a deeply unfortunate case. I don't know this editor, but I encourage everyone supporting this partial unblock, especially Trypto, to select fifteen articles at random from the CCI and clean them. (The more the better, of course!) I'd estimate 75% of large (>2000 character) prose contributions (i.e., contributions that are not additions of tables nor reverts) contain copyright violations. WP:C is fundamental and nonnegotiable policy, one of the few with legal ramifications. I can't support an partial unblock with mentorship, unless both the mentors and Martinevans himself show an earnest desire to assist at this Augean stable of copyright infringement. Some people have already stepped up, so thank you to them. For Martinevans, as a start, I suggest he help by providing access to obscure sources that he's used, for example Dean, Richard, (1988), Gawthorpe Hall - Lancashire (see Gawthorpe Hall). From his talk page he can state whether the associated edits were problematic/explain his thinking, then others (e.g., mentors) can check his work and deal with the edits at CCI. That addresses concerns of both accountability and actual understanding of copyright. But addressing this mess will take thousands of editor-hours; not funny at all. Ovinus (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I now read through his user talk (should've realized there'd be more discussion there) and I think there's hope. I'll ask for sources there, as I suggested. But not a partial block yet imo. Ovinus (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . I don't see why such a longstanding user with more than 200,000 live edits should be having issues with one of the most crucial Wikipedia policies. Even though not every edit on the list they provided may be a copyright violation, "only 20% maximum" is still deeply concerning. With this in mind, an indefinite block is more than justified and fair here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of a mainspace p-block. If an editor cannot be allowed to edit the mainspace, I don't think we need to engineer a way for them to edit in the other namespaces. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - basically this mess is going to be easier to sort out if Martin is willing to work with the community that it is going to be without his input. Given that there are editors willing to mentor Martin, we should try this. As has been said above, should the prove not to be effective, we can always revert to indef. It is at least worth trying. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts from a probably involved Ritchie333
I've just come to this and I don't really know what to say, except to give a few pertinent views.


 * I like Martinevans123.
 * I can't fault Diannaa's block. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios explains most of my thoughts, although that's more geared towards deletion instead of blocking.
 * I note from Martin's block log that at least one earlier block was criticised and overturned on review.
 * I am happy to be a mentor to Martin, however I'm probably not the right person to do so as everyone will think I have a conflict of interest. Specifically, while I'm happy to hear that an unblock might be considered when Martinevans123 can "provide a statement describing how copyright applies to Wikipedia, show that you understand our copyright policy, and make a commitment to follow it in the future", it does strike me that I've basically written an essay providing the answers. I would recommend the same course of action that was offered to - I can't remember the specifics but I note she was indef blocked for copyvio, and subsequently unblocked. So there is precedent.
 * The CCI, sounds like a truly thankless task - it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. I might see if I can drop in to help a bit.
 * Although I set up a CCI for, I didn't block them, though I appreciate in that specific case it was because they had gone inactive. I probably would have blocked if they had returned to editing (almost certainly if those edits contained copyvios).

So I don't really have any answers at the moment, just some thoughts that might be helpful. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Psst Ritchie: don't even hint at an offer to be a mentor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Observations from SandyGeorgia
Each of us can help out at the CCI by checking the pages we have edited in common with Martinevans123 (located through the editor interaction tool). In checking my interactions with Martinevans123, I found some concerning edits, which any potential mentors might take into account. But I found concerning edits at what was then an FA, autism: This is admittedly a very old example, and I usually found Martinevans123 to be a helpful editor, but these edits were made seven years after he started editing, and may be an indication that other mentorable issues include MEDRS, EDITWARring, and source-to-text integrity. In trying to find the right page of the CCI to enter my checks, I found that it would be helpful if there were links at the top of each CCI page leading to the next and previous CCI page, eg links between Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 02 and Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 03, where I was looking for the entries for articles we had edited in common. As the autism edits are so old, I assume they don't need to be scrubbed at this point. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Georges Gilles de la Tourette, helpful but unformatted ref
 * James Joyce, no violation found content subsequently removed, not FA level
 * Beaver, no violation found content subsequently removed, not FA level
 * 17:49, July 16, 2014 inserts cut-and-paste from BBC source, not a WP:MEDRS compliant source
 * 20:20, July 16, 2014 after revert, reinserts the same cut-and-paste text but citing it to a different primary source, still not WP:MEDRS compliant
 * 20:36 July 16, 2014 after second revert, inserts the same cut-and-paste text from the BBC, but cited to now a third source: the source does not verify the text.
 * 20:46 July 16, 2014, Doc James corrects the source and adjusts the text; the unhelpful, rather meaningless statement remains in the article today.


 * PS, I'm still trying to figure out what a p-block is. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A "partial" block – one that only affects certain pages, namespaces, or non-editing actions, see here. Often used for 3RR violations (blocking people only from the page they were edit warring on) and copyright blocks (blocking people from main- and draftspace). --Blablubbs (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (I note that P-block is red. At The Time of This Writing.) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. The link is now blue. --Blablubbs (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest potential mentors to take the time to explain BLP policy, e.g. Special:Diff/860013167, Special:Diff/1070643576 and Special:Diff/1047214533 (found during clean up). Ovinus (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Deeper in now, an additional concern is emerging about the checking; I have seen editors mark diffs as cleared of copyvio when they have blatant cut-and-paste. It looks like the CCI checkers are going to have to check some of the CCI checks. Most likely, mine, too! I have scanned dozens of diffs that are outright cut-and-paste that I don't have time to fix, so I have to just pass them by and leave them for the next editor; one has to either have the time to rewrite the content, or if it's insignificant enough, remove it and, in either case, request a revdel. Because I'm still COVID-groggy, I have been copping out and looking for the short and easy ones, of which there aren't many-- passing over the cut-and-paste diffs as I go. But I did finally come across the first instance I've seen of what looked like it could have been considerable original content written by Martinevans123 here.  Now, I'm not a chemist and I don't know if dimethyl sulfate and dimethyl sulfone are the same thing, so the content could have been at the wrong article, but the edit was immediately reverted as not helpful content at that article.  So at this stage I am yet to find the value added.This brings me to a question that I hope either Martinevans123 himself, or anyone advocating for an unblock, will answer before I enter an opinion on the block proposal above (which I haven't done yet); could someone please produce an example of a significant amount of original content written by Me123? I have not yet come across one; I have mostly focused on page two of the CCI. What is the most valuable work done by Martinevans123, and what is an example of his original content that he is most proud of, that isn't just adding quotes or infoboxes or filling in bare refs?   As a followup to that, if he truly wanted to help on the CCI, he could be making lists now in his userspace ... it is clear by now that most of his content additions are cut-and-paste.  It would be much simpler on all of us if he just let us know, yea or nay, whether most of his book-sourced content is also cut-and-paste, for example.  And if every time he cites the BBC, it's cut-and-paste, so we don't have to check (I haven't found one that's not).  If Martinevans123 wants to help, and wants to be unblocked or partially unblocked, he could be lending a hand right now, by just stating the facts so we don't have to look so hard to find them. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy, thanks for your interest in copyright cleanup. Those diffs are old, but since the removal was done right away, it's still possible to do revision deletion. I have now done so. — Diannaa (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I continued looking beyond my own article interaction with Me123, and there is a consistent amount of cut-and-paste copyvio everywhere I look, whether old or recent. As a non-admin, it's hard to know how to best help without constantly pinging for revdel; continued on Diannaa's talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now spent 10 hours investigating just a very few of the diffs at the CCI. My focus was on the second page, Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 02, where it can be seen that in many of the 20-article sections, I have found as many as four copyvios, and I haven't checked but a fraction of those to be checked. This is no small amount of copyvio. Considering what I have seen in only one night's work, I believe this statement by Martinevans123 to be either disingenuous, or woefully obtuse: The pattern is clear, and it is not a one-off, or a mistake, or a limited incident, nor can it be explained as rare hurried edits. It is frequent, habitual, and long-standing failure to display any understanding of copyright, and it is quite surprising that it has taken this long for it to be detected, as it is quite frequently outright cut-and-paste from news sources like the BBC. It is not limited to lists of facts. It does not appear to be related to being in a hurry, rather to habitual editing practices, and having no respect for copyright in spite of the number of years editing. It is hard to find any good content creation, between the overquoting and cut-and-paste. I am unsure how mentoring can turn around this kind of disrespect, but if a mentorship is to be considered, it will require more diligence than seen here. In more than one case, the copyvio text has already been carried via WP:CWW to and from other articles. (See sample at Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing.) I am curious to hear why those offering to mentor believe that the capacity to help on the CCI exists, and why those (???same editors???) who have edited closely with Martinevans123 never saw this before; it's everywhere, and it's not subtle, and it's been going on since 2007, right up to at least 2021. The only edits I looked at where I don't find copyvio are things like formatting citations and adding infoboxes. I'd like to not enter an Oppose on the proposed WP:P-block, but I am finding it hard to understand the value of having multiple editors spend time helping someone learn the basic and obvious. Considering the amount of cut-and-paste found, do we need to assume that book sources are also cut-and-paste? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandy, thank you for doing all that work. I've interacted closely with Martin, mostly in userspace, but I have done very little content work with him, so I have not been in the habit of checking his content work. In fact, despite statements to the contrary in this discussion (which, let's face it, has gotten way too heated for anyone's good, on any "side" of the dispute), when issues about his copyvios have been raised on his talk page, I have responded more than any others of his talk page participants by trying (probably not firmly enough, in hindsight) to explain the problem to him, and I have taken it on myself to rewrite the material that needed to be rewritten. One comment by me, about a copyvio where the way to rewrite it was particularly hard to see (mostly names of family members and bandmates), has gotten far more attention here than due weight would call for, but even in that incident, it was me who went and repaired his edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we can turn our attention, soon, to ways of catching similar sooner. I see that starting to happen below.  Cleaning up after the fact is SO much work, and done by so few.  I was urged to check out the diffs at the CCI because I  did not previously hold a negative impression of Martinevans123, but was dismayed to think that encouragement of serial copyvio offendors might take hold on his talk page (as I have seen in other instances). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing that sticks out to me most was that Martinevans was warned several times for this behavior, but did not seem to adjust his methods. I believe it was in good faith, but I'm not sure if this was just a communication issue on everyone else's part (that people just needed to be more firm). Of course that would have helped... but what if people who have made copyright violations in main space were put on probation where their edits would be scrutinized by, say, putting them on a bot-generated list? Regardless of their edit count and tenure? Then, after they've made some number of appreciable prose changes without issues of copyright, they can be removed from the list. Yes, it would require extra oversight and work, but such prophylaxis would more than make up for the time, by preventing mega CCIs. But I'm not an admin, much less a copyright-focused one, so I'm not sure how practicable that'd be. Ovinus (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In that regard, something that could easily be done by any admin going forward from right now would be, once a copyvio is found, if the editor who made it is someone who looks like they can still be a net positive, to issue the standard warning, but then, tell the editor that they, themselves, must clean up any copyvios before doing other work, and that they will be blocked if they don't do that. (That's another way of saying "probation".) That would be somewhat less than the bot list, but it also would be fairly straightforward. And it would be a good preventative for cases like the one here, because the editor would have to confront the issue right away, and would be much less likely to keep on doing it until the situation reaches what we have here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to make this work in practice. Editors with persistent problems in copying sources generally need assistance to understand how to rewrite text, and someone will need to verify the results. Editors that are felt to be net positives often have hundreds if not thousands of edits. Editors who haven't already responded to feedback by going back and reviewing their own edits are probably not strongly motivated to work solely on re-examining hundreds/thousands of edits. I do like the principle in theory of cleaning up after yourself, but I think a quick trigger on asking editors to only review their own work would serve to dissuade a lot of diligent editors who slipped up once, without much gained benefit from those with a longer history of problems. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Isaacl on both points. It’d be nice if we could train someone up to understand copyright and then let them clean up after themselves. But—and I don’t mean to be doubting good faith or be demeaning—it requires continuous and strict oversight. As to the “slipping up once thing”—yeah, I can see that, but how often does that happen? The length of the period could be adjusted based on the severity of the edits. But maybe that’s needless bureaucracy… anyway, back to work Ovinus (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As recent as February 2022. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * June 27, 2022. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We may have to do that; I found copy-paste from a book source yesterday, in Greenhalgh Castle. If all his other prose additions are copied or lightly/poorly paraphrased, we will at some point have to make the assumption that the content sourced to books needs to be removed too. Results so far are very grim, sorry to say. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm finding unsourced content in smaller diffs across a lot of different years. Most of it is written basically enough that even without a source I can safely say it isn't closely paraphrased. Some of it isn't that basic, and without knowing where it came from, at this point we may need to presumptively rewrite, especially with this high of a frequency. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 17:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Tangential discussion on possibility of a Copyvio algorithm

 * Imagine a copyvio algorithm that does nothing but crawl our existing autopatrolled articles for copyvios (checking dates of creation to weed-out mirrors & forks) like the copyvio checked articles in the NPP queue, only more refined and automatically paraphrased by a program like quillbot]. Ahhhh...heavenly automation. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 16:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Imagine the WMF using some of their $400 million to hire people to monitor and fix copyvio instead of relying on volunteers. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice thought (ala fat chance :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 400 million makes it sound like that's their annual revenues, which it is not. That said, I bet the Foundation would spend money on this in some form or fashion, if there was consensus it was appropriate for this to be a foundation activity rather than that of volunteers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Their $400 million" means their assets, or to be specific, I'm counting endowment + cash reserves + one years' revenue = the amount of money they have. Of course not all of it can be spent, but the point is, they have enough money for this. As to whether the community would find it appropriate, it really doesn't matter, the WMF is already doing copyright enforcement, such as DMCA takedown notices, because it's required by law. And of course the community is fine with that. They can expand that so that they're not waiting for take-down notices and are instead, say, coding software that crawls articles and flags potential copyvio for further manual review. BK, this is a weird one to push back on. Of course the community would appreciate the WMF doing more here. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting idea .... — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the idea of automatic rewriting of text (as far as I know, automatic translation, a similar type of problem, doesn't have consensus support on English Wikipedia to be used by editors mechanically without oversight), but I agree that more tools can be good. There must be plenty of university computer science and linguistics departments willing to partner with the Wikimedia Foundation to do research on the problem of detecting copyright violations. isaacl (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Could a bot be created that runs Earwig on pages? Like doing automatically some of the things described at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We only have a limited number of free "looks" supplied by Google per day; the number is 10,000, which sounds huge but is actually barely adequate just for the manual checks we perform. So random walks cannot be done. (This is the type of search where we click the "Use search engine" box. We have unlimited use of the comparison tool, where we enter a url in the "URL comparison" field.) — Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Would using other search engines help? Or could a bot identify, from the reference citation, the URL to put into the comparison tool? (I realize that won't work for unreferenced content, but that could be deleted for simpler reasons.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If there were to be a workable way to do this, we have Bot requests. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Tryp - see NPP's wishlist: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination. These are among some of the things I've proposed in general to the BoT to strategize and help put me in contact with the right people at WMF. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 23:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Atsme, I see you're already several steps ahead of me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've personally always found the search engine function not very helpful; the number of times it has turned up stuff other than mirrors has been low. The Turnitin option, on the other hand, would probably be more useful- I believe it has access to academic books and journals, which Earwig struggles with- but I don't think it has ever worked for me... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How would such a "copyvio algorithm" be able to distinguish between copvios and attributed quotations (or passages copied from PD sources)? We wouldn't want direct quotations to be "automatically paraphrased", presumably. Deor (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Teach the algorithm what to look for - it can be done. I'm not a programmer/coder, but think about it -  " " marks could signal the first "if", or we can use specific wiki code that indicates a quote...like  . New articles come through NPP, and we have Earwig EranBot that pre-checks and alerts us (in our curation tool) to the possibility of a copyvio that we confirm using Earwig. corrected 02:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)  What we don't have is a copyvio crawler that catches all the other stuff, like kidnapped redirects, autopatrolled articles, and other situations where articles make it into main space with copyvios.  There are so many algorithms out there now, it makes WP look like a dinosaur: MIT, Tech at Meta, you'll love this and it's coming our way, as is this from popsci, ugh, this, and of course Google is working on it, too.  I've already submitted a proposal to our BoT, and our team at NPP is working with WMF techs but we could always use community support to help us convince them that it's time to automate the menial tasks, and protect the project from an onslaught of spam AI articles - both the good and bad. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 23:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As a minor correction, the "potential copyvio" alerts in the curation tool actually come from (and listed at CopyPatrol), and it does include new autopatrolled articles, removal of redirects, and large additions of text to existing articles. It's not perfect by any means, but it does mean that new articles are evaluated in this way  of whether they are autopatrolled – in fact, it's how Martinevans123's (autopatrolled) creation of Sam Smith (English sculptor) was flagged. I agree, however, that there is much room for potential improvement in our systems. DanCherek (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan - I conflated the process, not knowing the name of the pre-check bot. I use Earwig if the curation tool warns of a potential copyvio. If we can get a really good algorithm that has limited potential for f-ups, I don't see how it can hurt to crawl the site for potential copyvios, even if the articles date back to the early days and were never checked. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 01:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't help but wonder if the code for this open-source project which compares linked content to what has been cited to see if it's there, couldn't be modified for this task. To me, the not AI programmer, the task of "is this not present" and "is this WAY too much present" seem close but I could also be asking for birds rather than National Parks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That code could be refined and work quite well for us at NPP. Verifying & finding sources is one of the items I've mentioned for NPP.  For example, when we come across articles that are unsourced, AI can find and cite the sources.  At the same time, AI can help us weed out hoaxes by checking to see if the cited sources support the material. There is so much potential to cut down or entirely eliminate some of the menial tasks. I'm pinging  so she can review the discussion starting at the arbitrary break section because the links I provided above, Barkeep's sideeditor link, and the copyvio detection/fix suggestions all align with what we've proposed relative to a dedicated tech team for NPP. It may also fit nicely with the strategies the BoT is/has been considering. It should probably be presented to our CEO for consideration as well. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 02:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Technologies like Quillbot are far, far from ready from being able to produce non-human-reviewed, acceptable text. The Side program was linked; even that, supported by a team of engineers, requires human review. However, a program that identifies these pages and puts them in a queue is possible in the near future.
 * The WMF has other priorities that are just as important; I can name Growth Features, Moderator Tools and the Wikipedia Library off the top of my head. If you want something coded, ask Community Tech in the next Wishlist.
 * And please, please don't say that it'll get stuck in an endless black hole of Wishes - CommTech is the best solution we have so far. As an example, Wish #4, an extension that Google reverse image searches Commons images and puts them in a queue, is not actively being worked on by the team, but a community member has picked it up. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 04:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

While 's vision isn't something that can be put together by some random guy on an idle Saturday, there are nevertheless some benefits we could gain via automation. I was playing around with Earwig's API today and put together a very rudimentary script that takes a list of pages, runs it through Earwig (checking against external links only, not a full search engine search), and spits out a sortable wikitable that lists the pages and the highest Earwig %. I ran it on Pages 901-920 of Martin's CCI, and you can see the output at User:Levivich/copycheck and the source at User talk:Levivich/copycheck. Again, this is really rudimentary, but at least we can use a script like this to (relatively easily) identify the pages that are the most likely to have a problem, and this could help prioritize a CCI cleanup. The script could be expanded in a number of ways; it could be a bot that runs automatically; it could use more of the API, etc. FYI/CC:. Levivich (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SMirC-thumbsup.svg - if I knew how to code, first thing I would do is instruct the bot to ignore proper names and titles. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 01:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome work, thank you! I've added this to my to-do list, and that'll make for a nice Sunday afternoon of hacking 😌 — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 02:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an impressive start! But I don't understand why we no longer have a bot we used to have (was it Corenbot ??? Or something else) that checked every new article. And one thing that I've noticed on this CCI is how many people are pitching in to help.  If everyone goes and has a look at just a few section of the CCI, they'll see how much work it is, how much specialist knowledge is needed, and why it is so important we catch copyviolators early. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I presume because we have 7 million articles, and that's a lot. CopyPatrol already looks for new articles, but if we want something to root through them all, a MediaWiki extension is a better structure. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 04:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is nice! :) I'm glad to know there's an API for Earwig's tool. For this CCI case in particular the copyvio checker isn't particularly accurate, for example  is not gonna pop up, but I think there are some heuristics (ratio of prose to ref count, for example) that would be feasible to automate. For general CCI it seems very useful. Ovinus (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This AN discussion
I'm fully aware that I've been told that I've been making too many comments in this discussion, but I feel that this is necessary for me to add, and I'm very sure that it's constructive. I've been trying to figure out why this discussion has been pushing my buttons to such a large degree, as I am not someone who makes a habit of this sort of thing, and something important has occurred to me.

This hasn't simply been an AN discussion by the community about the issue that Diannaa raised in the opening post. It's become something really mean-spirited, really ugly. And I've realized that a lot of the criticism of Martin has taken the form of what is all too often seen elsewhere online. It happens all the time, at social media sites and in comment sections. I want to be very clear that I'm not saying this about everyone, but it does apply to some here. People make themselves feel better by, anonymously, grouping up to say exagerrated negative things about whatever is at hand.

Martin got blocked for doing something genuinely wrong, and I want to be very clear that that's on him. But Martin also got cancelled, and that's on us.

Those, including me, who are looking for constructive solutions that still include Martin being blocked and that require him to take an active role in fixing his mistakes before he can return to doing anything else here, are being told that we want to give him carte blanche. That doesn't even make sense; it's just over-the-top. And someone who merely said thank you was attacked for having said that. Not simply being disagreed with, but being told that they must be out of touch with reality. What does that say about us as a community? What comes next, reverting barnstars?

I have no illusions that I'm perfect, and I've walked back some of the things that I originally said. And so have some of those who see the issue differently. I thank them.

This happened here in a pretty big way, but it isn't something new. WP:CESSPIT has long been a shortcut to ANI. And I remember from very early in my editing, a time when a posse of single-purpose meatpuppets showed up from the Something Awful website, to deplore the supposed wrong of including an image from a manga on a page. At the time, more than a decade ago, there was simply a perception here that anyone can edit, and we had to just count their !votes like anyone else's, so the image was deleted at FFD. Since then, of course, we've learned how to use Template:spa, and that wouldn't happen today. Now, we need to learn how to conduct a discussion of an editor's wrongdoing without spilling over into wild exagerrations of what the person had done. It should be possible to review a block without going beyond a sober and objective examination of the facts. Just as we have come to learn how to discount SPAs, we need to learn how to make administrative noticeboards less of a cesspit and more of a place for determining how to get back to constructive editing. Not virtue-signaling by exagerrating how awful somebody was.

We, collectively, need to figure out how to do better.--Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tryptofish I suspect you will find this comment rude, but you didn't offer any suggestions to "sort this out". Perhaps you could move your opinions to the talk page or the Village Pump? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right that it was a poor choice of header, so I changed it, thanks. But I feel strongly that it needs to be here (we already have tangents about CCI bots and the like), and I would object strongly to moving it elsewhere. (Once the discussion gets closed and archived, I'd be happy to pursue it further at the Pump or elsewhere.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Another good reason for it to be here is to make it visible to admins, who play an important role in setting the tone here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If I could have Martin unblocked & you set up as Martin's mentor? Then it would be so. Alas, it's not entirely in my hands. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying that. But I really don't see my comment here as being about changing the block. What I want is to address the larger, and very real, problems with this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand. But, I can't elaborate on that 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you seriously believe that indefinitely blocking someone for serial copyright violations, and editors agreeing that the block was appropriate, is "cancelling", you clearly are too biased to be of any use in this discussion. There's zero way to spin this - Martin has committed massive levels of copyright violations, as we have already learned in the CCI (I personally removed multiple instances of blatant copying earlier today). He cannot be allowed to edit, in order to protect the encyclopedia from further damage. That's not "cancelling", that's protecting us from getting sued out of existence and preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia. You're allowed to think highly of Martin and be his friend. But just because he's your friend doesn't mean he gets special treatment, and every post you make here actively hurts his chances of ever getting any sort of unblock. You're making things worse by acting ridiculously. This subsection you just created is incredibly foolish. Please, if you actually want to see Martin able to edit one day, STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD. JUST STOP. He's not getting unblocked anytime soon, and again, you are only making things worse for him with your participation here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All other things aside, this is extremely hyperbolic. What would actually happen is that the WMF would get a DMCA take-down notice, and then they'd take down the offending copyvio, per their DMCA policy. It is very important that we don't have copyvios or plagiarism on the website, but not because we're going to get sued, or get sued out of existence. When volunteers clean up copyvio, they are protecting the integrity of the project, but they are not really protecting it from legal liability; that's handled by WMF Legal. It doesn't really help to go about spreading the falsehood that CCI is what's keeping us from being sued out of existence. Levivich (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The DMCA does require a service provider to have has adopted and reasonably implemented...a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers (, p.26). If you don't do that then you lose the protection of being a service provider (which would be very bad). Now I have no legal training, and there may well be something which means that clause doesn't apply to this case, but we know very well that this user is a repeat infringer and we are seriously considering allowing them to continue to edit anyway. If nothing else I can't see regulators or the public reacting well to this.  Hut 8.5  08:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is doing any such thing; a p-block from mainspace prevents an editor from editing. As for the DMCA, having a group of untrained random volunteers from the internet patrol for copyvio is not a reasonable policy. The WMF are doing things to ensure DMCA compliance, and relying on the volunteer community is not one of those things. Nothing we volunteers do matters when it comes to legal liability. It matters to us, it matters to the readers, but it won't matter to the courts. Levivich (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont really buy the canceling bit, an indefinite blocking is not a community ban. Martin is still free to request an unblock when he can demonstrate that he is able to understand and comply with WP:C. Hell Id assume Diannaa would herself change the block given that demonstration. Some of the opposes seem unreasonable, but you are taking nearly all of them as an attack on Martin and an attack on you. I agree that there are things about this discussion, and most AN(/I) discussions that are dispiriting (including the comment above this). I dont know all the overlapping and conflicting cliques here, but you can see some of the opposes, and some of the supports seemingly, are based on those shifting alliances. How to fix something like that? No clue. Maybe any person that has had any positive or negative direct interaction with Martin gets one comment and no responses. But I think your framing here is showing your closeness and friendship with Martin, I cant otherwise explain calling this canceling. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have had no interactions with martin and have nothing against him, beyond the fact that he committed large quantities of copyright violations for years. He seems like a nice person to me. But unfit to edit here I'm afraid. I am being militant because too many times copyright concerns are ignored until we end up with situations like this. And I fear any sort of unblock will only bring us back here again with even more copyright violations to clean up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then drop the anger and the derision. It isnt necessary. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much with everything Nableezy said. (Including I agree that there are things about this discussion, and most AN(/I) discussions that are dispiriting (including the comment above this).) Really, I don't know what the point of this whole thread is anymore. It's not doing any good for anyone. As far as I can see, the only thing to be done is for Martin to work on his understanding of copyvio (if he wants to come back) and let's see whare we are once he's done that. DeCausa (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me the thread has done a lot of good, as lots of editors are pitching in to help at a very large CCI. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I agree. Even though I still feel his block should be upheld, it's not like Martinevans has been banished to the shadow realm, never allowed to read or edit any Wikimedia project again. Not only should the community hold him accountable for his persistent copyright violations, but Martinevans should hold himself accountable as well. Ultimately, I hope that he'll acknowledge his wrongdoings and do better in the future. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I hate to pile on here, but I'd also ask Tryptofish to please relent. No one here has a vendetta against Martin, I have never met him and I hate putting people down. While some of the opposes above were truly mean-spirited, most simply reflect genuine frustration with severe violations of policy. You say, and I agree, that we mustn't spill over into wild exaggerations of what the person had done, but I don't see where that's really happened. That's why I suggest you take a random sampling of his edits to understand the extent of the problem. I hope this particular discussion can be soon closed and discussion move to CCI or Martin's user talk, as appropriate. Ovinus (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Canceling does not mean ban. It means performatively condemning him beyond what actually is the case, even though what happened is indeed bad. I never said anyone was doing it out of a vendetta. And I said quite clearly that it was not everyone, but rather some. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusation of copyright violation and plagiarism against me
A user has accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, and will neither provide any evidence nor retract the allegation despite being invited several times to do either. How should I proceed? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This thing was already explained in the edit summary, all I said is to paraphrase things rather than add what exactly the source says. Also the lead section source of Top 10 best John Cena's matches says how significant and historic it was but ItsKesha keeps removing that their 2014 match was the end of their historic rivalry even tho source 1 and 22 implies that and I just paraphrased it. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I already proved it on the edit summary saying the need to paraphrase and both source 1 and source 22, wwe and comicbook.com implied it was historic so I just paraphrased it but you won't accept because its not copy pasting, which is what you do, let admins review the page and find out then. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * To both, please read tedentious editing and WP:Bludgeoning, fight about content across three pages is pretty disruptive especially when you are both repeating yourselves over.
 * Now to the actual issues,, wrestling is fake and should not be presented as reality. Wikipedia likes boring writing, no need to add emotions or qualify people as prominent writers. Also, there is zero reason ever to include a source twice simultaneously, once with a proper cite template and once with the raw link. The raw link serves no purpose there. Finally, stop using words like vandal, plagerism, and BLP because you clearly do not know their meaning on Wikipedia. Wrestling is fake, writing about fictional characters is not a BLP violation, content disputes are not vandalism and unless you have better diffs there is zero evidence that copyright or plagiarism plays a part in the dispute.
 * , just stop posting the same thing over and over again. Its not helpful here or on any other page where you repeat yourself and continuing a content dispute across three pages without waiting for any other editors to comment is just silly. Brevity is your friend. Slywriter (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Slywriter Thank you for ypur comment, I will just point out taht I am not the only user who had issue with ItsKesha, he removes warnings from other users and even admins, all can be viewed on talk page, but yes I agree with you i should not use thsoe terms like that either and am genuinly sorry, and ok I won't accuse ItsKesha anything, this is mainly sorrounding content dispute and yes I guess we wrestling fans do get carried away, but I promise I won't accuse editors including ItsKesha for that unless its proper reasoning. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But you still haven't removed any of the accusations? Whether I remove comments from my talk page is absolutely irrelevant and none of your business whatsoever, and has no place in discussions here. Your apology, which I don't accept as being genuine, doesn't excuse your accusations, which still haven't been retracted. It's not a "content dispute" to make such accusations which are still scattered all over the place. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , with only a few exceptions, an editors is allowed to remove sections from their talk page, and doing so indicates that the editor has read the message. The removed posts stay in the edit history. Will you please withdraw the incorrect accusations that you have made against ItsKesha? Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok he may not have violated copyrights and will remove that, but my accussation below is legit @Cullen328, also he removed my comment here, thats what is aid, i never said he can't remove talk page warns, but I just brought that up because he does it as a tactic to hide his persistant behavior, but he can not remove my comment here which he had done if you check the history as this is not his talk page. Anyway ok I egt itsKesha gets lot of smpathy for kesha's picture and all, and I never said he can't remove talk page warns but just brought up the fact that he gets away with his undeniable abuses (if you check his edit hostory and all the similar warns he reciieved) by doing that. Guess the cute Kesha pic has a soft effect for him tho. Either ways to me he did plagarise, but I respect admin decision so will erase that part. But I request taht eh does not contiue t WP:EW and remove the PWTorch WP:PW/RS which i talked about in the section below. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, you've just accused me again of plagiarism? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, just to clarify, are you actually accusing editors and administrators of bias towards me because I jokingly have a picture of Kesha on my userpage? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not flater yourself ItsKesha, I never said Admins are biased to you, I pointed out taht you do not take admins seriously and hide their warnings from your talk page, which would ahve been fine but you still violate the things they waarned you for. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you never said admins are biased, why have you apologised below? And why have you, again, accused me of plagiarism? This is absolutely pathetic. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

, your assertion that I am somehow influenced by a picture on ItsKesha's userpage is ludicrous and spurious. You are digging a hole for yourself. It would be wise to stop. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328 I apologise deeply, i was frustrated that itsKesha always get away even with admin warnings just by erasing talk page wars and erasing talk page waarns is nothing wrong but he continues to do the things people, including Admins warned him not to do, and saadly Admins are too busy to review over 500 edits in his talk page history. They have a busy life and simply don't have sufficient time to review his case, and I can't take things to ANI as PW is in GS Anyway my commet was sort of uncivil, if youw ant you can punish me, unlike ItsKesha I take responsibilities for my mistakes, so please forgive me and if you want you can punish me but I request you to stop ItsKesha's aggressive EW behavior. I myself am guilty of content dispute with him but I am a human, I have feelings and I am just frustrated with how he turns things and its been that way with him for 2 years, anyway please accept my apology, I am sorry about that. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your apology which I accept. In return, I want to give you some advice which I hope that you will find useful. Do not edit Wikipedia when you are angry. Go smell some roses instead. Do not edit Wikipedia when you are frustrated. Watch some kittens frolicking instead. When you edit Wikipedia, edit with a level head, and strive to write logical persuasive sentences, and do your best to use proper grammar and to spell correctly. Never criticize another editor without providing persuasive evidence, and do not expect someone else to go searching for the evidence. That is your job. These are the skills of productive encyclopedia editors, and will also make your opinions on article content more persuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

=== ItsKesha's removal of major WP:RS contents claiming then not notable based on personal views and accusing me of lack of sourcing tag when very line of the aricle was complient with WP:PW/RS===

I asked Its Kesha to request consensus for majotr changes in and  but he refuses to do that and keeps erasing 7 years accepted WP:PW/RS based on personal views. He has a history of warning for aggressive editing but he always erases them on his talk page but they can all be viewed on his talk page history. Anyway i am done here, if I am the one at fault am sorry, but i didn't want to tell about ItsKesha's persistant agressive editing behavor, but I did, and if I am the one out, its fine, I just said fact, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked several times for you to prove these allegations or to retract them altogether. You can't accuse somebody of this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ItsKesha removed my latest message, he has no right to remove other people's comments, even if they are offtopic (which this is not as they are on similar topic) only admins can do that, if they do I will accept whatever decision they take. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm removing nonsense that has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * its your history of disruptive and uncivil behavior, just FIVE of MANY recent examples by multiple editors on your talk page and yes since the matter is here all can be included, including the time you falsely accused me of adding bad citations when you are the one keeping one and removing my WP:RS contents:, , , . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbaggg (talk • contribs)
 * That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a place all issues can be brought up and looked into, anyway one alst thing, you have no right to remove other people's emssages, this is not your personal talk page where you have removed so many warnings (including from admins), just similar to what it was here, nothing else left to say to you: Dilbaggg (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I did in edit summary I already said that you should paraphrase, and both source 1 and 22 implied its a historic match but you just copy paste. Anyway let admins decide, if its against me I will respect their decision, but I have the right to warn you to not delete other peole's messge regardless and all issues can be brought up here. No I will stop talking because I already explained but you keep saying I didn't, you are just trying ti bury my allegation under your texts, keep it up, I willrespect whatever admins decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I seperated the topics, happy now, also here is a false tag of article having unreliable source when all the sources were WP:PW/RS and ItsKesha insistes on removing wwe.com and wrestleview despite both of them being accepted sources and there being other sources like pwtorch, 411mania aned bleacher report. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me also say that pro wrestling articles fall under santions for editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why i didn't want to bring these issues up, but ItsKesha always gets a free pass just by erasing all editors and even admin warnings from his talk page, his talk page history shows that, anyway you are right WP:PW is in GS, and I should be careful and won't ring up content disputtes here again. I am sorry for the trouble we caused, and I hope ItsKesha and me can work together in peace with cooperation. Bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to be nice and let go, but User:ItsKesha continues to remove WP:PW/RS such as PWtorch a very reliable source: and adds sources like TMZ whih don't fall into Wp:PW/RS, and this has already broken WP:EW limit, yes he removed a little duplicate info, but he also intentionally removed WP:PW/RS PWtorch and the crucial info, and he says the quality is not good enough to im, who is he alone to determine that , I requested him to seek Wp:RfC many times he doesn't. I am a human, I have patient limits, I respect Wikipedia rules but this is a user who always gets away with WP:EW and stuff by always removing talk page warns, yes I am guilty of being dragged to content dispute too, I am sorry, but why shold ItsKesha always get away for his behavior just because he hides all his past warns. Does erasing talk page warns including from admins lets you get a free pass? Don't talk page histories gets checked. If he stopped the behavior after warning, its not an issue to remove them, but he doesn't. I restored the PWTorch info one last time and hope @User:ItsKesha doesn't shamelessly WP:EW after this and I am sorry to be dragged to this WP:PW debate under GS, we wrestling fans tend to be passionate but I request that Itskesha stops removing WP:pW/RS and claims he alone gets to judge an articles quality. Have a busy day ahead, so my last words, bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One last thing regarding the Randy orton article, it does feel like WP:BLP violation, pro wrestling is scripted yes, but so are movies, if people remove large amount of contents from actors rticles such as Johnny Depp for eg, it will count BLP violation, I repeatedly requested Itsesha to seek WP:RfC but he will not do that because votes will not go in favor,, what is his problem in seeking RfC, and he had similar issues in the past in 2020 but that time project ws more active and they got to him and forced him to ask a consensus, sadly a lot of editors are inactive now : , anyway I know there is nothing wrong with removing takl page warns but Kesha has used it as a tool to evade any action and has even removed admin warnings and continued to do things he was warned for likeremoving WP:RS, doing WP:EW and stuff, sad thing is admins are too busy and do not have the ti e to review 500+ edits on his talk page history. Anyway this is the last thing i will say here, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (Multiple EC as I started replying hours ago then got busy with other stuff) First this edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1098774664] by ItsKesha, was not right. I initially thought it was a hidden edit conflict or accident, but the above discussion seems to suggest it was intentional. Other than when removing outing or where the editor making the comment is a sock or troll, or maybe a very serious personal attack, no editor should remove a complaint against them at AN. It doesn't matter if the editor making the complaint has an existing complaint which you feel they have not provided sufficient evidence for, let the community deal with it if a WP:BOOMERANG is needed. Likewise if you feel it would be better to segment the threads, then it might be okay to do so, but don't remove the complaint. As for the other stuff. Well an editor doesn't get away with edit warring because they remove warnings. You're supposed to show diffs at ANEW anyway and so the removal of warnings doesn't affect the ability to report edit warring to ANEW. Frankly ItsKesha has been around long enough it's questionable if warnings are needed.  Also "we wrestling fans tend to be passionate" is a well known problem and any wrestling fan should be ensuring their passion isn't causing problems. Notably I'd point out that wikiproject reliable source guidelines are effectively WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. They are hopefully useful in excluding those unreliable specialised sources for the area, as well as in finding specialised sources which can be used. But they should never be taken as some sort of bible of what sources to use.  In particular, reliable sources should not be excluded just because they don't appear in some wikiproject guidelines. This doesn't mean it's a good idea for an editor to go around replacing one reliable source with another, generally speaking there should be sufficient reason to do this, but this applies in both directions. And a source appearing in a wikiproject guideline is not by itself sufficient reason.  I would note WP:TMZ is not a good source so I can't imagine any reason why an editor would be replacing other sources with it. If the existing source is no good, then find another source. However the general point remains and no editor should be saying the BBC (to give a random example) is not a good source just because it doesn't appear in some wikiproject guidelines. In fact, if it supports the information, replacing pwtorch or 411mania with the BBC is likely to be a good thing since there's generally far less question over the reliability of the BBC so that's probably sufficient reason to do so.  Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the diff, it seems the TMZ was used as this was a statement made to TMZ. That's one of the few cases when using TMZ in BLP is probably okay although due weight considerations still apply if TMZ is the only source. (If no one else cares that this person said whatever to TMZ then probably it isn't very important.) Also I may have misunderstood the above statement I assumed "" meant one source was being replaced with the other. But it seems these were separate events supporting different info. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne User:ItsKesha recently broke his topic professional wrestling ban sanction on pro wrestling article by doing this edit and once again removed large amount of contents without seeking any consensus. Not sure this is allowed or not, but just letting you know about the topic ban evasion. Heres the topic ban log of his talk page which he might erase like he does with most warns:  Dilbaggg (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you either ping the editor who imposed the topic ban User:NinjaRobotPilot or open a new thread as it's likely your comment here will just be missed, and there's nothing I can do about any possible violation. Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I mean User:NinjaRobotPirate Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if practical, I'd prefer someone else decide that. If I repeatedly sanction ItsKesha, it's likely to convince this editor that I have some kind of grudge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:NinjaRobotPirate You are not the only admin to warn him, he has a history of disrespectfully removing admin warns from his talk page, you can review those all, but its fine to remove admin warns but not to repeat the behavior he was warned for. If he can get away with breaching topic bans, that would encourage others and also be injustice to those who did not get away by breaching topic ban. Either ways you are a very senior admin, I just wanted to let this behavior known, this is possibly my last message here and I respect whatever decision you take. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something or do I not see a topic ban being imposed there? Can you link where a topic ban from pro wrestling was decided? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you impose a topic ban from pro wrestling on ItsKesha? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 22:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The topic is under general sanctions.  There was no discussion.  Go to User talk:ItsKesha, press control-f, and type in banned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see it, thanks. Somehow missed that earlier. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 05:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article
A little concerning to open Wikipedia today to find a giant picture of a confederate flag beside a White Patriots poster. Then only to find that the article is about a British Neo-Nazi... Should we really be including Neo-Nazis in the featured articles? 167.201.243.112 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The Germans don't shy away from teaching the Holocaust, neither should we shy away from past and present-day extremism. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, you wouldn't have opened "Wikipedia today to find a giant picture of a confederate flag beside a White Patriots poster" and then found out the article is about a British Neo-Nazi. There's no image like that on the main page. You would have seen that the article is about a British neo-Nazi and then clicked through to see the image once you knew what the article is about. I think the "principle of least astonishment" is followed. DeCausa (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Open the Wikipedia app right now. You'll see it... It's the main picture for the article. The guy's face is cut off but the top half of the photo has everything described above. And the preview/summary right below "John Tyndall was a British fascist political activist. A leading member of various small neo-Nazi groups...." 167.201.243.112 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel there's a difference here. You are referring to teaching, having discourse, and ensuring information is available. By all means it must in order to have freedom of information. That is different from promotion. Promoting such views on the front page is hardly different from the conversation above about a user promoting profanity on the main page. In addition the featured articles are also sent via subscription to users who have signed up. Wikipedia is effectively disseminating those extremism views to a vast audience, both users who may be offended or hurt/threatened, and potentially an audience receptive of such content, opening the door for further spread of extremism 167.201.243.112 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice... y'all really don't get how things like this do impact diverse communities through the nation, especially in today's political and social climate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.201.243.112 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A Wikpedia article, including a featured article, is not an endorsement. And what do you mean by "the nation"? Wikipedia caters for about 200 nations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We actually did run a Confederate flag image on a TFA last year - Today's featured article/April 28, 2021, with no complaints. Hog Farm Talk 19:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct that the app pulls the infobox image so yes, if you open the Wikipedia app, the first thing you see is John Tyndall standing in front of a Confederate flag. If you engage with Wikipedia through a desktop browser (as I expect most editors do) then you don't see the image without clicking through and the effect is probably lessened. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No reason why, if these articles ever get improved to the point of being FAs, that articles like Adolf Hitler, Swastika or Nazism shouldn't be able to be TFA. We cover the bad as well as the good, and show this on the main page. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Any one topic area that receives disproportionate coverage on the main page removes from the ability of other topic areas receiving coverage proportionate their significance. We have years worth of other areas deserving coverage. BD2412  T 05:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's great in theory, but FAs are written by volunteers, and the coords can only choose from FAs for TFAs. The only way TFAs will get more diverse is if editors that want to work on those diverse subjects write the articles, get them to FA and someone nominates them for TFA. Some topics get disproportionate coverage because more editors want to work on those subjects and get their work to FA, so there are more FAs from those subjects. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Vide the baffling frequency of Final Fantasy instalments popping up as FA... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have notified Iamreallygoodatcheckers and also BusterD since I mentioned him above. - Aoidh (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that if you're closing an RfC that has four different options but which only five editors replied to, you're going to struggle to find consensus on anything unless everyone agrees. Having said that, I don't see any consensus whatsoever to avoid using PinkNews.  Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to be very clear, there is no consensus against using PinkNews. The last statement is what I felt would limit future contention; it's not supposed to be a mandate against PinkNews. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't the no consensus comment, it's that you're saying there is a consensus for the other source, and how you then lean on that supposed consensus to make your own opinion in a closing comment that the first source should be replaced, rather than sticking to a summary of the discussion. There was no consensus for what you claimed there was, especially when by your own admission you overlooked one of the commenters contesting what you said there was consensus for. - Aoidh (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I said SMH had a rough consensus because many people in the discussion spoke highly of it and believed it to be reliable; a total of 4 people in the discussion believed it to be reliable. Only 2 didn't want it's use. There was even one person who preferred a primary source being used but still expressed that they believed the SMH specifically was important for establishing WEIGHT. The only reasons PinkNews was ruled no consensus was because it got a little less support. I think the fact that 4 (a majority of the 7 total !votes) with literally 4 options believed this source was usable amounts to a rough consensus. I think that is reasonable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Having said that, the only editor who specifically suggested that SMH was a better source than PinkNews was someone who'd been summoned by a bot to a page that they don't appear ever to have edited... Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There were 2 who recommended it, but I don't that is relevant to this discussion because the closing should not be construed to say PinkNews should be replaced by anything. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does the number in support of the source change every time you comment on it? It was 3 when you last mentioned it on your talk page, and it was 2 when you first mentioned it in the RfC close. My issue with your close is how something that close is somehow a consensus which you then lean on to make your own suggestion, when the source that got literally 1 less comment in support of it is "no consensus". There was no consensus for anything in that RfC, and the close should reflect that. The close needs to reflect the discussion, that's my only issue here, because as it stands it's a suggestion, not a summation. There was no consensus for SMH, just as there was no consensus for anything else. - Aoidh (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's 3 on the talk page because you were not including the person who supported both PinkNews and SMH at one point in your count, so to keep it consistent with you I also removed. However, It's 4 when you include that person, and 3 when you don't. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this is annoying, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, but the whole thing was just a big No Consensus, and should have been closed that way. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, exactly. Overturn to no consensus per Black Kite.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn, No consensus Even for this rather weakly written and sourced article page, the RfC was thinly participated with little valid reasoning and no agreement that could support the close. I also note that the closing editor has been fairly active doing non-admin closes and has gotten into trouble with them before. I see little policy-and-sourcing based evaluation of the !votes and too much of his own POV, either one of which will undermine his efforts as closer. I'd suggest he focus on other activities for a while.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn - the SMH piece is an opinion column, as pointed out by several participants, so it can't be used to support a statement that a BLP subject has ADHD, per WP:BLP policy. Closer missed this. Levivich (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP doesn't necessarily apply here since the subject of the article passed away last month; however, I did object to using the Sydney Morning Herald column in the RFC because it's a WP:RSEDITORIAL issue. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Recently deceased people are also subject to BLP policy. –– FormalDude   talk   21:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My two cents: not a trainwreck (as mentioned, we've all seen bad closures, and this isn't one), but the RfC was closed too early, before consensus could be established—the RfC was only open for 2 weeks. I commented in the RfC, but I believe a consensus was inevitable if it were to have gone on a week or two more. SWinxy (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to reopen Wouldn't reopening a RfC be a better solution? I think there is significant clash in the RfC, but perhaps more participation might lead to resolution. An RfC in which editors have made good faith argument shouldn't have their discussion short-circuited by one weak close. I hope the discussion in which participants already invested has a chance to more fully develop. BusterD (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn — I specifically object to the closure endorsing the Sydney Morning Herald column because it's clearly not a reliable source for any purpose on Wikipedia (BLP or otherwise) per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no-consensus; close was a WP:SUPERVOTE and not an accurate determination of the consensus. Link20XX (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to reopen; IARGAC, if you aren't seeing consensus but you have an opinion, just go ahead and !vote. valereee (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn and re-open. There isn't a clear consensus there and the RfC had run for a relatively short amount of time (13 days) relative to most RfCs (30+ days). No reason to close it early. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for no reason, won't be donating again
Not that bothered but when I've been blocked for trying to fix a page where solid facts have been removed by another user (who should have been blocked lol), I not only no longer want to contribute any more, but I also have less trust in the information on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.235.206 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since there are six million articles, care to narrow it down a bit for us? Slywriter (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Very curious to find out why legitimate discussion is such an issue for you. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Accusing two admins of harassment is not legitimate discussion. Neither is referring to the current US President as "the Resident" three times;, , . Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a sustained bout of trolling and boundary-testing.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, this user seems here to be POV pushing and has an axe to grind. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 00:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The are an option if any admin wants to use them for a discretionary block, as I made Innican Soufou aware of them about 2 hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also they just breached the 3RR limit at Talk:Joe Biden;, , , . Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Individual is still continuing such antics at the Biden talkpage. My guess, it's a sock of a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user for one week for BLP violations and edit-warring., please don't accuse editors of socking without evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor got off easy. I was preparing to block them indefinitely. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought about it. Feel free to increase the block if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks but I trust and respect your judgment, so let's see what happens in a week. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, I hope you're correct about my assumptions. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that means.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope the editor is not a sock. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk page access revoked due to ongoing Biden "resident/former vice president" trolling which does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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


 * @Fasil H., I think you're talking about Theological College of the Holy Trinity? There's already an article at Holy Trinity University so the article can't be moved there. It could be moved to Holy Trinity University (Ethiopia). Probably needs a disambiguation page. valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since both pages are completely unsourced it might be better to look at that first ... Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * +1 Valereee (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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

In accordance with a suggestion made by, I promise that I will not nominate any smutty, sweary or provocative DYK hooks and I also promise that I will not ever edit, adjust or add anything into an article solely for the purpose of making a DYK hook. I give my word, I will adhere to what I have promised. I would like to ask the community for forgiveness and for the chance to prove I have changed.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 10:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Imposed at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088. —Cryptic 11:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note that I got the ping, but likely won't be commenting on this. My only involvement was to read the clear consensus in the ANI thread Cryptic links above, and enact it.  Apparently, I actually thought a lesser sanction would have worked, but I only know that because I read it in my closing summary, not because I remember coming to that decision.  I have no special insight into this appeal, pro or con. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One more note: When CofE refers to my advice, I made several comments between 13 and 21 Jan on their talk page, but to save people a little time, I'd say my "key" piece of advice was here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - You faithfully served the t-ban, sought advise during that time from administrators & so IMHO, the preventative measure is no longer required. PS - FWIW, you've never harmed me concerning the topic, in anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to support this request but I fear that the is wording that may be too narrowly crafted and leaves the barn door wide open for other types of disruptive DYK editing. I supported the topic ban back in January. My concern is that this editor fancies themself as a provocateur who admitted . I expect to see an overt repudiation of that disruptive attitude and a rock solid commitment to never get involved with controversial DYKs ever again, with an understanding that an indefinite block will be the result of any such trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I can support this, with the pre-existing ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics, left in place. I share Cullen's fears a little, as The C of E has in the past had a tendency to take things very literally and fail to see beyond the words of a restriction and understand the core meaning behind it. But I can't really fault the commitment made here, and I hope I'm right in my understanding that it means there will be no more pushing of boundaries. This will, of course, be a last chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I mean exactly what Pawnkingthree says below - revert to the restrictions in place immediately before the current total DYK ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
 * Very qualified Support with the caveat the pre-existing ban stays in place per Boing! above, and that there's absolutely no skirting round the edges per Cullen. Just ... stay well away from anything that could be construed as a problem. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only way I would support a return to DYK would be if all the September 2020 restrictions were left in place; ie. a ban from British/Irish politics, religion and LGBTQ, a ban from editing his own hooks when they are in a Prep era, and the ability of any independent reviewer to veto any of his proposed hooks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, The C of E has done good work on-Wiki and he is an expert on many things. There are many topics where he's largely been been problem-free. On the other hand, I cannot forget the memory of what he used to do and what got him into this position in the first place.
 * I would be willing to support him being given one more chance, provided that his existing DYK restrictions (i.e. the ones about preps or avoiding anything to do with LGBT/Religion/Irish politics/etc.) would remain in place. I would also suggest that he seek out a mentor to collaborate with him on every DYK nomination to help ensure that he doesn't accidentally fall afoul of his restrictions. In fact, while I don't know if there's consensus for this, I would also suggest that his restrictions be expanded to British politics in general as well as anything to do with British colonialism, as there have been concerns regarding his hooks and interests in those topics before. Finally, it should be made perfectly clear to The C of E that this his last chance and any violation of the things that got him here would almost certainly result in him being banned from DYK again. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 13:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is why I want the chance to prove I have changed from that. And I think it would be a little unfair to remove the total ban but then start bringing in new restrictions beyond what was already in place beforehand. I cannot demonstrate the difference if I am not permitted to edit in certain areas that I were not banned from prior. The main reason for the initial ban was predominantly based on the provocative stuff, which I have apologised for and I recognise what the consensus seems to be building to. Why would I throw 6 months of personal development and my Wikipedia account away in asking for unbanning just for the chance at 1 last risque DYK?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is really just to make sure you won't blow your chance. Many here are willing to give you another chance but we may not all be confident that you have changed. Like you said, you have to prove it with your edits and actions. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 14:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the existing "British or Irish politics" ban as already including British politics in general. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think he should be banned from British politics in general because he's done some useful work there. It's politics regarding the Orange/Green divide in Ireland that has been the problem IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe he shouldn't be banned from British Politics DYK in general, but as I read it he already is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I think it's counterproductive to ban him from British politics altogether as I think he's written a number of articles on British politics that are useful contributions and which otherwise would probably not have been written. It's the orange/green issue where the problem has been IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Possible misunderstanding here, sorry. When I speak of British politics in general, I mean in the context of DYK, and as opposed to only DYK for Orange/Green issues (as DYK is what this ban is all about). I don't mean to suggest extending any such ban beyond DYK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to Gatoclass and others: The C of E's actual topc ban is The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed., and comes from Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270. So far as I know, that's still in place, and isn't anything that can be undone here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And that I know can only be undone by arbcom, not here. It's just the ban on DYK I am asking for to be lifted.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Qualified support - I thought the previous ban was overkill as the user's behaviour was already under control after the earlier ban, but agree with Boing!, Black Kite and others that the earlier ban on certain political topics, religion and LGBQT topics should remain. As it happens I am also inclined to disagree that the user need refrain from hooks containing profanity as these can be vetted by the community like any other, but he definitely needs to stop arm wrestling with other users over the choice and/or wording of his proposed hooks, in particular, editing or substitution of his own preferred hooks in prep. Struck as already dealt with in a previous remedy.  But I would also like to see him banned from approving April Fool's hooks submitted by other users, because his judgement there has over a long period of time proven at least as flawed as his judgement of his own hooks.  Struck as extraneous to this discussion, see below. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the thinking behind the total DYK ban was that the community can't be expected to keep crafting ever more finely-honed specific bans for individual editors. In the end it just has to come down to The C of E to get it right. So I'd oppose any further attempts at refinement, and just lift the total DYK ban - and it's up to The C of E to take it from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I shouldn't have brought up the April Fool's issue here, as it's probably not something the community as a whole need consider. It's probably an issue best left to the DYK community itself to deal with, so I might take it up there once this discussion is resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And if the community is kind enough to do so, I will endevour to ensure their faith in me is not misplaced.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with no restrictions. A second chance should not come with multiple caveats like some double secret probation. There are enough checks and balances in place at DYK so that no damage can come to the project. Hooks are often pulled and fussed with many times before they ever see the main page. Also, the participants in DYK will have a heightened awareness regarding the editor's contributions in DYK. We could use positive constructive contributions from The C of E. I came here after seeing a notice on the DYK talk page . Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bruxton, I'm not weighing in here on either side, but I'd suggest maybe it's worth considering whether the restrictions that were already in place might actually be helpful to CofE in knowing where the boundaries are. This is a person who very much wants to respect boundaries but has a difficult time finding them without clear statements on where those boundaries are. The restrictions that were already in place are ones that most people detect and generalize from fairly quickly for themselves. I'm not saying you're wrong, but at DYK there will be very limited patience for CofE not detecting boundaries, and I'd hate to see removing those clear boundary statements turn into something permanent. valereee (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The restrictions were put in place precisely because the checks and balances failed. There is a reason why The C of E was prohibited from editing his own hooks in prep, from proposing certain kinds of hooks, and why the hook veto practice was imposed. All of these were responses to his previous actions. I understand that you're relatively new to DYK and Wikipedia as a whole and was not here at the time those restrictions were imposed, but they existed for a reason. Now, if The C of E is allowed to return to DYK, having those earlier restrictions imposed will allow The C of E to avoid doing the things that led him into trouble while still giving him a chance to contribute productively to fields where he had no trouble. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Thanks to both of you for the messages. I thought I might point out that I have about 58 successful DYK nominations and I learned my way around the place. My own hooks are regularly pulled and stuck - and discussed etc, but I never intend disruption. It appears this editor has intended to disrupt for several years. I was not aware of the 2020 arbcom discussion. And I only became aware of issues when the op proposed a DYK that I commented on back in January. So based on the years long disruption and on the comments by  and Narutolovehinata5, I withdraw my support for lifting restrictions. Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bruxton, sorry to ping you again, but could you clarify whether you're still supporting lifting the t-ban, which was actually what CofE is asking for? The various editing restrictions at DYK were already in place before the t-ban was placed; people here have brought those up as a secondary question, some saying they support lifting the t-ban as long as the restrictions are left in place. CofE wasn't actually even asking that those be lifted, as far as I can tell. Just the t-ban. valereee (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lots of other areas of the project to contribute as has stated Bruxton (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The supposed apology and promise to do better does not address the much earlier and long-lasting problems that led to the earlier ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics. My impression is that the broader problems arose as a way to lash out against that earlier ban. Unless it is addressed, we still have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per David Eppstein. Even if the ban is lifted, a total lift without added restrictions - along the lines of what Bruxton is proposing - is completely unacceptable. I don't understand why CofE is determined to get his restrictions lifted on DYK hooks, considering that he can be productive in other areas of Wikipedia and especially considering the extraordinary disruption he brought to DYK in the past.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's asking to have all the restrictions lifted, just the total ban but with previous restrictions still in place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is correct . I will be asking for some further clarification on them if the total ban is lifted to avoid any misunderstandings.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose absent both the pre-ban restrictions and ensuring that the set of restrictions going forward clearly and unambiguously cover past problematic behaviors, including the warping of articles that was the proximate cause of his total DYK ban six months ago. After that ban, in the discussion on his talk page, The C of E pointed out that he doesn't pick up on subtle hints or implications and needs direct, clear clarification on what is allowable. I would go further, based on past experience at DYK: if someone tells him not to do something and his interpretation of a specific Wikipedia policy is that he can do it, he'll ignore that person and go with his own interpretation, even if it isn't just one person telling him no. That's why he had all the restrictions prior to his full DYK ban, and why they need to be in place and clearly defined if the ban is lifted: The C of E has great difficulty seeing why what he wants to do would be problematic, and hasn't been able to refrain from testing—and blowing through—the boundaries. I agree with Cullen328 that the C of E's initial offer/proposal is too narrowly crafted (why "solely", for example?), though it does cover areas not in the original restrictions that I think need to be there. Otherwise, we're setting up a situation ripe for failure. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm having the thought of if The C of E could have some kind of DYK mentor if he's allowed back into DYK. Like he would have a co-nominator for all of his DYK nominations, who would tell him if what he's doing is right or not. The co-nominator could also serve as an additional check to make sure whatever he writes (article and hook-wise) either doesn't fall under existing restrictions (i.e. no Irish nationalism, etc.) or doesn't try to skirt around them. Also, a co-nominator could ensure that thinks like his "cock" antics before do not happen again.
 * I think my biggest fear here is that we could see a repeat of the incidents that led to the "cock" article incident. The comments made above regarding boundaries is a good point and I fear that The C of E could return to his old ways where he pushed the boundaries of what he was allowed to work on. His comments above seem sincere and he does seem to be trying to atone for what he did in the past, but given what he's done before, I'm not sure if his apology here is enough. I'm not against the idea of his total DYK ban (as opposed to merely the other restrictions) being lifted, but I wouldn't support the ban being lifted outright without checks or assurances to make sure that what happened before would not happen again. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 22:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: After reading this again (showing how the problem is DYK for him), the admitted problem with boundaries, and knowing that C of E could not get the message operating under a more limited restriction, already: trusting again seems a very big ask, and this is not a second chance, it is, at least, a third. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully oppose. Wikipedia is over 6.5 million articles and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more needing to be made. There is a tremendous amount to be done without raising the specter of DYK drama, even if it is just in the form of lingering bad experiences. I would wait at least another half a year. BD2412  T 23:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I thought the ban was heavy handed and overkill. --evrik (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support So they were banned for promoting the words ""fuck", "dick" and "cock" on the main page" (per the ANI case) via DYK?! And yet Gropecunt Lane was TFA once upon a time. Seems a bit heavy-handed.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Some things need to be clarified here:
 * Firstly, the hook that actually did get promoted never used the term "cock". It ended up being a normal hook.
 * Secondly, what got The C of E into trouble at the time wasn't necessarily the use of profanity itself, it was how he did it. The article repeatedly used the term "cock" instead of "rooster" even though the sources for the article largely used "rooster". Indeed, at one point the article even had the phrase "Dick's Cock" which was never used in any source. Although many DYK editors are disinclined to promote hooks featuring profanity, they're not outright prohibited, but there has to be a good reason to use them and more often than not hooks that would have featured them are written in such a way to make the profanity less explicit, largely citing WP:GRATUITOUS.
 * Thirdly, had it just been a one time thing, The C of E would have probably have been given at most an admonishment. However, he had a previous history of trying to push DYK hooks that featured subjects with profanity and profane names simply for the shock value, rather than the encyclopedic value. For example, he had a DYK nomination where the subjects were New Zealand geographic locations whose names had the N-word and tried to make a hook out of that. Needless to say, said nomination was ultimately rejected. Another time, he tried to promote a hook that called Muhammad a thief. Regardless of your opinions of Islam, such a hook was obviously a ticking time-bomb and needless to say, the article ultimately ran with another hook.
 * And finally, The C of E wasn't necessarily banned from DYK just for the profanity issue. It was due to a pattern of pushing the boundaries of his existing restrictions, and rightly or wrongly, the community felt that banning him from DYK altogether was more effective than further increasing his existing restrictions. The "cock" article was the last straw, but it wasn't the only thing that led to the DYK ban. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 09:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If it was just the profanity thing ... but that wasnt the original problem - see the links here and my comment in this AE. That's why I've suggested above that the CofE goes nowhere near any of these topics. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I didn't see/know about that. Yes, going nowhere near those topics would make sense. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Closer request - I would just like the closer to spell out continuing restrictions, as it seems a little unclear. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been reading closely with an eye to possibly closing, and yes, several oppose !votes seem to specifically be using the idea of lifting the restrictions that were in place when the t-ban was placed as one of their/their primary reason for opposing. The ones I've noted, besides Bruxton whom I've already pinged above, are @WaltCip, @BlueMoonset, and @Alanscottwalker. An edit to clarify whether you're objecting to the lifting of the t-ban from DYK (rather than being opposed to lifting the earlier DYK restrictions) or are opposed to both/either would be helpful to the closer, as CofE's actual request here is only about the t-ban, not about lifting the other restrictions. ETA: FWIW, right now most 'support' !votes are specifying that the support is contingent upon the earlier restrictions not being lifted. valereee (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think another thing worth pointing out is that some editors above are not confident about lifting the DYK ban entirely because there's the fear that, even if the total ban is lifted but the original restrictions remain, he would return to his old ways of pushing boundaries. If the total DYK ban is to be lifted, there probably needs to be measures to ensure that said boundary pushing would or could not happen. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 12:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Which restrictions? Perhaps list them now, so everyone is clear.
 * But I brought up the 2020 AN, not for the restrictions, but because the statements there by CofE and others indicate a root of the problem of warping articles, of not being able to exercise good editorial judgement, pushing for main page ethno-nationalism, racism, ridicule based on sexuality, etc., is involvement with DYK, itself. And that somehow CoE, did not get the message, leading to another draining AN, which are not cost free for anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To quote the prior ANI, The C of E is banned "from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics", from "editing hooks he has proposed or for articles he has nominated, created, or expanded when they are in a Prep area", and that any DYK hook he proposes can be vetoed by any independent review, where said veto cannot be appealed. In addition, there are also his restrictions relating to Irish nationalism, but as those are ArbCom-imposed they could only be overturned by ArbCom and not here. <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 12:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think AE restrictions can be appealed at AN.
 * And at any rate, my earlier comment was not about the restrictions themselves, it was that they did not stop the disruption. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To respond to valereee's ping, I oppose a simple return to the pre tban restrictions, which were insufficient; at a minimum, they should be retained and additional restrictions included, worded something like you proposed last time, The C of E should be restricted from ever again suggesting a hook with a sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative content, along with something that states clearly that The C of E cannot skew what should be encyclopedic content to make hooks or articles unnecessarily or inappropriately provocative, as he did with changing virtually every source use of "rooster" to "cock", which ultimately led to his tban. (If he doesn't have the judgment to understand what's inappropriate and unencyclopedic, he shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.) His restrictions already prevent him from persisting when a hook is vetoed by a reviewer, instead being required to propose something substantially different. Absent something sufficiently comprehensive and clearly proposed and approved, I remain opposed to the tban being lifted. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Since it's extremely unlikely C of E has changed either their views or personality in any substantial manner, I see no reason to lift restrictions that are doing their job perfectly well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The point here is that the total ban from DYK was never necessary. The C of E had already been banned at DYK from all the topic areas where his behaviour had been problematic, namely, Irish politics, religion and LGBTQ issues. Those bans remain in place and there has been no proposal to lift them. He ended up getting a total ban from DYK for a hook with a double entendre on the word "cock" which he had submitted for April Fools Day - precisely the kind of thing that he and many other users have successfully submitted for the day in question on many previous occasions with little if any complaint from the wider community. He had, in short, every reason to think such a nomination was acceptable for the AFD special occasion, and I submit that it was manifestly unfair and a double standard for the community to suddenly turn around and impose a blanket ban for the very same kind of material the community has found acceptable on many previous occasions.
 * I have certainly had my own issues with The C of E over the years, indeed I doubt that anybody here has spent more time trying to get him to recognize the problematic nature of some of his nominations. But I also think the problems were well in hand after the first, limited ban, and that the blanket ban has probably achieved little else but discourage participation from an erstwhile prolific content creator. Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? You think it is helpful here to repeat yout failed arguments and rejected position from last time?  You want a renewed argument about the already instituted consensus on the ban, in which the community rejected each one of your points including your blinkered view of the underlying evidence and problems.  Your already rejected argument can only convince that problems will get worse and worse if the ban is lifted, there will be more boundary testing, more bad editorial judgement, more skewing of articles, more attempts to disrupt the main page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My "failed arguments and rejected position from last time?" Sorry, but I did not even participate in the discussion "last time". And the fact that the hook in question was intended for April Fools got only one incidental mention in that discussion, with nobody pointing out that this kind of hook has long been par for the course for the AFD special occasion. The C of E was basically punished for something that he and other users have done many times before and that the community has found acceptable. The inconsistency in response is glaring, and must have been quite bewildering to him. Regardless of what one might think of the C of E and his contributions, users deserve better consideration than this. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You did make this failed argument last time. The consensus was that he created multiple points of disruption and not just in a hook, contrary to your claim.  Most our systems only ever work when editors show good judgement, this editor, on multiple occasions and in multiple ways, demonstrated poor judgement and poor editing.  If he is bewildered, it can only mean he is either not listening, or does not have the capability to listen -- which only raises the spectre of more disruption.  If it is blame it on the system, it means he is incapable of working in that system.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alan, please show me where I "made this failed argument last time", because I did not find the latter ban discussion until after it had been closed, and have no memory of participating in previous AN/I discussions on the matter nor can I find any diffs. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was going from a memory of seeing you write that same argument at the time, perhaps it was on his talk page or at DYKTalk. I will strike, and again apologies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Whilst I think CoE should be given another chance, it has to be clear what the issue is. He wasn't banned from DYK for a single April Fool's joke, it was a continuing issue of a number of things, and he didn't "get the point" even after the tban (see Joe Roe's comment at this appeal, for example). Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gatoclass, you are glossing over the actual reason the community tbanned him: it wasn't putting "cock" in the hook, it was deliberately warping the nominated article with a great many gratuitous uses of "cock" when all the sources used "rooster", which was disruptive to the article and the encyclopedia. He was misusing DYK to get this highly problematic article on the main page, and he paid the consequences for his actions. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , with respect, this is not a problem confined to the C of E, the fact is that we have had a number of contributors to the AFD special occasion over the years who erroneously think that AFDSO permits them to behave with a laxity toward factual accuracy and article content. Over the years I have had to struggle to impress this fact upon would-be AFDSO contributors repeatedly and it's been a very frustrating experience. The problem in my opinion lies not so much in the behaviour of particular users, but in the way AFDSO is run. Basically, the consensus model simply isn't adequate for the task, because there are not enough knowledgeable contributors participating there. What AFDSO probably needs is something like the directorate that FA used to have, where one or two experienced users or administrators have the power to veto hooks and enforce appropriate standards. Penalizing one particular user for the failings of the system is neither just or productive in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally agreee about AFD, but the that particular DYK entry is neither here nor there, it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back - see my links above. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, but my point remains the same, which is that to suddenly turn around and slap a ban on somebody for doing the same things they've done without objection on many occasions previously is just plain inconsistent and hardly fair to the party concerned. Also, so far as I am aware, none of the said nominations made it to the main page unchanged, so no harm was done. So I maintain that the original ban - preferably with the modifications suggested by - would have been more than sufficient, especially with increased oversight at DYK, which doubtless would now occur. Having said that, it's not going to bother me unduly if the community decides here to give him another six months in the cooler, indeed it would potentially reduce my future workload, but I still think the blanket ban was unnecessary as the issues were already under control. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The point of the pre-ban restrictions was to get him to NOT do what he has done in the past. To realize that there needs to be more self-control, more listening, better judgement, less provocation. The restrictions were certainly were not a license to skew article content, we have much more important policies than any DYK system that work to prevent that, and we always rely heavily on on any editor to do the right thing, always.  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At least one hook - a highly incendiary one because of the date it was posted - made it to the MP. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's what got him the original topic ban from The Troubles, and I've already said I concur with that ban and agree it should be retained. This discussion is about the later blanket ban over profanity and whether that should be lifted, and I maintain as stated above that that ban was neither justified nor necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The evidence is to the contrary, the ban was most definitely not over one thing, it was over a series of things, and it did not look like it was going to stop. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The ban basically was over three hooks proposed by the user that included profanity. I don't know how often I have to repeat this, but DYK has run many, many hooks containing profanity over the years, including a number from the C of E, that have passed by completely without controversy. So how is he supposed to have anticipated that this is suddenly going to be a bannable offence? Does it make sense that a particular action is perfectly fine one day and a bannable offence the next? No, it doesn't, and the ban that resulted is thereby unjustified. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. You do not have to repeat it, because it is not true. The ban took account of the entire record of participation incidences.  Also, skewing article content is much worse than writing any single word in any hook. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was still on the basis of actions that he's made on multiple previous occasions without any concern shown by the community, in which case he could have had no expectation that they would suddenly attract sanctions. As for the "skewing" of article content, none of it was of any great significance and there is no indication of a deliberate intention to mislead. People are entitled to make a few mistakes, I come across them all the time at DYK, and not infrequently from some of the encyclopedia's leading contributors. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Skewing of articles is always significant. And it's not a mistake when you skew an article over and over again, it is by design. He has attracted attention in the past for words and more, so there is nothing sudden, and if he did not expect expanded restrictions were and are always a possibility, it means he either will not, or is not capable of paying attention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've had your say, and I've had mine, and I think it's pretty clear at this point that we are unlikely to change each other's minds, so there isn't much point in continuing this. Others can read the above thread if they are so inclined and come to their own conclusions. In the meantime, thanks for the debate. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying CoE is seriously skewing articles outside of DYK? I thought the DYK topic ban worked because they mostly only skewed articles when they wanted to advance some dumb DYK hook but if you're right maybe rather than accepting this appeal we should IMO be looking at a site ban. AFAIK no one has suggested this so far, which makes me wonder if I've either misunderstood what you're suggesting or you're wrong. To be clear, filling an article with cock when almost few sources use that word to advance some dumb DYK is not some minor thing. It's serious and any editor who doesn't recognise it as such needs to stay away from anything which will tempt them to do that. As I've said before, I don't buy the 'it was the communities fault' argument. If no one told the editor before that it's wrong, for good reason few of us GAF at least in terms of the editor. It's the editor's responsibility to recognise it as such even if no one told them or even seemed to allow it, it's still not our responsibility that the editor didn't recognise how atrocious their editing was. And an editor who has already had a topic ban should be extra cautious about nonsense. As for the wider issue, if editors are regularly doing that at DYK, we have a serious problem, CoE may be only a small part of that. But again, there's nothing in what you've said which would justify lifting the topic ban. Instead, what you seem to be suggesting is that we should keep the topic ban, but either seriously reform DYK or topic ban a lot more editors. I wasn't planning to !vote in this, but what you've said about how serious the problems are make me think I should since even by your own logic, we can't let CoE back on DYK until we've fixed it up. According to you, the area has serious problems which we need to fix since they're seriously fucking up articles and treating it like it's fine and CoE was one of the editors who did that very badly in the past so as sincere as they plans for reform may be, the problems with DYK are very likely to me they'll be drawn back in to it. I'd note that while we have have allowed main page TFA blurbs to be written in a potentially misleading way, it's always been well recognised that that stuff needs to stay out of the actual article. It's extremely unfortunate if DYK editor's don't understand there's a big difference between a questionable hook and seriously harming an article. Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying the C of E is "seriously skewing articles outside of DYK" and I don't know how you got that impression. As for substituting "cock" for "rooster" in a DYK AFDSO article, I'm afraid I must disagree that this constitutes a "serious" offence. "Cock" is actually a legitimate term for an adult male chicken, that just happens to also serve as a double entendre. And in my opinion, the C of E's excesses in that article represent no more than a surfeit of enthusiasm for the AFD special occasion, along with a misapprehension of the acceptable boundaries. But if you think that such a misapprehension disqualifies somebody from participation at DYK, it might interest you to know that some years ago, the main page FA slot itself featured an extremely cringeworthy attempt at humour on April Fools Day - an experiment thankfully not repeated thereafter. But what it does demonstrate is that anybody can make these kinds of misjudgements, even our most distinguished content creators. In my experience, the vast majority of people have very poor judgement when it comes to assessing their own attempts at humour. Perhaps that's why good gag writers are always at such a premium. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. The editor has not violated their topic ban in the past six months and shows a genuine understanding that there are no chances beyond the one that they are asking for. Topic bans are meant to be narrowly tailored towards preventing disruption. If the previous restrictions remain in place (which The C of E seems to clearly agree to), and The C of E understands that the community wants to keep WP:GRATUITOUS content off of the main page and will hold the editor accountable if they try to put it on the main page, then I would see no reason why a blanket ban is justified; the ability for any single editor to veto any hook proposed by The C of E is more than enough to ensure that only unobjectionable hooks by The C of E will actually make it to the main page. The only way that a blanket ban could be justified over that would be if such a high proportion hooks by the C of E were gratuitously inappropriate that it would disrupt the DYK review process. I think that the editor understands not to be pushy in this manner anymore, and a final chance makes sense to me. If the user were to engage in repeated bad-faith hook creation over the next six months, I would expect the blanket ban to be returned. But, if good behavior were to continue at DYK for another six months, I would expect the community to gradually release restrictions as the user demonstrates that they no longer will act disruptively at DYK. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the dissembling and "I didn't hear that" and "it's my autism's fault" arguments from C of E leave me no confidence this is a good idea. As mentioned above by Black Kite, this wasn't just one ill-advised joke, it was years of bad behavior that I see no evidence the user has actually learned from. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 02:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ROPE. I do believe that CoE is genuine in their comments above and they are aware that any attempts to take liberties with an unban will be met harshly. The worst-case scenario is that they propose an inappropriate DYK which will simply get rejected, so there's no real potential that an unban will cause damage. Of course, CoE should also be aware that this would be a bit of a "last chance" scenario; again, they should read WP:ROPE carefully. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 09:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am inclined to support on a good faith basis, but I am concerned that a lifting of restrictions might act somewhat as a 'trap' leading to boundaries being run roughshod again, and therefore to a potentially painful reimposition of the restrictions. The total ban came after a series of escalating incidents, and there are valid concerns above that such incidents may happen again. It has been barely more than six months since the ban, and while I'm not going to oppose on that basis, it does suggest DYK has not quite been moved on from in the interim time. If the ban is lifted, I would agree previous restrictions should remain in place, and would suggest a slow and very cautious re-engagement with the DYK system. CMD (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the TBAN removal for smutty, etc. (while leaving existing TBAN in place, since I think that is what is being discussed). Six months have passed and he hasn't had any incidents and took guidance when expected to. Isn't that a valid reason to remove the TBAN? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The C of E has shown themselves time and time again to be a troublemaker and and frankly an enormous embarassment to the encyclopedia, whos joy at making fun of serious topics like the troubles and rhodesia was franky repugnant. They were already granted a last chance, which ended up in them being topic banned for DYK's entirely, which was the correct outcome. I'd personally prefer that they were indeffed, but that's not going to go anywhere. Why waste time going through the long and labourious banning circus at ANI again when the C of E inevitably decides to abuse DYK's again. He's shown his true character time and time again, and it's not going to change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your comment crosses the line into NPA. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, I find those sort of comments are against NPA indeed. I haven't even met this editor to my knowledge.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 4,000 edits in 2020, 4,000 edits in 2021, TBANed in Jan 2022, about 370 edits Feb-Jul. Normally, ROPE and all that, but this editor was previously TBANed in 2020 and then went and found a new way to be disruptive in 2021, which led to the DYK TBAN in Jan 2022. I don't think the 370 edits since then is enough to demonstrate whether or not they've changed; you don't get a TBAN lifted by taking a vacation for six months and then coming back professing to be a changed person. I'm reading this as "keeping my head down and then trying to get back at it", and the Nov 2021 appeal reads the same as this one. Sorry, I'm not convinced, given that this isn't a second chance, but at least a third (or fourth? I've lost track). Levivich (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per dubya <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All areas of Wikipedia are optional, but DYK is exceptionally optional. You can write 100 FAs, become the most active editor of all time, and spend a decade on ArbCom without ever once having to interact with DYK. It's a fun project to reward editors who create new content and show readers articles they might not have otherwise read. A TBAN from, say, BLP or American politics is an active inconvenience to an editor, because those are tough topics to avoid and limit their ability to create content. A TBAN from DYK has no such effect. The C of E is saying he could help DYK by working on preps, and I'm not seeing much discussion of that. If people do think he'd be helpful in that regard, then yes, maybe there's a benefit to the project in unbanning (perhaps a 6-month probation in which any admin can reïmpose). Otherwise, though, I don't see the point in removing a restriction that does not in any way impede someone's ability to create content.One closing note: Unless I'm misreading the last discussion, there's no restriction on other editors nominating the C of E's articles for DYK. If there's no consensus to unban, I could perhaps see the case for allowing the C of E to solicit nominations, in the form of a straightforward usertalk post like "I made Article X. I think it would make for a good DYK." --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:BANEVASION. On the part of C of E, it would be blatant ban evasion. And scroll down to WP:PROXYING for whoever helps them do that. — Maile (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm saying we could make it an exception to the ban. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That exact idea was suggested by a couple of editors on C of E's talk page at the time, and the advice then was that it was a bad idea that could hurt his chances of getting the ban lifted. Of course we're six months down the line and it's possible if it was formally proposed here it might be something the community would support - if the C of E is interested in going forward with it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK with that. I had been asked a couple of times during the ban to do something like that, but I refused because I did not want to breach the ban in any way.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose to this idea of posting for The C of E, . For all intents and purposes, this would be a user-assisted ban evasion. I've seen it before when a disruptive user was prevented by ArbCom from posting on a given site.  But ArbCom, in good faith, allowed that editor to post their suggested edits on their own user subpage.  The result is that other editors made the suggested changes as indicated by the restricted editor, and the the only thing different was that it wasn't under the name of the restricted editor.  Ban evasion, by any method or any other name, is ban evasion. — Maile  (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


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

User:Robert McClenon
First of all, being a volunteer or being a NPR here on Wikipedia, I give every day to Wikipedia. I tagged CSD on the page Madhav V. Nori because I think the page is not notable and had some strong thoughts that the user has some COI and that the user has operated or is operating multiple accounts previously, where the user accepted and, as far as you can see, there is nothing bad faith here. But without reading anything, this user User:Robert McClenon left a bad faith warning on my talk page where he mentioned I would be blocked. As he said, I did disruptive editing while making a "bad faith edit," which I never did. If you think it is bad faith to ask about the user's previous account, it is known as "bad faith." I don't have here to explain anything, but such tags discourage us while patrolling new pages. All I did was my job here as a volunteer. <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  18:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @DIVINE per the giant notice at the top of this page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's been a long time since I last complained to anyone here, so I forgot and was searching for the tag to notify the editor, but thanks to you, you did it. <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , why haven't you waited for Robert to respond to your question on his talk page before opening this complaint? Schazjmd   (talk)  19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So you think we should have to wait for anyone superior or have to take permission from anyone to lodge a complaint here? <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that a matter that could be resolved with conversation between two editors should be resolved with conversation between two editors. But asking Robert to explain his actions then opening a complaint without waiting for an answer does not seem reasonable. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you should have made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before bringing something here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That was going to be my question, as well. Robert is all about the conflict resolution. They're someone I would actually expect discussion with to resolve issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:A7 does not deal with questions of notability. It states . This page does assert significance. Once a CSD tag is removed, your optios ar WP:PROD and WP:AfD, after performing a WP:BEFORE Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So do you think asking about the previous account is disruptive? <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE   19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are ways to ask that would not have been disruptive. If you had assumed good faith and asked in a respectful way, this ANI report would be going very differently. But what you did was accuse them of being a liar in your first post. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And i never challenged the removal of CSD or anything here. <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Devine, on the talk page of the article you said "I believe you have a strong connection to the issue because you're pretending to be an article reviewer and lying about your article being accepted by AFC. " to the person that created it. That is worth the warning that Robert McClenon gave you, and then some.  The article was clearly not eligible for a speedy delete, and the tag was removed properly, and you were warned properly.  Saying his warning was bad faith was your third (or more) mistake.  Do you really want to go down the WP:AN road were we examine the behavior of not only Robert, but of you as well?  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagging CSD might have been my mistake, but giving warning is also my mistake here. What do you mean? Can't I ask about the previous account and how Robert tagged me as bad faith on the talk page and not on mainspace. <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm gonna be frank with you here. Your responses are indicating that you don't understand or know what you're talking about, which is a problem with an AFC and new page reviewer. I suggest you withdraw this complaint and learn from it, otherwise this seems pretty likely to boomerang. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi PRAXIDICAE, I appreciate it, but let me bear the consequences. <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling a new user a liar when they may just not understand is clearly a WP:BITE issue. It was totally unnecessary, and worthy of a warning.  You can ask about previous accounts, but you don't need to be an ass about it. If you don't understand this, you don't need to be patrolling new pages. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did I tell the new user liar? Can you please show me? <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * here and I quote: I believe you have a strong connection to the issue because you're pretending to be an article reviewer and lying about your article being accepted by AFC.
 * Did you not make this statement? Or is your account compromised again? <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, my account is not compromised again and i remember you as you're familiar. The part of the article showing that it was recently approved via AFC. <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You literally just said a few edits ago you never called anyone a liar. So your response makes no sense. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Like your response makes no sense that you called me, they just before. <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE   19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, to begin with, putting a CSD on this article was clearly wrong, because it has multiple claims of notability ("CSD#A7 applies to any article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"), even before your bad faith comments about the creator. You should have used AfD. While we're here, can you fix that signature, please? Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm really not thinking clearly to day, but I wonder if pulling AfC and NPR are not a good idea. Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have my vote. Clearly, this is not the right person to judge CSD or deal with new users.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They never should've been granted the rights to begin with given their rather lackluster history, so I'd strongly support that @Deepfriedokra. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are they? <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is Deepfriedokra? An administrator, 16 years 4 months old, with 137,996 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mr. or Mrs. Scottish, i'm asking MR/Mrs Praxi about Who are they? not about an administrator. <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE   19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See: singular they. Praxidicae is clearly referring to you. — VersaceSpace  🌃 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So there's no confusion for DIVINE, I was in fact referring to them when I said I'd support removal of perms. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never heard that they are singular words. Are you the author of the new Oxford dictionary from the MARS? <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do not understand the basic concept of pronouns in the English language, you should not be editing, much less reviewing others work. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I follow the language not your personal emotions. DIVINE (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad we agree that I'm a goddess and my emotions dictate the entire English language. I'll be sure to update all you peons at a later date on some more changes. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. Biting new users should be disqualifying for afc/NPP. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never bite. I always help. How can you call him a new user when he has accepted that he has created multiple articles from his old account and he use to have a Wikipedia account previously? <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the "not new" user with a whopping 31 edits to English Wikipedia on both accounts combined. Clearly they are an expert. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did i even ask or question anything after he mentioned his account to him anyway. Can you please elaborate? <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE   19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ...there is also a very obvious language barrier here. English fluency is probably necessary for reviewing articles. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the English Wikipedia also request IELTS score? Could you please ask them to modify the rules? <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The rule is at WP:CIR. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note: it's hard to focus on the content of this thread because WP:BILLBOARD. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to do the paperwork on this one, I mainly only act as a rouge admin or file paperwork at WP:AE. Could someone be so kind, perhaps ? We all know where this is going. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Achieve consensus and unclick the NPR box. I believe is emperox pf AfC Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * notified of this thread via IRC Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course he is; do you have any reservations about his abilities? You could ping him and ask him? DIVINE (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've pulled NPR, if memory serves the revocation procedures for non-probationary AfC reviewers are more complicated for whatever reason. @Primefac may be able to weigh in there. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You think I'm really much more into rights? Can you leave a message on my talk page about why you revoked my rights? DIVINE (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "as per discussion at WP:ANI" is all the message would say. Blablubbs may have pulled the trigger, but there is a community discussion and consensus that decided the fate of that bit.  This discussion.  No further explanation should be required. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb and say we have consensus here for removal of both. Whether that is sufficient for AFC, I don't know, but a consensus clearly exists. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is my interpretation at the moment, so I have removed their AFCH access. Should this subthread or the overall thinking change, feel free to ping me and I'll re-add. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not something we often have to deal with, so not covered in the admin manual.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , on another note, your signature is clearly afoul WP:SIGAPP, as the text is way larger than what surrounds it. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps yes, since I am unaware of it; if so, thank you for your nice information; please allow me to alter it. <span style="border:3px solid DarkRed;background:black;padding:1px;color:Snow;text-shadow:beige 0.5em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> D IVINE  19:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 31 hours for the personal attacks above: Are you the author of the new Oxford dictionary from the MARS?, I follow the language not your personal emotions. No prejudice to further actions if those are deemed necessary. signed,Rosguill talk 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good for a first block. Will educate, Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not their first block. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 😯 Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the user is doubting the consensus, I am voicing my support here for revocation their NPP and AFC user rights, per WP:CIR. Polyamorph (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and removal of perms' Combativeness continues on talk. Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll support block and perms removal. There's evidently an attitude issue here that isn't conducive to dealing with new editors, nor is their engagement with experienced editors much better. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As Primefac has removed DEVINE from WP:AFCH, their new page reviewer bit has been removed, and they are blocked, I think we are likely done, and someone can close with a note of the obvious consensus that has formed. I would, but I'm a bit too involved in the discussion.  Although it hasn't been said in so many words, it is clear that there is a consensus that Robert McClenon acted appropriately and within normal behavioral expectations.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. They ain't listening Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree Robert handled this well (so well that none of us even spent any time talking about it). Levivich (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


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


 * Update: The block was extended another 72 hours and talk page access was revoked by Donald Albury.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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


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

Liam wigley again
User:Liam wigley, who was blocked by User:Bbb23, is back. They have responded to messages left on their talk page, not by apologising or explaining their behaviour, but with uncivil comments towards Bbb23. If this continues it might perhaps be best to revoke their talk page access. J I P &#124; Talk 11:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that warrants removing talk page access. and  are the only two posts.  Asking Bbb23 to leave him alone is a (misguided) plea, but isn't a personal attack. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It now appears Liam wigley was a sockpuppet of User:Liam20102195. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, well that is a horse of a different feather. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Cribbins
I've just tried to revdel the copyvio versions of the article, only to get a message that they are revdel'd, but comparing article revisions shows that they aren't. Not my area of expertise, so if an admin more familiar with this can take a look, Bernard Cribbins can appear as a RD on the main page. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

AIV backlog
WP:AIV is currently backlogged. There's currently 11 IP vandal reports, and 1 user vandal report pending. Oldest report is currently around five hours old. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything is under control. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Okay  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Clocking out here after most of the middle watch and part of the morning watch (Eastern time). Notes for whoever takes over next (as I go to sleep, the rest of the East Coast wakes up; enjoy!): Some reverting and hatting; indeffed (first month AE); a round of revdels over a nasty link; and I put related List of recessions in the United States under an AE consensus requirement for addition of new recessions. If people continue to try to add the same claim without sourcing at, it might be a good idea to add the same restriction there, or say more simply that it has to mirror whatever is at the full list. I commented at WP:RFPP discouraging protection of the talkpage, but intentionally didn't decline; would rather that be someone else's call.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 09:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully the RFC there, will calm the waters. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be surprised if you have to use full protection for a week (with a note that you will lift if there is clear consensus on the talk page), which tends to piss people off, but forces them to work together. Not saying it is there yet, but sometimes it takes a big hammer instead of a lot of little hammers.  For the record, I'm not a fan of "consensus required" on most articles like this because it ends up causing more AE/ANI/AN reports than it solves problems.  Not always, but it can.  Some will get very petty about it and keep filing over any addition.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please also consider applying American Politics DS and its talk page header.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, but it's such a broad topic that I'm not sure if that is appropriate. Would want the input from other admin before doing that.  I'm 50/50 on it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The current disruption appears to have been driven entirely by political narratives and we have "...Brandon" comments and other political soapboxing on the talk page. We should only be so fortunate as to have this level of activity on any economics article, if it were directed to sourced economics content improvement.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


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


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


 * The original version was quite accurate. Many countries, and economists, use two successive quarters of negative GDP as a "technical definition" of a recession but the US does not, and instead relies on the NBER to define it.  Restatements of GDP, which can be big (and will be big due to the current levels of inflation), mean that the -0.9% for Q2 2022 could end up being anywhere between -2% to +2% within 12–24 months.  However, these two approaches are not that different as there has never been a period in the US where GDP fell for two quarters (and it remained as such post revisions), which did not result in a recession.  That is the one interesting fact that is missing from the article, but I cannot add it as the article and TP are locked. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the discrepancy between the definitions/approaches is purely timing. Yes, when all the GDP restatements are done, two subsequent quarters of negative growth is a recession, however, the need to wait the 12–24 months for the restatements (which are going to be big for 2022 due to high inflation), means that an "initial" print of two subsequent quarters of negative growth is not necessarily going to end up being a recession post all restatements.  This is the nuance that is missing in the article. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. We don't discuss the definition of a recession here. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Requesting panel closure of an AfD

 * Articles for deletion/Female (gender)

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

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


 * I agree with Crossroads, but I think this request should be listed at WP:CR. –– FormalDude   talk   03:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot that there was a section there for deletion discussions, but they all seem to be old ones, and I thought previous panel closures had been requested here. Crossroads -talk- 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The older deletion closure requests at WP:CR were only requested recently and haven't been actioned yet by the volunteers at the board. We have handled panel closure requests at the page before, so this wouldn't be out of scope. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this should probably be a panel closure, but this is the wrong venue. Make the request at WP:CR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I listed it there too. Crossroads -talk- 04:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In general we let contentious and active AfDs run longer than a week. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's any official policy on this, but I agree that as long as useful discussion is happening, there's no reason to close the AfD based on the calendar. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost tempted to just relist it so it will run another week. And I'm not convinced a panel IS required, particularly if it runs another week.  Letting AFDs like this run awhile often means they sort themselves out, and consensus is much more clear.  I probably would decline closing it, but we have plenty of admin who excel at closing these types of discussions.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisting may not be a bad idea, since the article creator keeps stating "It's just a stub". If after this time the article hasn't fleshed out or become more wiki-compliant or received more unimpeachable citations, that may impact the way new people !vote. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain I'm not the only editor who is hesitant to contribute to that page while the AfD is in progress. Maybe I'm weird, but I think there's an entirely different dynamic at play than the usual discussions and/or copy-editing process when it's an article that's subject to deletion versus a sentence/paragraph/section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and sometimes there is edit warring over the article during AFD. But most of the time, yes, editing is inhibited except for adding sources and prose by those trying to safe the article by demonstrating independent notability.  That is one reason AFD lasts a week, to give it time to be "repaired" to a state worth keeping, if it is possible.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not really very active if you discount the same few editors having the same arguments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

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


 * This is of some significance since I have found around tens of these changes on a cursory glance. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging. I'd say, using an alternative account would be perfectly legit here – Wikipedia has no policy prohibiting multiple accounts as long as they are disclosed and not used for illegitimate purposes. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is creating an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The NotReallySolak account was created in April 2021 (Special:Log/NotReallySolak). NotReallyMoniak (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Using two different accounts to make reverts that don't meet the exceptions for WP:EW could appear to be attempting to evade the 3 revert limit. You should use one or the other. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Regardless of when it was created, it (currently) specifically states "NotReallySolak is for reverting TheCurrencyGuy's edits", which is therefore (to quote myself) an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never used both account at the same time. I made two reverts on this account before switching to my alt. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think using an alt for a mass revert can be reasonable if that revert is non-controversial (I am admittedly biased, having made about 1,500 such edits), but agree with Schaz and Primefac that it should be avoided in the case of a bona fide content dispute. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think User:NotReallySolak (and User:'zin is short for Tamzin for that matter) fall into that grey area of "Not something you're going to get blocked for, but still kind of dubious" Why are those accounts needed?  What legitimate purpose do they serve?
 * I've got an alternate account, . My legitimate reason for having it is I use it on my phone.  If my phone gets stolen or lost, not being logged into it with my regular (admin) account reduces the security exposure.  What's your legitimate reason? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I used my alt to make those 1,500 reverts because I felt that doing them on this account would make it harder for people to look through my contribs and hold me accountable as an administrator. Imagine you're trying to get a sense of if the newest admin is acting prudently, you get a page back in her contribs, and then it's 30 consecutive pages of the exact same edit. That seemed unfair. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm having trouble following this logic. How is curating your edit history making it easier for other people to understand what edits you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at Tamzin's alt, I can see the merit for that particular mass revert. Nothing controversial, just a large mopping up in user talk space. I'm not sure the same logic supports using an alt in mainspace for mass reverts unless community consensus supports the action and the alt is just serving as conduit(bot like) for the community. Slywriter (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I understand that my "legitimate reason"s might be weak, but:
 * TCG did not have the consensus before making their changes; ergo, my reverts only serve to restore the version with consensus.
 * As I said in the original comment, there's already precedent with rolling back TCG's changes.
 * I am not a rollbacker, but if I were one, then item 5 of ROLLBACKUSE would come to play.
 * Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Two separate notes:
 * A TCG RfC on Is it ruble or rouble? (and kopek or kopeck) has recently been SNOW closed with "no prejudice against opening a move request". The closer also left this message to TCG.
 * I see three main possibilities out of this thread:
 * I may continue using NotReallySolak to revert TCG. (see below - NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC))
 * I may revert TCG but I cannot use NotReallySolak for the purpose.
 * I must cease reverting TCG altogether.
 * I contend that my reverts themselves are legitimate (if Kashmiri was rolling TCG back, I should be able to revert without rolling back), but I have no preference as to the above possibilities. Either way, both this account and NotReallySolak will hold back from the reverts until there exists clear consensus for me to continue.
 * NotReallyMoniak (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's three totally distinct issue here. One is whether the edits by TCG should be reverted.  That's a content issue, which isn't going to be resolved at WP:AN.
 * The second is, assuming you do revert the edits, what's the best procedure. There's a few different ways to do that, such as manually reverting, using the undo link, or using the rollback tool.  There's no huge difference between them, but rollback generally has the connotation of being used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism, and some people will object to using rollback for things that aren't strictly vandalism.
 * The last is which account to use. On that, I'll just repeat what I said above, but somewhat more emphatically.  I suggest you use a single account for all of your edits.  I don't see any legitimate reason to create a alternate account just to do rollbacks.  You're being up-front about it, so there's no issue with it being considered socking, but I certainly wouldn't call it best practice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My alternate account was created a year ago. Other than that, I agree with you, especially your suggestion that I "use a single account for all [my] edits". NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * While I share others' concerns about how this could be perceived as "hiding" one's edits, my understanding is that the editor, not the account, is behaviourally responsible for their edits. So it doesn't matter if, for a made-up example, they use 3 different accounts to revert a particular edit once each; that editor is considered to have reverted 3 times, and would be thereby accountable for their edits. Just be aware that using multiple accounts, even declared ones, could "colour" your seeming intentions as perceived by others, as - as some have done here - some may question "Why?". - jc37 06:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

English language versions

 * This website is a schizophrenic mess. All I was doing was pointing out the sheer pigheadedness of imposing the American English form everywhere. I sincerely believe we need to separate the English Wikipedia into American English and Commonwealth English versions. There are just too many variables to attempt to "compromise", invariably this results in a mere popularity contest based on the fact that most editors are American. American English and Commonwealth English are not nearly as mutually intelligible as is supposed. Any intelligibility beyond the most basic communication often proves difficult. There is greater distinction between Commonwealth English and American English than between, say, Norwegian and Swedish or Bulgarian and Macedonian, and those examples all have their own Wikipedias. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "American English and Commonwealth English are not nearly as mutually intelligible as is supposed. Any intelligibility beyond the most basic communication often proves difficult."
 * I've yet to encounter an American who was legitimately unable to understand "the colour green" and "fish and chips", nor a Commonwealth person unable to understand "the color blue" and "Burgers and fries".
 * But Hej älskling vs Hei kjaere... well you're literally speaking two different languages. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You deliberately cherrypicked examples where they sound the same to the ear. I'm not going to argue because I don't care anymore. I'm just expressing my opinion that this site is a burning hot mess because of its refusal to even contemplate a split. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I sincerely believe we need to separate the English Wikipedia into American English and Commonwealth English versions.
 * Feel free to start your own fork then. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to provided I can get some help in doing so, my tech skills are not the best. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm... sorry.... I'm just extremely frustrated right now. I've had a catastrophic burnout.
 * I'm just upset that Wikipedia tries to bridge the gap between two extremely distinct linguistic forms. While many of the basic words are shared by both, some aspects of the grammar and meaning of words and turns of phrase, even when there are no spelling differences, are nonsensical to the other. The exact use of words is often more important than the words themselves. This is at its most noticeable in vernacular forms one would not ordinarily write down, while the words may have the same spellings, because of dialectical distinctions phrases which make sense in one form of English may simply be gibberish or imply a very different meaning in another. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Two"? Do you know how many national varieties of English are there on Wikipedia? A few dozen at least. So, while you are at forking the English Wikipedia, please don't forget about an Australian English fork, a Kiwi English fork, a Hinglish fork, a Nigerian Pidgin fork, and so on. Please also make sure that all changes in any national variety article are immediately reflected in the corresponding articles in other varieties.
 * Apart from that, I wonder whether what national variety of English you'd assign to the word, organization. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  18:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Urgent attention - learnt of slanderous public remarks
I was recently alerted to these pages:


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

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

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

Discussion of IP block

 * I've temporarily blocked this IP for making legal threats. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I almost commented asking them to remove the one line, but I don't think it is really a legal threat. Note that the comments they were referring to where suppressed, not just RevDel'ed.  I see their comment as poorly worded rather than a threat, but that is just me.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The way it is currently worded, one might be able to claim that they are just "informing Wikipedia" of the situation, but it can also take the appearance of an indirect threat, along the same vein of "nice car, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it". Whatever the case, a full retraction of the wording is necessary and reasonable before an unblock can be made. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction" is not a legal threat. Some editors here take this concept way too far. Like anything that could in any way be construed as even a veiled reference to the legal system is considered a "legal threat". There is no point in blocking this editor. It's language policing gone amok. And this despite WP:NLT explicitly saying "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." Levivich (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you'd struggle to justify a legal sanction anyway, since the removed material doesn't appear to make any mention of any "publicly listed individuals", merely suggesting that the society itself had been involved in some unnamed scandal (apart from the single diff in 2019 which was suppressed, and isn't therefore in the history anyway). Reading through it, "It might be worth removing these pages" might even be right - the whole article is borderline notable at best anyway, with  90% of the cites bing about its alumni, not the society itself. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between "I, or a person I represent, will take action against you" and "I think you should be aware that some third party who I have nothing to do with has cause to take action against you". This looks to me more like the second type, not the first. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What said. Also, one of the diffs leading to the linked revisions has been oversighted, so there may well have been something worth reporting here, and the wording used for the report may even have been accurate., I'd recommend unblocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Levivich. "It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction" does not mean "These pages have to be removed or I'll take legal action". Mentioning the legal system does not automatically constitute a legal threat. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire purpose of our "no legal threats" policy is to prohibit the creation of a chilling effect on proper edits by the use of threats of legal consequences. It seems to me (as WaltCip says) that the IP's use of the word "slanderous" (twice), the "urgent" tone of the header, and the general flavor of the post went beyond the informational to the threatening, especially given the rather broad U.K. interpretation of the concepts of libel and slander. I'd like to see a stronger consensus on this before revoking the block. -- Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not warn before blocking? Why not advise before warning? Why not ask before advising? Levivich (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell me about your knowledge of "the rather broad U.K. interpretation of the concepts of libel and slander". -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m still curious about OrangeMike's understanding of U.K. libel laws. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My writer friends in the U.K. have given me to understand that U.S. principles such as "truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel" and the "actual malice" rule do not apply in the U.K. Have I misunderstood? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The very short answer to this is that historically this was true, so much so that the U.S. passed the speech act in 2010 to make foreign defamation judgments (with those from the U.K. certainly in mind) unenforceable in U.S. courts unless they basically passed muster under U.S. law. As a response to that and other criticism, the U.K. heavily revamped its speech laws in 2013, and today, they are much closer to the U.S. approach (and more protective of speech) than before (a recent anecdotal example is the Depp/Heard saga--no judgment in the U.K., but judgment in Virginia).  I will say that truth as a defense is certainly a concept in the U.K., but actual malice, coming as it does from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, is obviously not.  I'm certain that's more than was actually wanted here, but cheers nonetheless.  Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s clear you don’t know U.K. libel laws. You should not be using U.K. libel laws as (part) justification for blocking. I suggest you unblock now. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This was a bad block, per Levivich and Malcolm. The IP was not making legal threats, they were alerting us to the possibility that old revisions of an article may mean Wikipedia is liable to legal action by a third party. In 2019 the article included a full list of leaders of the society and the oversighted revision added unsourced, potentially libellous allegations of serious wrongdoing about three of those people. As WMF legal explicitly say that libellous material should be oversighted, and that revision has been, we have nothing to worry about there. I don't see anything in any of the old revisions linked by the OP that requires oversight. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This was carelessly worded by the IP but perhaps stopped short of WP:NLT. An inexperienced person may not know that anything that might be perceived as a legal threat on Wikipedia is a no-no.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even so, WP:NLT blocks aren't permanent. As long as an opportunity is given to retract the legal threat, it shouldn't be a huge deal. This isn't like when someone got blocked for using the phrase "legal matters" in a non-legal context. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * When I read the comment I get the sense that WaltCip refers to("nice car......"). Maybe it's just the way it's worded. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for me as well. No admin or Wiki-expert I, admittedly.  And, I generally agree with Levivich's overall take here, but this one strikes me as a reasonable block because I too read it as a thinly-veiled threat.  As ever, reasonable minds may differ.  Cheers, all> Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's true reasonable minds may differ, but I think it's worth point out something crucial about the "nice car, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it"-type of threat mentioned by Walt. When that sort of threat is being made, it's being made by someone who is simultaneously demanding payment of "protection money" or something else of value (and who is usually a known criminal), which is what makes it threatening. The statement, by itself without the other circumstances, would not be construed as a threat. If someone says, "you shouldn't park there or you'll get a ticket", that would not be considered a threat by anyone... unless it's spoken by a police officer. It's the circumstances that define the difference between veiled threats and good-faith warnings (which I've written about in more detail elsewhere). Levivich (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously not a legal threat. Bad block. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While it's not obviously not a legal threat, I do believe that it was not obviously a legal threat (very confusing phrasing, I apologise). In the absence of it being a clearly a legal threat, then it was not appropriate for the block to be issued directly. A warning with a "clarify or be sanctioned" effect would have been the correct action to take. The block should be overturned, and the warning then issued (rather than requiring an appeal first) Nosebagbear (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Blocks without any prior warnings should only be used in extreme cases, such as persistent obvious vandalism, which this is clearly not. Note also that this is only the IP's second contribution ever, the first one was thirteen years ago (and given that amount of time, it was not necessarily the same physical person). J I P  &#124; Talk 02:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For comparison purposes, here's a recent and obvious legal threat by a different IP: Note the difference... Levivich (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO such statements should be avoided. While they may not be a direct threat of action, as others have said they can have the same chilling effect. There's rarely a good reason to talk about the possibility of legal action even if you aren't saying you yourself would be the one anyway since our policies and guidelines generally intentionally go beyond US law. As for the laws of other countries, for better or worse the official line is we don't care as a community. Individual editors do need to consider their specific situation but it's not something that should be discussed on Wikipedia. All that being said, IMO it was the talk of comment where education before blocking was the better course of action. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking it down
Let us hope that the original poster was not making a subtle threat. It can always be restored. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on edits

 * Furthermore, I find it peculiar that this entire discussion has only concerned User:Orangemike's block of the IP user and not the actual concern originally raised by the IP user. J I P  &#124; Talk 02:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of it may be the edits being from 2019, removed in the very next edit(s) made, and not being in the article at present so far as I can tell. Unless something is really wonky Google shouldn't be pulling up three-year-old revisions of articles. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 03:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's similar to people on social media saying that Wikipedia changed the definition of a recession. It did in some vandal edits, but this is water under the bridge as the edits have been removed. Some of the edits to Oxford Entrepreneurs had NPOV and sourcing problems, so more eyes are needed on this article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dealt with by Thryduulf in his comment above of 21:24, 30 July 2022. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can reasonably deal with something that has been suppressed. Even if the editors who made the initial edits remain in good standing, if it's serious enough to warrant legal action it's very difficult for us as a community to discuss possible sanction of these editors when almost none of us can see them, not even admins, can see them. And for those who have already seen them, there's a strong risk they will say something serious enough to warrant suppression if they aren't careful when trying to describe them. And if they don't, it's still very difficult for us as a community to discuss whether we should sanction the editors involved. In other words, if someone feels sanction against the editors who added the content may be justified, it needs to be handled by arbcom not here. So there's nothing for us to do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the concern raised by the IP is that the edits are still in the history; it seems that Thryduulf removed the worst offenders but apparently (based on an email I received from them this morning) there might still be more in and around the diffs provided by the OP above. Primefac (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry looking into this more I realised only some of the edits were suppressed so maybe there is something we could discuss. OTOH, if it's something that happened in 2019 and it wasn't severe enough for suppression I question if anything more is needed than a severe warning at most which doesn't require community discussion, just an editor to talk to the editor if after reviewing the edits they feel it is justified and still useful nearly 3 years later. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)