Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive346

Request to lift some restrictions
I was blocked by admin on 16 February 2022 and was unblocked by  on 7 March 2022 with conditions  All new article creations through AfC and vetted by AfC before main spacing. One edit per day per AfD thread. And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress.. Following the restriction, I have created 94 articles "vetted by AfC" out of which a 32KB+ article Operation Bajrang - and Robin Hibu, Viplav Tripathi, G Bidai, Tapan Deka and Sajid Mir under WP:BIO - 2013 Jhankar Saikia mob lynching, and Lynching of Deben Dutta under WP:CRIMINALPROJ, - Ellora Vigyan Mancha and Ajmal Foundation under WP:WPORG.

About my stubs/starts of WP:NPOL and WP:GEOLAND - I had no other options left to be "an editor as WP:HERE".

I, truly understand that the restrictions imposed on me might not be uplifted. I honor all decisions of the Admins and I am following their advice. Despite my conversations with @Deepfriedokra on their talk page, I have changed my mind to come here for consideration.

To date, I am building Wiki with mostly citations on unsourced articles. I guess my citation work helped Wiki, though I might not be correct.

But restriction for all articles "vetted by AfC" is a bit of an extra hammer for my WP:GEOLAND works.

Hence I appeal to remove some restrictions imposed by admin @Deepfriedokra. For example, WP:GEO and WP:NPOL really don't need much in AfC (where NPP will work). I am appealing to remove my "vetted by AfC" restriction in WP:GEO and WP:NPOL as I have created AfC articles understanding the WP:THREE.

Also creating articles through AfC, I have learned the method of AfC reviewer, which I want to apply. Further, I declare that, whatever the outcome will be here, I shall continue with it. Regards -✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯  08:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutral I've received negative feedback from users I trust on removing the AfC requirement in particular, so I sent NT4M here.--  Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS> Almost forgot. AfC reviewer is and will be a hard no. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on talk page messages, it looks like the last AfC rejection was in June with many accepted since then. I don't know all (actually, I'm not sure I know any of the background that lead to the AfC requirement) the background here but, assuming I'm not missing something, the AfC requirement seems to be a waste of reviewer time.  09:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @PhantomTech whatever AfC draft I failed to complete, I gave up. Every draft is evident of it. -✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯  09:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the issue that caused the AfC requirement was creating articles that were effectively drafts in article space then I'd at the very least support allowing NeverTry4Me to self-publish their own drafts once they feel they are ready. Again, I don't know the background, but based on talk page notifications for AfC submissions it seems NeverTry4Me is capable of creating articles that meet Wikipedia's standards and determining when those standards are met.  09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @PhantomTech If you're going to look at their talk page messages you need to check the page history. Nevertry4me keeps the messages where their drafts have been accepted and deletes the declines without archiving. They had a draft declined yesterday but deleted the notice with the edit summary  . 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * IP vote? Sometimes AfC reviewers skips WP:NPOL which is you are talking about. -✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯  10:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked for declines by searching edit summaries in the last 500 talk page edits, or at least that's what I thought I did. Clearly I did something wrong because not only did I miss the September 7th decline but there was also a decline in July. I have no idea what I did that caused me to miss those but I was under the impression that of the last 500 edits to the talk page, there was only one AfC decline and it was in June. Thank you for pointing this out to me.  10:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to make another claim about accepted/denied AfC drafts, but it looks like the submission decline rate since July has still been low at 2-3%. There seems to be a very sudden drop off in declined drafts around the end of June/beginning of July which could mean that whatever issue was causing the declines has been resolved. That said, I'll reiterate that I don't know the background here, and also note that I've only commented about the AfC restriction so far. Assuming that there's no reason to think that article quality will significantly decline, the AfC requirement question seems to be: is it worth requiring AfC reviewers to review 50-100 draft stubs and frustrating the author to keep one that may not meet WP:GNG out of mainspace?  11:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weakly Leaning Oppose. I think that independent review of your articles is probably still a good thing and a worthwhile exercise. I don't think your English language skills are quite at the level required to be writing new articles directly in main space, e.g. the sentence from your appeal doesn't make any sense. There's also been some other editing by you that raises WP:CIR questions in my opinion, e.g. your constant attempts at hat collecting and requesting user rights that you don't qualify for and in many cases don't even seem to understand         , your attempt to become an AFC reviewer while banned from creating articles  and your recent block for violating this topic ban by accepting your own articles at AFC. I certainly don't think you are in a position at the moment where you should be becoming an AFC reviewer. The AFD restriction definitely needs to remain since we have had recent issues with you bludgeoning discussions here even despite the topic ban  and likewise  is clearly still necessary given your response to your most recent block. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is a topic ban on requesting permissions an option? Their apparent obsession with headwear is silly and a waste of time. – 2 . O . Boxing  11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about this. Is NT4M emailing editors to imply they'll be blocked for being on the wrong end of an AFD decision? As for the lifting of restrictions and wanting to review AFC submissions, the declined article is evidence that NT4M needs more experience. They seem to be under the impression GNG can be ignored if NPOL is satisfied. – 2 . O . Boxing  11:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding your ref, you should appreciate that I have helped the article The Sporting Age without !vote on the deletion discussion. I have added refs that helped to survive the article. Was that my fault? -✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯  11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're avoiding the question. No-one here is asking about whether you added references to the article, you are being asked if you were emailing threats to other editors to try to influence an AFD discussion. @MPGuy2824 as the recipient of the email you should probably be aware of this discussion. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging for a clearer consensus. -✍NeverTry4Me⛅  C♯  11:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I shall stop here for a consensus. The AFC reviewers and NPP who reviewed my accepted articles "vetted by AFC" will answer my capability. I am not going to ping any Admin, reviewers, or NPP for it. Let them decide. I shall follow the final decision. -✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯  11:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked back through my mail, and that quote from the mail, is accurate, so i'm not entirely sure what else to do here. Personally, I didn't take it as a threat, but more of a friendly "take note". Side note: I monitor new Indian articles and have come across a few of NT4M's village article creations. They are quite acceptable even before the AfC reviewer touches them. Given that, I like Tamzin's suggestion below of repealing the ban, but tentatively for 6 months. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That email is certainly troubling and inappropriate and is a good example of why I should not remove the 1 edit per day AfD restriction unilaterally. Since I'm deferring, I'll let y'all decide what to do with it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Deepfriedokra MPGuy2824 already clarified. -✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯  11:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose no reason shown for why he can't use AFC despite not wanting to. The backlog claims are weak. There's no reason he has to have live articles (which require cleanup anyway) right now. Unclear communication style present even in this discussion. If this is ultimately accepted, he cannot have NPP. Articles need too many eyeballs. Star   Mississippi  15:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * further lack of communication skills. At User_talk:Deepfriedokra, NT4M said I have decided to go to WP:AN. Despite your suggestion, I did so. Please pardon me for that. when what @Deepfriedokra actually said was When the admin who placed a restriction declines to remove it, the next step in the process is for the appellant to ask the Community at WP:AN I think NT4M means well, but lacks the English language communication skills to create articles without external review. It's the poor communication skills that have unfortunately led to many of their prior visits to these boards. Star   Mississippi  18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (Le sigh.) I think I only said to take it here like three times, but who is counting? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Having blocked NT4M last month for violating this sanction, I don't love the idea of repealing a sanction someone violated so recently. That said, sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive, and I don't see a lot of evidence that this AfC requirement is currently necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. That's all somewhat speculative, though, so where I come down is: Support suspension of AfC requirement, with any uninvolved admin allowed to reïmpose for the next 6 months. The suspended sanction would be listed at WP:EDR for those 6 months. If it were not reïmposed by the end of those 6 months, it would be considered fully repealed. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * as per admin (I admit that as an Indian I might not be able to compete but I have my xtool as proof, Unclear communication style present even in this discussion indicates a grammar issue by the admin, while supported by ', ', (following 's proposal and an Oppose by an IP user  (claimed as as shared Ip) jumped where IP users don't carry any identity but (TOO:BEFORE) comes to WP:CHK. That said, I want to appeal a check on the IP user  who had objected here, while the draft Lazarus Sangma is already approved. And live as  Hence, as claimed by the IP user. I suspect a SOCK or MEAT puppetry here as I only requested AfC restriction "vetted by AfC" for WP:GEO and WP:NPOL (for which my AfC was never declined or rejected)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverTry4Me (talk • contribs)
 * It's not really clear to me what you are trying to say but if you are suggesting the use of the checkuser tool on the IP, that's not going to happen. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @NeverTry4Me This is written in such poor English it is essentially incomprehensible. I am a long term IP editor and I have never had an account. Either provide some actual evidence of sock puppetry (Which you won't find, because it doesn't exist) instead of the "this person edits as an IP so they must be a sock" nonsense, or redact your allegations of misconduct. If I have misunderstood what you are appealing it is most likely because your appeal is written in broken, mangled English with large sections making no sense. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say, NT4M. But regardless of whether I made a grammatical error, I am not the only one who has said they can't understand you. Accusing others of socking and wikilawyering is not the path out of this. Star   Mississippi  20:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the personal attacks above, after a warning for the same in their unblock, I have blocked NT4M indefinitely. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (FWIW, if they wind up getting unblocked, believe it or not I stand by my !vote above. The content stuff was always the least of the issues here.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for handling this. Unfortunately I think this is preventative-for their own editing ability. We aren't supposed to have cooldown blocks but this is far from the first time their frustration has gotten the best of them and I think this is the only route to this (potentially) ending well. Star   Mississippi  22:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Georgia (country)
Hello.Some editors delete texts and refrences at this article and make a lot of pointless edits. پخش مطلب (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Georgia (country) is where you want to go to discuss content disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken .The user removes contents.Look at this edition. is not it Vandalism? the user has removed the sources along with a large amount of content.پخش مطلب (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No, this is not vandalism. Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Please discuss content and sourcing  on the article talk page. Use other forms of WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION if agreement cannot be reached. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Hatsune Miku
Anyone know what the obsession is with this talk page? Since 9 March the talk page has been protected 5 times and 95 revisions and edit summaries hidden. A bit much for a talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Is protecting a talk page for a 190 days a good idea. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like that IPs/new accounts are posting lyrics there from all the revdels that I saw. I'd say it's justified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See ja:LTA:SASHO. I've given up trying to understand ja LTA obsessions. There's about 4 or 5 articles (+talk pages) of interest, which you can find by following the socks. Having previously protected some of these pages, I think it's probably unavoidable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment closers appointed
As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

,, and are appointed as closers for this discussion. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks the closers for accepting their appointments and assisting the community in holding this discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Funk


I am having a problem with this article involving a certain user. Isebito is inserting his personal view into the article involving the stylistic origins section. He is using one source to support his claim jazz fusion and "black rock" (a racist, derogatory term used to undermine black music) is part of the stylistic origins of funk even though it clearly isn't. I have used multiple sources to dispute his claim yet he continues to insult me telling me that I am inserting my personal view into the article and I need to prove that his source is incorrect. He's not using the information correctly to justify his reasoning. I have more to explain here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Funk - under disputing new edits

I need someone to help me out with this situation. I'm sick and tired of arguing with this boy. StephenCezar15 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Boy"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see nothing on that user's pages to indicate their age or their gender -- the gender template returns "they". Since they've been editing for 15 years, if they started editing at the ridiculously early age of 5 y.o. they would be 20 by now, so "boy" hardly seems appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I will AGF that you come from a cultural background (such as South Asia) where referring to an adult as a "boy" is acceptable, but please know that in much of the English-speaking world it is considered quite offensive, and in particular in the United States it has strong racial connotations. Please do not refer to any editor as "boy" again. Also, please do not assume that editors are male. There are, in fact, some of us who are not. See  for information on how to see an editor's gender, if they have specified one. (As BMK notes, Isebito has not.)  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I will not do it again. StephenCezar15 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole world isn't America, I don't see how the use of "boy" in this conversation is problematic. Why would one assume racial connotations to begin with? This user is the one calling out the racist and derogatory terms by another user. "much of the English-speaking world", in what other English varieties is "boy" considered "quite offensive"? If anything it seems to me like "boy" is used by @StephenCezar15 to highlight a user's immaturity. Sprucecopse (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Either way boy is not a term to use to refer to A) a user who is clearly an adult based on their length of edit history and B) an editor who has never indicated their gender preference and is therefore pushing a presumption of gender on someone. Either way, it's not an acceptable term. Canterbury Tail talk 21:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * On the substance of the message, this seems like a content dispute and StephenCezar15 and Isebito should consider the options at WP:Dispute resolution, including taking the issue to the talk page of a relevant WikiProject or obtaining a third opinion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try over there. StephenCezar15 (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The key thing is to get the opinions of others and see what the consensus is. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

autopatrol review
Hello. Given the current state of User talk:Pinakpani, I think a review is in order. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In short 15 articles are currently at AfD/PROD, previous discussions excluded. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to pull it at this time - he seems to do alright with some of his movie articles, and at least one of the new AfDs has been sourced and is heading for keep. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, see the . Seems serviceable enough. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't reviewed this editor's contributions in any real depth. However, for me the bar for autopatrol is higher than "alright with some of his... articles". Merely having a good sense of notability is not, in my view, enough to get autopatrol. That said I agree with you that the creation of Banrji looks fine to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfairly blocked - Please review
Hi can you please review my account and help undo a partial block that I just found out was unfairly placed on me a couple weeks ago? I had never heard the term but was falsely accused of being a "sock puppet" and upon looking up this term it is 100% untrue. I also wanted to clarify that I do not have any conflicts of interest. Any help would be much appreciated Dirkmavs (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

CU blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Quick question
What's the script used to highlight (or otherwise indicate) that a user is an admin? Primefac (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * User_scripts/List - the top few in the list. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been using User:PleaseStand/User info since a few years now. It doesnt highlight/colour-code the username though. But it shows the user groups on user, and user talk page, as well as in pop-ups. On user/talk page, it also shows age of account, total edits, and "last edit XYZ time ago". You should take a look at User:Usernamekiran/common.js, very few, but useful scripts there. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Try User:Theopolisme/Scripts/adminhighlighter.js Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks all! Primefac (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sockfarm
Before reporting, let me confess that this might not be the best place to report socks, but there is quite a heavy and disruptive "Sockpuppet investigations/Akshay Singh Rajput Thakur" sock farm going around which is getting away with disruptive edits, creating pages from third-rate sources about battles and sieges that no decent scholar attested to. I request any administraitor to just briefly go through my report here where I mentioned about the exact similaities even at Wikimedia Commons. Please block these accounts as the SPI is literally stale now. Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the suspected sock Suryansh Rathore was reported on 25 August 2022; (Special:MobileDiff/1106533240) although, no administraitor, check user paid attention to it.
 * Please check edit history of Vidyadhara (Chandela ruler), Paramardi and Chandelas as well and editng pattern is exactly same (edit summaries, referencing, pushing for prefered version) with prior three CU confirmed socks of Akshay Singh Rajput Thakur.
 * At last, I put up a number of substantial evidences on a talk page of RoySmith (as SPI hasn't produce anything); (take a look here on this section of RoySmith's talk page)
 * There are possibly a dozen socks of this user which are roaming around, though they are getting away with it. Suryansh Rathore, Arty.mishra and Jhaprashant948 and many other identical users are roaming around as well, (Special:Contributions/Suryapratap_Chand) like this ?
 * I am not editing caste related pages of late, but this is quite serious disruption now, which caught my attention yesterday.
 * for response who reported last series of socks in April-May: (Special:MobileDiff/1094036789) and (Special:MobileDiff/1092684426). ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is definitely some kind of sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry going on, but if there isn't any, these accounts should be blocked for adding fake refs. Just wasted nearly an hour checking around 10 or so references cited by Suryansh Rathore - not one of them supports the content being cited. I only dropped a warning on the user's talk page, because I've been WP:INVOLVED with some of the articles, but if this continues, I won't hesitate in enforcing a permanent block. utcursch &#124; talk 07:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Utkarshraj Atmaram: I thought yesterday to message you personally on your talk page regarding this, but dropped the idea by simply cleaning up the mess, though it turned to be futile. I don't have any second thought that these all are sock accounts - see here Ashutosh pandey 999 (CU confirmed sock) uploaded a dubious image of Vidyadhara, diff claiming it as their own work and now, Arty.mishra (likely sock) uploaded same dubious image on 11 September 2022, diff with as usual hyerboles like chakrvarti, almighty. (claiming it as their own work as well) This alone is compelling enough to prove that these are same accounts operated by one person who belongs to the original master.
 * As soon as you cleaned their mess (Special:MobileDiff/1110201461), they again reverted it back (Special:MobileDiff/1110221701) (making up a map and falsely attributed it to reputed academic Satish Chandra), just like previous confirmed socks citing dubious semi-legendary sources like Parmal Raso and unreliable gazetteers, (Special:MobileDiff/1110222325) to push their pov, compare this to another CU confirmed sock - Mohammad asfaq; (Special:MobileDiff/1089398789).
 * Your edits on the Chandela article were reverted by (Special:Contributions/Jhaprashant948) and on the Vidyadhara article by (Special:Contributions/Suryansh_Rathore) ? (definately not a coincidence)
 * Quite clearly these all accounts are operated by the same individual who is almost confirmed (99.9%) to be sock of the original master, i.e. Akshay Singh Rajput Thakur
 * Best option to fix this at the minute; would be to block all these accounts and unfortunately add extended confirmed protection to all these articles, Thanks. 09:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC) ∆ P&#38;t ♀√
 * I will second this request for review - I thought it was a pretty WP:DUCK when I first filed the SPI and the comments added by others (and above) just reinforces this. The SPI hasn't had any attention in a while and this editor is very prolific, some review would be helpful as the cleanup won't be fun.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

UCOC Revisions - Conversation Hours
Hi all,

Just wanted to further note the impending conversation hours for the UCOC revisions.

The first one of which is 1000 UTC on this Friday (16th Sept)

Would be good to see more names - currently and I will be seeing a lot of each other (not that that's a bad thing!) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I signed up -- during the work day for me, but hopefully will be there with bells on. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noo, Meta, my one weakness. :( El_C 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Beatrice de Graaf
Hi all, today a new user on Wikipedia made some major conrtributions to the page mentioned above. I saw those changes and improved the page. Later this evening another user @Leontrooper undid all those edits. I did undo them and was trying to go on the talk page to clear this out. But Leontrooper felt it was better to undo my undoing. I really like the opinion of other people and to help in this matter, because I dont't think this constructive for helping Wikipedia. I don't know if I am on the right page here, but please help out. Mathijsloo (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, but you are clearly unfamiliar with the workings on the English Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:FIXIT and WP:COI. And this is indeed the wrong page for this sort of situation. For any third user reading this, please view the article's edit history for our discussion. Leontrooper (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Mathijsloo [edits] fall under WP:NPOV or WP:COI, those concerns seem to be about the prior changes of a different editor. The two sets of edits appear to have been conflated. Leontrooper is right though that the place to discuss this the articles talk page. I suggest the appropriate word salad to read would be WP:BRD, of the tldr - just try talking with each other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that Mathijsloo only amended another's edits, but we still disagree about them. I linked to NPOV and COI because I believe the earlier user violated them. I reverted both the earlier user and Mathijslo, so per BRD he should start a talk page discussion, which in fact he has already done. Leontrooper (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing RFC at RSN
There is a very lengthy RFC about Fox News at WP:RSN that could use a panel of admins to close (it has run for the full 30+ days). While it is still getting one or two comments a day, it does seem to be winding down. It would be helpful to at least designate who the closers will be. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've been following the discussion and planning to close it. If anyone wants to help I'm willing to do a panel close as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who showed some interest over at WP:RFCC. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How many people would be on said panel? Three? Noah Talk 00:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Request admin assistance
There is an article that is currently under discussion at AfD. The article itself has been moved during the discussion. This does seem to cause some confusion besides being a no no. I am requesting that someone please move the article back to the correct title that is under discussion. The original title is Research about UFOs and related phenomena by academics which is now a redirect to Research about UFOs and related phenomena by scholars. Thanks in advance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been resolved. The article has been moved back to the correct title by User Liz. This thread can now be closed. Thanks and a tip of the hat to everybody . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Weird raid, or class gone horribly wrong?
A large number of accounts have disrupted the articles Computer network, Linux, Python (programming language), Flower, Marvel, and a few other pages, either posting nonsense or copyrighted fragments from other educational websites, in particular Britannica. After Ymblanter semi'd the first of those targets, I went back and forth on whether to block, since individually the editors were engaged in behavior I would not normally go straight to indef for. But when the disruption continued at Flower, I decided that the coördinated nature of the disruption made indefs necessary, at least in the short term while we sort out whether this was some good-faith endeavor gone wrong (like a class), or a weird raid/LTA spree.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to what's going on? -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * We probably need a CU here. Either someone is having fun, or this is an undocumented class. I personally got there from Copypatrol. Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a class, there's a lot of vandal-like edits sprinkled in there. A group of friends messing around seems more likely to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a similar incident reported a few weeks ago (archive link). I'm a bit unclear about what's going on, but it strikes me as very similar. The accounts are, at least mostly, all in the same place. It's likely there's more than one device, and there's also a load of unblocked, unused accounts. Here's a used one, and another one. There's a few things saying to me that it's just a bunch of people, but the timing is very strange, in some cases several registrations per minute, for minutes. Odd, but my guess would be that it's a hyper-busy class. You'd need a lot of people in the same place for this, assuming it isn't a bot. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the user agents consistent with botting? Not that one can really prove a negative in that regard, since UAs can be spoofed, but if this were botting, doesn't exactly seem like the kind of sophisticated attacker who would think to take that step. (Also, heads-up, basically all of these are gonna need RD1. Those two edits were cv of and  respectively.)  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 10:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen bots try all sorts, but I doubt it's a bot. Some of the pattern involves registering on a mobile network (since the AC limit where everyone is has presumably been reached), which is very un-botlike. Some of the accounts were created 7 Sept, which is exactly one week ago - no coincidence perhaps. There may be the odd user with more than one account, but there's just too much variation for a bot, IMO. It's weird in several respects, but I'd still go with school. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW the IP address in the first lot was 49.248.86.18, compared to the one this time, 49.248.73.37. The narrowest range that encompasses both is 49.248.64.0/19 (that link shows far fewer edits than I expected), which seems to encompass several autonomous System Numbers. I'm not sure if blocking that range or a similar one would be worthwhile. Graham 87 04:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments - final reminder for applications
A gentle reminder that the application period for this round of functionary appointments closes at 2359 UTC on Saturday, 17 September. Completed applications must be submitted by that time, so if you wish to be considered, don't delay. Thanks. Cabayi (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Who knows?
...what this idiocy is on Depth charge and Mljet, Invasion of Yugoslavia, and no doubt more articles to come? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If I had to guess, it's one way blind communication with a one time pad, using Wikipedia as a numbers station. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Might warrant an edit filter for this? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This hit my talk page earlier. Might be an LTA just kinda going around and vandalizing things. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At least one of them was a previously-blocked proxy., maybe you're interested in looking through my log--I blocked a bunch just to keep a record. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Note this, you filter builders. So it's a sad man. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The string comes up over and over. It should be easy to write an edit filter to detect that and other frequently occurring strings. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh so it's that Gorilla asshole. What was his name again? Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That would explain this edit to my talk page. Liliana (UwU / nya) 01:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And also 1 2 on my talk page as well. Dylpickle2k (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So they also target those reverting their vandalism it seems like. Liliana (UwU / nya) 02:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently if they see you reverting their edits or any warnings given they'll attack you for it. Dylpickle2k (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is what happened last time I caught them vandalizing, if they're indeed the same person. Liliana (UwU / nya) 02:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It could be the same person but with other IP users vandalising and doing the same things I think it might be multiple people getting involved because I don't know how one person can obtain multiple IP addresses to continue vandalising in a matter of seconds. Dylpickle2k (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , Dylpickle2k, it's not multiple people. It's one sad person with too much time on their hand and access to a bunch of different IPs through proxy servers. They have automated their vandalism. It's really pathetic. Also pathetic: my memory. I know who this is but can't come up with the name; they've been doing it for so long they could have cured cancer during that time. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that it was automated in some way. Is there a LTA case page for them? Liliana (UwU / nya) 18:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Drmies Do you remember how long ago that person was blocked? Is it an account that has "Gorilla" in the name as you mentioned above? Dylpickle2k (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of this one, Sockpuppet investigations/Kamen rider saber, but there have been others who have vandalized ape-related articles. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC for 2020 Ganja missile attacks
Recently there was an RFC for the 2020 Ganja missile attacks article, concerning whether a sentence verified by several sources should continue being in the article. A WP:RfC is meant to be "a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes". Every single user that voted to remove the sentence, mentioning Azerbaijan bombed Armenian civilians before Ganja was attacked, was an Azerbaijani. This includes two admins from the az-wiki and another with special privileges on the az-wiki. The only outside user who participated was user StellarNerd, who supported keeping the sentence. The closure seemed to treat the RfC as a vote, which it is not. The RfC result should be changed to no consensus, and thus the long-standing and reliably sourced sentence should remain. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said on my talk page, I'm extremely hesitant to discount RFC input based on the nationality of editors. In the interest of civility, I was putting that mildly. I am frankly flabbergasted that someone would propose taking into account the nationality, or any other personal trait, of an editor in good standing when assessing and weighing their input in an RFC. Should editors from the United States have their input discounted in an RFC dealing with the actions of the country? Should openly trans editors stay away from RFCs on trans issues because they're not "outside users?"
 * This also creates an issue where closers are expected to research every editor involved in an RFC to determine nationality or other traits that may be related to the topic under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish: While I disagree with ZaniGiovanni's reason for disagreeing with the close, I gotta say I'm somewhat surprised by the brevity of the closing statement. You say that you gave more weight to the policy-based arguments of those opposing the addition of the sentence, but does not say which were those or why they were given more weight. You also mention "numerical advantage", which does give the appearance of counting votes, and without further explanation it gives the impression that it was an important factor in closing. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The number of those who support different options in an RFC is certainly an important factor in assessing consensus. My take on closing is that I'm assessing the consensus of those involved, rather than reading the positions and arguments and choosing the one I think fits best.
 * The arguments for including were the wording in relatively few sources to provide context, and the opposition argues that there were a number of missile strikes not addressed by those sources, other sources disagree with the assessment, and that the wording is undue in the lead due to the few sources. To overcome a significant majority those supporting inclusion would need to have a significantly stronger policy position than those opposing. That smoking gun argument does not exist in this RFC. Hopefully this clarifies a bit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just want to add some context: The sourced info about 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert wasn't just removed from the lead which the RfC was for, it was also removed from the body after the close..
 * When I raised the issue on talk, this is what you had to say (numerical argument). Now the article mentions nothing about the preceding bombing, not even in the body, despite the RfC concerning only the lead section.
 * After that, I came to your talk page and the rest is history. Also one more thing: I hope I'm not offending anybody, but what's wrong with saying a valid WP:RFC option should have an outside input, especially in a contentious area like AA2? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That was my input as an uninvolved editor which holds no special authority. The onus is on the one adding the content to get consensus for it's inclusion.
 * What's wrong with what you're saying about nationality is that it would exclude both Palestinians and Israelis from taking part in the current RFC on Talk:Jerusalem simply because of where they were born or live. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, ScottishFinnishRadish, that's a fair take on the discussion. Concerning the rest of the OP's complaint, I guess that's been sorted out below. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 02:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. Always happy to elaborate, sometimes a bit too much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, while I'm familiar with a few of the discretionary sanctions areas, the Armenia-Azerbaijan one is not a content area I've edited in. Is of an editor, and then using that information to weigh some contributions lower than others standard practice in that area? Is that supported by policy or within the framework of the discretionary sanctions?
 * With respect to outside input, while I can see in the in the page history that the RfC was added to the History and geography, and Politics, government, and law lists, in the banner of the talk page it also lists 10 active WikiProjects. Was there any cross-notifications made to them? In any event, if editors outside of this content area and who saw the notifications did not wish to contribute, that's fine. It doesn't make the RfC any less valid.
 * With regards to the closure, while I agree with Isabelle that it is brief, and could be slightly longer, I don't see any indications that it is wrong because of that. It was a short RfC however, so any closure of it is going to be brief by nature. By a plain reading, i.e. without lowering the weight of contributions based on nationality, I agree that there seems to be a consensus that the statement should be excluded (option 2), and that the arguments predicated on WP:WEIGHT do seem stronger than any argument or counter-argument made by those arguing for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sideswipe9th: I apologize if I gave the impression the close was incorrect. I was just surprised at how short it was when I decided to check it after seeing ZanyGiovanni's complaint. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 02:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Isabelle Belato you've nothing to apologise for! The "wrong" comment was addressed more towards Zani than anyone else. I probably could have been clearer on that part myself! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely floored by 's suggestion that we should take anyone's nationality into account when trying to determine consensus. That's so absurdly bigoted that I really don't know what to say (like imagine if someone said African-Americans should have their comments weighed less for a dispute regarding Black Lives Matter, you see why that might be a bit messed up??) . Wikipedia is a collaborative project where anyone can voluntarily edit regardless of their background, so ZG seems to really misunderstand things here to suggest we should discount certain voices because of where they are from. Given prominence in this topic area... well it's disappointing to say the least. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * : I have topic-banned ZaniGiovanni for 2 months for the egregious battleground behavior exhibited in highlighting the ethnicity of people they disagree with, after a previous sanction, logged warning, and informal warning in this topic area. This is without comment on the merits of this close challenge, but rather based on the rhetoric used. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we at the indefinite topic ban stage here? The opening comment is odious as hell, and ZaniGiovanni has sanction/warning history here, here and here. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 02:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I trust only issued a temporary t-ban (rather than an indefinite) for good reason. I don't see a compelling justification for the community to intervene or go any further here unless ZG appeals the sanction. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is maybe a minor thing, but as egregious as highlighting ethnicity or nationality of participants of an RFC already is, IMO it's made even worse by the fact that ZaniGiovanni does not appear to be going by en.wikipedia self declared ethnicity. I had a quick look and only some of the editors involved seem to have any self declared ethnicity or nationality. While some may mention their native languages or may edit other language wikiprojects which may suggest ethnicity or nationality, it's IMO highly problematic by itself to me making assumptions of a definite ethnicity or nationality from such things. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Abune
This editor keeps adding multiple maps to infoboxes in articles, despite being asked to stop by several editors (myself, @Magnolia677 and @Markussep). We have tried to explain that having more than one map in the infobox is excessive but he/she just keeps going. I am asking for an uninvolved admin to consider a block. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As I got no response from the request above, and the disruptive editing has continued, I have blocked Abune for a week. I invite review of this block from other editors. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for removal from blacklist
The name Agbolade Omowole could not be created because it was blacklisted more than 5 years ago.

Please, can the name be removed from blacklist or can an Administrator create the page?

Best Entertainingandtrendy (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The article name is salted, ie: create protection. If you want to create an article, you need to first create the article in draft space, then request it be moved over, assuming it passes the test for inclusion.  You're account seems pretty new to be making the request and finding yourself here, btw.  If the draft is as spammy as the version that was salted, expect it to be deleted as well.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Article is salted because socks kept recreating it. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Change to the CheckUser team
At her request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of GorillaWarfare are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks GorillaWarfare for her long service as a CheckUser, and her continuing service as an Oversighter. For the Arbitration Committee, Wugapodes (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Need help! Removing talk page discussions that could undermine recently submitted RfC
So I and @Hippo43 are having a content dispute. Quick background; after it did not resolve naturally through gradual edits of 4 days of reverts, I brought it to the talk page where disagreement was still present, and after that I first sought an informal WP:3O and after an editor contributed I prompted @Hippo43 to it on their talk page. It was definitely not going to resolve it but I wanted to at least try before I went to RfC and as expected on @User talk:Hippo43 they replied reaffirming that disagreement remained. To move it along I copied his response in reply to the 3O on his talk page so as to document that disagreement remained and move on from what was always going to be a formality. The issue is that they are now trying to hide this by removing my forwarded reply on the article's talk page and it could undermine the RfC by making it look like I did not first see if the Third Opinion resolved the dispute. They keep justifiying it by saying I can't copy and paste their responses into other discussions but 1) it is the same discussion just linking up the different talk pages 2) they haven't shown me any policy or guidline that would suggest this is actually a reason for removing an editor's discussion input. It is my first RfC and I am an inexperienced editor so lack of the understanding of processes which could get it stopped in its tracks anyway. But I at least don't want it to be because of removal of talk page discussion or in an attempt to stonewall it. I mentioned in my revert summary what I have mentioned here about it potentially undermining the process and saying that I will seek an admin on this but they have since persisted. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC) JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I previously posted this directly via the recently active admins function but was kindly pointed in this direction instead
 * Just link to the diff on their talk page where they said that, rather than copying their comment. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy to do this as there is no real difference. Thanks for the suggestion. I removed the the direct quotation of "I disagree" and instead of saying I copied and pasted it now reads "@Hippo43 responded to the Third Opinion on his [Permalink|talk page]. Disagreement remained and 3O did not resolve it. I'll notify if any further revision are made but I imagine that should be good? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also just clocked that I filed this under WP:AN and not WP:ANI, my apologies. I'll let admins decide if and when to correct this to avoid the least confusion. Sorry again! JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You have commented 37 times on that talk page. 21 of the last 23 comments to that page are by you.  Please read WP:BLUDGEON.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe a little too over excited, huh? I apologise. To my credit, besides the aforementioned dispute and the two first responses on the current RfC which have required multiple replies in both as we worked to fix clarity for the ones to come in; these have been diversified across the many different topics and certainly hasn't been the case that I've been trying hammer home my presence in every single contribution. I will calm it down. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No one wants to read pages of your opinions. If you want people to take you serious and consider your perspectives, you need to learn to be concise, and learn to not respond to every comment that is contrary to your position. I tried to look at the issue on that talk page, but gave up because I didn't want to pour through dozens of long, drawn out comments to get to the locus of the dispute. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Inquiries regarding changing my username
Not 100% sure if the is the best place to ask this, but I was wondering if changing to my username to a modified variant of my current username would be a waste of time for the admins and disruptive since I have hundreds of userboxes that I have created that are being used by other users. Would it be too out-of-the-way for an admin to change my username and every userbox in my userspace if I requested a username change? Furthermore, would the broken userbox transclusions on other users' userpages be easily fixable? Just want to be considerate before I proceed with doing something potentially disruptive. If all is fine then I might go ahead and make a username change request at that page. <b style="color:white">Waddles</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 16:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Moving and redirecting pages in userspace is done automatically as part of the rename process, so transclusions of your userboxes should  continue to display just fine. I'm no expert when it comes to the global rename process though, so don't take my word as gospel, considering the sheer number of boxes you have in your userspace. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @WaddlesJP13 if we rename you, it will move all these pages, creating redirects on them - so nothing will immediately break for others. The global renamer is not going to clean that up. One option in this situation could be: do your rename, specifically asking for your subpages to not be moved; once renamed register a new account under your old name as a WP:LEGITSOCK just to hold those subpages. — xaosflux  Talk 17:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * and Alright, good to know. Thanks! <b style="color:white">Waddles</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 17:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

We need a filter on aisle 2
...please. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The Mayyas
Can someone please move The Mayyas (dance troup) to The Mayyas? There is no need for the qualifier at the end and I think something got forked up in article creation. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, and "troup" corrected to "troupe". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I went and converted the old, incorrect spelling to a redirect, since some things were pointing to it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okey-doke. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Balkan reports become messy
I have filed a 3RR report there. Such reports in the Balkan topic area attract various editors with misleading comments, walls of text and exchange of accusations. Can an admin take a look at the evidence and close the report before the walls of text become even longer? Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Spammy calculator links by an IP
Special:Contributions/203.124.43.2 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Regards So  Why  07:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a simple candidate for the spam blacklist. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

User LeaveMeB is engaged in vandalism across multiple articles
The user keeps editing/vandalizing the following articles:

10 nm process, Alder Lake, Raptor Lake, Rocket Lake.

He has single-handedly decided that Intel 7nm node/process is not 7nm despite it having a similar density and performance characteristics as TSMC 7nm. He loves to use bloggers and other non-technical media to prove his point despite the Intel 7 nm process being on equal terms with TSMC. The process articles were written and edited by knowledgeable people yet this person thinks otherwise.

Speaking of Alder Lake and Raptor Lake articles. The lists of CPUs in the articles are concise, small, and mobile friendly. He decided to make them bigger for no reasons while adding a ton of graphical features and perks. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a content dispute, I suggest reading WP:NOTVANDALISM. Whether LeaveMeB is right or wrong doesn't make their edits vandalism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * both and  for edit warring on the 7 nm process article. Please discuss the disputed changes on the Talk:7 nm process talk page and obtain consensus before implementing the changes in the article. Likewise, changes to the other articles should be discussed on their respective talk pages. —  Newslinger   talk   21:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at . —  Newslinger  talk   22:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish
Could someone please fully protect Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish until a bureaucrat can close it? The RfA countdown ended hours ago and people are still commenting. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 00:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Declined at Requests for page protection/Increase — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The crats are fully capable of deciding when to stop the RFA, when to protect, etc. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While only a bureaucrat can close the discussion, any editor can hat it, with a note that closure is pending, until the bureaucrats decide to close or extend it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 168 hours (seven days) is not a hard deadline. Multiple crats made that clear in this discussion. Please leave it to the crats; thanks. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Could probably use more watchers on Kim Dracula
. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The one edit you reverted is the only time that has happened. Please don't start a new thread here at AN every time some drive-by vandalism happens.  If it becomes a problem, WP:AIV is thataway if its one person, and WP:RFPP is just down the hall if it comes from multiple people.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mainly mentioning it because I rarely find unreverted vandalism nowadays Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স
This title is in blacklist (Creation of this page (Draft:বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists.) but a Bangladeshi business has registered itself with this title with the local government and Customs, Excise & VAT commissionerate, Jessore, Bangladesh.

Requesting administrators to allow or unblock this title from local or global blacklist. Bekub (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bekub: We generally use latin characters for titles. Draft the article there, and if it gets accepted then you can request বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স be removed from the blacklist to make it a redirect. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying.
 * I've prepared this draft User:Bekub/বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স - Wikipedia.
 * Can you let me know what exactly I can do next to publish it? Bekub (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. An article here has to be understood by readers of English. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bekub: well, for starters, you'd need to draft it in English, as you may have seen from the AfC decline notice a moment ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bekub: Regretfully, the subject of your article does not seem to meet the notability criteria. On English Wikipedia, articles on any business should confirm to the notability criteria set in WP:NORG. Please note that Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion, and we do not accept articles on businesses just because they exist. Any article about a business that does not indicate notability may be speedily deleted. Also, since this is the English Wikipedia, so only English-language articles are accepted. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice that bn:বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স is already speedily deleted, under bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:CSD. Please note that Bengali Wikipedia also follows the article policies of English Wikipedia, so anything that does not confirm to the standards of English Wikipedia will not meet the standards of Bengali Wikipedia either. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Discussion at WP:HD § Editing Photos
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:HD § Editing Photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe an admin could take a look at this discussion and possible clarify things further as needed. It's a civil discussion at the moment, but the OP is a new editor who might not be familiar some Wikipedia basics and they seem to be taking things personally and might be getting frustrated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

a user delete important source from University of Munich in order to delete the article as without sources.
I would like your attention please.

The user at at the music article josef vitzthum deletes constantly a source from a German university in order to delete the article. At her profile, it clearly the political or nationalistic interest, against European free thought and against of record important music historic events.

please pay attention on that source. Of course many things are unknown yet, but that's why there is encyclopedia. To bring to the people free information as a title, composer, historical info about the piece and performance. It is not possible, from a user to delete a source about composer and then to indicate as not enough academic.

The principal source is the manuscript from 19th century, and secondary sources are the academic articles with DOI.

Thank you for your time, MaxLux8 (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You have linked a user for the Greek-language Wikipedia. This is an English-language administrators' noticeboard, and has no authority there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the editor did create a draft here (Draft:Adagio e Rondo - Josef Vitzthum) which was rejected three times, and then created it in mainspace anyway (Adagio e Rondo (Josef Vitzthum: 1815-1884) ‎). Since Vizthum does not have an article here, I suspect it probably fails WP:CSD as well as any other notability guidelines.  Can anyone see any reason why I shouldn't just delete it? Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No obvious reason not to delete it that I can see. The new article has the same issues as the draft, and copying it to mainspace didn't make them go away. MaxLux8 needs to work on the draft, and convince people that the subject meets notability criteria. With better sourcing, and evidence that anyone beyond the rediscoverer and performer of this long-lost oboe piece consider it 'crucial'. Or even worthy of comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it - and the four(!) redirects to it. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

AfD shrunken text fix requested
On Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 24, many entries at the bottom of the page are in small text. Can this be fixed? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. DanCherek (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Block evader
Special:Contributions/Pickle troll 188.226.73.30 (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Staxringold restoration of permissions
The Wikimedia Foundation has determined that is back in control of his account. The Arbitration Committee has corresponded with Staxringold and, based on all available information, is assured that he will follow appropriate personal security practices in the future. The Committee therefore restores his administrative access.

The Arbitration Committee is of the view that additional clarity about the Committee's return-of-adminship practices relating to account security is necessary. The Committee therefore invites interested community members to comment on relevant motion.

Support: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, Enterprisey, L235, Maxim, Primefac, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes

Oppose: Cabayi, Donald Albury, Izno

For the Arbitration Committee,  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

User:Ford489 db-g7 deletions
About a year ago, User:Ford489 was indefblocked for sockpuppetry. On the way out, he tagged 37 articles he had written for speedy deletion as db-g7. Looking at the articles themselves, they seem fine to me, and I would be inclined to undelete these. Is there any reason not to? BD2412 T 00:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On further inspection, some (but not all) of these were nominated for deletion as being non-notable; others are clearly notable (a couple of regional governors, for example). The speedy tagging circumvented deletion discussions that were occurring. BD2412  T 00:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was the one who filed the sockpuppetry case at the time, and boy was Ford489 prolific after their first sock ban in 2015. They were dead-set on making their entire lineage represented on en-wiki, and went fairly undercover for six years. After I filed at SPI in late 2021 (see Sockpuppet_investigations/2636z/Archive), I went through a series of G5s since their article creations were made in circumvention of their ban, and excluded from the speedy deletion process all articles that could have qualified for WP:NPOL at the time. However, worth noting that 95% of the sources in the articles are primary, passing mentions, or no mentions at all of the subject in question. So if one chooses to restore the 37 articles (or any of the G5'd articles), I'd caution to take a deep look at the sources. Pilaz (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored four and passed on about a dozen. I'm less concerned with the immediate quality of the sourcing than with whether the subject falls into one of our buckets for inherent notability, which some do. BD2412  T 00:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Having gone through them all, I have restored Francisco Álvarez Campana, Francisco Antonio Basavilbaso, Domingo de Basavilbaso, Batallón de Voluntarios Rebajados de Buenos Aires, Valentín Vergara, and Guillermo Ross. I do not believe any of these were brought to AfD. They seem sustainable to me, but please do not hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong. BD2412  T 03:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser needed
Would someone with access to the checkuser tool be willing to email me? I filed this a while back but while disruption is ongoing, it hasn't moved forward. An admin moved it out of the Checkuser Requests, with instructions to contact someone through email if I want it run. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Checkusers will not publicly disclose the connection between a user and an IP address per the privacy policy. We will also not disclose it to you via email, since you have not signed the relevant NDAs. Furthermore, I don't see any checkuser likely running that check since it would likely fall afoul of the checkuser policy. Cheers. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read the CU's comment at the SPI where I was specifically told to email a CU privately? I don't want anything disclosed to me, I wanted to provide evidence so someone can do something about ongoing disruption. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing this here? If you haven't yet e-mailed a CheckUser, then do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know any checkusers... which is why I asked for one of them to email me. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've lost interest in trying to help resolve this situation at this point, so I'll just close the discussion. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You can find a list of checkusers at WP:CONTACTCU. Sometimes when you're at a loss of what to do when it comes to Wikipedia, searching by adding   to what you want to find out (e.g. WP:CHECKUSER) often leads you to a page containing such information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision
Appealing to the community's collective memory: who was the editor who got into hot water for their editing on articles dealing with circumcision? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of Stix1776? I handed down an indefinite topic ban for edits to circumcision, partly based on oversighted material. Why do you ask? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ? Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826 ?  might know who you're thinking of. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Circumcision? I've heard of a WikiGnome but never a WikiMohel! On a serious note are you perhaps thinking about User:HRS395 or their sock Sugarcube73? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. I think it was this editor I was thinking of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that's a deep cut. See what I did there? BD2412  T 05:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Can someone revert this serial vandal on a mission?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/123.215.23.150 In hospital slowly recovering from painful liver cancer surgery successfully  Doug Weller  talk 16:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's hoping for a successful and complete recovery, and I will double check. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Feel better soon. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope you mean the surgery was successful, not just the recovery. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Conrad Bennette Tillard
I am being harassed by someone named Glane23 that keeps taking accurate well documented factual biographical information material off of my page. 24.46.216.128 (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "my page". Which page would that be? The one you're blocked from? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no substance to your complaint. I see you edit warring with multiple editors at Conrad Tillard where Glane23 has made ONE revert. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Resumption of edit war by User:Marrew
Strong evidence of an edit war is easily found at User talk:Marrew, including a 24 hour block and a 1 month block. The edits go against the consensus expressed at Talk:International System of Units/Archives/09/2022. This edit resumes the edit war. I recommend a community ban. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned by this resumption of this edit war, despite two blocks so far. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC).


 * Now blocked indefinitely by . That outcome was basically guaranteed, I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Standard offer - JGabbard
Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096

JGabbard was indefinitely blocked by back in April for highly offensive remarks on a talk page, which were considered excessively disruptive and worthy of a block after review at ANI. He has recently filed a request apologising for his conduct and realising it was completely inappropriate, and a look back through his history brings back plenty of constructive and good faith edits to suggest they could be a net positive for the project. Although they didn't explicitly cite it, I think this is a reasonable application of the Standard offer; it's not quite six months since the block, but close enough to see if there is a community consensus to unblock. Furthermore, it might be appropriate to add a South Africa or politics-related topic ban of some sort as a condition of unblocking - not sure exactly what, though. Your thoughts, please. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Ritchie333. The name didn't ring any bells and it looks as if I blocked as a result of Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096. A scan of their contributions such as this make me think if unblocked, there would at least need to be a topic ban from South Africa since they do not appear able to edit neutrally in the area. Courtesy headsup to @Barkeep49 as they enacted a topic ban per Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036. At the moment I don't have a chance to take a deep dive so will AGF on Ritchie's assessment of a net positive and not take a position on the unblock. Happy to roll with any consensus that develops here. Star   Mississippi  16:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ETA, oppose I still haven't had the chance to look through their edits, but the cases made here are more than compelling. While JGabbard appears able to edit productively in music areas, editing is a privilege, not a right. I'm sure there are others who can work in music without the baggage and noticeboard time sinks that come with his editing since there's no technical way to ensure they only edit in music areas. Star   Mississippi  13:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Isn't a net positive racist an oxymoron? I don't think anyone who holds those beliefs and thinks it's appropriate to espouse those racist views on wiki should be allowed to edit here, full stop. I realize this is a hardline stance, but I care more about editors who are exposed this type of nonsense then the person who holds those racist tropesValeince (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I guess I could elaborate further if anyone just can't figure out why, but otherwise this unblock request is just a time sink for all the collaborative, fact-based, non-racist editors out there. I will assume Ritchie's "net positive" comment was just poor wording. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I only did a shallow dive of edits, and noticed they'd been around for a while and edited some music articles, hence they could be a net positive, but if other editors have had time to investigate further and found even more problems, obviously not. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NONAZIS. NightHeron (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but only if it's accompanied by a strict topic ban from anything relating to race. — VersaceSpace  🌃 18:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I oppose. — VersaceSpace  🌃 18:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Question Assuming we let them back with topic bans related to the following topics: vaccination, conspiracy theorists, COVID-19, race, South Africa, and politics, all broadly construed - what areas would they want to edit in? I do see that the majority of their constructive edits are to music related areas.  Is there anything else they would want to edit?  Moreover, a musician's race can provide important context to their music.  Would the community have a problem with them discussing such topics in relevant articles? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I was about to post the following but ec'd with the above post. It's along the same lines: I'm not sure a S.Africa/race TBAN covers it. Looking through his editing before his indef, he seems to have a very substantial track record on music. That appears to be his main interest. As far as I can tell that doesn't appear to be problematic and seems to have been very worthwhile. He seems to have a secondary interest in radical evangelical denominations. That looked ok'ish, although having a tendency to write as though he was composing a spiritual meditation, but I did notice the odd anti-Catholic tirade as here. One might couple that with his user page citing Ian Paisley as a hero. As well as the South Africa comments there's his Covid/Anti-Vax/conpiracy theorists TBAN here. It looks to me he's an asset when he's working music but anywhere else he's prone to tendentious soap-boxing. Is a TBAN from everything except music a thing? I haven't seen something like that before but that would make him a positive. DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm worried that music, the topic that he really loves to edit, may also address what he is topic-banned from and that he might game the topic ban, intentional or not. Any music about race and politics, like White Riot, lately? Oh wait, there have been songs about race, like rap songs about it. (Well, there are classic rap songs, but I'm unsure whether he would consider them "classics".) BTW, he and I had content disputes, but it's mostly about cover arts and other editions lacking such. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's a problem, although if he were TBAN'd from race too he wouldn't be able to edit when those issues came up. Clearly this is moot in light of the number of opposes anyway. I'm comfortable with that if the assessment is that there's a risk that he would again express views that are abhorrent on WP or that they would drive his editing. I'm not so comfortable if it's because he has those abhorrent views whether or not expressed and whether or not they drive his editing. DeCausa (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Other editors shouldn't have to work with this editor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – if you need that many TBANs, then you've stopped being a "net positive", whatever that means nowadays. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 18:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This editor has been disruptive regarding American politics, alternative medicine, vaccines, COVID-19, conspiracy theorists, Roman Catholicism, race and South Africa. Did I miss any? Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , you left out the ingestion of semen. See Talk:Spermophagia and the long history of that redirect. Bon appetit! Drmies (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , OMG! Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Any benefit their music edits would bring would be outweighed by all the other baggage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Floquenbeam. The apology is extremely limited in scope and detail and sounds incredibly perfunctory. The issue was not limited to the inflammatory talk-page posts that were the proximate cause of his indefinite block. He had a long history of disruption and his editing was fundamentally at odds with our core mission to provide accurate, honest, reliably sourced information to readers. Here he expressed contempt for foundational site policy; I don't see any reason to think he'll stop trying to undermine clearly reliable sources based on his personal agenda. He was previously topic-banned for pushing anti-vaccinationism. I don't know how many red flags this community needs before deciding not to sacrifice more of its contributors' time and goodwill, but this is well over my personal threshold. MastCell Talk 19:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope I see a short apology that doesn't even remotely address the seriousness of their talkpage soapboxing, but instead appears to promise to better source their "inflammatory sociopolitical comments" in the future. Between that, and the fact that they were really pushing the limits of their conspiracy theorist TBAN before they were blocked, indicates further issues ahead, to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you'll promise to not push your political views anywheres on the project? I'll agree to your reinstatement. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The very definition of WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. The notion that the terminally intolerant should somehow be tolerated if they behave —they won't, they never do— has seen a rise in popularity in recent years, though thankfully, not on Wikipedia so much. I find the tendency toward that kind of acceptance highly disturbing. It should be resisted firmly. Needless to say, the pseudoscience is a further compounding factor, but since in one way or another it provides the basis for that sort of mindset, it's a moot point. El_C 04:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have in the past had positive interactions with JGabbard, and I know they are capable of doing good work on our music articles, so part of me wanted to support giving them another chance, but I had not previously recognised the full range of subjects they had previously been disruptive in. I had also not realised that this was someone who lists Tommy Robinson (activist) as a hero on their user page (scroll to the bottom). He lists Robinson, a white supremacist with convictions for violence and fraud, amongst the 'courageous watchdogs' he admires. That was the final straw for me - oppose. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  06:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unblock with appropriate TBANs - Apparently, this editor can be productive in some areas since they have 50k edits, and there’s no harm when they edit the areas they aren’t disruptive in. I don’t see why STANDARDOFFER wouldn’t apply here, but I think an unblock here should be JGabbards final chance for a long time. <b style="color: #8B0000;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b>t@lk 16:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. In the past, he . Also, he declared to be "highly against Nazism". Ironically, his involvement in non-music topic was what got him blocked indefinitely. George Ho (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just figured. If JGabbard did get reinstated, he'd be under heavy scrutiny. One mess up & re-banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing ironic about that situation. If he had stuck to music, and kept away from politics, he'd still be editing. However, attempts to get him to do just that have been made before. Despite a TBan from conspiracy theories, he still felt free to let rip harmful bile about the South African government which, while I'm sure he believed what he wrote, was nevertheless racist conspiracy theory nonsense. And, as I mentioned above, he felt free to voice his support for Tommy Robinson (activist) on his user page - seriously, follow that link and see who we're talking about. I'm fine with having a plurality of views on this project, but we're literally talking about someone who expresses support for convicted a violent neo-fascist. Surely that's a hard 'no'? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Admittedly, I'm primarily voting because I dislike how many people have opposed solely because of his politics, so if the closer wants to consider this a "moral support" vote and basically ignore it, I suppose I can't really complain. I find the trend for things of this kind to devolve into "I don't want you here because I am uncomfortable with your political views" to be disconcerting; I'm sure a great many people here would find my political views quite disconcerting, too, I just have had the good sense never to talk about them here. I don't feel like I have a good sense for whether or not he'd be a problem, given how brief his unblock request was; given the circumstances, I am inclined to AGF, provided he is willing to accept TBans on race and maybe some other topics as a condition. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Being racist isn't politics. Neither is being a conspiracy nut. You tell us on your user page you area christian fundamentalist, here you tell us that having abhorent views of our fellow humans is just another political position which you happen to also hold. That you believe very similar things about various groups of people you have told us as well. Way too normalised this sort of pure bigotry on Wiki. But that is how it has been for years now. Bottom line, there is no hate like christian love. 85.16.40.253 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was politics for the Dixiecrats...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Anti-semitism was politics for the NSDAP as well. There are examples where basic human rights and dignity were politicsed all over history. With predictable outcomes. I for one have no taste to return to anything even adjacent to that. Normalisation of bigotry just is a dangerous step to take. 85.16.40.253 (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment here. This is only your second post (indeed second edit ever) to Wikipedia. Why have you suddenly chosen this discussion, to participate in? GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a variable IP adress perhaps? Nothing i can do about that (other than making an account obviously, which i chose not to do), new IP every day and with that zero contribs, usually. I am not new, never claimed to be and i just don't want to make an account even after a decade of lurking and some gnomish edits here and there. As well as sometimes commenting here, or at ITN or where ever i feel like it really. 85.16.40.253 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Politics is just the government of human society: pretty much everything is political. I obviously wouldn't describe my own political views as "abhorrent," and I try to avoid having strong opinions on many of the most politically salient topics, as I feel investment in politics often distracts from (when it doesn't directly undermine) true, pious religion (as you yourself have observed, given your cynical remarks concerning "Christian love"). FWIW at this point in this discussion, I certainly don't agree with JGabbard's views of race, COVID-19 vaccines, or probably anything else (not that I have scrutinized his far-flung commentaries especially closely), but I know from experience that many people would find my views on other topics, such as contraception and scientific naturalism, similarly backwards. Yet nothing will ever become of it, because I know what the house biases are and I avoid substantially engaging with topics where I would be unable to conform. JGabbard could learn to do this, too (whether he would is another question; it seems the community is unwilling to find out). So the oft-touted position that racists/fascists/etc. are incompatible with the project because they are racists/fascists/etc., and not because they are unable or unwilling to suspend their worldviews and engage collaboratively, makes me nervous. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Compassionate727, I think you're missing the point about racist beliefs, in the sense that they fundamentally concern immutable characteristics. So, following that, I could join your Christian community by adopting your set of beliefs regardless of my background; and likewise, you could do the same by joining my community by adopting socialist beliefs, regardless of your background. That we are unlikely to want to do that is really an aside to that salient principle, that it's possible (and in fact it happens in a myriad of ways).
 * By contrast, I could never join a an overtly racist group. To them, I'll always be subhuman, often to the point of needing to be destroyed, and there is absolutely nothing I could ever do about that. Since, again, the tautology here is that my innate traits are, well, innate and unchangeable (i.e. it just is not possible for one to alter their ethnicity, skin colour, etc.). El_C 17:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, we are getting so far off-topic here. I'd really just wanted to complain about how I felt like everyone was latching onto all of the detestable things he has said and entirely ignoring his promise to not do that going forward. Clearly analogizing was the wrong way to go about that. Absolutely, I recognize that racism is especially bad because it focuses on immutable traits that have nothing to do with anything, and 's essay makes a worthwhile point when contending that hateful views are uniquely, even inherently disruptive. And we both agree that viewing someone as subhuman is hateful, and that someone who is unwilling to edit Wikipedia without insinuating that some people are subhuman doesn't have a place here. But what about other things that are maybe hateful but maybe just disagreeable? For example, do blacks who work for police departments express hatred for blacks? I imagine we would both say no, but some people in the US did argue this in the 1960s. And then we could have a whole discussion about what constitutes hatred to unravel what exactly distinguishes the one from the other, but that probably wouldn't be very fruitful, so I hope we don't do that. I just hope you can appreciate that saying that some people don't belong in the community because they are hateful without specifying as a corollary that they are also disprutive makes me nervous. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Compassionate727, I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think I, for example, should be expected to collaborate with people who I know view me as subhuman (speaking generally, not about JGabbard, specifically), regardless if their editorial work in itself is disruptive. Speaking for myself, I've always been open to collaboration, and also friendship, with folks who I might disagree with on the fundamentals — but not that. And, in fact, if you go to the bottom of my talk page you'll see threads that primarily feature three people: a deer hunter (*wink*), a conservative, and a devout Christian. All three of whom I consider friends. El_C 18:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Girth Summit. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We should not be encouraging this user's Games Done Quick Wikipedia all DS regimes% speedrun. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 01:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a debate sometimes about the hypothetical "polite bigot". The essay WP:NONAZIS takes the position that such a person should be blocked. An essay I wrote, Hate is disruptive, concurs in part and dissents in part, opining that such a person should be allowed to edit if they never let on what their views are, while also concluding that this disagreement is largely theoretical, as, in practice, people with such views tend to be outspoken about them. As here: The number of userboxen on JGabbard's userpage, many of them about politics, tells you everything you need to know about his willingness to be the "polite bigot" who keeps to himself and keeps his politics off-wiki. Or if that doesn't convince one, one can see where I first got to know JGabbard, an MfD in which he vigorously defended his decision to refer to himself as a "citizen" of a breakaway state built on enslaving Black people, using both ahistorical fallacies and righteous indignation to justify his position.I see no reason to trust that JGabbard has suddenly learned how to not be disruptive when it comes to his fringe views, after years of not getting it. And, like others, I see no reason that editors should have to collaborate with someone who has behaved in this manner. By the way,  I also took note of an entry on JGabbard's list of heroes, namely Francis Schaeffer. When I was in high school, I had the opportunity to spend a few hours in a small seminar led by his son Frank. Frank has said and written a fair bit on the views his father espoused—most memorably, calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government for allowing abortion.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 12:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Anti-vax nonsense (including making articles incorrect and then trying to defend it), racism per the original block, and as a bonus espousing a violent racist criminal as one of their heroes on their userpage? Sounds like exactly the type of editor we should be welcoming back with open arms.  I don't think. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd close this as no dice, but I had a pretty extensive conflict with this user way back when, so one might argue I'm not the most neutral person. I'll just go with oppose, per Cullen, per Black Kit, per Tamzin, per common sense, etc. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:SNOW clearly applies. Someone please close this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete my Userpage
Hello please delete my Userpage here, I want to use my user page on meta so I can easily update it there when I want to make changes I'm not more active here this is why I would like this change, thank you. RebelAgent  talk to me  21:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Rebel Agent: Just place  on your userpage and it will be speedily deleted. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like Cullen328 already deleted it, just when I was writing this reply. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay Thanks. RebelAgent  talk to me  21:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , ✅. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a small FYI and reminder for my fellow administrators...
Remember that if you must hide a user creation log using revision deletion (or suppression for users with Oversight and in situations that warrant it), you must redact both the "action and target" and the "performer's username/IP address" in order for that particular log and its information to be fully hidden from the public (or hidden from non-oversighters in the case of suppression). Otherwise, if you only redact the "performer's username/IP address" and leave the "action and target" visible to the public, the user creation log entry will still be fully visible and viewable to the public via the API. If anyone has any questions, please let me know (please ping me if you respond to me in this discussion) and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you should place a note at the top of the user creation log. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 13:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Animal lover 666! I appreciate your response and suggestion, but I don't think that it's necessary. The content on the user creation log page text is currently worded towards an audience who may need information as to what this log is, what inappropriate usernames are, and how to address any inappropriate usernames that are found. I don't want it to be worded toward administrators, who make up a very small percentage of the total audience who would read that log page text.


 * However, I'm completely open to hearing from anyone who disagrees and thinks that this may be a good idea. If the directions were at the bottom of the text and very brief, ...Sure? Maybe. :-) Something like:
 * "Administrators: If you must hide a user creation log using revision deletion, you must redact both the "action and target" and the "performer's username/IP address" in order for that particular log and its information to be fully hidden from the public."
 * This I'd potentially be open to if other users provide input, since it's brief, to-the-point, and doesn't go unnecessarily into depth. Again, I don't think that it's something that we need to add there, but I always keep an open mind. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally think this is not good advice. If you only redact the user creation log, the username still persists at Special:ListUsers, as well as in CentralAuth, all the dropdowns, and probably elsewhere. I mainly use deletion on the newuser log to stop people reporting the usernames, and to stop the immediate source of offence. If you're doing anything to the extent that you have to worry about the API, you should probably do a proper job and get the username suppressed instead. Advising people to half a job but properly is less than ideal. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Zzuuzz - I agree to an extent. I never like doing "half-jobs", but in cases where suppression isn't the solution (and going off your reasoning, it will never be, since suppressing the username along with an indefinite block doesn't also hide it from Special:ListUsers, etc - only global suppression does this, IIRC), I think that the ability and (sometimes) the need to redact usernames from the user creation log is necessary, and doing this properly means that it's not visible publicly using any means. I know that redaction of anything in this log won't hide the username from every single location, but to say that this is a reason why we shouldn't act in our best judgment when the situation calls for it is like saying that we shouldn't try and limit any disruption or damage at all simply because it can be found elsewhere if one were to really look. The ideal ideal solution? We should be able to fully redact or suppress a username locally and in all locations. That's the real fix, but we don't have that right now. We can only control what we can control. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's great but I stand by my comments. BTW local suppression on its own does hide the user from Special:ListUsers and the dropdowns (locally). These days I have no idea why any oversighters would locally suppress an account. There should be a big well-oiled pipeline to the stewards. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Zzuuzz - No worries; I think that it's safe to say that you know me well, and hence you know that I'm always happy to hear from you and that I welcome your input, feedback, and comments - except if they disagree with me! I'm kidding ;-), but moving on... Okay, that's interesting to hear that bit about username suppression from you... I'll have to test that again. From what I remember from testing awhile back, I thought that username suppression (when the option is ticked when indefinitely blocking an account) only executed a script that suppressed the username from all logs and edit revision histories, etc and put it in the block log as a suppression action. It was akin to having to manually find and suppress each and every log and revision, and was more like a convenience thing than something that did more than I described. You very well could be right; thanks for the information. Anyways, I'm digressing... lol. All I wanted to state when I started this discussion was that, in the event that redacting (or suppressing) a user creation log is necessary and needs to be done manually to that log, that hiding both the "action and target" and the "performer's username/IP address" is needed so that the log was fully hidden from view and from all methods and instances - nothing more. :-) Thanks again for the input, and please don't be a stranger if you wish to discuss your thoughts any further. My door is always open.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Page creation too
Similar to the above, if you delete a page because of offensive content (say, User:RoySmith/sandbox/Naughty), you should also check the page creation log; it'll often have a copy of the content in the log message like this and you'll want to redact that as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * RoySmith - Good call. To extend on this a little bit: If the page creation log summary contains something that is libelous or would need to be suppressed, let an oversighter know. This is so that:
 * they can suppress the content that you redacted (obviously), and...
 * they can suppress any edit filter log that was triggered as a result of the page creation (something that many users don't remember to keep in mind).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia failing on Ukraine
Having contributed actively for more than 10 years, I feel WP is currently going through its most serious failure, as WP is widely abused by Russian propaganda to spread disinformation. In the last few days alone, I've seen accounts pushing the Kremlin line that large parts of Ukraine are now Russian, treating the Russian sham referendums as real, and creating articles and modifying real articles as if this was the legal position. This situation is unique to Wikipedia (and the fringes of social media). It clashes with virtually all reliable sources unequivocally describing these annexations as illegal and null and void. That is the position of the UN and virtually the entire world, yet here at WP we push out articles completely in line with the Kremlin propaganda. As a reminder, WP:NPOV does not endorse any false equality between facts and a fringe position. Quite the opposite, WP:FRINGE explicitly decries such false equality. During Covid-19, we also saw efforts by conspiracy theorists to push their version, but WP was very good and fast to shut down such attempts. Now, however, as attention fatigue regarding Ukraine sets in for many users, while accounts pushing the Kremlin line contribute to be active, WP is quite simply failing. While most media (meaning most RS) continues to report factually about the war in Ukraine, WP has become one of the most visible media for the Kremlin version. Jeppiz (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , it would be helpful if you gave some specific examples, but in general yes, there is very likely some fatigue from the "front lines" of editing to make sure everything is accurate, neutral, and as unbiased as possible. Since anyone can create a page at any name, I wouldn't be surprised if the new pages are popping up faster than NPP can patrol them. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, here are some recent examples of rather outrageous attempts to push the Kremlin's line
 * The most visible is this attempt to change the main map at Russia to include not just the occupied territories but even territories Russia merely claims.
 * Articles have been created for Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) presenting them as any other region of Russia. Of course WP should talk about the occupation, but we already have proper articles on that Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast. There is no information added by these sham articles pretending these territories are Russian regions, it's just using WP to push that narrative.
 * The template on Subdivisions of Russia was modified to include the four Ukrainian regions as Russian subdivisions.
 * These are just a few examples. What is more, if users try to challenge this blatant use of WP for Russian propaganda purposes, we are reverted; on the talk pages related to these issues, the Russian narrative dominates. Again, I can understand that most users not directly impacted by the war have moved on from the topic due to war fatigue, which the Kremlin supporters mainly use WP for this purpose. As already stated, this reflects badly on Wikipedia as more and more articles related to the war either takes an outright pro-Russian view or pretends that we should strive for neutrality between aggressor and the victim, as well as between international law and war crimes. Jeppiz (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you have to make a clear distinction between propaganda and reality. Claims exist whether they are legitimate or not, having a page about it doesn't legitimize those claims in a legal or moral sense... See Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China for an example on the other side of the world. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, and articles about those claims are one thing - but pretending they are accurate is another. We have articles about claims that vaccines cause autism, or about holocaust denial; those articles talk about the claims, but also make the factual situation clear. We have (several) articles about the Russian claims, as we should have. What we should not have is a pretence that they are legitimate when they are not. Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But you have to understand that if Russia annexes these regions and thats what WP:RS say then it will be accurate to say that they are part of Russia. I know thats hard but thats just how it works. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously all these articles must state that the referenda are not considered legitimate by the international community, and the territories are internationally recognized part of Ukraine. The articles are now in turmoil for obvious reasons, but last time I checked they did. I am pretty sure of they survive the AfD, this is going to be stated clearly in the lede. Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree though that the topic area sees a lot of bad editing, both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian, but I am not sure whether we are already at the PIA level, when all articles in the topic area must be extended-confirmed protected. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Horse Eye&#39;s Back, with all due respect, you are wrong on all accounts. Making an illegal claim of annexation does not change anything. If tomorrow Kim Jong-Un declared that North Korea has annexed Brazil, it would not be accurate to say Brazil is part of North Korea. Quite obviously, Putin making a declaration of annexation of Ukrainian territories does not make them Russian. (This should not have to be explained at AN). Again, we should of course write about it (though several editors seem to forget/ignore WP:NOTNEWS) but not make pretences of false balance. Jeppiz (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "If tomorrow Kim Jong-Un declared that North Korea has annexed Brazil, it would not be accurate to say Brazil is part of North Korea." Correct. It would, however, be accurate to list Brazil among the areas claimed by North Korea and, if North Korea created a subdivision named "Brazil Province", we would want an article on said province, even if it existed only on paper. --Golbez (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Presumably in that scenario WP:RS would say that North Korea had not actually annexed Brazil and we would go from there. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * AN is not the place for a content discussion so I stop that discussion here. The issue for AN is that WP is used by some users to push that exact line, that Kremlin's position is the one we should report. This is in direct conflict with international law, in conflict with the position of all other countries, and in conflict with how all RS report on the issue. As the Kremlin is having a hard time getting its propaganda into media, social media and Wikipedia become soft targets. Unfortunately it seems to work very well on Wikipedia. Again, we are currently in stark contrast to WP:RS, and I'm not aware of policies in support of that. Jeppiz (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the OP. Something needs to be done. <b style="color: white; text-shadow:gray 5px 5px 5px; background:#DC143C"> - WPGA2345 - </b> <big style="color: black; background:#ffffff">☛  20:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We have outstanding editors that are trying to revert vandalism and out right propaganda where we can based on our analysis of the sources and the content or nature of the edits. Obviously, at this point, RS is in favor of this being a sham and it should be recorded as such. What will make this change for Wikipedia is not a declaration from Putin or anyone else but that a majority of RS refer to those regions as a part of Russia. If that occurs then there may always be a caveat so long as there are those RS that protest such a move but to not include that in our articles would do more to destroy the tenets of this encyclopedia than what you have suggested would occur otherwise. WP:RGW is a thing. We have no problem telling new editors that Wikipedia is not about telling the truth because everyone's truth may differ, but that we repeat what reliable independent sources say about a subject. The personal side of me sees and understands your passion about this. I may even agree it is a sham. But our policies and guidelines are not a sham. Currently I agree that is sides with your description above but it might not always be that way and if we ignore reliable sources or create a narrative that isn't portrayed accurately by sources because it is the right thing to do then we have failed already. Wikipedia doesn't dictate or drive social or political changes in the world, we only document them when they are given significant coverage. -- A Rose  Wolf  20:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this view, and also note that the annexation declaration was literally today; if we're still having POV problems related to the Russian-occupied territories several months from now we can call it a failure. The specific cases brought up by Jeppiz here seem like cause for editors to step in and respond the way we always do when there are POV fights over articles, and I think it's valid to ask for more admin and experienced editor eyes on articles related to the annexations, but calling this a failure is premature polemic. signed,Rosguill talk 20:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We've been through this all before. Take cognizance of the fact that what you see and hear and read may differ greatly from what people elsewhere in the world are getting. No matter where you are, I can guarantee that what you are getting is not what "virtually the entire world" is getting, because there is no such thing. There is little independent or objective reporting available. It may be a very long time indeed before a coherent narrative emerges. I don't think several months is realistic; we may be looking at several years. The current situation is not unique to Wikipedia and is not unique to Ukraine either. Keep calm and carry on. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jeppiz. I'm the one who "attempted to change" the map of Russia on its article (though I did not create the map). I'd enjoy it if you didn't call my edits abusive Russian propaganda spreading disinformation. In any case, I'm not familiar with the other edits you mention here, so I won't speak on them, but the one I made is to showcase a change in Russia's territorial claims, which would be in line with what is done in every other country's infobox, regardless of whether they control the territory or not. WP should reflect what RS say, and if RS say Russia claims those territories, then so it goes. NPOV says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". Changing a map to reflect current territorial claims is not legitimising contested assertions; The infobox clearly labels the disputed territory in light green (or at least did before the current version). ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am of course not saying that every edit is done with bad intentions, clearly not. I do not think your edit was helpful, and it certainly violates WP:NOTNEWS. As several users have pointed out, this happened today, and there is no rush. Russia has internationally recognized borders. Again, this is content matter; the wider issue is there is currently so much activity, including a lots of edits pushing the Kremlin narrative (whether intentionally or not) that I see WP having problems keeping track. That's the issue for AN, we're discussing content on the relevant talk pages. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Russo-Ukrainian war articles appear to have been in shambles for quite some time now. Before I even created an account, I saw subtle POV-pushing going on at War in Donbas (2014-2022) and Donetsk People's Republic back in September 2021. Recent events have probably just put more eyes on it.  &ddagger; Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   21:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Really not enjoying the lack of good faith portrayed towards us geography nerds, both here and in the AFDs. My main concern is sourcing - I see no source that says Russia has established new oblasts over those borders by those names. Sure, they've claimed an annexation, but that doesn't mean they've already rejiggered their internal political structure to match it. Til we have those, the articles are premature. But that doesn't mean that I have a dog in the fight, and if you find yourself constantly having to backtrack saying "I am of course not saying that every edit" etc., then maybe it's because you are saying that. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It actually did not yet establish the new oblasts, the parliament has to vote next week, and then Putin will sign the law. Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it's easy, these articles are premature/crystal ball. No need to accuse anyone of anything. --Golbez (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with others being unconvinced there's anything particularly unique about the current situation, and definitely anything far from our "most serious failure". Wikipedia has always suffered from editors adding information from a PoV not supported by reliable sources and we often also have problems dealing with recent events and fluid situations where editors add stuff too fast. I remember a few months back not long after Elon Musk announced his plan to buy Twitter, someone tried to change the CEO of Twitter to Elon Musk. While it's unlikely we'll ever know, I suspect this editor was editing in good faith just confused. Meanwhile, Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad is still protected over something which isn't even our fault. There are plenty of editors desperate to remove the claim Love jihad is a conspiracy theory and others who want to defame some poor actress just because her partner took their own life. Indeed there are editors trying to remove well supported details about (see e.g. Talk:Stepan Bandera.) In this case, the strength of feeling and extreme interest in this matter combined with the large number of possible targets means we are bound to get some inappropriate editing which may last a few hours or days before being reverted. Very rarely something may last even longer. But such things happen all the time all over the encyclopaedia. More importantly, I'm unconvinced any of these are going to significantly influence many readers, so who really cares? There's good reason to be far more concerned about other things. E.g. even now I'm sure some articles have misinformation on climate change, and IMO it's been far worse in the past, despite the fact the science was mostly settled before Wikipedia even existed. These are the sort of things which likely have influenced readers and the world around us. If significant Russian misinformation persists in 10 years time then yes we may have a problem, but there's no reason to think that will happen. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg ScottishFinnishRadish
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Staxringold
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
 * Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
 * Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news
 * The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
 * A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
 * The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous
 * An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
 * Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
 * You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
 * An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
 * Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Geonotice request
There is a geonotice request at Geonotice. Would one of you administrators please attend to it as you are able? Peaceray (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks to ! Peaceray (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Unban request from CheatCodes4ever
Was originally blocked as WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR per this ANI discussion, and has been blocked for socking, and lost talk page access more than once. A repeat checkuser will be useful. (Yamla found no socking in June.) Has requested unblocking at, and I have restored the ability to edit here for the unban request. User will be able to respond directly to concerns here. I have copied the request over from UTRS below.

<div class="user-block" style="background:#e5e5e5; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> Alright, I am trying my block appeal again. Note that due to a small character maximum in this text box, I am going to have to ask that administrators reviewing this and anyone else reading this read my previous unblock requests to hear other parts of the story. I would rewrite the whole thing again but I cannot, so I will do this instead.

Basically, I got blocked from Wikipedia for not being here to build an encyclopedia and abuse of multiple accounts. As I mentioned, abuse of multiple accounts is already covered in previous requests, though I will get onto the NOTHERE reasoning. I was community banned due to my issues with adding sources to pages and creating articles for non-notable subjects. Users had also given me advice before about this, however I did not take the advice very well, which led users to believe I was not here to build an encyclopedia. As for the addition of content without sources, I often forgot to add sources, which was why I often forgot to add them.

Also, for the record regarding sources that I do use but should not, I do now know that I should not use stores as sources as they are considered original research. As for creating articles on non-notable topics, I now understand the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), as the rule is that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has recieved significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject:
 * 1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources, creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. This means that meeting this policy does not mean it definitely deserves its own article, but that it is assumed that it does.
 * 2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. This means that the topic is covered significantly and is not just mentioned trivially (ex. a long paragraph about something is signficant coverage, but solely mentioning a topic is not).
 * 3. "Reliable" means that the sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. This means that sources must have fact-checking by editors and must not be self-published.
 * 4. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. This means that sources are needed to make something notable, and these sources should be secondary sources.
 * 5. "Independent of the subject" excludes works published by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This means that things like advertisements, announcements by the subject or someone affiliated, or anything else that is made by someone who is affiliated with the subject.

Also, I will say for the record, I no longer believe that kappaphobia is a notable topic for Wikipedia, as the source I used was anonymous and was also not reliable for medical information. As for not listening to advice, I will say two things regarding that: 1. Until late 2019, I did not read my messages on my talk page. Although I did see some of them through notifications, most of them I ignored, because I did not use talk back then. 2. When I did eventually start reading my talk page messages, although I did read the advice, I admittingly never really took it very seriously. I did read one policy when it was shown to me, though that's about it. Also, as for not using my talk page to appeal my block, I apologise for doing that, but I was asking questions that I thought I might have needed to know before I could appeal. Anyway, in conclusion, I would like to be unblocked from Wikipedia. carried from utrs. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I still see no evidence of block evasion recently, based on checkuser data. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I'll start this off, since it's been three days. While your ban appeal, to me, seems to cover all the main points to be unbanned (and indicates to me that you have read the guidelines you admitted you previously did not), I'm curious what your plans are should it happen. What sort of topics do you want to contribute to should you be unblocked? FrederalBacon (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what topics to which I'll contribute, I'll probably contribute to all kinds, but it will probably mainly be music, film, television, and maybe even games. As I said though, I'll probably end up contributing to all kinds of topics. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Well, at this point, I'm a consensus of one. CU cleared editor that put some effort into their unblock request, and seems to have an interest in editing. Sure, why not, it's cheap. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Copying and pasting from WP:GNG doesn't bode well. I understand there's a character limit, but this unblock request fails to convince that the other disruptive behavior will not be an issue (i.e., WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR) and neither do his previous unblock requests. CC4ever has little history of following suggestions or reading instructions thoroughly, for example. I'd also like to see more specific examples of future contributions, and a willingness to start with minor edits instead of creating articles. I'd recommend giving this editor more time to mature, become acquainted with Wikipedia's policies, and become proficient at its user interface. I would, however, lend my support to reinstatement if a more experienced editor agreed to mentor CC4ever, provided that CC4ever also pledged to follow that mentor's guidance. Matuko (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't copypaste from WP:GNG, I wrote it myself. Also, the discussion you mentioned happened back in December 2019, which was before I even got blocked, and this entire unblock request was made to show I'm not like how I was back when I was initially blocked. Also for the record, I don't plan on immediately creating an article after getting unblocked, though I do plan on doing it eventually. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see how I don't cover why WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR will no longer be a problem. I clearly demonstrated that I had read Wikipedia policies and now understand more than what I used to. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your bullet points include exact quotes from WP:GNG that are not in quotation marks. For example:
 * Because of this, portions of your reiteration of the policy look like copied text pasted to read like your own words. That's the sort of thing I'm alluding to by bringing up the WP:CIR issues. Sure, it proves that you read it, but you might have used quotation marks, formatted it as a block quote, or rewritten it entirely in your own words, a core Wikipedia editing skill. I will happily assume good faith, accept that it was a formatting error, and strike the accusation. Matuko (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To specify, I rewrote it in the same way since I don't really know what other words I could use. If you want, next time, I'll use quotation marks, as you mentioned. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, I oppose. raises an important qualm with your appeal: while it demonstrates that you have now read our policies, it does not suggest that you actually understand how to apply them. The only problems mentioned in the appeal pertain to sourcing, but I am seeing other problematic behavior like edit warring, and it just generally seems from glancing over your talk page that you don't seem to be able to understand anything that hasn't been directly told to you; that doesn't suggest that you would be able to contribute constructively on your own. Perhaps the most glaring example of competence problems, from just a few months ago, is needing to ask whether or not you can copy and paste URLs. I believe an unblock now would result in you being blocked again sometime soon, and that doesn't help anyone. I understand that you are still a minor; perhaps when you are older, you will be able to engage with the community more effectively. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do understand how to apply the policies:
 * Everything should be cited with a reliable source unless it cannot be challenged. If a source is reliable, it can be used in a Wikipedia article.
 * Topics that meet WP:GNG can and should usually have an article.
 * Also, about copypasting things, I am only starting to learn about that, and it's because I haven't been told about it until I started appealing my block last year. Plus, do you actually expect me to know every single Wikipedia policy? There are a lot, and I would expect most people to learn as they go. If that's not how it works then tell me, but I was not told that either.
 * CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, adding to my point (which I now realise can intially be debunked), if you are going to argue "You had two years to learn," keep in mind that as I've said before, it wasn't until November 2019 that I truly started paying attention to what people were saying to me since I didn't start going on talk until then, and I don't think I even started fully reading my talk page until a month earlier. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, adding to my point (which I now realise can intially be debunked), if you are going to argue "You had two years to learn," keep in mind that as I've said before, it wasn't until November 2019 that I truly started paying attention to what people were saying to me since I didn't start going on talk until then, and I don't think I even started fully reading my talk page until a month earlier. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Starting New Page
Hello,

I am requesting to start a new page. Ryan Wilson (politican)

thank you KlutheMN

KlutheMN (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need to request permission to start a new article(not a "page"). You may draft one at Articles for creation, but it will be very challenging. First, they will need to meet the definition of a notable politican. Mere candidates are insufficient unless they meet the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. A new article will still be created, as there is quite a lot of media, even national, on Minnesota right now. And significant press coverage on this particular race. KlutheMN (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Draft:Ryan Wilson (candidate for Minnesota State Auditor) was created by a different new user on September 27.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of main title and infobox of article
User talk:Volunteer Marek deleted the entry for Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) for it being "unsourced" and being "hoax" which I do not think is really the point. Yes, it is not recognised, but that does not mean you delete the whole entry and infobox for not "recognising" it. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In the discussion of these articles, this user behaves extremely aggressively, and threatens with permanent bans to those who oppose his position. Please restrict this user from discussions and editing articles for a while. PLATEL (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

VM is a bit ott here, 4 of the same revert in a couple hours at Kherson Oblast (Russia) Also see AFD in progress here. If there are issues, raise them on talk. Revert 1 Revert 2 Revert 3 Revert 4 Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * My edits removed unsourced text which presented false information. So yes, WP:HOAX. And yeah there have been some IPs and brand new accounts jumping in to try and restore the fake information. I did revert them since having HOAXes on Wikipedia embarrasses the entire project.  Volunteer Marek   14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User making malicious edits.
Anonymous user editing wikipedia page to add frivolous information

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.30-06_Springfield&action=history

Anonymous user is adding " .306APOCWON " WarRaven (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Content dispute, no administrator action needed. Just guide them to the talk page, start a discussion and ask for references. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 01:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC which may be of interest
Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale Valereee (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User with multiple accounts and "ownership" issues.
User:Kioumarsi and User:H.kioumarsi are the same individual. also, they seem to have an ownership issue with Taleshi_sheep as seem here and here. you may want to chime in. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed they do - and based on that I suspect this is not much more than a basic misunderstanding of attribution, authorship, and COI on WP. Is there a suitable collection of newbie material one could drop on their talk page? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They are hardly a newbie... they've been here since 2007. But I can hit them with something from Twinkle, and follow up with some pointers to WP:COI, etc. However, they do have multiple accounts, even though they've not used one in several years. This needs some formal addressing. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no attempt to deceive anyone about the fact that they operate both accounts, so there's no WP:SOCK violation. If this were ongoing, it would be worth asking them why they're using two accounts and encouraging them to disclose this on their userpage, but given that H.kioumarsi hasn't edited in 7 yaers, I don't think even that is necessary. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 16:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I posted a message on their talk. We'll see what happens. Feel free to make a better attempt. XD - UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Shalom and thank you! Kioumarsi (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @UtherSRGI have two accounts, but I have not edited with the "H.Kioumarsi" in 7 years. For technical reasons, I can't deactivate an account or combine two user accounts into one user account. I have mentioned in my profile that I have two accounts. I appreciate it if you kindly remove the big temple from my account. Kioumarsi (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Since you no longer use the H.kioumarsi account, you might consider redirecting User:H.kioumarsi&User talk:H.kioumarsi to User:Kioumarsi&User talk:Kioumarsi to eliminate any further potential for confusion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you more than words can say @Joe Roe Kioumarsi (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Resignation of Donald Albury
I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee with an effective date of December 31, 2022. I am announcing my resignation now in order to allow the election of someone to complete the second year of my term through the annual election process that will start shortly.

I have not been contributing to the behind-the-scenes work of the committee, which is not fair to the other members of the committee (although they have been kind enough to not mention that to me). While I have not been contributing to that behind-the-scenes committee work, I have found that the time I spend reading e-mails and the project pages that are relevant to the committee's work is more than I enjoy spending. I have decided that I just want to go back to being an editor who occasionally performs an admin action.

I wish to thank everybody who voted for me last year, and hope you are not too disappointed that I am not completing my term. I also wish to thank my fellow ArbCom members for their support of, and patience with, me. My exposure to the inner workings of this part of the governance of the English Wikipedia has been reassuring to me about the durability and fairness of such governance. Donald Albury 18:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Global ban for Александр Мотин
Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for Александр Мотин. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

AWB user list
Hello, Could someone please add this public account to this page, I would like to test out User:Joeytje50/JWB. Not sure if I need rollback or not. Thank you, - FlightTime Public  ( open channel ) 01:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Thanx, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The Rhydd
Please can someone import simple:The Rhydd? I'll take on responsibility for copy editing it to our standards. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Pigsonthewing You can place requests for page imports at Requests for page importation. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

AaronLestonBaptiste
Since coming on line 'bout 2 hrs ago, have been making changes to several Charles III-related pages (too many edits to link), which appear in part non-constructive. A few editors (including myself) has since reverted him, but he either doesn't see the notices of reverts or messages on his talkpage. Assistance on how to handle the situation, would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * P-blocked from article space to try to get them to their talk; they aren't on mobile so maybe they'll see the explanation directing them to their talk page. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Standard offer request of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel

 * The following message copied here on behalf of per this discussion. -- posted by  — jmcgnh (talk)  (contribs) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

To whichever admin(s) see this, I am respectfully requesting a standard offer by the suggestion of another admin by the name of Ponyo. I simply put it as a request to be able to edit on Wikipedia again after eight months away. I was genuinely unaware that my actions two months later of suck puppetry was illegal on the site after seeing other users get away with it; but as six months have passed since then, therefore I put forth the request of a standard offer now. I fully recognise my short temper and hatred I felt for others if they made mistakes or fell short of what I believed were the standards of an article, and I did not find my block unjust. Since then, as I stated in my second block review, I have gone through rehabilitation via minor therapy and simply alone time, been relieved of stresses also applied at the time, and now I feel I am ready to start editing Wikipedia again without verbally attacking anyone for reason why; and I shall harass no more. This is the second standard offer I have made after the first a few weeks ago. The first standard offer was not rejected but was timed out. If whatever in that can be used as evidence for a decision made about this request, it can be found here.

Thanks, Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel 23:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - It appears this user has made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings and understand that their behavior was inappropriate. With 8 months gone by, I think it's time for them to be given another chance. <b style="color: #8B0000;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b>t@lk 00:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about how you know that they have "made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings"? Do you mean that they have said so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to their comment saying they've gone through "minor therapy". Sure, they said they did; I don't know for sure. <b style="color: #8B0000;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b>t@lk 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to this request. I was involved in trying to steward Mikey's first unblock request (now in Archive 1108, here; parallel UTP discussions here). On the plus side, is my gut feeling from numerous interactions that there is a sincere feeling of contritition, fairly biding his time during the block, and an awareness of what was inadmissible before and a conviction not to go there again. On the flip side, I would have hoped to see more activity at a sister project to provide some evidence of change, which we now lack (other than a sprinkling).Mikey, I'm not an admin, as you know, but imho if your request is successful this time, and at some point later you run into some stressor and blow up and get blocked again, that's liable to be the end of the story; coming back from another block will likely be extremely difficult to impossible. Given that, do you feel confident you can keep things under control, do whatever you need to do (like take a WP:Wikibreak if needed) to avoid any problems going forward? Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From Special:Diff/1113160513/1113236493: Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Having only read what's here and not what initially led to the block, I am given to support. Many people mellow with age or learn to control themselves better, and when Mikey says that he has reflected and done some kind of "minor therapy" (whatever that means) and can now control himself, I am inclined to accept that. I'm not convinced from what I have read that he will be a paragon of calmness, but we have many temperamental editors here, and I think the fact that he has been blocked and had to learn from that how better to behave will make him better adapted to the project than many who skirt the edge of unacceptable conducts; as long as he is careful to avoid editing when angry, I think he will be fine. Besides, we are all called to be gracious to the penitents seeking forgiveness. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In reply: Just a bit of clarity on what I mean by minor therapy. It doesn't mean I was sat one-on-one with a therapist for an hour every week, but a good friend who is a therapist gave me useful advice. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Deserves another chance. Segaton (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:ACE Election Commission - Call for candidates
Hello all, qualified editors are invited to self-nominate for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections Electoral Commission. Those interested should list themselves on this page. Commissioners are empowered to make binding decisions on unexpected or exception issues related to the election, and some other duties specified in Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date. This is a single-term position lasting until the end of the December election. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 15:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a bump here, a couple of days left on this - volunteers wanted! — xaosflux  Talk 20:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oof, 3 candidates as of now. I suppose if that's gonna be all of em, we won't even need an election as they'll all get in by default. Silver lining? But I suppose the last few hours is when the influx usually happens (for reasons that are cosmic in nature). El_C 16:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I may throw my hat in the ring, primarily so the other three can feel slightly better when they're elected and I'm not. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do! I will get you votes, by force peacefully. El_C 17:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command! Though I ask only that voters support whomever they think best suited to the position.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . I've always voted for non-admin candidates when I thought they had a lot to offer, as Dumuzid does.← [Early campaigning] Sure, they may not know some of the finer technical details of admin work, but they usually have a decent grasp of the broad strokes, plus they bring a fresh perspective. It's unfortunate that this never happened. I suppose if such a candidate wins, though, they'd have to be granted +sysop at least temporarily alongside the other advanced permissions arbs get by default. El_C 18:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Err, why? Unless I've missed something important, it seems like EEC members just sit there and deal with crises if any happen; that makes it sound like the only requirement is a good head on your shoulders. If serving requires special permissions, that sounds like a headache I'd rather not deal with and I should withdraw. (Although, frankly, I'm hoping we get that last-second rush of qualified candidates and I'm not elected anyway.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to see I am in good company both in terms of candidacy and my attitude thereto! Cheers, Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) probably needs a panel close
This is a train wreck of a discussion, with SPAs and sockpuppetry, various accusations back and forth between participants, and a litanny of possible outcomes proposed. Articles for deletion/Lugansk People's Republic (Russia) is related. I am inclined to close these, but there is no close that will not result in a substantial portion of participants seeking to overturn it, so I think a panel close is advised. Are there any uninvolved administrators who care to dive into these waters? BD2412 T 04:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They have both been deleted, along with a couple of others. I haven't investigated but a very quick skim failed to find why WP:CFORK would not apply. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Donetsk People's Republic (Russia) remains. Unless we want to risk inconsistent outcomes, that had better be deleted as well. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest not doing a panel close for any of these or similar cases, simply because that's sucking up even more community time. Any discussion closing in any direction is potentially going to be overtaken by events. We sometimes have trouble with current events, and this is another one of those instances. CMD (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The close was correct and well done, but still subject to an effort to overturn at Deletion review/Log/2022 October 8. How much community time do you think that process will suck up? BD2412  T 02:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * More time! However I do not buy the assertion a panel close would somehow avoid this. This is going to keep coming back, because it's powered by pure recentism. CMD (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. And not just any old recentism, this is a full blown war. Expecting that this will be anything other than time-consuming is unrealistic. Of course opinion will be divided and passionate, of course there will be appeals no matter which way the discussion is closed, we just have to let the processes play out. Process isn't something to be avoided, process helps people work through difficult tasks (like how to write an encyclopedia article about a recently illegally annexed territory in the middle of a war). So it's OK if there's a contentious debate and then a DRV; the DRV will bring finality. Anyway, panel closes are not a panacea, they're not immune to challenge and I don't believe they arrive at better results either. (The recent RFA reform and NSPORTS panel closes come to mind.) Levivich (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit for a player
Hello, more than a month ago I started editing Wikipedia articles to keep users informed. I regularly edit footballers like Jay Stansfield, the problem and I was warned that they were going to have a discussion with the moderators for some reason that I don't understand. The problem being that I did not know that on Wikipedia cup matches did not count as real matches played. I understand that I could have made a mistake and know that the error will not be committed again. Please stop the site moderators discussion regarding my Wikipedia account Hoping for a quick response Thomasthimoté (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You've come to the wong noticeboard: this is where you need to post your reply: WP:ANI. DeCausa (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War ECP Proposal at ANI
There's an extended-confirmed protection proposal at ANI for the Russo-Ukrainian War topic. Bringing it up here since AN is the usual place for these. 46.97.176.101 (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: Proposal passed. Looks like we're still logging at WP:AEL but with the WP:GS/RUSUKR shortcut added to those log entries. Works for me. El_C 18:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that was just my initial implementation, with concerns about unnecessary logging complexity in mind. The shortcut can, and perhaps should, be redirected to a page describing this new sanction. As it's not only relevant for technical page protections but rather prohibits all non-extendedconfirmed contributions about this topic to other articles, there should ideally be something to point to when we inform/warn users about the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * After some discussion among the arbs, I've removed @ToBeFree's protection from the AELOG and (as an individual editor) setup General sanctions/Russian-Ukraine War where it has been noted. I think there is a lot of willingness among arbs to explore options to help the community with this - either by coming up with some system that would allow for the community to log or even to incorporate this GS into the Eastern European DS - if the community wants that. Any such request could be made at WP:ARCA. Courtesy ping to @El C. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought about doing that, but the ARCA template is such a pain to use. And to the extent that it might have been designed in part to limit interaction with the Committee, it does its job well. But I'd submit that perhaps such a high barrier of entry isn't the best. Anyway, so that might account as to why the request to subsume the new proposal into ARBEE hasn't been filed yet there. But I'm sure someone will get to it, eventually (or not, who knows). El_C 16:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're no doubt correct that the ARCA template could be made more user friendly and I would support a proposal which did that. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd propose it myself, but seeing as I burned some bridges with the techies recently, who'd ultimately be the ones to 'code' the thing, I'm probably the wrong person. El_C 16:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Also to who took the time to copy the other entries over, together with links. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Undeleting a Talk Page
I apologize if this isn't the right place for this, but it didn't quite seem to fit on the other pages for this kind of stuff.

Is there any precedence for undeleting a talk page? I was hoping we could undelete the talk page for *deep breath* Bruce McMahan a.k.a. David Bruce McMahan.

There's no WP:BLP issues, as the man has been dead for five years.

At the very least, I think it's in the public interest to make those pages viewable again. Barring further policy violations, I don't quite think it's fair to hide the discussion for why such a controversial page ran into the problems it did. Yes, the AfDs are viewable, but they really don't tell much. I always find the talk pages to contain the better picture. Riffraff913 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be rare to have a talk page without the article. You cite the public interest, but what is the source of your personal interest in restoring this talk page? You don't appear to have edited it. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And there really is nothing of interest on the talk page, it only had a handful of posts none of them particularly interesting or insightful. The AfD is much more informative. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, I did not edit it. I wasn't involved in any of that kerfuffle as it happened. Other than public interest (which I count as a personal interest, as I feel very strongly about transparency and openness), I do have another reason: I recently suggested adding a mention of the incident on the talk page for "List of Wikipedia controversies". I was hoping that being able to see the conversations that took place would help shed more light on the situation. Unfortunately, the only response I've gotten so far was one sarcastic one, but I'm hoping for more. Riffraff913 (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you wouldn't be able to cite the AfDs, talk page discussions, or article itself in List of Wikipedia controversies anyway, as these would all be primary sources (in addition to the reliability problem). You would need to find RS discussing the issue. As for your concerns about transparency, I'm not sure what the talk page would clarify, since all the salient discussion will be in the AfDs, which you can still view via their histories. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately, those citation issues would be a problem. I more wanted them to wrap my head around what happened. Have some more context before writing anything up, you know?
 * As for 's and 's suggestions that the AfD would be of better use, I would generally agree, but not in this case. The article seems to have been created in late 2006 or early 2007 (I can't find that exact information). From what I can tell, the page had 3 AfDs. The first (in early 2007) had quite a bit of discussion; the article was kept. The second (about a month later) was short, finding that the article really hadn't changed much on the last month, and it was probably just someone making trouble; they kept it. Then, in 2009, the third AfD appeared, and it too was brief; they voted to get rid of it, as the article had ostensibly been scrubbed clean of references to his incestuous relationship with his daughter and become simply a puff piece. Essentially, I don't know anything about what happened for most of the article's lifetime. One of the only other informative things I could find (internally) was a long Admin Noticeboard discussion (longer than all three AfDs combined) in 2010, where Jimbo himself showed up to address issues of potential libel against the Village Voice for running allegations that he and Wikipedia were personally cowtowed into taking the article down by McMahan and his team of lawyers.
 * Further, there must have been some controversy within Wikipedia at the time, as a 2007 blog post on The Broward Palm Beach's website (https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/daddys-little-obfuscator-6309456) claims that Wikipedia general counsel Brad Patrick actually called the newspaper asking about potential legal issues arising from Wikipedia hosting the court records involved.
 * Frankly, this all just seems like too much for me to believe that the AfD pages contain all the relevant information. Riffraff913 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly as someone who can see the deleted talk page I’m assuring you there’s nothing on it. About 10 posts, most just about is he notable and agreeing to take to AfD with only a few editors. There’s no particular discussion, no long arguments or posting of evidence or anything like that and certainly no controversy on the talk page. It was for all intents and purposes not used. If any discussion about the article subject happened, it wasn’t on the articles talk page. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe look a bit further back? —Cryptic 19:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah I was looking at the article David Bruce McMahan. Didn’t realize there had been two different ones. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I do not see any public interest in undeleting the talk page of articles that were deleted 13 and 12 years ago. Wanting to wrap one's head around what happened is not a sufficient argument. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request of Nauriya
The following is the unblock request of Nauriya, which requires a community consensus to remove. I am transferring it here as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia community and admins, I hope you are all well doing the things you like. I am also doing well. I am here again to ask for another unblock request as I did more than two years ago. In last two years I have tried to keep myself busy with other things alongside work, and I have written contents for various channels and mediums but it has always been Wikipedia where I took my first leap of faith from, when I started my journey 8 years ago. In the past two years I have really tried to appeal for an unblock, but thought it hard over if I am ready or not and after careful and long consideration, I am requesting my unblock for your kind attention. During my time off from Wikipedia I have learned to make better decisions for me to grow as a better person with better understanding and knowledge. As you can see my above request and the reason there, why I was banned, and why I was held accountable - I once again apologize my mistake and I promise I will show myself as a better contributor to this platform. I sincerely hope that admins and other community members overseeing this request will consider it positively and give me a chance to show that I have grown from my past mistake. Please give me a chance to prove myself. Thank you. Nauriya, Let's talk - 20:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unblock per WP:UB CHEAP. Seems like enough time has passed.  Mini  apolis  22:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unblock per Miniapolis plus WP:AGF. I just read through the discussion in which they were banned.  They violated copyright and they socked.  I'm not saying those are good things, but in the scheme of things, there's much worse things they could have done.  And it seems like they understand what they did wrong and have made a commitment to not do those things again.  That's all we ask.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unblock. I've taken a look at the previous discussion (which others may also wish to take a look at), and the user's responses to questions regarding copyright, and while I'm hesitant about an unblock given the severity of the case, it has been five (maybe a little less or more) years since the original block by consensus. A lot of change can happen in 5 years. However, if unblocked, I would expect that the user in question would take great care in ensuring they adhere strictly to the copyright policies, lest they end up blocked again for copyvios. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Oppose. I've recently been provided with a slew of new information that I had not originally reviewed. The only way that I could support the request given the new information that I have overlooked previously is if an experienced editor was willing to review all of Nauriya's edits following unblock for copyvio. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The unblock request fails to address major problems such as massive copyright violations, meat puppetry and paid editing. This unblock request is the same as the one that was rejected 2 years ago, and it fails to give confidence that how disruption won't happen again. The concerns that were raised last time haven't been addressed even now. I am yet to see this user address the repeated recreation of Wasi Shah. See the talk page section here where I had pointed out misleading claims by Nauriya, and his reply was just as misleading. Concerns raised by Moneytrees last time seem relevant. Contributor copyright investigations/Nauriya (started by ) is still huge and far from being completed. Maybe an alternative solution would be a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA at least because that's where this user was entirely disruptive, but since copyright violation is a broader concern, it is entirely possible that it will happen wherever this editor would edit. Lorstaking 03:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That won't address the copyvios either. MER-C 18:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the copyright page. Seems to have slipped my mind (trout me if you must). I've changed my vote to oppose given the slew of information presented, though I do wonder about unblocking with requirements to have potential edits reviewed by an experienced editor for copyvios. It would require someone to actually review the edits to be made, however, so this may not be an appropriate solution. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - copyright problems not addressed. MER-C 18:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would have expected someone who has been blocked multiple times for copyright violations across several different accounts to at least try to show in their unblock request that they now understand our copyright policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It doesn't appear that any of the stated concerns above have been addressed so far, and these promises to reform were also made before the community ban was enacted. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this doesn't address the copyright concerns. Unblocking people with a long history of copyright problems is very problematic anyway because it's unlikely that anyone would notice if the problems continued. Reviewing every edit someone makes for copyright concerns is not a productive use of editor time, it's also very tedious and not infallible.  Hut 8.5  18:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to failure to address copyright concerns. dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 21:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thread recycled for a formal close. Please also accept or deny the unblock request at User talk:Nauriya accordingly. MER-C 18:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of rights
Please remove the pending changes reviewer rights from as he is banned for repeated socking. 2402:3A80:198B:833D:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An IP with only one edit reporting that a sockmaster from 2019 still has the PCR right? Forgive me if I am failing to assume good faith but I have some reservations about this. Patient Zerotalk 16:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

it's unlikely that knightrises10 will ever get unblocked so he doesn't need the PCR right and many of his socks have had their rights removed so there's no reason for him to have that right. 2402:3A80:198B:833D:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The IP is right. Plenty of people choose to edit as an IP and these can be dynamic so the "only one edit" might not be true. While we're at it (blocked as a sockpuppet of Knightrises10) should also not have the pending changes reviewer/rollback rights.  Clover moss  (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

and while we're at it,  a different sockmaster also has the PCR and rollback rights which should be removed. 223.223.139.51 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Note that WP:BANNEDRIGHTS says, "In general, rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is", and that also links to an RFC which had no consensus to change that for banned users, either. Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thanks for that link. For some reason I thought it was the other way around? The first RfC is from 2012 and the second is from 2019 . I think it's unlikely that  would be unblocked because they made death threats (this is said on their talk page). The main reason I even care about this is because the sock I mentioned earlier is like one of the 11 people ever to sign my guestbook. That said, I do see the argument that it's kind of pointless to remove the userrights of people who can't edit.  Clover moss  (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Paid editing?
I have strong suspicion that an article has been the target of a paid editing campaign. The article in question is a BLP, about a Middle-Eastern royal.

My question is, what is the best way for me to proceed?

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Please present the evidence at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ; will do, Huldra (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But see "Do not post personal information about other editors" in the blurb at the top. That text includes who to email if there is relevant personal information. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

#wikiwatt
Does anyone know what the hashtag in the heading above refers to? I ran across this misguided edit with a summary containing it, and it led me to think that we might have another African editing contest that needs some oversight. Deor (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's from Meta. The WikiKwatt Project's vision is to "bridge the huge content gap and make visible more knowledge about the neighborhoods in Africa". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, that sounds like an incredibly worthwhile project. It is unfortunate if because of lack of oversight" it would backfire. User:Eugene233, what is the status of this project? Are new editors receiving any kind of guidance? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much @Drmies for bringing this up. This seems I think @Lexy Tchuileu or @Mndetatsin can help shed more light as they are more involved in this project currently than I am. Eugene233 (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

with legal threats on their talk page
The title pretty much explains it. They're saying that if they don't get unblocked, they'll sue. Worth noting is that this is a sock of (at least from my observations). Liliana UwU (talk / contribs) 03:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * They admitted to also having other numbered socks (though, again, it was pretty obvious):
 * All of those posted the exact same message following blocking them.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the various duplicated talk-pages can be deleted? 66.44.22.126 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those posted the exact same message following blocking them.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the various duplicated talk-pages can be deleted? 66.44.22.126 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those posted the exact same message following blocking them.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the various duplicated talk-pages can be deleted? 66.44.22.126 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the various duplicated talk-pages can be deleted? 66.44.22.126 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed talk page access from all of these socks and blanked the talk pages. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Are CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13?
14 Nov 2021: an editor made the last content-based edit to the text of this draft.

14 February 2022‎: Reviewer declined AfC submission

27 March 2022‎: User:Citation bot fixes a reference and an editor fixes a unicode apostrophe error using cleaner.js.

1 September 2022: I submit for CSD on WP:G13 grounds, thinking the preceding two edits would qualify as "bot edits" and not human ones to the article itself.

1 September 2022: Admin User:Explicit declines the CSD tag, stating six months have not lapsed.

29 September 2022: I wait until it has been six months and two days since those two edits, and re-tag.

29 September 2022: Admin User:Liz declines, saying Please stop tagging this draft for G13. It will not be eligible until 6 months from today (unless some else edits it in the meantime).

Now, I completely understand if I was mistaken about those two edits from Citation Bot and using Cleaner.js, that they are not "bot edits" for the purposes of G13. But what I am really scratching my head about is: Do CSD tags in and of themselves, reset the clock for G13? As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on this. It seems to be a sort of circular reasoning, that this could extend the life of abandoned drafts for years beyond their actual lifespan... I could, in effect, simply wait until 5 months 29 days and tag articles, extending their life for a year. Other admins (e.g. User:CambridgeBayWeather) have deleted drafts I've tagged in similar situations:.

I have attempted to inquire about this on the indicated admin's talk page, which is, as yet, unanswered, while User: Bungle agreed they didn't see any consensus on this question.

So what does AN think? Should CSD tags (and their declining), reset the clock for G13? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Shibbolethink This discussion really belongs at WT:CSD, which is the proper place to clarify or amend speedy deletion policy. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, moving over there — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I think it should be here. You are asking for consistency among admins and not a change in policy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, AN is the better venue. I'm keeping it here unless there develops a consensus to the contrary. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't see how tagging it as CSD resets the six month clock. If that was the case then all drafts would require a full Miscellany for deletion. Of course there is Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions which suggests that a bot should be used to tag for WP:G13. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @CambridgeBayWeather AFC submission automatically tags drafts for speedy deletion if they've not been edited for 6 months and are not currently awaiting review, no need for a bot. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment is confusing because it is a bot which already does this? How do you think these automatic things happen on wikipedia? Its all bots, all the way down... — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Shibbolethink No it isn't, it's built into the template using the #time parser function. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I see what you mean. Differentiating between things that templates do over time, versus a bot user. So in that case, it would not be an edit. It would be a change in how the template appears, if it were not substituted. I would say this, overall, is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This might be more useful as a thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Never mind, the hatted comments cover this already. Clover moss  (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll answer here but we should also hear from Explicit as I think the two of us are responsible for (I'm guessing) about 85% of the CSD G13 page deletions. We are pretty strict literalists about policy. Wait, I'll just speak for myself here! I don't look for the last edit that added content or substantial content to a draft article, we look for the last "human edit" to the page, whatever that may be. The policy says on this criteria that G13 applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months. So, bot edits are the only edits that do not count as human activity. So, for example, I closed an AFD recently and when I made edits to remove the links that were now broken, using XFDCloser, I made an edit to a draft page, removing that link. When I saw the draft which was set to expire a few days later, I skipped it and didn't delete it because of my recent edit to the page removing that broken link.
 * Bots do play an important role in this process. Explicit, I and all of the editors who tag expiring drafts, use User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon as our tool for what drafts are getting stale. The bot lists drafts that are going to be going to reaching that 6 month date and since it produces a list a week ahead of time, every draft or user page gets reviewed again before it is deleted to make sure that no last minute edits have been made to the page in the past 7 days. SDZeroBot started creating these lists for G13s and PROD in September 2020 and it has made our job so much easier as well as editors at AFC who review drafts that are coming up on their expiration date to postpone deletions on promising drafts. It has become an essential tool for us (thank you, SD0001!).
 * There are approximately ~200 drafts that go stale each day although the daily actual number can vary from 150-600 pages. Having a guidelines of "last human edit" makes it pretty straight-forward process. If you want a more subjective measure for when a draft can be deleted as a G13, that would involve proposing a change to CSD policy and it would also require more time and judgment on the part of both editors who tag drafts for deletion and the admins who review those tagged pages. Those drafts which have had human edits but not ones adding content would not appear on the G13 soon lists. Of course, this is possible, policies do change, but I'd question whether editors would feel comfortable having more subjectivity added to determining when this criteria applies instead of a pretty straight-forward policy as it exists now. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 20:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As for Draft:International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, RoanokeVirginia's edit on March 27th counted as a human edit. They used a script but it is considered a human edit. That is why Explicit declined the original G13 tagging. Then where were now subsequent edits to the page, by you, Shibbolethink, and Explicit and these would mean that a standard G13 deletion was delayed until March 29, 2022 unless the page is edited again or goes to MFD. I also want to apologize for my subsequent edit summary for my declining the second CSD G13 tagging, it was unnecessarily glib. I meant it to be helpful but it reads as sarcastic and irritated. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 20:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Liz: You seem to have gone round the houses a bit but I don't think it really addresses the point that was raised here. In my experience, you seem to be a stickler for doing things "by the book" rather than sometimes considering WP:COMMONSENSE. I am surprised you opted not to engage with Shibbolethink's query on your talk page, even after I gave my 2 pence supporting their very reasonable position. I have disagreed and defended you on occasion and while it may be that there is a policy line that the CSD is declined because a human literally edited the page, I think in this instance, there won't be anyone suggesting it was a "standard" content edit. As I said on your talk page, I think the idea that a stale draft CSD could be declined in these circumstances is ludicrous, even if supported by policy (although, lets not forget that some policies exist for a reason to address that: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. "). Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology Liz, it's totally fine I did not interpret your edit summary as glib! I was more just surprised by it. But to echo Bungle here, yes I would say Liz's comments here really don't address the question of the thread. Are CSD tags in and of themselves, enough to make an article not stale? This seems to be literalist in the extreme, to the point of counteracting the actual point of the CSD criteria. It's intended to get rid of stale drafts which are not being used or made into an article. One would think that an article which has previously been ALMOST CSD-deleted should not be rescued by being CSD tagged and declined. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the harm in having a draft stay for six months longer that IAR needs to be invoked? Is there an unanticipated or emergency situation? Sdrqaz (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To answer your question with a question, what is the harm in deleting these pages that have not been edited in any way other than CSD tagging in 6 months? When they can be REFUNDed at any time? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At risk of stating the obvious, deletion makes content more inaccessible for both administrators and non-administrators alike. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone's going through drafts and sees something they think needs to be deleted right away - say, it's an attack page, or objectionably promotional, or whatever - we want them to bring it to the attention of admins, and the most straightforward way to do that is with a speedy tag. The last thing we want is for them to hesitate to tag because they think an admin might possibly consider it borderline enough to decline, and thus make it hang around for another six full months instead of the perhaps one or two it would've taken to G13 had they left well enough alone. —Cryptic 22:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's too harmful to leave around for another 6 months, but not harmful enough to speedy delete then take it to MfD. If it's not harmful enough to take it to MfD then it's not harmful enough that leaving it for another 6 months is problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A human tagging a draft for deletion as a G13 doesn't disqualify it from being deleted as a G13. Humans doing the tagging used to be the norm, back when the expectation was for admins to look at every page they were deleting instead of racing to speedy entire categories in one click with Twinkle, and sometimes even to decline deletion because the subject had potential rather than only for technicalities.A human removing a G13 tag may or may not do so.  It certainly does when the intent is explicitly to disqualify it from deletion for another six months, for instance immediately after a restoration at WP:REFUND or when the edit summary is something similar to "reset G13 clock".  If a speedy's declined solely for being tagged too early, though, I can't imagine anyone would've taken issue with it being deleted on the original timeline.  And if they did, well, G13s are restorable with little or no questioning at WP:REFUND. —Cryptic 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to clarify in response to "I could, in effect, simply wait until 5 months 29 days and tag articles, extending their life for a year" that G13 is a six-month waiting period, not twelve. If there is a desire to extend it to twelve, I'd advise creating a separate thread (though I believe it wasn't your intention).I don't really understand why there's a rush. G13 is a simple criterion and works well because it is objective – disagreements on its application should not occur if taggers read the criterion before tagging, and administrators read it before deleting. Adding exceptions in this instance would unnecessarily muddy the waters – this thread has shown that taggers are getting confused over what is a bot edit and what is not – wouldn't adding another caveat make it more unclear? Sdrqaz (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant "by a year" to mean simply that I was waiting 5 months 29 days, tagging, which would be declined, thus pushing it back another 6 months. Understand what I mean? 6 months + 5 months 29 days = 11 months 29 days, or in effect, a year. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This thread is not about bot edits, @Golollop. You have completely misunderstood. It is about whether or not a CSD tag, in and of itself, counts as an edit for the purpose of G13. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I know. But this thread came about due to you 'submit[ting] for CSD on WP:G13 grounds, thinking the preceding two edits would qualify as "bot edits" and not human ones to the article itself.' If people are having trouble with determining which accounts are bots and which are not, perhaps we shouldn't be adding more complication and exceptions to G13. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The policy is clear that G13 applies to drafts that have not been edited by a human for 6 months. A human adding a CSD tag is a human edit and so resets the clock as the policy is currently written. I don't understand why there is disagreement about this - the wording couldn't be clearer. Where there is legitimate scope for disagreement is whether this is what the policy should be. However, I don't understand why there is any desire to change things - what benefits does it bring to the encyclopaedia? Some drafts are sufficiently problematic that they do need to be deleted sooner than six months, in the significant majority of cases this is because it is a copyright violation or an attack page and these are can be, should be and generally are speedily deleted using criteria G10 and G12. If the reason it needs deleting sooner than six months is not one covered by a speedy deletion criterion then it should be nominated at MfD. If a speedy deletion is declined then it means that it isn't problematic enough that it needs to be speedily deleted and so it can be left for another six months or taken to MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC) It feels like there are two separate trains of thought here, one that considers what constitutes an "edit" to the point of being something to prevent a draft going stale, and the other that considers a draft's life existence as being immaterial and not something to rigidly be concerned about. Neither position, strictly speaking, is wrong, nor was Liz "wrong" (if interpreting G13 by the book) to decline it. The points raised about "is it harmful to reset the clock another 6mns" I think really overlook the point and perhaps the policy wording of G13 is too ambiguous that it can be interpreted too widely and entirely at one's own discretion. I take the point of SJ above about refraining from G13 tagging because there is already a process in place to handle drafts, but I stand by my view that I think the principle of a draft being tagged and reverted slightly early would constitute an "edit" is ludicrous. I imagine it'll be tricky to find consistency among sysops how to handle these situations, as no-one could really be pulled to WP:ANI for doing one or the other, so perhaps the earlier suggestion about this being focused on the CSD criteria itself, rather than at AN was the right call. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't tag for G13. It is not helpful.  Leave G13 deletions for automated processes, with the appropriate associated notifications.  G13's 6 months was fairly arbitrary, and the 6 month period is no the point of the deletions.  It doesn't matter if the six months becomes 12 or 18, the point is that abandoned old stuff gets soft-deleted out of caution, mostly for BLP or copyrights concerns.  If you think there is any real BLP or copryight concern, WP:MfD it.  Otherwise, leave the objective criteria to be interpreted objectively.  If a human fixes an apostrophe, that resets the clock.  There was a human watching, and caring. The prior bot edit has a problem that requires attention. There may be any number of reasons to keep it alive a bit longer, and given that you are watching, you can do the manual check for BLP or copyright problems.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If a human fixes an apostrophe, that resets the clock. There was a human watching, and caring. I think this ignores the preponderance of auto-wiki-bot, which randomly scrawls through pages looking for fixes and presents them to the end-user... Most people turn off the draft namespace when they use AWB, but certainly not all! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The end-user cared. The G13 clock resets.  It doesn’t matter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Bungle,
 * I wanted to respond to a couple of your comments in the middle of this discussion but I thought they'd be missed if I just inserted them into a conversation that had moved on. First, I should have engaged on my talk page. It is my biggest flaw as an editor/admin that I can miss or lose track of user talk page discussions. My talk page gets a lot of traffic, discussions can quickly move up to the middle of the page and I scroll to the bottom to reply and I miss seeing the messages further up on the page. My approach to talk page messages is to try to respond immediately or respond to multiple messages at the end of the day. But there is a lot of room for improvement on my part. If I could improve one aspect of my behavior on Wikipedia, it would be not to lose track of discussions that have started on my talk page.
 * Second, yes, I am kind of a stickler to the letter of the law here. See, I've been an admin since 2015 but it wasn't until 2022 that an admin decision of mine was brought to Deletion review, a noticeboard I had not really even been aware of until this year. Here, admin deletion decisions are scrutinized, critiqued and commented upon and I've found that at Deletion review, an admin's competency can be called into question. After you get taken there a couple of times, it can make one leery to do any deletion that is not clear cut and by the book. People can talk all they want about IAR and Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy but if one goes out on a limb in an AFD, you get called a supervoter and people start suggesting you resign. You start not applying the rules and you'll eventually see yourself in an Arbitration case. You can make hundreds of ordinary admin decision and you never know which one will get you sent to be reviewed.
 * Finally, to other questions, Drafts get deleted before they become CSD G13s every single day! Go to the CSD categories and you'll see drafts tagged for all kinds of infringements, copyright violations, lots of self-promotion, attack pages, nonsense pages, no admin would never ignore problems to keep a bad draft around for six months, that's not how things work. As I've said at WT:CSD before, many of the G13s I see every day are what I call "social media profiles", drafts or Sandboxes where young editors write autobiographies of themselves. They usually create these pages on the first day they are an editor and then they never, ever return to editing Wikipedia again. It doesn't "hurt" anything to have these pages in Draft or User space except for the time it takes for AFC reviewers to decline them. At times they are tagged for speedy deletion but mostly, no one ever sees them until they pop up on the G13 soon list and then we can address them.
 * Sorry for these long comments but I hope we can move past the rhetoric or hypotheticals and be grounded in how pages are determined to be G13s and then how they are handled. Like I said, we are talking about hundreds of drafts expiring each day and each are examined individually to make sure they qualify and I think our current system handles this efficiently. You start adding in exceptions to policy or asking admins to make subjective opinions and we will start seeing more disputes and we'll need more than our current 2-3 admins to handle their more complicated review. But it's a community decision and if you want to change the system, you are free to make a proposal to change the situation with G13s or any other category of speedy deletion. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 09:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Liz, not a problem, as I know your talk page traffic is somewhat heavy, to say the least. I can understand why you may be weary after the DRV back in April (which I remember, as I commented in it and offered you moral support at the time). This isn't an attack on anybody's judgement or decisions, but rather that there is split opinion here and maybe it's now becoming somewhat farcical, to say the least. I still think it's very daft this was declined for CSD and I remain in support Shibbolethink's position and views, however I also know that there is no consequence to the status-quo.
 * As for Thryduulf's comment, "every admin who has commented here" is far away from "every admin", although maybe the way I expressed that could have been considered differently; I guess what I meant is that this is one of those situations where you can have two binary choices, neither of which strictly speaking is wrong and that assuring consistency in a scenario like that isn't always clear-cut. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * in this case we have a choice between interpreting an unambiguously written policy with the clear, objective meaning it has or interpreting "have not been edited by a human" to mean "have not been edited by a human, unless the human edit was nominating the page for deletion or some other minor edit that was not intended to improve the draft." One of those is actually wrong, whether one is speaking strictly or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By your stated interpretation, @Thryduulf, wouldn't an admin be forced to decline every CSD G13 that was nominated by a human? As that nomination was, as you have said, a human edit? Are you saying that G13 should be removed as a human editor tag altogether? That sounds like a new thing, as I have had probably a dozen pages deleted via G13s I tagged in the past few weeks. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should be being declined. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a pretty hard turn for this CSD criteria which is included in Twinkle and RedWarn as a user-action. And is regularly employed by users every day. If that is your interpretation,Stating that a consensus for this already exists is ignoring the very real set of valid arguments being made on this thread, by admins and non-admins alike. If a consensus for this in favor of your position develops, I will happily abide by it. But before that point, I will continue to use CSD G13 for drafts that I stumble upon that are 6 months stale. it certainly is not how the tag is used in practice. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't explain why the criterion is included in those tools (I don't use them) but every human using G13 is wasting their time. If a draft was missed by the bot then let the bot operator know so they can fix the problem, if the draft needs deleting before the problem is fixed then that's what MfD is for. If admins are deleting G13s that have been edited by humans in the past 6 months then they need to stop unless and until the criterion is changed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, my days of thinking you should get into the trenches and actually do some speedy deletions before absurdly misinterpreting their intent and practicalities are certainly coming to a middle. —Cryptic 16:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is policy that is treated as being then the policy is nonsense - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and admins should not be blindly applying rules - in reality, there has been no work to change or improve the article since November last year, and treating someone fixing a unicode error or adding a deletion tag as an attempt to improve the article is ridiculous - those doing so deserve trouting.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not ridiculous to apply an unambiguously worded policy in accordance with its unambiguous meaning, especially when that policy relates to speedy deletion where consensus is to interpret the criteria strictly in all cases anyway. The policy does not include any consideration of the purpose of an edit so whether an edit was to improve the article or tag it for deletion is (and should be) irrelevant. If think a draft needs to be deleted sooner than it would be under G13 then nominate it at MfD not G13.
 * As for, given that every admin who has commented here so far has expressed the exact same opinion (i.e. any edit literally means any edit) I think you need to get a broader imagination. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The title of the CSD is Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions. If unclear, the text of the CSD should be interpreted in the spirit of this title. Adding a CSD tag, and removing it for procedural reasons, does not change its status as abandoned. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 11:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, because the criterion defines "abandoned" as "[has] not been edited by a human in six months". There is nothing that is unclear. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf: given that every admin who has commented here so far has expressed the exact same opinion (i.e. any edit literally means any edit) This is explicitly untrue. See the replies of Cryptic and CambridgeBayWeather above. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Cryptic appears to be arguing for what the criterion should be not what it is. CambridgeBayWeather appears to be mistaken about what currently happens. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying that we should never tag drafts as db-g13 again, because doing so would just "reset" the 6-month G13 clock anyway (so Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec become Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun respectively)? If the consensus is that we should stop tagging drafts with db-g13, then we could TFD the db-g13 template and remove G13 from Twinkle and AFCH (see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation). Until then, admins should continue deleting G13-tagged drafts that were tagged when 6 months have passed since the last edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The removal of g13 tag is what resets the timer. People remove the tag if they want the page to hang around longer. Adding it does not, but if it is added inappropriately then it should be removed. So don't apply/reapply it too soon! So just wait 6 months before adding the tag. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * While Thryduff -- a generally very perceptive editor -- is technically correct about what the policy literally says, their interpretation makes little sense logically. It's much more probably the case that the policy was written with the general case in mind, i.e. normal human edits such as the addition or removal of text, changing formatting, adding or deleting pictures and so on, and was not written with the addition of the template in mind. As human beings, blessed with the power of reasoning, we can either interpret the policy as it was almost certainly meant to be interpreted, or we can slavishly follow the literal words.  Pillar 5 tells us "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions", and I think that's the way to go in this instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If there’s one policy that must be interpreted literally, it is this one.
 * If the literal interpretation doesn’t make sense, fix the words, don’t abuse the standing of the policy.
 * The writing of G13 most certainly had “unedited” and “abandoned” in mind. Editors fiddling definitely breaks the original G13 preposition.  The driver was that no one ever looked to see that there was a BLP or copyrights violation.
 * Pre-managing draftspace ahead of G13 bots is not improving the encyclopedia. It shouldn’t be encouraged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s like someone sorting other peoples garbage on the street, making sure some random garbage gets taken sooner, and in the process they get in the way of the dump truck process, and occasionally even make a mess of the garbage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2022tht)
 * Literally speaking, yes, if a G13 tag is put by a human and then deleted, the clock is reset. But anyone who is going to argue that when complaining about admin abuse will likely be called out as a wikilawyer, and rightly so. The spirit of G13 is definitely not about just any edits but content edits, and anyway, instead of arguing, just do some good work. A clarification to this poorly worded policy is in order.
 * Ideally, though, G13 deletions should be generated by a bot, with admin oversight, and others should not be bothered. :Also, deleting stale drafts shouldn't be at the top of our concerns, there is no shortage of memory and there are much more important things to do than looking up for stuff no one cares about (for example, bickering on the talk pages of subjects people care more about :), or ideally just doing good edits to them). If the draft has potential to be an article, better expand it ourselves, and if it is problematic, there are other ways to deal with it (PROD or plain AfD).
 * Stop the academic arguments, start editing. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Can someone clarify for me: if there's no afc tag on a draft, does the bot still tag it? Unlike in userspace, it doesn't matter if something in draftspace has been submitted/tagged for afc to delete within 6 months, so if the afc tag is removed, wouldn't that require a human edit to do the csd tag? (In general, though, I broadly agree with SmokeyJoe and Thryduulf). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors often make minor/courtesy edits to promising drafts to postpone deletion. These definitely shouldn't be ignored. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Policy change proposal: draft
In light of the discussion above, it is proposed to reform WP:G13 in a way that removes ambiguities. The old and the new versions follow, changes are italicised:
 * Old: This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:
 * New: This applies to any pages without a human edit that visibly changes article content in six months. This applies to:
 * Sentence added to the end: :Nominating these pages for speedy deletion or proposed deletion, administrator actions to these nominations, as well as additions of problem tags to these pages without any further action, do not start a new six-month period.

This is a draft, feel free to edit it or suggest improvements. Let's resolve that ambiguity.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Szmenderowiecki I don't think the change to the first sentence is a good idea - people make null edits to drafts to intentionally reset the 6 month timer because they intend to work on them. Also AN does not strike me as a good place to be drafting policy changes, really this belongs on the talk page of the policy or at the village pump. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's the whole point: six months ought to be enough for everyone to make a substantial edit. If they can't but want to return later, they can copy the wikicode to their text editor/notes and return when they have time to edit by pasting it back. Six months is a lot of time, and anyway why'd anyone need null/dummy edits if they don't change anything and are simply made to delay the deletion.
 * The reason it is here is that we are discussing the issue here (it was already moved from the policy talk page), and splitting the discussion is not a good idea. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ought to be enough for everyone to make a substantial edit - This isn't just clarifying/simplifying but moving the goal posts to "substantial edit". If anything, this should just focus on "adding or removing maintenance templates" or the like. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we should incorporate the "substantial edit" definition. My idea is that if a human can't see any change in the article in six months, or if the only change is addition/removal of maintenance templates no one cares to resolve, G13 applies.
 * So null edits, dummy edits, or addition/removal of maintenance templates (including the deletion ones) do not reset the clock. If it is challenging to program a bot to detect dummy edits, then it is OK to remove that part.
 * If you have a better formulation of what I proposed, go ahead. This is not an RfC yet. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose this substantially changes the meaning of the criterion, makes G13 much more complicated for reviewers and imposes an increased burden on users of draftspace (G13 is bitey enough as it is). Have a look at past discussions of G13 in the WT:CSD archives (and that is the proper place for proposals to change speedy deletion policy) and you'll see consensus has consistently been against deleting more things under this criterion. The discussion above might support changing it so it doesn't apply to the addition of speedy deletion templates, but you'd still have to show that the WP:NEWCSD requirements are met and I'm not convinced they are (notably you've not shown that there is consensus that these pages need to be deleted sooner than at present, nor that this is something that happens frequently). Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of WP:NEWCSD, one by one:
 * Objective: we broadly agree what a null edit is, what a dummy edit is, and what a maintenance template is. To correctly determine whether G13 applies, you still have to look up page history for bot edits.
 * Uncontestable: policy change normally requires gauging consensus for it. What you are suggesting is a catch-22: according to your logic, I am supposed to prove there is consensus for broadening G13 with these particular criteria (which AFAIK didn't happen yet, so how do you know?), and yet you are against trying to know if there is any. Also, I don't change the six-month period, I just cut short any abuse of the rule by those wanting to keep their drafts indefinitely.
 * Frequent: no way to know that without seeing G13 articles' histories themselves, which I can't do. Speed and efficiency are important, but see, so is precision of wording, as is the case above (you can help with that, though). I do not expect that anyone is going to experience instruction creep: bot-generated G13 speedy deletions should not burden anyone. G13 should be one of the most straightforward criteria to program, with or without proposed criteria (hell, if we have automated systems predicting vandalism which more or less work, this should be a piece of cake). 99% of G13 drafts should be nominated by bots, and you don't really need more admin input for that other than creating a bot or adjusting it accordingly.
 * Nonredundancy. This is a new rule not covered by other CSD criteria.
 * So I think I answered all the NEWCSD criteria.
 * But Shibbolethink proposed a narrower resolution of the dispute, so maybe we'll discuss my proposal on the talkpage of CSD Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole point of draft space is to give people a place to work on new pages where they are out of public view and relatively safe from deletion. Expanding G13 has been repeatedly rejected at WT:CSD because G13 is only supposed to be a housekeeping measure, it is not supposed to be a deadline or a clock, and I can guarantee with near certainty that if you proposed this at WT:CSD it would be WP:SNOW opposed. It is not "abuse of the rule" to null edit stuff to keep it from being deleted - the criteria deliberately has very low requirements to object because deleting stuff that people are planning on working on to force them to go through WP:REFUND is a waste of time for everyone involved. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the content/intent of this draft, but I also think we could go with: "Tagging a page with G13 does not reset the clock, but removing the tag does." just added to the section right after the current setence "Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion". — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As I wrote above, editors often make minor/courtesy edits to promising drafts to postpone deletion. These definitely shouldn't be ignored. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Procedurally Oppose. This is an improper location to propose a policy change to WP:CSD.  Further, it is improper bordering disruption to use this venue as a staging ground to launch a policy change proposal elsewhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Policy change proposal 2: edit G13 to reflect what we currently do
edit is in green italics

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in: Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. Adding a CSD template to a page does not reset the six month clock, but removing a CSD template does. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Requests for undeletion/G13.
 * 1) Draft namespace,
 * 2) Userspace with an AFC submission template
 * 3) Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

This resolves the ambiguity and goes along with what several admins and non-admins have agreed should be and is the way we use this criteria.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Shibbolethink: but removing a CSD template does - I thought the whole point of this issue was the expectation that removal of the tag, particularly on this occasion, should not have reset the clock as it was a reversal back to the stale state, rather than a content change? I am also unsure if this is the right place to be considering policy change but I support the idea of less ambiguity in principle. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think mostly I just want clarity. Ultimately i agree with you it's a dumb thing, but I do agree that if somebody like the author removes it (like they can any CSD), then it should reset it. And I don't think differentiating "author removing it to reset clock" vs "admin removing it to reset" etc is worth it. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue. WT:CSD is the right spot for policy change proposals. – SD0001  (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See above collapsed section. If people agree its worth talking about then perhaps I can do an RFC at WT:CSD? is that okay with you? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support this change were it proposed in the proper place. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 21:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but are we really considering changing CSD policy because of ONE Draft that you wanted us to handle differently, Shibbolethink? Instances like you ran into happen very rarely when you consider the thousands of expiring drafts we deal with. Is it worth a policy change because we disagreed about the deletion of this one particular draft? This seems like a sweeping change to policy in order to handle incidents that rarely ever happen. For 90% of expiring drafts, they are not even tagged, they are simply deleted by an administrator right away. You are only talking about those rare G13 incidents that are tagged by editors that hardly ever work with stale drafts. It seems like a drastic response to a outlier case that happens infrequently. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 07:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Liz, I would encourage you to reread my proposal. It would not, in any way, change what you did with the draft. In fact, it would support your actions. I just want the policy to actually say as much. I feel there was some pretty blatant ambiguity, which some here think means that humans should never tag at all! I'm only interested in making the policy clearer! I don't care particularly which way we do it, except I disagree that humans should never use G13. I think that would fly in the face of what we actually do in practice!! (and an encyclopedia anyone can edit, to boot) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Stats
I did a database query to look at stats for G13 deletions to see how frequent this is. I found: ~6000 total G13 deletions in September 2022

~500 of them appear to have been tagged by a human. In all but ~30 of those cases the specific human is

6 of them (Draft:Navi Ferozpurwala, Draft:Helena Maria Carneiro Leão, Draft:Constitution of the World Health Organization, Draft:World Health Organization Executive Board, Draft:World Health Organization Secretariat, Draft:Moritz Pindorek) don't appear to actually meet the criterion by either definition.

* Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 21:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd agree Draft:Moritz Pindorek, Draft:Helena Maria Carneiro Leão, Draft:Navi Ferozpurwala all look like a clear mistakes. Draft:Constitution of the World Health Organization, Draft:World Health Organization Executive Board have what looks like a courtesy edit from Explicit, which would certainly make me decline G13. Draft:World Health Organization Secretariat, where Explicit just removed the G13, has an earlier edit that falls within the window but it was just disabling categories, technically an error too. There again, 6000 deletions with only 6 errors is not a bad rate. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that some of those drafts should be restored. One of these drafts had just been restored at WP:REFUND when it was tagged for deletion! One of them was a mistake I made that Cryptic addressed (thank you). Others were tagged by other editors and placed in CSD categories. Like I mentioned above, Explicit and I handle most of the G13s and we work off of SDZeroBot's daily list, we don't rely on editors finding and tagging G13s with CSD tags. Both Hey man im josh and Eternal Shadow are reliable G13 taggers who also work with the SDZeroBot list and I trust their judgment. But most of the drafts I see randomly tagged with CSD tags are incorrectly tagged, like those you have brought up here. Editors who don't work daily with stale drafts don't understand that we work strictly according to last human edit by time and day. We find drafts that are tagged days early or sometimes even months too early that can end up being deleted by other administrators. If I see them in the Deletion log, I will restore the mistaken G13 deletions that I come across.
 * I am just wondering though, * Pppery *, how can you see the deleted page histories to catch these errors? Those should only be visible to admins. Did you do a query and the page titles just pop up on a list? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 07:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Metadata about deleted revisions (the user, timestamp, and page) can be publicly viewed through Quarry or the API. Edit summaries and content of deleted revisions can be viewed only by admins. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 13:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of AfD query
I've received a request for WP:CBLANK to be applied to Articles for deletion/Sarah Waterhouse. Does this discussion merit blanking? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ it shouldn't need a discussion so I have gone ahead an completed the request. NOHARM is a thing. Spartaz Humbug! 07:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Generously courtesy blank any BLP AfD on request. Not Wikipedia-“notable” in itself is sometimes offensive.  Just blank on request, don’t ask for reasons. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood WP:CBLANK, but "Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration" suggested to me that I shouldn't just blank on request without discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say if this isn't one of the cases covered by "due consideration", pretty much none are. Xfd-privacy may be less intrusive than Courtesy blanked as it preserves the result of the discussion, but I'm fine with both. I'd especially also be fine with the template choice having been deliberate to minimize the amount of information remaining on the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Explicit requests from living people to hide administrative information related to their articles is considered a good reason here. Note that this will be an infrequent occurrence, as BLPPROD and A7 will weed out many such articles with no need to go to AFD. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 11:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on whether filter warnings alone are enough per WP:BEFOREBLOCK
On WP:AIV/TB2, DatBot reports users who've triggered specified filters a varying number of times. A rule of thumb for many administrators, including me, for when the disruption isn't in obvious bad faith, is that the user must be warned four times and blocked if they've vandalised (or attempted to) after the fourth warning. The variance in consensus comes when considering whether abuse filter warnings are part of those four. I'm of the opinion that seeing MediaWiki:abusefilter-disallowed and the like plastered across your screen when you're trying to vandalise pages should be regarded as identical to a typical Uw-vandalism1-4 warning, even when the user's talkpage is a redlink, but it seems this opinion isn't unanimous and other administrators warn the user when their talk page is blank.

Pinging some TB2 patrollers for comment:. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. "Four times" is a very conservative rule of thumb. Of course I take filter warnings and "Disallow" entries into account. If someone tries to run with their head through a wall, even in good faith, a block may be required and reasonable after (or even without) a single talk page warning.
 * As there is no formal number of warnings required before blocking, a discussion about whether filter warnings are a part of the non-existing requirement is a bit, hmm, unnecessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to address each case on its own merits. I weigh the nature of the offense and act accordingly. If the disruption is especially egregious, i.e. racist trolling, porn image vandalism etc, I just block on the spot. See WP:ZT. Other things I look for are, how many times they triggered the edit filter, have they been previously warned and or blocked, is there a history on the targeted pages of similar disruption that might suggest IP hopping or block evasion and etc. In general, I prefer not to issue a block w/o some kind of warning and ideally more than one. But it just depends on the nature of the problematic editing and the exigent circumstances of each case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To my mind, the user needs to be informed that what they're doing has an effect ("anyone can edit" is still a novel concept to the uninitiated) and asked to stop. How many times they need to be told that depends partly on the severity of their actions—gross racist slurs will get escalation much more quickly than the trivial "hi mum" sort of things—but ultimately once we're satisfied that it's not good faith we should block. We shouldn't tie ourselves up in bureaucracy and arbitrary numbers of warnings. Nor should we lose any sleep over short blocks of disruptive IP addresses or permanent blocks of accounts that clearly have no intent to edit constructively. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that 90% of the time. But there are cases where commonsense demands immediate intervention to protect the project from severe disruption. And quite frankly if you are repeatedly using (or attempting to use) the N word in reference to another editor or the subject of an article, then to my mind there are only two possible interpretations. You are obviously NOTHERE or you really don't understand how wrong that is, and are bonecrushingly incompetent to edit here. In either which case "you are the weakest link. Goodbye." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. There are some actions that, by their very nature, we can be sure weren't attempted in good faith. We should avoid extending olive branches to people who are only going to beat us with them. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not like repeatedly tripping the edit filters has totally no effect on the project. Some people use the edit filters to patrol for vandalism, and if someone is flooding those logs by repeatedly tripping filters, they should be blocked to eliminate that distraction. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Since it was my decision to block a user a) who had mostly been reverted for repeatedly removing sourced material without explaining or discussing, after having removed unsourced material without comment, b) who had been warned three times on their talk page and c) had been warned twice by the filter that seems to have triggered this discussion, I will weigh in. Some months ago, after declining an AIV report where the user had not been adequately warned via uw-attempt on their talk page for the edits blocked by the filter, a user, not an admin, actively involved in maintaining and managing the filters took me to task for this, noting that the user in question had indeed received more than one warning from the filter, and showing me what the filter's "Warn" message says, do this one more time and you will get blocked. So since then I have accounted for those warnings in deciding which actions to take. I do wish they could follow the same sort of escalating scale the talk page warnings do. But it is important to remember that human patrollers do not always start at level 1, either. For vandalism/BLP edits with a sufficient degree of egregiousness (i.e. open use of slurs, unsourced allegations of serious crimes, or basically anything that in my administrative judgement requires RevDel, I will start at a level higher, and if it's gone on long enough I will use only warning. Some newer vandal patrollers sometimes deploy that latter template, or a level 4, in situations where I would not. But ... in those situations I will support the patroller/reporter if the vandal continues and block. I may well disagree with the swift resort to that level of severity, but the text of the warning is unambiguous: do this or anything like this again even once and you will be blocked. We ought not to let that go unenforced. So, if I see from a user's filter log that they have triggered the filter sufficiently enough with clearly vandalistic edits to get a "Warn" response more than once, I will block them even if all the edits got stopped by the filter (albeit for shorter than usual) and they were never warned on their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * To be clear since I sense your first section is alluding to User_talk:DatGuy, that isn't what I'm referring to. I'm referring to instances such as the diffs I linked above, where due to what I'm assuming was a redlinked talk page (Reaper Eternal has yet to weigh in), a user was warned despite having a lengthy EF log filled with MediaWiki:abusefilter-disallowed. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Going by the first diff you posted, the user attempted 3 edits, so will have received 3 'disallowed' messages. By the standards you described above, another warning is not out of place. You could also consider that if they're attempting the exact same thing, then they clearly haven't read and understood the message. When it comes to AIV, your mission is to prevent future vandalism. Many times it involves a block, but many times it only takes a clear talk page warning and the orange bar of doom. Much of AIV stuff is about not blocking people. But generally speaking, I'll agree with what the responders above have already said. A bit of variety at AIV is a feature, not a bug. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify something, based on my practice, the "must be warned 4 times" is not a thing. "Must be warned" is a thing, but the use of templates is not required, neither is a minimum number of warnings.  Being warned, and given sufficient time to see the warning and self-correct is sufficient.  If a person has been told to stop doing something, and doesn't, they may be blocked.  I'm sure some admins err on the side of caution and use that as a personal standard for themselves, but I do not, and there is no rule that says that there are any specific formulation of a warning, or the use of specific numbers of warnings.  Furthermore, no-warning blocks are common enough (especially for IP hopping and obvious socks).  Fo non-sock blocking, I've been using the "any warning is sufficient" standard for most simple vandalism, and have never had a complaint in over a decade of being an active admin.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For really egregious vandalism, or serious BLP vios, or anything that to me requires RevDel, or a user previously and recently blocked for the same thing, I agree that there's no need to mechanistically stick to four warnings. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Cambodian New Year
Not quite sure what's going on at Talk:Cambodian New Year (see the history for edits today). Is it a sock? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like a very confused edit approval request to me? I think they want us to replace the current article with the version currently on the talk page. Licks-rocks (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a sock and has been blocked. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser for sleepers?
I know this isn't the normal venue, but the relationship between these accounts doesn't really need to be investigated, I'm just wondering if it would be reasonable to ask that a CheckUser see if the owner of these accounts has any others: At this point, I half-expect him to have more prepared, but don't know if a suspicion that he might is a good enough reason to use that tool. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I was writing this, EC protected the mainpage, so now it might be a moot question. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Compassionate727, almost certainly on proxies, so probably not going to find anything.<span id="ScottishFinnishRadish:1665536459209:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Figures. Well, thanks for the quick response. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no checkuser, so I may be wrong.<span id="ScottishFinnishRadish:1665536693005:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When you see that a checkuser has blocked 4 out of the 5 accounts, that's a pretty good time to place your bets on whether all 5 have already been checked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

RUSUKR and ITN Candidates
Greetings, recently the community ECP'd the Russo-Ukrainian war topic. There have been one current nomination and several comments by non-ECP users at WP:ITN/C (I count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 edits by registered users and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 edits by IPs). Pinging as an implementation issue. 213.233.110.47 (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping and the diff links!
 * I have now notified all affected discussion participants using User:ToBeFree/RUSUKR introduction and linked to that page at WT:General_sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian_War in case others want to use something similar. In the currently open discussion about the 2022 Crimean Bridge explosion, I have removed comments by non-extendedconfirmed users made after 06:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC). All extended-confirmed users may do so, and they may also educate the users. Administrative action only becomes necessary if that doesn't help. Protecting the page is currently not an option as the discussions covered by the sanction are only a small part of the entire discussion page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There were two comments after the Crimea bridge post by non-EC users (1, 2). There should be signs (maybe code comments under the section headers) that say these discussions are EC-only. 213.233.110.47 (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At the very least the nominations would need a line that it actually isn't allowed to be edited without EC. I have raised that at ITN talk. It just looks like every other nom, no indication of it being off limits. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was about to say "chances are the nominator wasn't aware of this either", then saw that has 69 edits. Well. I'll inform them about the sanction too, but it's too late to take action in this regard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry i if did not make myself clear. I was hoping that a line could be added to nomination headers in the future. I was thinking about how to make it less... akward in the future. You came out of the blue, bombarded me with notifications for just another comment at ITN, as i have done often over the years. In my case i even only commented under the header, not about the topic. Cbanned LaserLegs very likely socking was what my comment was about. But yes, under the EC protected header so not allowed. Not saying you are wrong in doing that, just that there is nothing for my side to even tell me i am doing something wrong before doing it. And unlike the many'common sense' rules, this one cannot be anticipated. So people who read that stuff, i know it is only a few haha, would know not to bother beforehand. Past is the past. Going forward, at least telling people about it where it is relevant could be helpful. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (Bombardment was certainly not my intention, sorry. Face-smile.svg) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, even if i only am a lowly IP, i have been around for many years now. I know you are just doing what you think is right and what the community entrusted you with. It just gets... unpleasant on the other side of the tracks sometimes. Especially when there is not even a hint as to why, someone swoops in, reverts comments, hand out DS notices, EC notices and all of that. And yes, i know full well that i could remedy that with a few clicks... but thankfully we all have the right to be as stubborn as we want to be haha. And i am sorry if i was unpleasant to you, just really cought me off guard on a lazy day. No excuse, but sorry nontheless. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While we're focusing on this, I share 91's concerns about this IP's edit being a quacking WP:DUCK of .--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:


 * is appointed as a CheckUser.
 * is appointed as a CheckUser.

The committee thanks all members of the community who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Request to overturn or at least limit my topic ban
I currently have a topic ban on editing anything related to religion or religious figures "broadly construed". It has now been in place over a year. I understand that some of my actions that preceded this were disruptive, overly combative and otherwise unwise. However that was in August of last year. I think it would be reasonable at this time to overturn the topic ban. If people are not willing to do this, I think it should be at least limited to edits directly related to religion, and no longer cover "religious figures" "broadly construed". That wording has lead to people trying to apply it against me in what seems to be ever increasing ways. There was notice on my talk page given about me editing related to the Wood Between the Worlds article when this was its content. I have been called up because I edited in minor ways an article on a political leader, not in elation to anything that related to religion, but because he happened to have been involved in creating documents defining government policy related to religion. The interpretation of some seems to be "broadly defined" means anyone who was an artist who ever created any work that was ever religion, no matter how little of their body of work was religious. I floated an example of someone who did some study at a place training people to be religious leaders, but left there without completion and has spent the rest of their career as a lawyer, government administrator and judge, and someone argued that little bit was enough to exclude. At this point the rule is not functioning to protect against disruption, it is functioning to cause me to have to worry about every broadening interpretations of what broadly defined is. I really think that after a whole year we could just overturn the topic ban, but at a minimum we should limit it to edits that in their substance actually cover religious topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm currently neutral with respect to repealing part or all of the ban, but I agree that a topic ban that could conceivably be construed to include any person who is verifiably religious (although I'm not aware anybody has yet attempted to do so) is too broad. Especially when, at a glance, the edits for which he was topic banned pertained to Mormonism specifically. On the other hand, I see a history of not getting the point that concerns me. I'll wait until others have commented before assuming a more definite position, but I think at minimum some clarification is warranted, and I'll probably push to narrow it so that marginally notable places in allegorical novels are not included. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One time someone did attack me for making what I think was a comment on my talk page that somehow related to Mia Love. Love is a politician and political commentator..John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , you are well aware that Mia Love is a very high profile Black convert to the LDS church, that she was featured in a national TV advertising campaign called I'm a Mormon before that church repudiated the "M" word, and that she and a photo of her were highlighted in a New York Times article about that ad blitz. Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * includes the exchange related to Love.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnpacklambert: By "attack", do you mean this question by Cullen328 on your talk page? If so, I fail to see how that could be construed as an attack; an explanation would be appreciated.
 * On the subject of Mia Love, she is indeed a politician; however, her religious views feature prominently in the article (and appear to form the basis for her political views). –FlyingAce✈hello 01:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I believe that when a user occasionally infringes the edges of a very broad topic ban and the edits have nothing to do with the disruption that saw them topic banned to begin with, we should ask ourselves if the topic ban perhaps isn't too onerous before we accuse them of prodding to see what they can get away with. I don't believe an editor should have to read oodles of articles out of fear of violating a topic ban while doing routine maintenance like fussing with categories. Having said that: John, you're really not helping your case here. The point of a topic ban is to send you elsewhere and give you time to cool down and rethink things: that you were watching an article from which you know you are topic-banned (you yourself admitted that you are very familiar with Mia Love from news coverage), and watching closely enough to notice category changes within two weeks of them happening, actively undermines the effectiveness of the ban. Essentially asking someone to help you circumvent your topic ban is also not okay. Moreover, you are not helping your case by distorting the salient issues. You could have frankly admitted that there is a religious connection in some of these topics, that you hadn't realized it when you made the contested edits, and that you would like to loosen your topic ban so that you don't have to worry about unwittingly infringing it when making edits that obviously have no religious dimension or motive. People would have been sympathetic and we probably could have reached some kind of agreement. Instead, you have tried to bury the religious aspect of these topics—did you think we wouldn't investigate and find out? This suggests a battleground, not collaborative, mentality: one more focused on vindicating yourself than reaching an amicable understanding with others. That doesn't work in a project like this.
 * I want to emphasize that I believe you are acting in good faith. I see that you noted on your userpage that you have Autism; I do too. Now that I have a fuller picture of the situation, it seems to me that you have been getting in trouble because you don't fully understand how other editors' perceive your behavior, and believe me, I'm sympathetic. Drop a message on my talk page—now, before your next appeal, whenever you want to have that conversation—and I'll gladly go over the unwritten rules with you. But modifying your topic ban before you understand those rules will just land you in more trouble in the future, and I don't want that to happen to you, so I will oppose for now. I want you to know that I have no hard feelings toward you and will gladly support an appeal when I think you are ready; let's work together to get you there. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This quote was posted on my talk page recently "Completely forget about trying to define where the boundaries are - simply keep so far away from the boundaries that you can't even see them. The vast majority of people on this planet, and the vast majority of BLP subjects in Wikipedia, have never had any specific religious education, have never had any interest in religion professionally, and have never uttered a word in public about religion. You should be fine with any of those. I would strongly suggest that if a BLP article contains any mention of any religious activity, any religious upbringing, or says anything about religious thoughts or comments from the subject... you would be safer to consider it closed to you. " That seems to be saying I should not edit any article on anyone who was verifiably religious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Short version: I oppose overturning the ban, and apologize in advance for the length of what follows. As someone who politely called this editor's attention to their editing of William Sayle (I assume this is the "political leader" referred to above) rather than just reporting them for a topic ban violation, I think that interaction is an interesting example to cite. That article has the word "religion" in the second sentence of the lead for good reasons, one of which is that the political events occurred in the context of the subject's religious leadership of the Puritan breakaway group that formed a European colony in the Bahamas for religious reasons. I understand why, having been notified of a possible topic ban violation, the editor would want to re-characterize the subject's article as something else, but it's not plausible to think that a ban on editing religious topics wouldn't include one of the pioneers of religious freedom in European colonies. So as far as I'm concerned, this appeal is already based on a mischaracterization of the situation.But the baseline problem here, as it has been before (see previous ANI/Arbcom discussions about this editor) is that this editor has fundamental and persistent challenges in applying the concept of "broadly construed" to his own editing, and a history of trying to figure it out by pushing boundaries and seeing what gets restricted. Whatever other purpose it serves, this topic ban on religion is a sort of ongoing test to see whether that problem is still a problem. Obviously it is, as the editor's own comments above indicate. Of course there are two simplistic solutions: one, remove all "broadly construed" restrictions on the editor, on the basis that it is too difficult for him to apply "broadly construed" language to his own editing; two, indefinitely block the editor, on the basis that it is too difficult for him to apply "broadly construed" language to his own editing. The first adds more of a burden on the community to monitor an editor with a long history of consuming the community's time with a recurrent cycle of apologies and topic bans and pleas and blocks and unblocks and second and third and fourth and fifth chances. The second frees the community of that burden, at the cost of losing future edits and making the editor feel bad. I don't think the editor wants the second solution, and I don't know whether the community wants either of these solutions. But in the meantime I oppose lifting this particular topic ban, since it is at least partly serving its purpose of keeping this editor out of editing areas where more attentive and collaborative participation than what they have previously shown is required. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Knowing there is additional scrutiny during this appeal, after receiving advice to stop testing boundaries, and after receiving advice to stay away entirely from articles that could be about religion at all, the editor responds by editing Jela Spiridonović-Savić, an article in which approximately half of the substantive text is about religion, spirituality, and mysticism in her work. Which, I guess, reinforces my point about a fundamental inability to comply with any restriction that requires interpreting "broadly construed". Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a totally unfair characterization of what occured. The article has an opening that states "Jela Spiridonović-Savić (11 January 1890 - September 1974) was a Serbian poet." The categories all talk about being a poet, etc, and one was an 1891 birth category. I read that intro and realized that it did not agree with the listed year of birth. That was all of the article I read before moving it to 1890s births category, since we have a conlict on what exact year this person was born. I did not review the article, which was unwise of me, because this seemed so clear cut, and I was thinking that poets are generally not religious in nature. This was not an attempt to push boundaries, it was an attempt to deal with an issue that had no religious nature, on an article on a poet, which is not an inherently religious thing. I should have delved deeper into what type of poet this person was. I am very sorry for this and have reversed the edit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lambert,that was a totally fair and accurate description of your bad behavior. The fact that you argue that you shouldn't even be required to review the entire quite short bio to see if it fell under your topic ban demonstrates you cannot be trusted to edit properly. Oppose any relaxation of existing bans, support site ban. (s) Vivian.
 * I no where said I should not be required to review the article. I reversed this edit. I just said that if I had not reviewed this article, I was not trying to test the limits of the ban, because I all knew when I made the edit was that I was editing an article on a poet in a matter related to how their birth was categorized. I have admitted that such an edit was wrong, but to say it was a testing of the ban when I had no idea what topic the poet had written on is not truthful. I realize now that I should have dug deeper, but at the time I was thinking many musicians, artists and the like have  religious subjects, but I was not thinking abut poets that way, specifically when the poet was not even described further in the lead, not in any categories that were not about poets. I recognize that I was wrong, and have reversed my edit there and apologized. The topic ban itself says I should be allowed to reverse edits when I mistakenly do not realize they relate to the subject of the topic ban, and I sincerely did not realize this edit related to the subject of the topic ban when I made it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am very firmly opposed to the concept of loosening the topic ban until we actually see that they can abide by the various restrictions they are under. He just returned from a 1 month ban for violating another topic ban they are under. That pretty much shows that they are still having issues with figuring out the boundaries of topic bans so I don't see why loosening one would be a good idea. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above that we need to see evidence JPL can edit productively with restrictions before loosening any. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs to demonstrate over a lengthy period of time that he truly understands his topic bans and have fully complied with them without any testing of the boundaries. A highly experienced editor should not be constantly claiming to not understand clearly written topic bans and continuing to probe around the edges. Fully comply without any boundary testing for at least six months, JPL. We do not need to waste volunteer time evaluating biographies where JPL tries to claim that the article is not covered by the topic ban and several other editors reply, "Oh yes, it is, per A, B and C". JPL should use a ten foot barge pole to stay FAR away from any such articles. His failure to do so is evidence that the topic bans should stand. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cullen328 and Ealdgyth, and IF's concern about JPL's lack of understanding of "broadly contrued". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and support 1-year moratorium on any further appeals. The point of the tban is to reduce the amount of editor time spent on JPL. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also support siteban per WTT and BK below, and if that passes, also with a 1-year appeal moratorium. Basically, I support whatever the heck it takes to not have to spend any editor time on JPL for at least a year. Levivich (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Too soon (non-admin comment) Appeals to topic bans generally are not likely to be accepted if you get caught violating one too recently. I support Levivich's moratorium to give a window for building trust needed for an appeal to have a chance. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As was pointed out, the editor violated the topic ban during this discussion. I appreciate their point that "broadly construed" could be interpreted so widely that it could include virtually anyone. But the expectation should be that editors and administrators will interpret it in a sensible way. We shouldn't change a decision because we have no confidence that editors will do so. I think too the editor should consider taking up Compassionate727's offer of assistance. TFD (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry about this, and have rescinded that edit. I think that does go to Fram's point. The article opened stating the person was a poet, and that is all the detail given in the opening, and the way the birth date was presented made it make more sense to categorize in 1890s births than any specific year, so it seemed an uncontroversial edit. I should have reviewed the article in detail and apologize for this mistake.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but..." can an execption be made for non-religious category editing in articles? Much of their work is correcting, adding, changing... categories related to either years or to migration, which is unrelated to the topic of the article (i.e. doesn't matter if the subject is religious, somewhat religious, or doesn't deal with religion at all). Having to check each article to see if it is related to religion, just to be able to change e.g. "Category:1890s births" to "Category:1891 births", is a nuisance with no benefits (yes, it's a nuisance of their own making, but still...). They should still not edit anything but the categories of such articles, and they shouldn't edit religion-rlated categories. Is such a tailor-made change to the topic ban acceptable, or not worth the hassle? Fram (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What Fram suggests makes sense. Still, I think it would have been better to see evidence of constructive editing completely outside of the TB area (say, editing articles about plants perhaps?) before asking for a loosening of the restrictions. I'm not sure a super-duper-mega specific restriction is the way to go, and I don't think it is reasonable to have to describe in minute detail every single scenario where the TB may or may not apply. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is very little, and probably not enough to sway anything at this point, but there were my edits to Robert F. Kennon, which has no relation to religion as far as I know. There are others. I have also spent some time creating missing emigration categories, such as one just recently for people who went from Italy to Greece, so that is something not related to religion. I see now this request was premature, and wish I could just withdraw it and go back to editing articles on people who were are in Category:1891 births, minus the ones who have any connection to the topic of the ban, broadly defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, John's primary interest seems to be categorization by dates and nationalities. A single exception clause saying he may modify the categories of religious figures so long as the catergories he changes are not themselves about religion would be simple, unlikely to cause complications, and consistent with the spirit of his original topic ban, which was just trying to cut down on polemics related to the Mormonism and Roman Catholicism. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Compassionate727: the thing is, he has already been advised to read the article first to ensure that it does not fall within the boundaries of the topic ban (even if the edit itself doesn't). Having said that, I think I would support one last try; maybe the single exception clause you mention plus the mentorship you offered. This is in the hopes that no more editor time is spent going back and forth on this topic, and Mr. Lambert can continue with his work fixing categories. A site ban at this point feels like overkill to me. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Like Fram I'd like to find some tailor-made change. For editors we know to be well-intentioned, I believe this is worth the effort. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I also would support Fram's proposed exception to allow for non-religious category editing. Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose" the 'but' RE Fram above is that JPL clearly cant grasp the concept of broadly construed. The problem with editors who have that issue is that defining ever more specific restrictions/exemptions does not help in the long run as it imposes an even bigger burden on everyone else to monitor it (the 'hassle'). The solution that works is generally to impose an even wider restriction (eg, banning from biographies altogether, absolutely no issue with arguing over 'is this person fall into broadly construed then'). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The editor clearly shows that he understands the ban ~ That seems to be saying I should not edit any article on anyone who was verifiably religious ~ but doesn't think it's fair (i think). Once he shows that he can actually abide by the ban the community imposed, then we can talk about relaxing it. I'm sympathetic to Fram's suggestion, but i don't believe it to be a useful modification. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 11:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose lifting the restriction. I looked into JohnPackLambert's editing two months ago as part of the arbitration case and my opinion was that a was required. Since then, he's spent half of that period blocked and has now raised this request which further makes me believe that he lacks the ability to edit the encyclopedia productively. I therefore would also propose an indefinite community site ban which I suppose should go in it's own section, but lets see if there's  any traction or it's just my opinion. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I voted against a site ban when it was part of the ArbCom case. I would now support such a sentiment given the block (I actually expected he would end up blocked a couple of times before it stuck), this appeal, but especially off-wiki evidence about Johnpacklambert. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I recognize that you can't get into specifics, but would it be possible to summarize in broad strokes what the off-wiki evidence concerns? Is this is about religious opinions that he has expressed off-wiki (which I saw mentioned in one of the ANIs), then I don't really care, but anything involving off-wiki harassment of editors, potential sockpuppetry, or the like would obviously be of great concern to me. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The off-wiki evidence isn't something sent to arbcom so in that sense it's not secret, but is protected by the OUTING policy. I am concerned about trying to summarize it too much without being able to link to it because I feel that gets into ASPERSIONS territory. Bottomline is that I think those postings, along with this appeal, suggests that Johnpacklambert has good intentions but can't understand the community's concerns about his editing in a way that would let him be a productive editor. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a very productive editor who has tried to improve the encyclopedia. I do not think it is fair to judge me for my expressions of frustration that I have put elsewhere. I have said things like "this ban was started because of x", but have generally acknowledged that x is only the starting point, and that my overall actions in relation to the issue were too combative and are what really lead to the ban. I maybe have not always worded those statements as calmly as I should have. However Wikipedia has no expectation that every mention to it be editors elsewhere abides by Wikipedia rules. I do not believe any of my statements outside have been such that they would reasonable be considered in considering what I do inside Wikipedia. I have spent the last year mainly going back through birth year categories sequentially. Most of my edits relate to Manual of Style compliance, fixing categories, adding missing categories, changing the way a birth place is described to agree with what the way the birthplace would be described based on the time of birth. The edits that have ended up being with problems with the ban have been accidental, and I have tried to reverse all of them as soon as I can see them. I am perfectly willing to continue doing this editing. Are there other articles and other topics I would like to edit, but I cannot. Sure. Did I hope that I could edit in some way those articles if the topic ban was overturned? Sure. But topic bans are not meant to regulate thoughts or desires, only actions, and I have tried my hardest to abide by the topic ban as it exists. I have tried my hardest even when I complain on facebook or other places about it to make sure that I acknowledge that it came about because of actions on my part that were disruptive and worse. I may not have always done that as much as I should have, but I have tried to make it clear that my explanation of the starting point is complicated by the fact there were a lot of disruptive actions on my part before we got anywhere further. Anyway, the truth is that right now if I could get this topic ban overturned I would edit a punch of articles that only say someone was born about a certain year but are in a specific year category to be in a decade birth category, and a bunch of other articles that I have seen where someone was from place A but lived a long time in Place B, but it is not categorized or not well categorized I would change. However I have no list of what these articles are, I just know I have seen a lot of articles in my review that had these issues in categories to address but I did not address because of the topic ban. I have not tried to make any list of edits I would do once the topic ban was lifted. I wish I had never even started this AN discussion. I have tried to be a productive editor of Wikipedia. I hope I can continue to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been a supporter of Mr. Lambert in the past, mostly with making sure that any block or ban was clearly defined because Mr. Lambert doesn't fully understand the concept of "broadly construed" and that's not necessarily his fault, completely. Nor is it the community's fault. Having said that this isn't fair to the community or our admins to have to keep investing in this editor. Mr. Lambert needs to learn to live with these blocks and operate within the boundaries in such a manner that he does not even appear to flirt with violating the ban. So far he has not shown he can do that without multiple "mistakes". Some are understandable and can be expected but others, as the Mia Love example above, are unexplainable. I would not be opposed to a full site ban but my first choice is to maintain the tbans in place. This discussion should be the only warning he gets that another mistake of the Mia Love kind will lead to a full site ban. We have countless editors that receive a tban for whatever reason and they have had them successfully overturned because they show they can edit without violating the ban. Mr. Lambert should receive no special treatment. Enough is enough. I believe he can do positive things and I am a full believer that his actions are done in good faith but, to this point, it doesn't outweigh the negative timesink he has become for admins and the community. If he is given another chance I hope he makes the best of it. -- A Rose Wolf  19:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Mia Love edit was a comment on my talk page before I realized comments on the talk page were not acceptable no matter how much the might intersect with the topic ban. I am sure I had at least one editor express the view that this was not an objectionable topic, and I had assumed that that was the view if multiple editors but I may have misremembwred the exchange in question and do not know where to even look it up. It was also last year, and I voluntarily withdrew it from my talk page. I am trying to abide by this topic ban, and am seeking to make sure to fully abide by the restriction. I rescinded the only ban issue edit I know of in the last month. I see now that I misunderstood some aspects of broadly construed and this discussion has been very enlightening to me. I will abide by the newfound insights here as I edit in the future. It would have been really helpful if there was a knowledgeable person I could have discussed this with privately. I did not know who to turn to, and did not realize that this would create such a negative reaction. I am very sorry I even opened this subject and wish it could be rescinded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Having said that this isn't fair to the community or our admins to have to keep investing in this editor. Mr. Lambert needs to learn to live with these blocks and operate within the boundaries in such a manner that he does not even appear to flirt with violating the ban. This is exactly where I come down and why I think a site ban is necessary because he can't/won't stop editing in problematic areas. Topic bans are meant to prevent disruption. Every time JPL has to revert an edit because he does not understand his topic ban, the disruption just moves here. It doesn't actually solve the disruption. @Fram's categories amendment could work if JPL only edits categories, but it's unclear whether that work is necessary. Basically does his work in categories outweigh the incessant drama board discussions? I don't think it does. Having seen some of the off wiki content, I agree with the others that there is no clear understanding here of why the sanctions are in place, and therefore the behavior isn't changing. It can't be all of us who are wrong. Star   Mississippi  15:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * …but can't understand the community's concerns about his editing…. Has anyone made a serious effort to work with him on this before? I don't know what caused him to be topic banned in the first place, but the current mess strikes me as some minor stuff compounded way out of proportion by his Autism. He has a handful of recent topic ban violations (some noted here, a couple others he has volunteered on my talk page) that I believe were entirely accidental (he's rapidly working with categories on large numbers of pages, there are bound to be a few mistakes), and he's scared to death of admitting the violations because Autistic people tend to think in categories with little nuance (e.g., he's either guilty of violating it or not; the idea of an innocent or innocuous violation would be difficult for him to grasp) and because the community hasn't always exactly been kind to him in the past (justifiably or not). The obvious response, offered by several here, is that he should just avoid the risk and go do something else, which I think is good advice and I plan to offer it to him myself, but "normal" people definitely don't appreciate how much minor incorrect details like that can bother Autistic people (even worse when they are violating categories, since Autistic people like categorizing things so much), especially when pretty much everyone who has bothered to address the categories thing recognizes that John's edits here have all been sound (because telling someone that their edits are good, but that they are actually bad solely because he made them, and therefore they need to be reverted, even though identical edits would have been perfectly fine if anyone else had made them is on some level absurd, and a person with Autism sees that very clearly).
 * I'm not saying this to deny that this behavior has been a source of disruption or to excuse it. I'm also not arguing that any of the sanctions against him are improper, although a slight accommodation along the lines that proposed would do a great deal to deescalate things (not that it stands any chance of passing). But the thing about disruptive Autistic people is that they generally just don't understand how other people are thinking about and comprehending their actions, and that understanding often can be taught to them: they just need someone who understands how they think to explain how other people think to them (society's unwritten rules for conduct, so to speak). I genuinely think he just needs a mentor who understands him; I'm not a therapist, nor much good at teaching, but I think I understand him well enough that I'm willing to try. I know mandatory mentoring has been experimented with in the past here; perhaps something like that is in order? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Full site ban. Tban was offered in lieu of full site ban last summer, to free up the timesink this editor has become for the community in religious and religous adjacent articles. Editor has circled around the edges near continously in the last 13 months, racking up multiple blocks for violations. Because their entire reason for editing WP is to edit about religion. Editor has proven to be a timesink when not under a tban, and a timesink when under a tban. Loosening the tbans restrictions to let them edit some parts of religious articles and persons will just be a first step for them to argue that the rest of the tban is just as onerous for them. Because their entire raison d'etre for being here on WP is to edit religious articles. No matter where you set the line, they will be there trying to skirt it, arguing for its removal, racking up blocks, and dragging dozens of other editors into the quagmire. Just let it end.  He  iro  17:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge I have only been banned once for violating this topic ban. This is not something that has lead to my editing being restricted more than once. And that restriction was 10 months ago. Now maybe I should have figured that was too soon, or have considered issues related to other restrictions. Bur to create a full Wikipedia ban just because I once was banned because of a misunderstand of the scope, or because of multiple ANIs that did not result in a ban and were often found to either be created by people with their own huge issues with the rules, or in one case applying it to all members of an ethno-relugious group that was heavily ruled out to other editors, or because I did not understand the right amount of time to wait to ask to rescind the ban does not seem fair. I had no idea that asking that a ban be removed would be seen as disruptive in and of itself, and I would gladly just erase this whole discussion now if I could.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I request to close this with no action so that we can avoid these ever increasing attacks on me. I do not think it is fair to argue to more stringently enforce this ban because of something that is related to another ban. Also, the claim that my entire reason for being here is to "edit religious articles" is clearly not true. I have spent the last year making huge amounts of edits which relate to things other than religious articles. I have had a few cases where I accidentally and inadvetently made edits related to this ban. They have not been intentional. I am not sure what this mention of "off wiki evidence is", but I do not see any justified way to restrict my actions on Wikipedia based on what I may have said in other forums. Wikipedia restrictions apply to actions on Wikipedia, and cannot reasonable be extended to restrict people based on what they may or may not have done in totally different forums.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the only edit I have made since I was allowed to edit Wikipedia again that was problematic was the one mentioned above, that I have both apologized and reversed. This does not seem to be the type of edit that it is reasonable to ban someone from editing Wikipedia for. This is the first time I have ever made a proposal at AN. I did not realize that merely making such a motion would be treated as grounds for punishing me. I have really tried to abide by this topic restriction. I was not trying to be disruptive. I did not know that making such a motion would be seen as grounds for proposing these much more restrictive solutions. I do not think this response is justified. I have tried to avoid editing any article that comes under the "religious figures broadly construed" rubric. For example multiple times there was an article on an artist who I wanted to add or edit categories based on when they were born or other topics clearly not related to the subject of the topic ban, artists who specialized in painting contemporary to them political leaders or still life paintings, but I still dug down through the whole list of their works to ensure that there was no conflict. I have been trying to check and double check articles when I think there might be a conflict and to err on the side of caution. I have tried this over and over and over again. Occasionally I make mistakes, but when they are pointed out to me, or when I realize them before they are pointed out to me, I quickly and completely reverse these edits to avoid any problem. I am very sorry I made this nomination and wish I could have done it a different way, but I do not think banning of editing is justified because of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose site ban The single recent violation has been acknowledged and reverted. JPL has apologized. Let's move on. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Cullen [20:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)] see below Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 01:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support finding some way to adjust this so that JPL can make productive edits. It doesn't cost us much to customize. We spend as much time wordsmithing our opposes. :D Valereee (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrevan and Cullen. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 21:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth I formally withdraw this request.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Levivich, Oppose and support 1-year moratorium on any further appeals. It's funny how the very vast majority of editors under restrictions have no trouble discerning what "broadly construed" means and how to avoid infringement. JPL has over time proved himself frequently disruptive and an enormous timesink. This is yet another timesink. If he can't learn to act within Wikipedia boundaries after all of this time, I do rather wonder how long he is going to last here after this. Competence, after all, is required. JPL, at leaast six editors here support a full site ban. So if there are any more timesinks or disruptions, it looks like you are out the door. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose lifting TBAN and support a 1 year moratorium on appealing per Levivich and Softlavender. Oppose siteban for now, but the fact that it has gotten even a little traction should be a final warning to JPL that his behavior needs to change immediately.  Pinguinn     🐧   07:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removing or changing the T-ban - WP:NOTTHERAPY and starting to look like WP:CIR with the repeated lack of clue and repeated "accidents" after multiple warnings and short blocks. OrgoneBox (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removing or changing topic ban. No grounds for doing that yet as evidenced by the recent infraction. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I missed Fram's amendment suggestion when I posted earlier. I support that amendemnt which seems sensible. DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Fram's amendment suggestion. The purpose of a TBAN is to reduce disruption, and usually "broadly construed" is an aid to that.  In this case, for idiosyncratic reasons, it is the opposite.  Fram's proposal will align the purpose of the TBAN more closely with how it functions in this particular case. --JBL (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Site ban for User:Johnpacklambert
I mentioned last night that I would propose a site ban, and I see that since then we've had a handful of support (about half a dozen) and a smattering of opposition, so I thought I'd make it a formal suggestion. To be clear, Johnpacklambert has reached the end of community patience, including an extensive topic ban. In the recent Arbitration case, a site ban failed at 3 votes to 9, with the hope that three more topic bans would help. In response, Johnpacklambert generated over 5000 words on the proposed decision talk page asking a pile of what if's. He then proceeded to get himself blocked for a month, and immediately returned to ask for a topic ban to be lifted! It is quite clear to me that Johnpacklambert will not be able to abide by the topic bans that have been placed upon him, because a) he does not accept the gravity of the situation that he's in and b) he's looking for every possible way around them, be it asking incessantly about boundaries or testing them or asking for the entire topic ban to be removed in the face of near unanimous opposition. A number of individuals above have talked about a "last chance" - but I have to ask, how many last chances does one person get? More importantly - has Johnpacklambert ever acknowledged that any of his previous chances were opportunities to change? What is different this time?
 * Proposed - formally this time. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 18:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with it being appealable once every year. I am shocked that Lambert has not been banned yet. Mr. Lambert has shown zero indication that he has or is willing to productively learn from any of his sanctions when given any leniency. No amount of apologies from him will change this. Only a long-term ban is left as a possible option to finally get Lambert to understand the gravity of his problems. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, it is clear that JPL is a net negative to the project. Agree with the annual appeal restriction to prevent him from being an even bigger time sink than he already is. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Put in a six-month moratorium on such requests. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This topic ban has been in place for 13 months. In that time I have only ever made this request for having it lifted. I do not think a reasonable reaction to it would be imposing a siteban. The topic ban's own wording admits its exact limits are problematic. My exampkes may have not been good, but they were ines I also wilfully rebersed when they came up. I do not think people who have tried abiding by limits and quivkly resoonded to the issues when thry are brought up should be punished for mentioning issues they think make the ban inadequate. I have strived to abide by it as best I can. On the issue of the recent The recent problematic edit I reverted as soon as I realized that it was problematic which is an action allowed by the topic ban in cases where the issue is unclear. I made a mistake there and very, very sincere apologize for it. I do not think that is a reasonable grounds for banning me, nor do I think banning me because I made one unblock request after 13 months is reasonable either. I will admit this was a too soon request, but I do not think that in and of itself is reason to ban me. I do not think punishing someone for trying to get exact guidance on a limit of a ban as this proposal seems to do is reasonable. The fact that some of my hypothetical questions came up with a yes I could do that seems to indicate they were not really unreasonable. If I asked too many questions than I apologize for it, but to treat that as background to this request seems unfair. I see now I should have waited for making this request, and when I made it I should have been much more succinct. For both of thoss I am sorry. I do not see how a site ban is a reasonable reaction to this and even less how it could at all be a reasonable reaction to the most recent edit which I reverted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * TLDR applies - and your wordiness has been raised as an issue in this very proposal. GiantSnowman 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am saying that I do not think after 13 months requesting a ban be lifted should be grounds for imposing a harsher ban, not do I think that an inadvertent edit that I did not realize was problematic and reverted as soon as I learned of it, especially when the ban itself allows that option to deal with problems, should be grounds for imposing a more harsh ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per my own observations above and other editors' observations for years about intractable behavior, and per the reasoning summed up in WP:OWB: One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. Breaking up is hard to do, but it's time for everyone to move on to other things, here or elsewhere. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Levivich (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not convinced that editing Wikipedia is particularly healthy for Johnpacklambert. Shortly after his recent block for violating his topic ban, Johnpacklambert posted on his talk page about "feeling empty on the inside", and in the following period he posted numerous discussions on his talk page, counting down the days until he returned to editing (30 days, 28 days, 27 days, 24 days, 15 days, 10 days, 9 days, 7 days, 3 days, 1 day). While I do not doubt that John finds enjoyment out of editing, I am concerned about the impact this site is having on his mental health. To publicly count down the days in this manner suggests an addiction to Wikipedia, and when read alongside the comment on "feeling empty on the inside" and comment on panic, I believe this may be one that is impacting his life off-wiki. As a fellow autistic I can certainly sympathise with getting enjoyment out of editing, especially when this site has a rather large number of neurodiverse editors, but I can't help but keep Tamzin's guidance in mind when it comes to letting Wikipedia harm your mental health.  I will happily strike this !vote, if John can assure me that his off-wiki life is not suffering because of his on-wiki presence. However given the breadth of his commentary during his recent block, I would suggest that it needs to be stronger than a single sentence like "I assure you that editing Wikipedia is not impacting my off-wiki life." Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My editing Wikipedia is not harming my non-wiki life. Counting down to upcoming days is something I do a lot. When I first did it someone responded that this was a "novel approach" which I thought indicated it was an appreciated approach. I did it every few days to track things. I had a full and engaging life in other aspects of this, and just posted the countdowns because I like to count down and compare numbers over time. My life was functioning just fine, and I think this is an overly negative reading of a very common occurrence by me of tracking numbers and things over time. I was not trying to be disruptive, and that first reaction made me think that at least some people liked it. Since then I have tried to focus only on editing article contents and avoid anything that could be problematic with either of the bans. I made one mistake because I did not look deeply intl the article when basically moving it to the 1890s birth category because of unclarity about the exact year of birth. I am very sorry for that and would like to apologize. I have been doing various things including planning a major birthday trip with my wife, and took on a new task that involves me committing 5 hours each Saturday just as that ban was imposed. I have a full and engaging life with work, family and other responsibilities. I also choose to commit some of my time to editing Wikipedia, and I seek to improve categorization, style and other issues on articles. I maybe should also seek out more chances to add sources to some articles and overall expand content. My most recent attempt along those lines was focused on finding content that would allow us to accurately describe the name of a place someone was born when they were born. I didn't actually find any source that pointed to that but did make a post on the talk page for that article suggesting that we should seek more information on that front. I am trying to improve Wikipedia by my editing, and have and will continue to make sure to throughly review articles before editing. For example there were at least a few articles on artists described as painters of still life's that I saw some way they could be improved by editing but when I found that the artist had also had a small subsection of his work with a religious theme or placed in a religious institution I moved on and did not make the edit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For anyone wondering: counting things is indeed an idiosyncratic behavior common in people with Autism. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per Sideswipe9th, out of compassion. These discussions are torturous. Ovinus (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support--who, really, is not tired of this? It's been going on for years, this constant time sink. In addition, I want JPL's talk page to be blanked per WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ironically enough, most of his talk page consists of deletion notices that he is topic-banned from doing anything about. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What bothers me is the enormous number of posts that essentially call on proxy editors, and the jeremiads about Wikipedia: those really are NOTFORUM violations. And on talk pages we give more leeway than elsewhere, but this is just way too much, certainly when compared to the drama. What is JPL's carbon footprint for AN/ANI posts? Drmies (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Any benefit that JPL's editing brings to the encyclopedia is outweighed by the amount of disruption and wasting of editors time caused by his inability to keep to his topic bans, his constant questioning of them and sheer amount of TLDR he brings every time he is at a noticeboard. Enough is enough. If this proposal fails can we implement the 1 year moratorium on any further appeals mentioned above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Question This only seems to be going one way. Is everyone confident of understanding what impact (if any) his disclosed autism has on his editing and that there has been reasonable accommodation of that impact? In particular, how it might impact his understanding of "broadly construed". I assume so. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've argued at length above that it has not been. In fairness, John's Autism seems to be especially severe (by Wikipedia editors' standards), so this is not entirely the community's fault. From what John has posted on my talk page, it seems clear to me that he does understand what "broadly construed" means, but routinely accidentally infringes it because of his patterns of editing (working within categories on large numbers of pages) and because he only reads the lead of an article to check if the subject is a religious figure, not the whole thing (understandably so, as reading a whole article every time he wanted to change a category would be onerous). I believe he has disputed his violations here because he felt like he needed to (because Autistic people categorize so rigidly, he thinks that admitting them would be admitting a need to be punished, which he is, of course, trying to avoid). One solution would be for him to stop editing categories, but I think that would be a waste, as devoted maintenance of categorization is the kind of simple, highly repetitive task that Autistic editors (and few others) both enjoy and excel at. I have argued that a modification of his ban permitting him to edit non-religious categories on religious figures' articles combined with mentorship from someone who understands Autistim (e.g., me) would mostly diffuse the disruption, but the community seems more interested in punishing John than working to accommodate him and make him productive again. A shame. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, let's not insult people with autism by using that as an excuse. We've had thousands upon thousands of editors with autism who are not disruptive. John is disruptive because he chooses to be; his autism didn't make him do it. And if it did, well then that's just too damn bad that his case is so severe that he cannot work with others (although if that's the case, I wonder how in other contexts he seems able to communicate with neurotypicals here and elsewhere without issue). If you haven't read what he's been writing on his social media, read it. Autism, my foot. He is abusing autism (and Christianity) as a shield against his own behavior, claiming that when people call him out for it, they are persecuting him for his religious beliefs or autism. It's despicable, and an affront to Christians and autists everywhere. Levivich (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked a question and made no assertion. I don't think I insulted people with autism. So let's leave the over-hyped invective out. DeCausa (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do others get to use this language with impunity, and yet I am being raked over the coals in part because I accidentally edited an article that I did not realize fell under the topic ban, and willingly reverted the edit when I found out about it. In one of my recent posts elsewhere I did say something about my feelings about some of the starting events, but I also freely admitted that the outward appearance was not quite true and I had been far too beligenerent and quick to attack and take offense and worse. That was over 13 months ago, when this started, but I do apologize for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * JohnPackLambert, "I accidentally edited an article that I did not realize fell under the topic ban"--that is not why we're here, and that you'd say that is yet more of a reason for me to support a ban. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is extremely unfair to accuse John of using Autism as a shield when he has not once mentioned it since this discussion started. (I'm the one who keeps bringing it up, and I learned it from his userpage.) As for his social media use, I think discussing that comes uncomfortably close to a violation of the outing policy and would request that you limit yourself to using his on-wiki behavior to assess the disruptiveness of his participation in the project. I'll wait to comment on the issue of his choosing to be the way he is instead of Autism making him that way until I'm calmer, but I want to note now that I find such a reductionist description of the issue both inflammatory and unhelpful. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * abso-f'ing-lutely not. If others want to play this game of pretend, they can go ahead, but I am not going to pretend that when a person published something in one public forum, they can then go publish something else in another public forum, and the rest of us have to pretend like what was written in the first public forum was never written. This is total and complete BS, outing policy or not. Yes, I support a siteban, in part due to John's on-wiki behavior, but in equal part due to his, what I would label harassment of other editors, on social media. If you say it in public, you say it in public, it doesn't matter which website you said it on. Out of respect to the outing policy, I'm not linking or quoting or naming the specific social media site, but I absolutely will take it into consideration; I won't play this silly game of pretend. Levivich (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If they are harassing editors off-wiki, that information should be provided to the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise, I will remind you that the outing policy says: The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 04:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They already know; some arbs have mentioned it in this thread. But you're right; if this doesn't get consensus here, I am contemplating asking arbcom to make a decision that expressly considers the off-wiki evidence. I just don't understand how any thinking person, such as yourself, can tolerate the cognitive dissonance of pretending that something he wrote in public doesn't exist because it's on a different website. That's not how life works. Levivich (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, the off-wiki stuff is ongoing, including during this entire discussion, even in the past 24hrs. It's new stuff, not old stuff. Levivich (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just read it. He's saying the same stuff that he's saying on-wiki. As JPL tends to do, he's repeating the same points over again. I don't see that it it has any significance. DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Levivich: It is extremely unfair to accuse John of using Autism as a shield when he has not once mentioned it since this discussion started. I'm not 100% sure if the TBan JPL Is appealing is the one I originally advocated for or if that has been lifted and he was re-sanctioned via ArbComm, but that's not entirely accurate when he accused me of acting against people with autism, which to me reads as if he believes it should be a shield. FWIW, he's disruptive. It's moot whether or not Autism made him do it. Star   Mississippi  01:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I am disappointed to learn he's done that, AFAIK my observation is still correct; the comment you refer to was made over a year ago.
 * As for the rest of your reply: I agree that he has been disruptive, but he has also been doing useful things; I don't want to block him until a solid effort has been made to explain what he has been doing wrong and what he should be differently (repeatedly throwing sanctions at him doesn't count). I'm not aware that anyone has attempted to do so. I'll handle that myself, but I want to wait to do so until after things have calmed down a bit, and meanwhile I don't support a ban because I'm unconvinced there's a competence problem beyond not understanding how others think. Even if he doesn't have enough clue to learn the rules for socializing on his own, he might have enough to apply them once someone explains them to him; that's how most learning happens, after all. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're not aware that anyone has attempted to explain what he has been doing wrong and what he should be differently, then you just haven't read the history. In previous years, such as when JPL was getting in trouble for his AFD participation, I and others had strenuously argued against sanctions against JPL, and many, many people repeatedly tried to give him advice. Have you read his talk page history for example? Have you read the previous ANI threads? The arbcom case we just had? Those pages are full of people giving friendly and helpful advice. This very thread is full of people still giving helpful and friendly advice. I don't see where JPL has listened or meaningfully responded anywhere -- and I don't mean self reverting. I mean a pattern that looks like: JPL had problems, JPL received advice, then JPL changed his approach and there were no further problems. I don't believe this has ever happened. The only way we end JPL's disruption anywhere, it seems, is by TBAN him. Whether it's autism or whatever the reason, he seems incapable of adapting and truly collaborating. He can only edit here if he's being babysat by restrictions. But hey, feel free to offer to mentor him if you want. If you can make a difference, it'll help us all. Levivich (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a lot of stuff there and it's hard to know exactly where I should be looking, so it's certainly possible I've overlooked something big. [N]ot aware that anyone has attempted to explain what he has been doing wrong and what he should be differently was sloppy wording on my part, I meant more that I'm not sure anyone has attempted to explain things to him in a way he would understand. That is nobody's fault: it's clear that John Pack Lambert's Autism is more severe than most editors', so I'm not surprised that thus far people have been unable to distill the issues in a way he actually understands. I don't truly know if I can, either, but because I have it too, I probably have a better grasp of his mind than most people. I intend to do that regardless of the ultimate outcome of this, but I want to wait until everything is settled because it will be easier to communicate with him when he doesn't feel like everything is an accusation he urgently needs to defend himself from. And I would prefer that outcome not be a permanent site ban because with his history, I fear he would never be given another chance to prove he had changed. I understand why you and other editors feel like a site ban is at this point the only recourse for the current disruption, and maybe I'm just being arrogant or stubborn, but… well, I don't know, I don't really have a good response to that. But that is how I'm thinking about this, at least. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, the other issue is that site-banning him for requesting the modification of his topic ban would feel dirty to me. I know the way he went about it was tone-deaf and clueless (that's one of the things I'll talk to him about), but he really was just looking to fix things when it became clear that his activity modifying categories on biographies was likely to keep causing minor, accidental infringements. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * this is a tough one; I don't think there is a clear right answer here, and I respect that the editors who oppose a siteban are opposing for valid reasons, not because they're stupid or naive, and they're not excusing bad behavior of anything like that. Similarly, the editors supporting aren't doing so gleefully or because they're vindictive or coldhearted. Please don't believe that anyone here is supporting a site ban because JPL appealed a topic ban: that's not the reason, it's just the latest prompt. Before this recent arbcom case, when things were still at ANI, I proposed a deletion TBAN against both Lugnuts and JPL, and I said that if we didn't do it then, it'd end up at arbcom and they'd end up doing it, except it would take up a ton of editors time to get there. Well, that's exactly what happened: we lost, by my estimate, well over 100 editor-hours to that arbcom case just to end up at the same place: a deletion tban against both of them. What a waste of volunteer time that was! I wish everyone had listened to me (as I always do, right!). Since then, JPL has gotten blocked, counted down the days until the block, while trying to proxy edit (on and off wiki) and basically trashing Wikipedia editors generally as well as specifically-named ones (off-wiki), and when he gets unblocked, like one of the first things he does is appeal, with an incredibly disingenuous plea about accidental edits and not understanding why he's tbanned. That's why I support a site ban: because he wastes the rest of our time, over and over again. You'd think he'd keep his head down upon his return and do something productive before asking for any more editor time to be spent on him, but he seems to have zero ability (or willingness) to be considerate of others. He is, at base, a selfish editor, who expects everyone else to spend a great deal of time helping him figure out how to edit -- and trashes us when we don't want to do that., indeed! And that's the point. This has been going on for years. I've personally been involved in JPL threads for years, and I know it predates me by like a decade. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of editor hours have been spent on helping JPL edit. I am of the opinion that it's not worth it: we could have spent that time helping 100 other editors instead. But others may feel differently and I respect that; both sides here have good faith reasons for their votes. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , if you can reach him then you are better than the some odd twenty other editors that have tried over the past two years. Everything was explained to him in detail. We even helped him formulate questions to ask about his ban, asked for clarity for him when he didn't know what to ask, and encouraged him to find other areas of the encyclopedia to edit which would keep him far away from any "accidental infringements". ArbCom even had a go at it and they came extremely close to banning him completely. I haven't agreed with every decision ArbCom has made in the past but that would have been merciful for him and the community. Many of us did everything we could with compassion, understanding and an abundance of good faith. When I say he doesn't understand you need to know that comes from someone that spent months reading over his talk page, responding to his inquiries, offering advice to keep him out of trouble and trying to deflect criticism to give him the space he needed and the support he needed to flourish under the ban with the intent of him finding a way to be productive eventually without the disruption only to have him reject almost all advice and place stipulations on how you may address him and what advice you can give to him. I support everything has said above. If you want to take on the task then I say good luck to you but you better be ready to invest a lot of time and be ready to see it end in frustration. I applaud you position and your desire to want to help. It's the same place I was at with Mr. Lambert months ago. -- A Rose  Wolf  11:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're coming at this from a good place @Compassionate727, but I'd underscore the words of @Levivich and @ARoseWolf elsewhere in this thread. The reason(s) that JPL has been blocked are because explaining hasn't worked. He isn't willing (or able?) to understand the issues over the long term. He'll edit incorrectly, apologise, and then wikilawyer to death on why he shouldn't be blocked because [insert wall of text]. I hope you are able to reach him, but I'm not optimistic. Star   Mississippi  00:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Upon further review I am extremely unimpressed with JPL's responses here and do not believe he will be able to meaningfully change his pattern of behavior, which has become a major waste of time. I am sympathetic to DeCausa's question but ultimately we all have to follow the same rules here, and no reasonable accomodation should allow timewasting and rule flaunting.  Pinguinn     🐧   22:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've already extensively explained why, including in a comment just above here, so I won't waste everyone's time repeating myself. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support For both compassionate reasons and that JPL's involvement is a net negative for the encyclopedia project. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry about the accidental edit on the article on the poet, and reverted it as soon as I learned of it. I would also point out in 13 months this is the first time I have made a request to change this topic ban. I do not think treating this request as totally unacceptable and a reason to ban me is reasonable. I reverted the edit as soon as I learned of it. It was a total and complete accident and I was not trying to flaunt any rules. I am very, very sorry. I would hope I could be allowed to continue to edit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is there any evidence he hasn't complied with the topic ban? If not, then what would be the point of this? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean really, the guy requests his topic ban be removed and you folks all try and get him banned from the site? What a friendly community lol. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Johnpacklambert's request for removal of a topic ban isn't enough ground for a site ban. That discussion could have been kept short and then closed, but this looks to me like "getting rid of unwanted editors". <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C 00:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On the issue of counting. I at times make tables of how large certain Wikipedia categories are. I loose them, and do am not easily able to use them for co.oarisons over time.To compare over time is the main reason I for a time posted the number of articles in the living people category. It is also the main reason I post the before and after with some of the birth year categories I review. The amount I do this on my talk page actually makes a big chunk of my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose When an infraction has been pointed out, JPL has has reverted and apologized.  I have read his Facebook page and it is strange and unpleasant reading but he is not harassing specific Wikipedia editors. He appears to be upset with me because of what I have said about Mia Love. I can live with that. Easily. In my view, he is currently much less disruptive than he was in years past. I do not think that TLDR is a valid reason for a site ban, nor his admittedly strange countdown clock behavior on his talk page. Strange does not mean blockable. On a personal note, I have a son who engages in behaviors roughly similar to JPL's behaviors. The stories that I could tell but I won't. I have been dealing with my son's behavioral problems for a third of a century and it can be quite frustrating and that is an understatement. I deal with my son's problematic behavior almost every day, but I love him and he has many positive attributes as well. As does Johnpacklambert. He is devoted to this encyclopedia and truly wishes to improve categorization. I do not think this latest kerfuffle requires a site ban, but if consensus goes the other way, so be it. Editors, please be kind. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, no matter how I feel about that matter I did rescind the edit immediately. I see now that was out of line, but it was also in December of 2021.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per off-wiki evidence and comments from Sideswipe9th, Drmies and Pinguinn. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 01:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose site ban. The support editors seem to focus on WP:CRYSTAL (let's end future time sinks). JPL has complied with his topic ban in ways that show that he cares about the context of his edits. Banning him from everything seems unfair, and even an attempt to do so has an edge of meanness about it. Read in total by someone just coming to it, this discussion seems pile-on. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as a site ban hardly seems proportional to, what? Asking bothersome questions about the nature of the restrictions placed on him? Asking questions about what he is and isn't allowed to edit is a good thing, banning him for that would be silly. If mere long-windedness were a ban-worthy offense, then half of Wikipedia's editors would need to be decapitated and buried with a stake through their hearts and a clove of garlic stuffed into their mouths. The art of brevity doesn't come to all of us naturally. Joe  (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I understand the frustration (I agree with most analyses) but I feel we must be more thoughtful. Please don't site ban. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present, support FINAL warning that if any further disruption (like this ridiculous request thread, his longwinded wall-of-text responses, his recent one-month block, and his claim to either not comprehend or to be editing too fast to abide by "broadly construed", or any other disruption which by now makes him currently and long since the most disruptive editor to be continually and regularly be brought to a noticeboard) ensues, a siteban is almost assured. He's had plenty of WP:ROPE, and competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Without competence, any editor, no matter how prolific, is a liability and an enormous timesink. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this has been going on years. The idea that a final final final warning will change anything is idiotic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The flood of both on-Wiki and off-Wiki evidence clearly suggests a complete failure to understand or accept the various topic bans in place. And every attempt by the community to bend over backward and set some boundaries to allow him to keep editing rather than being banned is thrown back in its face as he sealions every aspect of enforcement. It strains credulity to the breaking point to think he's just asking innocent questions about obeying topic bans. This isn't his first rodeo or even his tenth. I sympathize with the good-hearted people who think the ten billionth time will be the charm, but at some point, we have to stop being Charlie Brown believing that Lucy will hold the football. A ban is long overdue. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment. The only things that seem to have changed since this was last looked at seems to be one or two minor infractions of the topic ban (which he apologized for) and his request to have the topic ban lifted. That doesn't seem enough to ban. The Supports seem to just be relitigating previous discussions on him. Everything else raised seems to have happened before the community and Arbcom last looked at this. The most extreme example is the proposal itself from WTT. As they point out in the proposal, this was considered and rejected in the Arbcom case. That was less than 3 months ago. WTT's rationale seems to be a recitation of why he should have been banned at that time. I can't see anything new to consider in what WTT says. WTT was one of the three arbs that voted for the ban in that case. Isn't their proposal effectively an appeal to the community against the decision of their colleagues? I'm not saying that's out of process but it reiterates to me that this is about relitigating what's gone before rather than considering anything new. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @DeCausa, I thought I should reply to this as you called out my rationale directly. The case scope was limited around deletion requests and the behaviours of the participants, while I was looking at the issue more wholistically here. As such, I do not believe that raising this ban request with the community as a whole is out of process. You can see above, at least one other Arbitrator (Barkeep49) who voted against the ban at the time has said that he would support a ban at this point.
 * You are right that it was less than 3 months ago, and as I say, Johnpacklambert has spent the a significant portion of that time blocked or refusing to accept his sanctions. I am also aware of a glut of off-wiki commentary from Johnpacklambert which backs up my concerns that he is going to carry on disrupting the encyclopedia - which is my only concern here. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Just to be clear, I did explicitly say that I didn't think raising the ban was out of process. On the recent off-wiki stuff, as I said elsewhere, having looked at it, he's only saying there what he's saying on-wiki so I didn't think was of consequence.DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go too much into the off-wiki stuff, because I don't believe it's necessary to, and I think it's good that people have a place to vent. However, I do note that on multiple occasions he has "noted" that certain things should happen on Wikipedia, that he cannot do himself due to topic bans. That might asking for a change to a religion article, or requesting that a PROD be removed from one. Indeed, I can see that he has specifically stated that "some might attack him for this" (i.e. demonstrating an awareness that the off-wiki sentiments were problematic and doing it anyway). I count at least 4 occurrences of requests for proxy editing against his topic ban in the past month, 2 while he was blocked. I'm not certain that "not of consequence" is accurate. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The recent ArbCom decision was (overwhelmingly, 9–3) not to impose a site ban. As far as I can see, there hasn't been enough since then that would warrant going over the top of that decision at this time, and justification for a ban here largely relates to behaviour prior to that case. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Unfortunately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial support - I've thought about this a lot today. I would support a shorter-term site ban - given that the user was blocked for a month in August, it would need to be 2 or 3 months. I'd love to oppose a ban - and would oppose many bans in favour of more limits on editing - but, honestly, this isn't going to go away unless we can force a change in behaviour. The only way to do that is to increase the length of the bans and demonstrate that threads like this, with 21 contributions from the editor in question, aren't acceptable on such a regular basis - and that's before we consider the edits made on a range of user talk pages regarding this. I'd also, fwiw, revoke talk page access at the same time given how the user seems to have used their talk page during the previous block. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The idea that this editor will suddenly magically learn to interact with the community in a productive manner is impossible to believe at this point, especially considering the tban violations were so recent. We're beyond the "one final warning" threshold. Oakshade (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Back to Support since even here, JPL is refusing to take advice and stop talking. This isn't punishment for requesting to end the t-ban. It's recognition that someone who won't even take advice here is unlikely to ever be a good fit. Oppose Weak support for a time-limited site ban I'm not wild about a site ban, mostly because I suspect the 'asking incessantly about boundaries or testing them' are due to neurodivergency. I've seen similar issues end badly multiple times for folks with autism. It's not that they're trying to be disruptive. It's that they honestly do think there must be some bright line someone can show them with everything up to that line perfectly okay, and of course those of us who aren't neurodivergent in that way can't show them that line. We feel it for ourselves. We learn how to determine where the lines are from earliest childhood, we recognize them as blurry, we can generalize to new situations, and when someone tells us we're getting close to the line, we understand what they're telling us. I feel like there has to be a way we can harness the energy of such folks, if we can just figure out how. We need a WikiProject for that. But maybe JPL can use a site ban constructively. Maybe not being able to post here at all will encourage them to do that.
 * JPL, if you do get site banned, maybe try Simple Wikipedia with a mentor, and believe people when they're telling you something you're doing is unhelpful, even if they can't explain to your satisfaction why. I would very, very strongly recommend you make a rule for yourself to stay away from religion subjects and deletion processes there; you don't need a t-ban to tell you that's what gets you into the most trouble, so just avoid them voluntarily. There are plenty of places you can actually be helpful in ways no one will object to. A mentor can help you find those places. Valereee (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, on procedural grounds. JPL comes here asking for a TB to be lifted, but he should go away with a site ban? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just realized this says I should be sitebanned because I made a request for a topicban reversal that was "nearly unanimously opposed". This wording makes it sound like there was opposition but I still made the request. I was told I could not even ask questions about the scope in most cases, and definitely not ask if people thought it could go, so I had not polled this, just asked what forum. I had no idea what the reaction would be. Clearly I misjudged things, but to punish someone because a request was rejected is to punish someone for not being able to predict the future. Claiming that such a request shows I do not understand the seriousness of anything also seems unfair. I did not know what the reaction would be, and punishing people for asking a ban to be removed or altered does not seem reasonable. Especially when it is a,one time thing. Maybe if I asked multiple times in a short period of time, and was rejected each time. However punishing me because I asked one time does not seem reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - No one editor should regularly stir up so much drama and having to deal with this stuff every few weeks to few months has become too much. Once again, Wikipedia is not therapy. OrgoneBox (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Weak support per Valereee. I am also autistic and can definitely relate.  However, given that a very high percentage of users and IP addresses have been banned/blocked lately, one might think that some of these blocks were unjustified?  Wikipedia's administration needs to also take a good look at itself, and can't just keep hounding its userbase.  (This is User:Yleventa2, I scrambled the password on my account and am not interested in creating another acct at the moment) 2620:8D:8000:10BD:C147:9E0A:988C:FE04 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, he is taking up way too much space in this thread. So I will have to unconditionally support this.


 * "a very high percentage of users and IP addresses have been banned/blocked lately"--I have seen no evidence of this whatsoever, and I wonder if such evidence could even exist. How would we measure that? Sounds like "there's so much election fraud..." Drmies (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically all the large rangeblocks on mobile networks, for instance, have only been implemented because of a few users being overly belligerent. But for now actually, I just want to focus on this thread.  I have changed my opinion; you can see that he is taking way too much space in this thread alone. (User:Yleventa2) 2620:8D:8000:1054:8F2B:FBEF:2E26:A552 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose full ban per Kudpung, no opinion on a time-limited ban. Valereee's comment is particularily constructive. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 23:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm sorry, what? You're proposing a full site ban for the "offence" of coming here to request a lifting of a topic ban? That's hugely unfair. I get the points about JPL and prior behaviour, but he was given a month block recently and came back from it, and to my knowledge hasn't transgressed again since then. If he does, then we can talk site bans, but until then this is just looks vindictive, sorry to be blunt. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not having committed a blockable offence in 30 days is quite the low bar for site acceptance.Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know that anyone said the site ban should be for requesting to weaken the topic ban. The off-wIki harassment of other editors has been in the last month-plus; he transgressed thusly during his block. It would have been brought up for whatever occasion John Pack Lambert was next at AN, and that happened to be when John asked for a change to the topic ban. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * So most of my edits on Wikipedia involve adding or editing the birth place to reflect the name of birth at the time of birth, editing birth year categories to not conflict with the body of the article, adding alumni cats, adding emigration categories, removing uses of titles such as Dr. Or Mr. Before names and such. I was thinking "I would like to be able to do these edits on any article I come across that says the subject was born in 1891 or 1892 and the cat is 1890 births and not 1890s births, or at least be able to not have to read to check the whole life to make sure they never did anything that might vaguely put them under the topic ban, let me ask so I can make these edits without fear". Probably no matter how eloquently I had put that it would not work at this time, but I do not think having that mindset and approach should be considered grounds to treat my very request as disruptive enough to justify banning any editing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru, et al. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support he's a time sink whose contributions don't outweigh the bytes and bytes of discussion at noticeboards every time he nibbles around the edges of a topic ban, for which he was just blocked. He refuses to understand why he is wrong, and therefore the behavior won't change. Whether it's indefinite or time-delineated, remove talk due to the NOTAFORUM violations referenced above as well as his countdowns. Blocked means you don't edit. Frankly should have been blocked for the blatant proxying long ago. Star   Mississippi  01:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No one has presented any evidence to show that I have in any way at all run afoul of the matter I was blocked for from Aug. 22 to Sep. 22 since I have returned. That was decided then with a one month block and to punish me now for events before that decision covered by that decision just because I ask to have my Blick lifted is not justified. The claim I refuse to understand is just plain unfair. I have said I was wrong for my actions in August 2021 and recognize that I was out of line on several levels. To act like the accidental edit of a birth year cat for a person that I did not realize was covered by the ban and I reverted immediately after learning of it was in any way like what I did in August 2021 is just plain unreasonable. This may be an argument to refuse to revise in any way the topic ban, but the claim here seems to focus on the other topic ban, and no evidence has been placed at all that any edit I have made since the end of the month punishment was out of line. I have reversed multiple edits, and accepted others judgement on them being out of scope. This whole comment is unfair. This discussion is not based on nibbling around the edges, but a clear request to change a block that is indefinite, that I have made no request about in over a year. Blocking someone just because they make 1 such request in such a time frame seems very unreasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All I have to add: if you have reversed multiple edits, you still don't understand that you shouldn't be making them in the first place. Star   Mississippi  15:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The topic ban itself states that there are cases that will be borderline or difficult to determine and one way to deal with such issues is allowing me to reverse them when they are pointed out to me. Sometimes it seems on first glance that a subject has no relation to the topic ban, or the way the connection is may not be obvious to me. These edits are not done out of a desire to skirt the ban, but because the article talks about the person being in a specific profession or career that is not related to the topic ban, and I focus on that, and the edit relates to that specific profession or career, and I miss a short sentence near the bottom of the article that mentions something else, and when I realize my mistake I revert it. I try to avoid making these mistakes, and have been trying to be more dilligent in catching them. Some of the complaints are that I am too combative and too insistent that I am right, yet I give this evidence to show that when people point out a mistake I did I do not fight back, and quickly reverse it. I think that is a sign that I am trying to comply by this topic ban, as is the fact I go through long lists to make sure that not even one of someone's works might put the article in conflict with the topic ban. I am trying to comply with it, and I asked for a revision. Maybe that was not wise at this time, but the mere asking that a topic ban be revised, once, 13 months after it was started does not seem reasonable grounds to impose a much harsher penalty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, after considerable reflection and as per Amukuru, Kudpung and wjemather. I'm well aware of the difficulties that flock around this editor, but while in the future he may well drop himself in the cess once and for all, a site ban on this occasion is too much, and the obvious glee of many at the prospect of pushing him off the battlements is a bit distasteful. Also, I support Fram's proposal of a small, very specific relaxation of the religion-related topic ban strictly for the purpose of editing cats of years of birth. Ingratis (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly a net negative for the project. Number   5  7  11:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I see some people describing him with terms like "net negative". Could we not do that?  Even if his editing is getting tiresome, it's not like he is making personal attacks towards others. (User:Yleventa2) 2620:8D:8000:1054:8F2B:FBEF:2E26:A552 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to describe those who support a site ban as showing "obvious glee", and I don't think this is as Kafkaesque as some are presenting it. Support is a reasonable position for people who think JohnPackLambert's recent 1 month AE block (and this unwise unban request) are the straws that broke the camel's back, but (since it could not be done as an AE-action) had no opportunity to say so at the AE thread.  It's certainly a position I hold. Look at his block log; this is not something that came unexpectedly out of the blue.  If a siteban does not happen, the closer needs to (a) instruct him not to file another appeal on any of his topic bans for 12 months, and (b) clearly list all of the active topic bans that are still in place in the summary, so in future discussions they are easy to point too.  I certainly don't understand how many there are now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is not right to litigate here an action that was punished already. So bringing up something that I was blocked a whole month for, and trying to punish me now because you disagree with the decision then I do not think is right. So the only question here should be is making a request after 13 months to overturn or revise a topic ban, one that has no time limits or even guidance on when it could be appealed, grounds in and of itself to block an editor from editing Wikipedia. And I do not see any way to find the answer there to be yes, at least not without something more than is here. I think people should not be punished now because people thought previous discussions should have resulted in harsher punishment. The punishment should be based on new actions, maybe in light of past actions, but I do not think it makes any sense to treat this request for a change in the nature of the topic ban as an act in and of itself that should lead to punishment, and I do not think people should meet out punishment now just to overturn passed decisions which they disagreed with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This also sound like punishing me because I made this appeal to close to when another topic ban was imposed. That topic ban made no mention of appeals from other topic bans. A rule about appealing too close to when something else was imposed might be reasonable, but as far as I know no rule is spelled out anywhere, and it is unreasonable to punish someone for breaking a rule that has not been set forth, so while it would be fair to here impose almost any length of time a similar request cannot be entered, and to at this point say that this applies to any requests for any change, it I do not think is fair to apply the rule in reverse and punish me for breaking it even though it was not pointed out at any point before.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a site ban. Unfortunately, the amount of time many editors and administrators have spent trying to advise and negotiate with JPL to change his disruptive ways is a net-negative compared to his constructive contributions. No one is trying to punish JPL altho he clearly feels that way; the previous blocks were all preventitive not punitive which indicates that he still does not understand the underlying problems. Time and again we see very long threads on the notice boards which has gotten to be too much of a time-sink for the community. I also wanted to mention that I saw some things he has posted off-Wiki that were destructive to the project and/or to individual editors. Unfortunately, I do not believe he has the maturity that is required to be a net-positive editor here. has proposed an alternative which is to try editing Simple Wikipedia with the guidance of a mentor. Netherzone (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone above says "not having comitted a blockable offence is the last 30 days is a low bar". On the other hand exactly how are we supposed to block someone because of things they did over 30 days ago? If what someone has done most recently is not blockable, on what grounds are they blocked. Someone should not be blocked for something that is not a blockable offence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a site ban. In short, he has acted off-Wiki in a way that is potentially harmful to others, he has an unhealthy relationship with the project, and he has CIR issues that are becoming more frequent.
 * It’s about 2 things:
 * Off-Wiki behavior, and one statement in particular. John knows better; we all know better. [I want to say more, but I think I am not supposed to do that. Was this too much to say specifically? If so, I apologize.]
 * John’s apparent Wikipedia editing-mental health balance struggles suggest the project is bad for him. John has made multiple statements of despair at the idea of not being able to edit Wikipedia; one posting in 2021 was so alarmingly suggestive that an editor user made him promise he would not harm himself. Numerous other statements John makes when he is in trouble have been alarming. Please release him from the project so he may move on to another hobby that won’t cause him such anguish.
 * It’s not about him having asked for a change to the restriction so soon after coming back or about how much time he takes up. It’s not even about his long history of not be able to figure out how to edit well enough to not get taken to ANI or about the restrictions. Those ultimately amount to a CIR issue, though.
 * With repeated warnings, blocks, restrictions, and help from others, John still isn’t independent, successful, or happy here… so when will some humane admin call it? When will John be freed of Wikipedia and allowed to move on with his life? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia is not therapy than banning people from Wikipedia should not be therapy. So you admit that what happened here is not grounds to ban me, but you want to ban me because you think I suffer. This whole approach is wrongheaded. Basically you are saying "John feels despair when he cannot edit Wikipedia, so I want to give him more despair."John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strike that "quoted" part of your comment now, John. I did NOT suggest anything about wanting to cause you despair. More like "John feels despair all too frequently because he violates boundaries, so let's establish a boundary. Let's stop him from repeatedly hurting himself and the others he hurts along the way." Don't assume bad faith. And I *did* say it is grounds to ban you. #1 You hurt others and #2 you have implied you will hurt yourself. [#3] is the lack of competence of which I wrote, which you are demonstrating in this very thread. No comment on the off-Wiki behavior, though, John? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "No comment on the off-Wiki behavior, though, John?" this is out of line. Please do not attack the user. If they don't want to comment they don't have to. Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 19:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My conversations elsewhere were meant to be conversations between me and the others who were included within that forum. I believe some of these may have been posts in facebook, which I mean to be read by my friends on facebook. To treat them as public conversations and use them as grounds to try to limit my actions here seem unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no malice or untruth in what I said; there was no attack and it is not out of line to rebut to his statement that I was saying there are not grounds to ban him. There is, indeed, grounds to ban him. I believe I am allowed to clarify when someone misconstrues my words and I wouldn't want John to be confused by my lack of an answer. But very well: I shall be more careful in pointing out flawed logic and beyond when defending myself in the future. I could change it to, "Please note that John has not commented on his off-Wiki behavior," but that seems passive-aggressive, with him having replied and all, so a question seemed more direct (and direct is better for people on the autism spectrum). UPDATE: John has stricken his comment; thank you, John. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How about you strike the comment accusing me of hurting others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But it does hurt others when they think you may hurt yourself and when you talk about them off-Wiki in a public space in a negative way. It hurts when people try to help you and you snap at them. It hurts when you say I want to cause you despair when I don't. We can continue this conversation at your talk page later if you are OK with it; this is already way beyond the topic of my vote. Thank you for striking above. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an overly broad use of the word hurt. So I cannot speak ill of Wikipedia in any off Wikipedia forum that could be publicly accessed. I do not think this is a reasonable standard, and it is clearly something that no one else has ever said "as an editor of Wikipedia, you must speak well of Wikipedia in other public forums or we will revoke your edit privilages." People are going to argue I went beyond that, but I think any part of that is unfair. I have on Wikipedia accepted the regulations, and abided by them, even if there are to me some issues with the process. I have willingly chosen to not complain about the process here, even when the process felt out of line. At least since a certain point. Saying I cannot let my friends on facebook or who I communicate with in other ways know about this without being punished does not seem at all right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * JPL, with your permission, I could quote things you've written about specific editors (including some who are supporting you in this thread!) on your Facebook page that I think are hurtful. But a better way forward would be for you to make your Facebook page private instead of public. The only reason I can even read your posts is because your page is public. I wouldn't hold your private posts among your friends against you, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold you accountable for what you say in public. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole nomination starts with the asusmption that my request to be removed from the block was done with bad faith, and so it is grounds to punish me. So please do not lecture me on assuming good faith. The nomination assumes that every time I ask to have clarity on a restriction it is done in bad faith. That is totally unfair. There was one thing I was 100% sure did not fall under the topicban imposed at the start of August/end of July, but a comment on the nomination against another editor indicated there was maybe more scope than was obvious, so I asked about it, and when I did I learned that yes, this whole other thing was covered. If I had not asked I would not have known, and would have almost certainly done something there almost immediately. In fact one other suggestion if I had used that would have supported that view because that other place could not do what that suggestion said this was trying to stop. So asking questions clearly made it so I avoided doing something that would have been seen as violating the ban. So I really do not like how they are assumed to be in bad faith so much that they are evidence I should be stopped from editing Wikipedia at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Amakuru and several others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the site ban. The user seems to be staying out of the way of their topic bans and doesn't seem to be starting a fight. I also don't think it fair to extend a ban from an appeal as that seems to be overdoing the bases of a proper and dignified ban.Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 18:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose per Amakuru, Compassionate, and particularly comments by Valereee. I find a lot of this thread really really terrifying tbh. Particularly the comments about it being the "merciful" thing to do are disturbing. Unfortunately we human beings can be very frustrating and exhausting to communicate with but that is life and it doesn't define somebody as "a net negative". I would rather leave such psychoanalysis to what is or isn't healthy for Mr Lambert to himself, the people close to him, and/or a therapist. I wish I could find such passion and dedication into something the way Mr Lambert has for his Wikipedia work—It would sure help with my depression.
 * JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: In July 2022, about nine months after the topic ban was enacted, a user asked Johnpacklambert about a possible violation of the topic ban. The discussion is still on Johnpacklambert's talk page. Johnpacklambert's initial reply misstates the topic ban. Even when told the exact wording of the topic ban, Johnpacklambert claims it is a "new introduction that has not been argued before". If Johnpacklambert would like to appeal the topic ban, we should be clear that he has only been observing the actual wording of the topic ban for three months, not thirteen. Son of Guestbook (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You just made this account a few minutes ago and you somehow found WP:AN with this speed? <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C 20:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock is blocked. Should a CU want to amend it when they figure out which blocked editor it is, feel free. Star   Mississippi  20:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is he a sock of? Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a checkuser, but there's absolutely no chance an editor whose edits are a) about grudges and b) finds WP:AN is a new editor. They're welcome to appeal, and I'm fine with an admin changing the block if they see merit, but there is no valid reason for a non-disclosed alternate account to edit in project space. Star   Mississippi  20:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * What is clear is that since September of 2021 I have refrained from making any edit to Wikipedia that would actually relate to the banned topic, and I have not made minor edits on a huge number of biographies because they fell under the topic. I have tried my best to abide by the limits of the topic. I have when this has been brought up reverted the edits. I have also on occasion made an edit, and then thought more about the article, or scene a sentence I did not read closely enough, realized that the article is "broadly defined" and reverted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also notice in that discussion I open by apologizing, and also say I would revert it if I could, but it was already done. I was trying to be conciliatory and understanding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnpacklambert, I recommend you stop talking unless someone says something that needs clarification. You've made your arguments clear. Valereee (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And I am literally highly autistic, so he should know better.  A cban would be for his benefit. (User:Yleventa2). 2620:8D:8000:1054:8F2B:FBEF:2E26:A552 (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, I've opposed TBs and site-bans for JPL in the past, but these threads are pretty much perennial at this point. Major time-sink. — VersaceSpace  🌃 21:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment for those that still oppose, note that he has made twenty-one posts in this section, not even counting the original topic ban appeal section. Also, he keeps discussing this on his talkpage. (User:Yleventa2) 2620:8D:8000:1054:8F2B:FBEF:2E26:A552 (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure how people are so cavalierly discussing an off-site profile that has never been publicly linked to on-wiki. Considering we call it a privacy violation to post freaking discord logs with usernames, how is a solid chunk of this section not WP:OUTING? All that notwithstanding, JPL, this place isnt good for you. I dont particularly find your views on a number of subjects all that endearing, but I can understand and empathize with what is seemingly the cause of the disconnect between the way this place works and the way you approach things. It is not going to work, and it is not going to get better. This place is not good for you, and if you cant stay away then honestly for your own good you should be made to stay away. Support as the merciful thing to do. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Cullen328, who put it more eloquently than I could. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 05:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support per nom. In the last 15 months, John has been blocked four times, one of those being indefinite, and I'm surprised at how much latitude people are prepared to give editors like this. I also want to say that this is nothing personal and is not a condemnation of him as a human being - it's simply that far too much time has been wasted dealing with John that would have better spent writing and improving the encyclopedia. I also agree that the way he uses his talk page as a soap box is annoying, but I'm not sure that's a sanctionable offence. I will also say that I don't know what he has been saying on other websites in conjunction with Wikipedia, but if he has been disparaging editors or decisions they have been making, then I will consider it off wiki harassment and indefinitely block him anyway for that. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the previous ban discussions, he even once confessed to creating two sockpuppetry accounts last year, voting twice on the same AfD. and  say he is in the Midwest, which were never tagged as socks for some reason.  He admitted this at one of his archives (click).  Would an average user be able to get away with all this? (User:Yleventa2) 2620:8D:8000:1054:8F2B:FBEF:2E26:A552 (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That was addressed then. I admitted I was wrong, the fact that I did that was used against me then, and I have not done any such thing since. To use this as reason to punish me when nothing like this has occurred for over a year does not seem reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. You've had 15 years to know from right and wrong. Had you done this early on as a younger person the community might be inclined to cut you some slack. But as this was done just last year demonstrates there is an overall disinterest in constructive contributing with even the most relaxed interpretations of the community's rules and procedures. Oakshade (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328 @Cbl62 What do you think of his claim that he "learned" from using two sock accounts last year, in addition to overstepping many more boundaries (which are still not tagged for some reason at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Johnpacklambert)? I have seen many other Wikipedians blame being autistic and there was no reduction in blocks given.
 * @Valereee Thank you for realizing that opposing the ban is moot; you might also be interested in the post above. (User:Yleventa2) 2620:8D:8000:1054:8F2B:FBEF:2E26:A552 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ritchie333, the off-wiki posts would be considered harassment, I think. Editors who have tried to help him in the past or who were trying to help him at the time are named and negative things are said. One that comes to mind is along the lines of "[this editor] is [a negative adjective]". Not only is his Facebook profile public, but he is one of the most well-known project editors by real name--the media having named him in the past--so that he would use the Facebook page as a place to say bad things about certain editors for anyone on the planet to see is distressing. If Wikipedia were his job, he would be fired for such posts. In addition to the admitted sockpuppetry and double-voting that the IP editor has mentioned (for which I believe John was not sanctioned but later became moot with his banning from AfD), I, too, am wondering how John Pack Lambert is still here. Sockpuppetry, extreme emotional distress with a hint at self-harm, off-wiki harassment, lack of contrition unless the water is boiling, and failure to edit by what are clear guidelines even for the neurodivergent... I don't get it. And why aren't the socks tied to his account? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Nableezy. Begoon 12:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I regret having to write this because I have often agreed with JPL and my interactions with him have not been unpleasant. However, repeated coming back and back and back to stuff like this, over and over and over, wasting the community's time to sheer frustration, and very clearly refusing to ever get the point, leaves me with no other choice but to support his being Sitebanned. Wikipedia is not therapy is a very long-standing and widely-accepted essay and applies here. We made the mistake of not getting rid of others in the past who were clearly headed for a siteban, meaning that in the end the case had to be taken to the full drama of ARBCOM. Let's not make that mistake again. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "stuff like this" - in this case refers to the user making a good-faith request to have part of a topic ban lifted. Obviously the community didn't want to grant that lifting, which is fine, but honestly it sends a very chilling message to everyone on this project if doing things the right way lands someone in hot water in this way. I have no opinion on whether JPL should have been site-banned at some point in the past for specific indiscretions that took place then, or indeed whether we're going to end up back here again in the future. But as of now he isn't banned not has he done anythign wrong since the last 1-month block, and this particular pile-on vote, based only on JPL doing what he was supposed to do - consulting the community - seems utterly absurd. I may be missing something here, as it's unusual to see so many people I respect making an apparently unfair decision like this? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well said, Amakuru. Agree 100%. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "doing things the right way" - in this case refers to continuing exactly the kind of time-wasting behaviour that had left many people at their wit's end. Frankly I saw the ARBCOM case and even more so the blocks that followed as real last-chances. I did not support a ban at the ARBCOM case because it still seemed possible that JPL's behaviour would change, though, as I said there, any normal editor would already have been banned for his behaviour. It has become obvious - particularly by repeatedly boundary-pushing trying to find some loop-hole to the bans, which this pointless and sure-to-fail request is just another example of, but also in the off-wiki behaviour and other instances - that he is not on the "right way". Instead he is never going to change his behaviour and we do not have to wait any further to act. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Requesting to change the scope of a block or have it removed is not "trying to find loopholes". It is asking that the rules be changed. Which may well have been very premature at this point but it is not an act of "trying to find loopholes". Directly asking for changes is the exact opposite of trying to find loopholes. It is admitting what is there and seeking to change it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The recent conduct of asking to lift the t-ban was ill-timed and ill-advised but in no way warrants a site ban. Nor is John Pack Lambert a "net negative." He has devoted considerable time over the last two decades to improving Wikipedia and is IMO unquestionably a "net positive". He happens to have an actual medical condition (autism) that leads to behaviors and communications that can be found irritating and annoying. I've had run in's with him over the years, but I've come to understand through engagement with him that, while his views are different than mine, he wants what's best for Wikipedia. He is sincere. He is diligent.  He is willing to listen and correct his behaviors and has done so.  Has he fully listened and corrected? No, but he's clearly doing better. Too many people have concluded they want to simply give up on him and avoid further drama or accommodations to his condition. I think this is very unfortunate. With someone who has devoted so much of himself to improving the encyclopedia, we can and must make the necessary accommodations. Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose lifting the topic ban and support 1-year moratorium on any further appeals. Oppose a site ban as that is not constructive or in the best interest of the encyclopedia. To my opinion, a site ban is a poor mans choice. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I'm sorry but he has become a major time sink. TBAN after TBAN followed by violation after violation.  The talk page has always seemed to be an edit-by-proxy type of deal where when he's blocked, he continues to post.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on procedural grounds. I see nothing wrong with writing a lengthy response to a multi-topic ban and asking for clarification. I also see nothing wrong with lengthy replies here. While I don't think he completely gets it, I think "broadly construed" is a terrible standard for continued use in ArbCom where specificity should reign. I'm not an Arb, so I cannot change their rulings, but a site-wide ban? That's overkill. He's a net positive even if he is pedantic and makes for long discussions. For better or worse, that's how WP is set up. 9 of 12 Arbs voted for topic bans over a site-block. To come here immediately afterwards and ask to overrule them feels like WP:FORUMSHOPPING (whether it is or it isn't, it still feels like it). Let's give the topic bans a chance before we decide on further action. For those reasons I oppose as being an unduly harsh response to an undesired ArbCom outcome. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification, JPL's topic ban on religion was an outcome of this ANI, not ArbCom. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose site ban. The individual's current work on birth years is beneficial to Wikipedia and he's within his rights to request an amendment to his topic ban if it's getting in the way. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Uninformed oppose I guess I was involved in the dustup that led to JPL's religion topic ban. (I was the one reverting all the Mormonism-related pages he moved.) Since then I haven't seen much of JPL or followed his talk page. (I saw this thread here by coincidence.) So I know nothing about whatever happened at Arbcom. All I know is what I've read above and in a link or two I followed. The Mia Love edit seems innocuous enough. He was asking, on his talk page, if editing the article would be allowed—something we encourage topic-banned editors to do. Granted, I can also see how that could be considered disruptive, since it's really a dumb question—of course it's not allowed. From reading the arguments above, I think Compassionate727's swayed me the most. ~Awilley (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Close
Seeing as JPL has withdrawn his request. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose since a site ban is now on the table, with multiple supporters (myself included). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for him, it is premature to close just because the editor realizes that this will not succeed Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Call to close : Can an uninvolved admin wade through this and offer a resolution? Nothing substatantive has really happened in the last several days except it has expanded in length, the longer it goes on the more painful it all gets to watch. I think the OP and the community could use some closure on the issue, one way or the other.  He  iro 
 * Not quite sure what you means by nothing substantive has really happened in the last several days. Worm that Turned opened a formal site ban discussion three days ago, which has to run for a minimum of 72 hours per WP:CBAN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it felt like it had been going on for way longer, I didn't even think to check how long it had been running. My bad. Nevermind.  He  iro  18:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ::: As of that above edit it had been 72 hours since the formal proposal was put up, which was almost a day after I said I withdrew the first nomination and even longer after this proposal was first floated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Heironymous Rowe, it seems that long to the rest of us, too. @Johnpacklambert STOP TALKING. Valereee (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Maticpetra
Hi! I started mentoring this user and was interested to learn what previous work was deleted and why to be able to explain reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADeletedContributions%2FMaticpetra ... one of the deletions might have been also User page, which I found strange. Could someone send me or restore within User space those pages. Thank you very much! --Zblace (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the user wants a deleted page restored, it's up to them to request it, not you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 that user is confused over how EN Wikipedia functions, as the labor of work deep in the night on simple user page got deleted without any elaboration on talk page...also that user does not know are the norms let alone protocols of how to request pages to be restored. Could you please elaborate and instruct on the talk page why it was deleted and that requesting a restor is an option? -- Zblace (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of acting as his representative, why don't you talk to him directly on his Talk page here or at the Croatian wiki as to what he can do. If he has questions here, he can ask them at the WP:Teahouse. I will comment but only on the deletion of his userpage: I see no basis for its deletion per WP:U5. If he wants it restored (it's basically just a bunch of userboxes), he can ask me directly, e.g., on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like also deleted the (untagged) user page while deleting Živi atelje DK under G11 (tagged as A7); the article is reasonable (I don't think it would survive AfD in that state) though not particularly offensive, but I don't see that the user page merits deletion. It would be useful if Maticpetra asked for it to be restored personally though. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Espresso Addict thank you for input! That is very useful.
 * @Bbb23 I do not find your advice particulary generous and welcoming to non-experienced user.
 * @athaenara do you mind informing @Maticpetra better of their options?
 * --Zblace (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Athaenara is currently blocked and unable to respond. If were to ask either me or  for their user page restored, eg on our talk pages, I suspect it could probably be restored. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 I won't comment on this topic, but you shouldn't assume a masculine gender as default. Petra in this case is a feminine name, but you should always use singular they when you're not sure. -Vipz (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't "assume" that the user is a he. On their userpage, they link to their website, which has a picture of a bearded man and a child. I assumed the bearded man was the user, but of course based on what you say, it could be a picture of someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23Thanks for assuming I was a child :) I am an adult cis woman.
 * Is it possible to restore my previous user page? Maticpetra (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * has done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA
Recommend administrators' review 's contrib history, at List of presidents of the United States page & talkpage. As well as editor's own talkpage. Seems to be a case of either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think they're here to build an encyclopedia. Their mainspace contributions range from obvious bad-faith vandalism to unsourced POV-pushing, and then there's all the fuckery on their user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: they have been notified. (fyi) - w o lf  03:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe firefangledfeathers has summed up this issue quite neatly. Both long-term edit warring and battleground attitude at List of United States presidents and it's talk page, as well as the must-see-to-believe edits on their own talk page and user page, including a post so obnoxious and hateful it had to be rev/del'd, shows they have no interest in engagement, just telling editors "fuck u" (repeatedly), posting a full copy of lyrics to a Kanye West song, posting their ugly opinions of politics and society, and of course, their off-wiki contact info (as if they're blowing up their account on purpose and so wanna get that out there). None of this behaviour has been about building or maintaining this project or working collaboratively with others to do same. - w o lf  03:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

They quit and I blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems they've returned as a sock, named User:PieceControlLegend. -- GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably but blocked as not here to contribute. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The initial revision of User:XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA has been redacted, but the page creation log entry needs to be RD1'd as well. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 15:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 15:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

3rd opinion on Kent Desormeaux
I am very suspicious about the entire judge hammer fall being a hoax because equibase has record of Kent riding in 8 races after fall. Equibase is accredited as being the official database and has kept track of all changes up til very moment of race. And I refuse to believe that someone with equibase would have just written him down as jockey 8 times. I want a 3rd opinion from admins to give their hypothesis and if you all agree I think the user whom was also engaged in the edit war should be blocked. Zebracake1 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked Zebracake1 for block evasion (sock puppetry only because Twinkle doesn't have block evasion for named accounts) of Special:contributions/50.81.166.34.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Escort spam
Hello. Today I found escort spam disguised in HMS Trincomalee article and removed it. One can assume that it does not only affect this article. Maybe a colleague with more experience can take care of that. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to restore the original links either. Best regards RAL1028 (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like that the original site lost it's domain and was taken over by that escort service. As of May of this year, the registration change for the domain it appears. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you see if further articles are affected? --RAL1028 (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 10 other articles potentially affected: search insource:"hms-trincomalee.co.uk". I think there's an archiving bot or script that can be used? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Think I've resolved the others. Working on HMS Trincomalee now Lyndaship (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Terrific. Thanks for your support. --RAL1028 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the functionary team
At his request, the Oversight permissions of DGG are removed. Also at his request, the Checkuser permissions of Joe Roe are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks both DGG and Joe Roe for their service as an oversighter and a checkuser, respectively.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Level II desysop of Athaenara
The Arbitration Committee has determined that ’s behavior appears inconsistent with the level of trust required of administrators. Athaenara has not responded to contact from the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the Arbitration Committee resolves that Athaenara be desysopped in accordance with the Committee’s Level II removal procedures.

Support: CaptainEek, Enterprisey, L235, Maxim, Primefac, Worm That Turned KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Revisiting an old deletion debate on Taiwan as a province of China
I have followed the first step in WP:AFDHOWTO to nominate Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China for deletion. The article was mentioned in Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) and I have noted there are no independent reliable sources supporting this POV page name (the Chinese government is not an independent reliable source). For the next step, I am unsure if I should undo the close of the old discussion or start a new discussion. Please can an administrator advise? IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Not an admin, but if you want to start an AfD on something that's been AfD'd before, just change your nomination name. From the intructions: The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, it looks like you'd want the 4th nomination. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was nominated only once, over a decade ago. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please can you show an example? IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you go to the first AfD, you can see a white box on the right near the top that says AfDs for this article: with a list of all the AfDs for that article. Here's the link to the third: Articles for deletion/Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (3rd nomination). So what you want is Articles for deletion/Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (4th nomination). Put 4th on the article with the edit summary "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Articles for deletion/Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (4th nomination)". Then go to that link and do step 2. For step 3, just remember that your nomination name is "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (4th nomination)", not just the article title. If there's anything I left out you have a question about, just let me know. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I filed the nomination. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also not an admin, but there is no need to be one to offer advice. I understand that deletion nominations are much easier with Twinkle, although I don't use it myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who does, I can confirm; my only issue with a Twinkle nomination happened more than 10 years ago (it didn't properly list on the daily log for some reason) and was easy enough to fix from there. Never had a problem since then. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Very much so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove rollback
Please remove rollback rights as he has been blocked for socking. 223.223.139.51 (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We generally do not remove rights for blocked users. Primefac (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting creation of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Johnpacklambert
This is User:Yleventa2, I scrambled the password to my account and don't want to create a new account at the moment. I will go back to my hiatus after this is done.

User:Zelnhelm_the_Wise and User:Zelnhelmthegreat were socks of Johnpacklambert. They were created in 2021, so WP:AGF can't be used. One was used to vote twice on an AfD. They are blocked but not tagged. Therefore, they should be appropriately categorized, which applies to any other user.

Checkuser has confirmed this, and he also has admitted this, according to one of his archives User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive_9:

"There is another account that has edited from the same IP, and the same device, around the same time, to the same project-space discussion that this account has edited. This is not the only related account that I have found."

"I am very sorry about creating those accounts... You argued for deletion in the same AfD using two accounts"

2620:8D:8000:10A9:3803:896F:C79F:3DFF (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I just asked about this at the Teahouse because several people writing about it on his talk page last year and again here yesterday didn't see this done. I am wondering if there is some policy that protects established users who receive no consequence for sockpuppetry; I believe he was not blocked at the time, though my memory could be faulty. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of the multitude of socks that I block are not tagged, and there are various reasons that might happen. Primarily, we are here to write and maintain an encyclopaedia, and not to categorise socks. Sometimes we don't even block the sockmaster, even when they're a new user. The number one question we should be asking is, what current purpose will it serve? Those accounts were dealt with at the time, as was the sockmaster's block. That category doesn't even have any incoming links. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppetry should be traced to him because it is noteworthy to other editors and admins. The sockpuppetry is not mentioned on his blocking summaries. He wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry alone, but for disruptive editing more generally. Some would say the accounts weren't dealt with adequately, but say they were... If it is fine that a user of 10+ years created 2 accounts when he was concerned about getting blocked, participated in multiple AfDs with multiple accounts, first denied it, and then admitted it when he was more concerned about consequences... If all of his actions are water under the bridge... we should own it. Mark the userpages as sockpuppets as I have seen for most other users, including established users. At present, it's only the talkpages that are marked so. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "it is noteworthy...". I'm not persuaded of the current relevance to encyclopaedia. YMMV... -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Relevance to the encyclopedia"? I speak not of the articles of the encyclopedia, but of the humans who create and work on them. The project is made of many people.
 * It is more efficient than a few editors digging up quotes to inform others of the sockpuppetry when a discussion of the user takes place. A thoroughly tracked sockpuppet investigation means less time digging means more time to edit, research, etc. It is also an impartial and less-confrontational way to communicate facts instead of editors bringing it up with links and diffs that take up more space to paint a picture.
 * What I would like to know is why is his not tagged as his and socks of others are tagged as theirs? And why are those two sock userpages not marked as socks? Is there a forgive-and-forget policy? It seems like double standard. Please help me understand or reason not the need. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WTF is up with all this drama-mongering? You had a shot, it failed, please do literally anything else with your time. JBL (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What's with the language and bad-faith accusation? That language, even abbreviated, is impolite. We've asked for metadata and/or clarification and nothing else. There are literally so many things worse things to be done with time than work/learn how Wikipedia works. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't what if any history there is between John Pack Lambert and Yleventa2, but given the comments they made, how they came out of the woodwork to make them, and how they have indicated they intend to disappear again once they are done complaining about JPL, I got the distinct impression that Yleventa2 is an old grudge-bearer not really here for any reason other than to grind an axe. Just my two cents. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet tags and categories are used in cases where an abusive user is actively socking, or when we suspect high likelihood that they will reoffend. They're not applied automatically to every account that is ever determined to be a sock, although admittedly there is no review and cleanup of the tags once they are applied. If you would like to make a case that there is some value to Wikipedia to now tagging and categorizing the socks of a user who made a couple of sockpuppet accounts for a total of 8 edits more than a year ago and admitted to it, please do so, otherwise I will be closing this request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanatory and respectful reply (to the original poster I see by the threading, but I see it is along the lines of what I was asking for). I can't tell by Yleventa2's phrasing whether they mean they've gone back to hiatus after posting above or after the request is closed. If they would like to respond with a case, they should do so. Otherwise, I can. I am short on time today, but could write up a halfway decent and succinct (I hope) request tomorrow. Thank you again. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that by "make a case", I meant provide a rationale (here) for retroactively tagging these accounts. If you have new evidence of current and/or ongoing sockpuppetry then creating a new report in the existing SPI case would be appropriate, but please don't if you're only doing it to rehash an old investigation, it's settled and nothing will come of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to cosign what Ivanvector has said above, and also note that sockpuppet categories are primarily for tracking actively abusing sockpuppeteers. Johnpacklambert is an unblocked editor, does not have a history of socking, and the creation of the category does not serve any useful function at this time.  Doing so in this specific context smacks of scarlet letter-type sanctions, which is not something we do.  Also, since we're discussing a Wikipedia editor here, we are required to notify them of the discussion.  This is not optional.  The OP neglected to do so.  I will be doing so presently.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Close
Who exactly is demanding such a category be created? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of pending changes reviewer
Can someone do this for me please? I've been one for years but never use it. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

TfD closure fix request
I closed two TfDs, one dealing with Template:Globalize, but I forgot it was template-protected so the discussion notices were not removed. Can an admin remove them, please? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , the globalize nom was removed, but if there is still a second that needs dealing with please list it here. The other option is to use a TPER request on the template talk page (which really is the ideal way to do this in the first place). Primefac (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, found out what that template was called just now. Will make further requests with TPER. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverting unverifiable WP:NEO


Problematic, unwarranted reverting, with editor refusing to recognize our core policies: WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. My removal of unverifiable terminology, "Islamic death penalty", used twice within the context of two sentences (also in at least one other article), which constructed as it is gives an explicit meaning requiring explicit validation in RS, is reverted twice 1, 2, with an explanation which does not touches on raised verifiability and NEO concerns. Terminology is used in very excessive, unnecessary way in the context of those two sentences making them awkward, but most importantly, if used without validation in RS, making them blatant WP:NEO based on original research. Parallel to my edits I asked editor in article TP (1, 2, 3) to offer exact quotation from RS with page number(s), where the specific terminology is utilized, so that can be validate existence of such peculiar construct, however, they failed and only supplied numerous references and more original research as an explanation and justification, which serves as little more than evasion. They also removed my warning template from their user TP with condescending edit summary, claimed that I am accusing them of edit warring when they did, and refused to revert themselves when asked.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For, the edit warring of this into the lede of Estimates of sexual violence (in which Wikipedia would assert that doctors performing circumcisions were guilty of mutilation / sexual violence) was a problem, and the response to a warning was dismissive and aggressive. Strong smell of WP:NOTHERE from this one. Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , accusing other editors of disruptive editing simply because they disagree with your edits is a self-evident case of WP:BADFAITH, and you know it very well, so stop doing that. I didn't revert my own edit for the following, simple reasons:
 * 1) The discussion is still open and other editors can join it, if they want to do so;
 * 2) I have provided the evidence that you desperately asked for on the Talk page and you refuse to read the aforementioned sources, while accusing me of disruption, racism, and other ridiculous stuff with repeated hostile aggressiveness which nobody else on this website ever told me in the last 6 years..... never.
 * 3) For the time being, there's no WP:CONSENSUS to apply the changes that you proposed;
 * 4) Multiple academic, secondary, reliable references already cited in the article, which have been undisputed for several months, cannot be qualified as original research as you claim, for obvious reasons (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY); nobody spoke of verbatim quotes, I spoke of content; here are the sources that you asked for while refusing to read them.
 * 5) You keep bothering me by posting several warnings on my Talk page while the discussion is still open.... there's no need to say that this kind of behavior doesn't help at all;
 * 6) If I were you, I would have asked for a third opinion about the ongoing discussion, instead of continuously bothering me on my Talk page with your warnings, insults, and accusations of all kinds of ridiculous stuff, as you did both here and on the Talk page for everyone to see.


 * , you clearly have no intention to stop WP:STALKING me after I asked you to do accordingly three times already, and you are reporting me everywhere you can instead of taking the case where it belongs, on the Talk page of the ongoing discussion, as you did in the exact same manner the last time with the article Talk:LGBT in Islam, the unwarranted same hostility and modus operandi towards me, nothing changed. Just say that your sole purpose here is to get me blocked indefinitely, because that's clearly the only reason for doing all of this. And you have the nerve to accuse me of WP:BADFAITH.... Unbelievable.
 * , I linked the Talk page discussion about that user that started the edit warring on multiple articles related to the same topic in my reply to your warning; other veteran editors have expressed their concern about him/her, you can check it out. Btw, almost 7 years of service on this encyclopedia with several contributions on many, many, many articles and all of a sudden you incite other editors to block me indefinitely because I asked you to go somewhere else and stop WP:STALKING me on my Talk page? If that isn't WP:BADFAITH on your part, then I don't know what it is. GenoV84 (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:STONEWALLING is form of evasion and disruptive editing too. Moreover, please restrain yourself from pinning on me variety of foul behavior without corroborating it in proscribed manner. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  11:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , nobody insulted or stalked you in the first place, while the same cannot be said about your behavior towards me in the last 24 hours, in the exact same manner as you did on Talk:LGBT in Islam months ago; everybody can read the accusations and insults that you wrote, you can't fool anyone . Furthermore, you should know better that persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about other editors won't help, so stop doing that as well. GenoV84 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion started as a simple content dispute, I provided the evidence that you asked for,   I further suggested you to ask for a third opinion, and instead you have decided to make it personal and report me everywhere in revenge for the lack of WP:CONSENSUS about your removal of extensively well-sourced content on the article Apostasy in Islam, despite the fact that I provided the evidence that you asked for numerous times,    both here and on the Talk page, and yet you keep denying those sources as if they didn't exist in the first place. What kind of behavior is that? I've been polite and respectful during the entire dispute resolution; sadly, it couldn't be said the same for you. Accusing me of being impolite and of trying to derail the discussion while you have repeatedly insulted and stalked me, and simultaneously reporting me everywhere hoping that I will get blocked, is definitely another violation of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS on your part. GenoV84 (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not provided anything I asked you (quotation with page number(s)), you just buried article TP and now this report with references without pointing where the terminology is supposedly used (I checked and found nothing in validation of your claim). You accused me of BADFAITH, STALKING, breach of AGF, of casting ASPERSIONS against you, all in condescending and hostile tone (I won't delve into your edit-summaries carrying additional accusations and aggressive, condescending messages). I did nothing to you to deserve this kind of treatment, so my only option and the reason to file this report is your persistent misinterpretation of project's policies (along with misinterpretation of sources), in attempt of STONEWALLING, and disregard of these policies main purpose, which is to guard articles and project integrity and where instead you are placing yourself into a role of interpreter by controlling what editors can or cannot do in articles where you deem yourself ultimate authority. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

, I have undone your edit. Per WP:TPO, you should generally not edit other people's discussion posts. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, apologies - but I can't fathom what purpose could these refs serve, except in burying the report and repealing the community in taking notice and taking part in it. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * All the cited academic, reliable references that I provided here, on the Talk page, and in the article extensively demonstrate the exact same historical and juridical phenomenon: Islamic death penalty, which is capital punishment based on Islamic law,   just like the Jewish death penalty is capital punishment based on the Jewish law. Historically, Christianity never made the death penalty an inherently "Christian" sort of punishment, although the Vatican actually has a prescription for death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and people were regularly executed under death sentences in the former Papal States, not to mention the Catholic Inquisition in Southern European kingdoms and their overseas colonies. Atheism is not a religion, so no death penalty.... unlike Islam, Judaism, and Roman Catholicism. Religiously-motivated capital punishment is a real thing, believe it or not, and the academic sources that I provided further report of muslims that were executed by fellow muslims under the Islamic death penalty during the Middle Ages, just like Christians.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be "appropriate" or "inappropriate" towards religious and/or political groups; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is NOT censored. Moreover, as I have already said, content and wikilinks aren't verbatim quotes; the wikilink "Capital punishment in Islam" was linked as "Islamic death penalty" because leaving it as it is titled in that sentence in the body of the article wouldn't be proper English grammar, that's all about it.
 * Further reading: for a broader understanding of Islamic death penalty and other religiously-based punishments prescribed by the Sharia law, Muslim scholars, jurists, and theologians, see the following academic reference: GenoV84 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I stated my case in clear language. You are bludgeoning and stonewalling discussion here and in article TP by constant, steady repetition of one and the same wall of text, in illformated posts, continuously misinterpreting policies, misinterpreting sources, all the while using whole host of accusations against my behavior (both here, as evident, and in article TP). I have nothing further to say to you, that I hadn't say already. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  23:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You even using this POV justification for content of the article itself - you claim: content and wikilinks aren't verbatim quotes; the wikilink "Capital punishment in Islam" was linked as "Islamic death penalty" because leaving it as it is titled in that sentence in the body of the article wouldn't be proper English grammar, that's all about it. BUT apparently, this is what you deem proper English sentence: "(...) many were executed under the Islamic death penalty for defending their Christian faith (...)" and immediately bellow repeated: "(...) and were executed under the Islamic death penalty for this reason include "Kyros"(...). This is as improper English as it can be, and it is also NEO based on original research, not least completely unnecessary phrasing. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  00:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not the first instance in which Santasa99 has attempted to ignore the presence of multiple, reliable, secondary academic sources and bludgeon others in discussions. The same pattern is present at Articles for deletion/Jusuf Barčić, where they are railing against the notability of a figure mentioned in literally dozens of scholarly sources. This thread, incorrectly posted to the main noticeboard, not the incidents page, should boomerang on the OP for their resounding CIR issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This all basically means that you are in agreement with GenoV84 arguments? ౪ Santa ౪  99°  00:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure review for Kiwi Farms external link RfC
IMO, this close seems like a fairly classic case of a WP:SUPERVOTE.
 * Link to RfC: Talk:Kiwi_Farms

In the summary statement at the end, Szmenderowiecki cites two policies/guidelines as the central rationale for their close: WP:BURDEN and WP:PROBLEMLINKS. Neither of these were mentioned in the discussion, it was just Szmenderowiecki's own (entirely novel) argument, which they admit (even though no one cited the guideline, WP:PROBLEMLINKS makes it perfectly clear...). This seems to me to be exactly what a supervote is; a closure based on one's personal opinion, rather than anything that had to do with the actual discussion it was closing.

FWIW, I also think these P&Gs were cited incorrectly. WP:BURDEN refers to the burden for demonstrating verifiability; verifiability was not something in dispute in the discussion. For WP:PROBLEMLINKS, the advice in that guideline hinges on how encyclopedic the link in question is, so one would presumably have to argue that an official link to a website is not particularly encyclopedic, which Szmenderowiecki did not argue. It would've been better to be able to argue this in the actual RfC itself, but because it was a novel argument brought up only in the closure of the RfC, we did not get a chance. Endwise (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Edit: Aquillion did actually mention ELBURDEN, which I didn't notice (see below). Endwise (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, the answer here is clear: there were multiple editors in that discussion who objected to the link because it contained harassment. Just because no one literally said "WP:PROBLEMLINKS" while restating its contents doesn't mean the guideline does not exist, or that the argument was not raised. My task as a closer is to make sure that the arguments are policy-/guideline-based, and this particular one is (see "Key guideline points section", the "Sites that routinely harass" part).
 * As for WP:BURDEN, I have mistaken it for WP:ONUS, which makes me think of the same thing when written as a shortcut (probably because I've seen it too often together). The point is, if something is challenged and you want to include it, it is up to you to rally consensus for inclusion, and this is a standard rule for all discussions governing inclusion/exclusion. My apologies, I will correct the link. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Harassments of, who, exactly? If we were talking about some site that was trying to out or personally attack Wikipedia editors, sure. But we're not the wiki-police, policing the internet for mean people who say mean things in general. Yet another ill-informed non-admin close. Zaathras (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can think of at least two BLP subjects we have articles about, and one enwiki admin, who have threads dedicated to harassing them on that forum. I've not done an exhaustive search, but knowing who Kiwi Farms likes to target I'm sure there are many more BLPs who face harassment because of that site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Outing people and personally attacking them is this website's raison d'etre. Something which was pointed out and substantiated repeatedly in the RFC itself. I also think it's a bit disingenuous to call harassing three separate people (that we know of) into suicide "saying mean things about people". Especially when that harassment includes impersonating someone while calling the mayor, police department, and various representatives of that person's municipality with violent threats in the hopes of getting their house raided by SWAT teams. As happened in the most recent and most high profile case associated with this website. And that's not an isolated incident, it happened multiple times to just this person, and that's not the only person to experience this. Licks-rocks (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mention in the RfC, the living persons we have articles on are sadly IMO a lesser concern since generally for better or worse, if you're someone who is notable at least by GNG standards i.e. has had people writing about you, you probably have come to expect people might also be cruel about you. In some ways a bigger problem is a big part of their existence is based on attacking 'random' (for lack of a better word) low profile and therefore generally non notable living persons. I mean their name sort of tells us that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

[uninvolved] I get taking issue with some of the wording. e.g. "even though no one cited the guideline, WP:PROBLEMLINKS makes it perfectly clear..." could've just as easily been written "many people made arguments similar to what's articulated in WP:PROBLEMLINKS". But really, does anyone think that discussion could be closed with consensus to include the link? There are significantly more people opposing, and WP:PROBLEMLINKS (as articulated, if not linked to, by many) makes for a pretty clear default position IMO. Maybe propose a modification of that guideline creating an exception for official links to the subject of an article? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't applying global consensus what we want closers to do? If the participants in a discussion didn't raise a policy or guideline that is on point, I'd think we'd want the closer to apply the policy or guideline, so that local consensus doesn't override global consensus. I'm not seeing the problem here. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * People don't need to link to (or even be aware of) a policy to make an argument that is supported by that policy. While I disagree with parts of the closing statement, I think the consensus was that something like WP:PROBLEMLINKS needed to exist, just folks weren't aware it *did* exist.  The fact it does exist makes their arguments all the stronger.  That said, I'd have preferred the closer !voted bringing up  PROBLEMLINKS at that time, rather than closing.  Still, endorse close result as once the policy is brought into the discussion, there really is no other way to close it. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:PROBLEMLINKS is a behavioral guideline, but some seem to be citing it as policy. It is ridiculously ancient by Wikipedia standards, since being made a behavioral guide in 2008, it has remained largely untouched. This essay reflects a near 15 year-old mentality that should be reevaluated before people try to cite it in present-day debates. I've already encountered someone citing this when they wanted to remove the links to Libs of TikTok's twitter account, . Zaathras (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse close. There was an overwhelming numerical majority against including the link, and numerous people said that they felt the page should be excluded because it hosts harassment; anyone who didn't feel that that was true, relevant, or policy-based had ample time to make that argument. Also, I actually did cite WP:ELBURDEN in my !vote, which is the more WP:EL-specific version of BURDEN / WP:ONUS., please strike the bit saying that there was no reference to WP:BURDEN in the discussion, or at least add a note that WP:ELBURDEN was brought up - that is not a minor quibble; if you're going to ask for an RFC to be overturned in defiance of a stark numerical majority, you need to actually be precise about things like that, and clearly that aspect of Szmenderowiecki's close reflects an argument I made. Surely you are not going to ask for an RFC to be overturned because the closer accurately summarized an argument from the discussion, but mistakenly linked WP:BURDEN in place of WP:ELBURDEN? --Aquillion (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're correct about that; in my quick scan/search of the discussion I didn't see you that you mentioned WP:ELBURDEN. I've added a quick addendum to my original comment, but i don't really want to strike and rewrite it, as I'm happy to let this die at this point. Endwise (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Athaenara
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Arbitration committee 2022 election: nominations to start in a month
The nomination period for the 2022 arbitration committee election will start in just under a month. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to talk to them now, well in advance of the election. For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Request to be an ECP user
Hi, a few months ago you removed me as an ECP user. I wanted to appeal this decision and request that you add me to the list of ECP users. I will explain my request, you removed me because you claimed that I was gaming the system. That is, trying to get 500 edits in order to be an ECP user, but despite that I continued to make edits and currently I have over 700 edits that I made over 8 months. In addition to this, I also made complicated edits that require effort and knowledge, such as editing the "wealth by country" list that I made and it took me days to re-edit. I would be happy if you would add me as an ECP user because honestly I have no intention of cheating or playing the system, you can check that each of the over 700 edits I made is a correct, real edit and I have never made an unfounded or incorrect edit. I would really appreciate it if you would consider returning the ECP to me, thanks. Fun71528 (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Before bringing this request here, you should discuss the removal of the permission with the removing administrator .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are far more likely to be successful in an appeal if you are honest about what you were doing and apologise, rather than trying to pretend that the removal was incorrect. Looking through your edits does in fact suggest you were attempting to game the system. Back in August there are dozens and dozens of examples of you making completely pointless, trivial changes to inflate your edit count, such as adding random blank lines   or spaces    to articles. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I’ve made a mistake and I’m sorry about it. I really do ask for your forgiveness. And yes, I don’t have any bad intentions. I do think I deserve to be an ECP user and you can see the edits I’ve made to understand that I am an experienced and reliable editor with more than 700 edits. Fun71528 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bbb23 their appeal and recent edits don't convince me, but I'll leave it to the community. Right now I see a lot of minor edits still. Doug Weller  talk 14:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You can see my edit for example in "Wealth by Country" I remade a new list of almost 200 countries! It also took me a few days, I really did a lot of complex editingFun71528 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please reconsider it. I think I really contributed a lot to Wikipedia and will contribute more in the future. Please give me one more chance to prove myself to you.Fun71528 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Can you please give me a chance to prove to you that I am an experienced editor with real intentions? It's been months since you removed me as ECP and since then I've done a lot of challenging edits please give me another chance.Fun71528 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop saying "you" when you refer to the removal of the ECP permission. Granting and removing permissions is not my forte; I leave it to other administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. How can I contact the administrators?Fun71528 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, you're doing so right now - this isn't called the Administrators' Noticeboard because it's populated by gremlins. If you're here to demonstrate incompetence, you're doing a wonderful job.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies,I didn’t know that.
 * But i think i deserve anther chance.Fun71528 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be more persuasive if instead of talking about what you deserve, you explained how the encyclopedia would benefit. NebY (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What you need to do is to show that the encyclopaedia will benefit from your gaining the ECP permission, and the absolute best way to do that is to spend a few months quietly making constructive improvements to articles. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf But that's what I did, I spent the last few months editing and improving articles. I have been on Wikipedia for over 8 months and have made hundreds of edits. I'm really not an inexperienced editor or a troll and you can see the edits I've done in the last few months, some of which took me days to edit, to see that I am indeed a good and skilled editor. Why can't I get another chance?Fun71528 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not missing a chance, as you are editing now. None of that needed ECP. I would suggest leaving this for now, and to spend a bit more time learning the ropes. The lack of standard indentation in this conversation suggests you are not that familiar with how Wikipedia works. CMD (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @CMD
 * I do know how wikipedia works, I simply ask you to give me a chance to prove to you, if you see that I don't edit well, remove me for good. I do want to make edits that require ECP and it's depressing that you don't give this option even though I've been here for over 8 months and have done hundreds of edits and i’ve learned my lesson.Fun71528 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If I explicitly mention indentation in the previous message, and you reply having seemingly completely ignored that, this gives the impression that you are not listening to advice that you are being given. A new request a few months on which demonstrates more familiarity and need is more likely to succeed. In the meantime, if there are edits that require ECP, you can use Template:Edit extended-protected on the relevant talkpage. 16:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC) CMD (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, Fun71528, there's a comment about you failing to adhere to indentation standards, and instead of figuring out what that means and how you can follow them, you just keep on going, repeating the same things over and over again. You were handed a lesson and you disregarded it. And then you do this, without bothering to give an explanation. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had waited a second you would have seen the edit I made with the exact detail for the edit....Fun71528 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator and have no ability to grant the bit or not, but I would suggest you take some advice and step back from this as you are beginning to come across as extremely desperate for a fairly benign permission. You most recent collection of edits have been to edit war over a table where I see no indication that you tried to explain to the other user the issue on the talk page or link them to the supposed discussion, where it was decided that your way was the correct way. To be clear I am not agreeing with one version or the other just that edit warring like this will not be considered favorably when asking for additional permission or restatement of them. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that this conversation is a good example of why ECP should not be returned. You appear to lack an appropriate level of awareness of how your conduct is perceived by others, and you've not demonstrated a compelling reason to return the privilege. ECP is a means of allowing editors who have gained an appropriate level of experience to edit on more challenging topics. That you cannot appropriately navigate even this conversation appears to show that you need some more time.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Post-close note: Subsequent to the above comments on threading, the threading was later fixed by a third party. CMD (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the correct way to tag this article for deletion?
Timothy french was created last month, but Timothy French is protected from being recreated. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for a speedy, A7 is probably the one. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

IP range block
Copying my message from User talk:JavaHurricane, A new volunteer of DCW is facing range block on this wiki. Commons username is Khuddukhail. Since you are an account creator, would it be possible for you to create a local account for that username? They are not able to login anyway. @Bbb23 says they are clueless. Can any admin over here help please. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  12:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Premature request of speedy deletion
There's a user name AngusWOOF who made an apparent premature request of speedy deletion of the new article Blue (Velociraptor) of the Jurassic World trilogy, but that article has some references placed on it and has some things necessary added on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

BattleshipMan (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , I CSD G12'ed it as it copied entire paragraphs from the fandom wikia page. https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Blue  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, someone should create a draft article about that article then without copying the contents from another site then. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't Fandom content released under a Creative Commons license? It should be permitted to copy from it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pawnkingthree According to https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Jurassic_Park_Wiki:Copyrights the Jurassic park wiki uses a GNU Free Documentation License, which is not compatible with Wikipedia. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Though it is contradictory and some other parts of the site say is uses a creative commons licence. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was going by the "Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted" note at the bottom of the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The terms you agree to when you submit an edit though, https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning directs you to a page that states your edit is under a GNU Licence. I get the impression that the "available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted" message is standard across all fandom sites, and this is one of the ones where the copyright is as "otherwise noted"? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pawnkingthree These things cannot be assumed, amnd I cannot find that information on that site 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP editor found what I was unable to 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * A Draft:Blue (Jurassic World) can be developed, with aliases for Blue (Jurassic Park) and Blue (velociraptor). She really needs to be in List of Jurassic Park characters in the meantime. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A question about outing policy
I'll ask my question in redacted form. The journal [redacted] has just published a lead article focusing on an academic researcher who promotes a fringe POV and was recently fired for violating regulations about use of medical data. The article states that, as an example of the influence of this person on popular perceptions, they were heavily involved in editing an earlier version of Wikipedia's article on [redacted], as determined from the article's talk-page archives. In that archive, the real name can be determined from their username, but the person's userpage does not give their real name. The journal article, which discusses this person as an example of a broader issue, is an interesting and revealing one, but I'm asking whether using the journal article as a source in a Wikipedea article or mentioning or linking to it on an article talk-page or WP:FTN would violate our outing policy. In other words, if a major journal "outs" an editor, is it permissible for me to mention or link to that journal article or use it as a source? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Fwiw, here's a similar discussion: Help_desk/Archives/2022_February_5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally I believe that if a WP:RS does the outing then it is no an longer outing issue on wikipedia it becomes a WP:BLP/WP:NPOV question. However I do not believe that is the only view on the issue, many seem to take WP:OUTING's complete silence on the issue to mean that its not an exception when I think the proper argument is that if its in a WP:RS then its not outing. Period. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The answer is 'no WP:OUTING does not apply' for the simple reason that if it did, all any subject of, or person mentioned in, an article would need to do is create an account and boom, they can claim WP:OUTING means all (or more accurately, any information about them they dislike) personal information about them needs to be redacted. See the fallout over Tenebrae, Peppermint, the Frank Lovece biography and a Daily Dot article. And what happened to the last editor who tried to use the Harrassment policy to hide self-promotion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The question being asked here is not only an abstract policy question, because based on the post above it's obvious what Wikipedia editor is being referred to. I won't name the editor, but NightHeron has outed that particular editor once before, and their earlier post was suppressed, although surprisingly they weren't blocked or warned for the attempted outing. So as I said, this is not just a question of what the WP:OUTING policy allows; it's also a question of whether it would be permissible for NightHeron to re-post identifying information about an editor that has already been suppressed the previous time they posted it. 2600:1004:B121:5886:5572:26ED:42B6:FA5A (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Striking t-ban violation. This IP user is well aware that they may not comment on matters related to race or intelligence, either in conjunction or separately. Generalrelative (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer is still that as long as it is a reliable source, it can be used in the appropriate context. If you were using it as a reference, you would need a good reason to, and directly supporting content in an article. Mere discussion on talk pages wouldnt cut it. If said academic researcher has a biography on here, yes it could be used to support content in their biographic article that they actively promote fringe material, including through editing wikipedia. Provided the source is reliable and satisfies WP:BLP for content about a living person. It wouldnt actually be necessary to name the editor anyway, see the Frank Lovece issue with the connected contributor template. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I might add, the Tenebrae issue is more recent than Nightheron's original suppressed post. The community is likely to be a bit more nuanced now given we had such an egregious weaponising of the harrassment policy by an editor with a COI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

To answer the IP's concern about my suppressed edit: A few minutes after making the edit, I realized that it qualified as outing and immediately self-reverted. I then asked an admin to revdel it, which they did right away. All of this took place quickly. Because I caught my mistake and got the edit suppressed within minutes, I was not warned or punished. Other than that, I have never made any attempt to out anybody.

The individual in question does not have a BLP. In an edit there would be no need for me to mention the name. The journal article describes an interesting case showing how far promoters of the fringe POV are willing to go (in this case, violating regulations for handling of medical data). So there are a couple of articles where it might be appropriate to include a mention of this. I'd first ask at the article's talk-page before putting it in. NightHeron (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like the reference could be used without naming the person or the username; something along the lines of "a study by found that an academic researcher pushed their fringe theories on platforms such as Wikipedia.[1]". Primefac (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It could, but I don't think this would solve the policy contradiction described by only in death above, because we would definitely usually name the person. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. At the Scientific racism talk-page I've asked about proposed text that cites the article. NightHeron (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In the abstract, you've hit on a genuine contradiction between WP:OUTING and WP:NPOV that we've yet to really resolve (and as Only in death says, it has come up before). But in this particular case, I don't think it is outing if the user has previously disclosed their real name via their username. Per WP:OUTING, referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing and in usual circumstances self-disclosure is permanent (i.e. it doesn't have to be currently on their user page). The current oversight team tends to be quite broad in their interpretation of outing and 'personal information', however, so YMMV. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Create redirect at protected title
Could someone create Chase Oliver as a redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia? User:Sal2100 asked for this redirect to be created at WP:AFC/R, saying ''The title is currently protected due to multiple deletions and repeated recreation attempts from over a decade ago. While the subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for a standalone article at the present time, a redirect to the targeted section is plausible and warranted.'' Since most of the AFC reviewers aren't administrators, I figured it would be better to ask here. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. —Cryptic 01:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Used staff account to set protection by accident
Wanting to note that I accidentally protected a page using my staff account and want to be clear this wasn't an office an action of any kind. I have a tool that prevents me from editting without a manual acknowledgement on my staff account, but naturally not for other actions. Whilst the protection was intentional, to do it with my staff account was not. Apologies for that. Seddon talk 12:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Immediate desysop of volunteer account and blocking of staff account for this underhanded attempt at superprotect, of course. /s Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Help needed: replying to closed discussion
I recently reverted another editor's reply to a closed AfD discussion (on the basis of Template:Archive top). The editor pointed out, however, that the reply button was inviting him to reply. Should this tool be removed in closed discussions? Is that even possible? Was I right in reverting? Sorry if this is the wrong location to ask this question - I couldn't think of anywhere else. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You were entirely correct to revert. The AfD in question was clearly marked as closed. This wasn't a case where someone had been writing a comment before the close and jammed it in two minutes over the line. Furthermore, just because a button exists does not mean one ought to use it - after all, the edit button persists on closed discussions, and we trust people not to make use of that, either. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a fairly big difference between the "edit button existing" (which it does for literally all pages on the project) and a big blue "REPLY" button existing on a controversially closed AFD. But YMMV, I guess. I'll leave you all to it. KevinHallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 20:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , the reply button (which isn't that big, not that size matters here) exists on literally all discussion pages these days as a tool of convenience. The technical ability to edit a page, whether via the edit button or the reply button, does not override the longstanding community convention of not editing closed AfD discussions, coupled with the obvious closed/archived formatting and explicit warning not to edit the closed discussion. I understand making the error in the first place, but doubling down and acting like the presence of a reply button forced you to use it seems silly to me. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Never once did I write that "the presence of a reply button forced [me] to use it." Not one thing about this situation surprises me at all. Not your snarky remark about "the presence of a reply button forced you to use it." Not the awful close, where an admin substituted their own policy interpretation for the overwhelming community consensus. Not the wikilawyering to keep a simple reply to the awful close from appearing below it. Nothing. Admins are super-users on the project, whose view of policy can be substituted for overwhelming community consensus. It's as simple as that. It's always been like this, and probably always will be. And at this point, pushing back against it is pretty futile. Please don't ping me again in this pointless "discussion." KevinHallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 01:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich Has Returned
Jason Gastrich, currently known as User:Former_user_20, has returned under a new name: User:Jasonagastrich. He is permanently banned as per Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich and also for deliberately revealing an editors name, address, and phone number for the purpose of inciting harassment. He has even resumed the practice of self-promotion with Talk:2003_California_gubernatorial_recall_election. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 01:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * My reading of the 2006 ArbCom decision is that the ban was for a year, not permanent. However, the ArbCom log also records an extensive history of post-ban socking, as well as the following by, regrettably without a link to the AN discussion: "I have blocked Jason Gastrich indefinitely as a community-imposed ban, which was endorsed by multiple users at WP:AN." The log also links to several discussions up until 2007 in which the user's reinstatement was declined. So from what I can tell, should be blocked for ban evasion, but I'll leave this to people more familiar with the user's history.   Sandstein   07:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:3X is still part of policy; Jason has evaded their block on more than 2 occasions. Per policy Editors who are confirmed by a CheckUser to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active, for any reason, are effectively site banned by the Wikipedia community.[6] CheckUser findings[7] must be documented on Wikipedia before a user is considered banned. Users who have been banned in this way are subject to the same unban conditions as users banned by community discussion.  Jason has had in excess of 20 CU-confirmed blocks, so the proforma blocking of any and all new accounts they create is well within policy.  Now, I will note that many/most/perhaps all of these CU-confirmed sock accounts were from 15 years ago or more, so perhaps a community discussion should be held if WP:SO or WP:ROPE applies here, but that discussion needs to happen before the ban is considered lifted.  Unless and until the community decides Jason can edit freely, they cannot per policy.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well that's not a name I expected to see today or at all. Here's the AN discussion; we didn't stand on quite as much ceremony 16½ years ago. At this time the new account falls to be reblocked for ban evasion, so I have done this. He has two edits outside his own userspace in the last two years. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely did a double-take on seeing that name. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At first I thought this was gonna be a thread from that one LTA who pops up once or twice a year with the purported goal of mediating some long-banned user's return. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SNOW
I have closed an WP:MFD on WP:HATESPEECH per WP:SNOW. I realize that I now may have been too hasty. An administrator told me to come here to ask for a closure review. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks more like a disruptive nomination than a bad close. I don't see any issue with the close. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a related thread regarding the nom at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support the close. It's an essay and the deletion nomination is unnecessary. Nythar  (💬-🎃) 22:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good close per WP:SK. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to type that. I'm not sure why I didn't do that. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not at all a bad close. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 22:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Has anyone ever considered merging such related essays? GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That has nothing at all to do with this thread. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like a valid speedy keep to me, as there was no valid deletion rationale. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse the close. There was only going to be one outcome. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Snow closure was appropriate. Speedy keep probably wouldn't have been.  And this sort of review belongs at WP:DRV, not here. —Cryptic 00:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no way that 5 keeps in less than 24 hours reaches the level of WP:SNOW. I have no opinion on the speedy keep part -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have closed this early, but it's not a big deal. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse the snow close. Snow closes don't depend on the number of votes nor the time period left open.  It's a form of IAR, where it is obvious to anyone paying attention it isn't going to go any other way.  It would have been a snow close with zero votes and left open only 1 second.  Clearly wasn't going to go anywhere.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cryptic that this is a Deletion Review issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have DS questions
My understanding is that an administrator has authority to independently sanction an editor only in an article/talk page that is subject to discretionary sanctions (DS). If the page is not DS, the matter must be taken to a "wikicourt."

My further understanding is that the DS status of an article/talk page must be prominently displayed on the page.

Also, is it correct that, at least by custom if not policy, and assuming the article/talk page actually is subject to DS, a user should or must receive a DS alert on their Talk page before a sanction is imposed?

For reference, please see:

Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions


 * "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." [let's assume none of the six "awareness" criteria listed here are applicable in a given case, such that an editor could not be aware]

Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions


 * "Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:
 * • The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
 * • There was an editnotice (ds/editnotice) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction."

If I have this wrong I'd appreciate if adminstrators would correct me. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You can be sanctioned for editing in any area covered by discretionary sanctions provided you are aware of the specific discretionary sanctions topic area you are being sanctioned for. That includes talk pages and noticeboards and not just articles. There is no need for there to be page restrictions or any notice that the page is affected since it's your responsibility to take care when editing in any area affected by discretionary sanctions once you're aware that topic area is covered. Page restrictions are specific measures covering a certain page that is covered under some discretionary sanctions, and impose specific limitations on editing some page. You can be sanctioned for violating page restrictions without needing to further demonstrate the harm of your edits provided they aren't covered by WP:BANEX. So if a page is covered under 1RR as an example, you could be sanctioned for violating that. However on other pages in the topic area, simply going beyond 1RR is not by itself enough for sanctions but you may still find yourself in trouble if you keep doing it. Note that in some cases it is unlikely page restrictions would be justified under DS e.g. Offham Hill isn't likely to be sufficiently covered by any DS I'm aware of to be to justify page restrictions. Still if you make edits concerning some living person or about a fringe theory, your edits would still fall under the BLP and pseudoscience discretionary sanctions respectively. Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a nitpick, the relevant exceptions to a page-level DS revert restriction are those at WP:3RRNO, not BANEX. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne does a good job of answering a lot of what you ask. You also can be sanctioned under regular behavioral procedures without a "wikicourt" (to use your phrase). So if you are edit warring you can be blocked (or partially blocked) without the DS bureaucracy. What makes DS special is admin have extra authority to impose kinds of sanctions they normally couldn't (i.e. topic bans) and/or at a lower threshold of misbehavior or with less overall warning. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * wrote it's your responsibility to take care when editing in any area affected by discretionary sanctions once you're aware that topic area is covered (italics mine). But the scenario I describe is an editor has not been made aware of it, either by notice or alert. So how can an editor plausibly know the DS status of every space in the encyclopedia so they can avoid a violation? soibangla (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "a violation"? If an editor has not been made aware via one of the methods listed at WP:AC/DS they cannot be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions regime. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So I'd like to translate what you said: if an editor has not been made aware that DS is in effect, with a notice on the page or alert to their Talk page, DS sanctions cannot be applied. Is that correct? soibangla (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla Not quite. If an editor has not been personally made aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect via a DS/alert on their talk page (or by satisfying any of the other conditions at WP:AC/DS) they cannot be sanctioned under any part of discretionary sanctions.
 * If a page is under specific restrictions (e.g. 1RR) then the editor must both  have been made aware personally via a DS/alert or equivalent, and an appropriate edit notice must be present on the page in order for that restriction to be enforced.
 * Apart from those used to enforce specific remedies like 1RR the notices on article talk pages and in edit notices the like are purely a courtesy and have no effect on anything. The existence of a talk notice cannot be used as evidence to sanction an editor who has not been made aware of sanctions, and there is no requirement to add a notice to a talk page to "include" an article in the discretionary sanctions regime. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and, do you concur with this by 192.76.8.77?
 * soibangla (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems about right. If an uninvolved admin uses discretionary sanctions to sanction a user who truly wasn't aware (through any enumerated method) in the area of conflict, the sanction was made out-of-process and there's a basis for an appeal to a "wikicourt" – either AE or AN, and if that fails, ARCA. Expired sanctions cannot be appealed. An administrator who places sanctions out-of-process could perhaps be admonished at ARCA (it has happened before). If there's no further evidence of misbehaviour by the admin, an admonishment is the most likely outcome.There are some cases where AE or other forum has accepted an appeal because the enforcing admin interpreted the area of conflict too broadly.If you're not literally "asking for a friend", I'd suggest reading awareness criterion #4 very, very closely. Politrukki (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is even an criterion #4. It's criterion #3 since as pointed out by the sanctioning admin, the OP was considered aware of the American politics DS (also BLP) due to this alert [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soibangla&diff=prev&oldid=1069677873]. I guess the OP forgot about that alert, but for good reason we do expect editors to remember for 12 months any discretionary sanctions topics they're alerted to (or made aware by some other manner). I would say it's especially important for the OP to do so, since going by their talk page, they seem to be heavily involved in both areas. Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I trusted that if Soibangla was talking about themselves, they would have double-checked and quadruple-checked that. I'm not too familiar with the background of Soibangla's sanction, but I remembered seeing this. They should now remind themselves that a sanctioned user will remain aware in the area of conflict forever unless all sanctions are successfully appealed. Politrukki (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I saw that Feb 2022 alert and I maintain that it was not applicable because "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." The area of conflict was in an economics article, not an AP2 article, and I don't see that science article falling under AP2. raises interesting points, but try as I might, I cannot find it codified in policy.  Just intuitively I find it implausible that editors could be expected to know if any edit they make in a non-DS article might tangentially touch a DS article and expose them to sanction. I'd like to see PAG that articulates that. It seems far more intuitive from my observations that if a topic area is tagged as DS, then all "child" records hanging off that "parent" record inherit that DS property (unless it is explicitly overridden). And because the Economics topic area is not a child of AP2, economics articles don't inherit that DS tag. Consequently an AP2 DS alert is not applicable to the Recession article. soibangla (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, the American politics discretionary sanctions apply to edits, as well as pages. Whether an edit to an economics article falls under discretionary sanctions depends upon what you are editing in that article, not just what the article is. If you pick an economics article at random some of the stuff in it will not fall under discretionary sanctions, but anything related to the intersections between the topic and American politics will. Per WP:AC/DS the area of conflict is broadly constructed, as determined by the topic ban policy - WP:Broadly construed states.
 * You cannot classify articles into "stuff that is related to American politics" and "stuff that isn't", the world isn't that simple. Evolution is a science for example, but it's massively ingrained into American politics and spin-off topics like Inteligent design are extremely political. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I submit that "any plausible dispute" would be better handled by standard BRD on an exceptional basis, rather than subject an editor to possible sanction for unwittingly touching an electric fence on the border of DS. As I see it, there is a clear demarcation between DS and non-DS (otherwise, why even have DS topic areas, just make everything DS) and exceptions are just that, exceptions, and should be handled accordingly without the need for administrator intervention. If a DS alert actually means "this topic area and any other topic area it might conceivably touch," then it should say that rather than state a clear delineation of one specific topic area. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * you clearly knew this was an American politics dispute. You said as much in your comments on the talk page. It's utter nonsense to claim it was "unwittingly", you absolutely knew what you were getting in to, and to suggest otherwise is not only disingenuous but suggests even without having to look at your behaviour in the matter that your sanction was likely justified, and it wouldn't be surprising if further sanction is justified in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * by talking about "unwittingly touching" a DS area, you make it sound like you were editing and modified or removed text that related to a DS area but you had no idea it did because you were just editing a broad article. But it's clear this is not the case. While you might have had pre-existing involved in the article predating the recent dispute, you clearly knew the recent dispute related to post-1992 American politics, your 3rd comment on the talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession&diff=1100720895&oldid=1100710857] and plenty of others (e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession&diff=1101019298&oldid=1101018685] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession&diff=1101033271&oldid=1101033218] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession&diff=1101040278&oldid=1101039941] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession&diff=1101035691&oldid=1101035672]) show that. Indeed your comments illustrate that you felt the need to protect the article against "political activism" relating to a current US politics dispute. So please cut it out with the disingenuous suggestion you unwittingly touched this, you knew what it was when you chose to get involved in it. While it can be commendable to oppose political activism and prevent recent political disputes from overtaking broad articles, post-1992 American politics is one area where problems arise very easily so we need everyone involved in editing anything related to post-1992 American politics anywhere on the English wikipedia to be on their best behaviour, whatever their motivation. If editors are unable to do so, then they will need to stay away from the topic anywhere on the English wikipedia, preferably voluntarily but by topic ban if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention my final thought which is that if we turn it back around, we can see the harm that comes when editors are not on their best behaviour. Even if their motivations are good and what they propose is ultimately borne out by community consensus, editors who behave poorly can make it much harder to get to that consensus with a lot more needless ill feeling, arguments and in the worst case edit-warring, all around. In other words, they become a barrier rather than part of the solution. Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What was OP's misbehavior and what was the harm that was prevented by sanctioning him?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, as I already told the OP on the admin's talk page, I'm not interested in revisiting the specifics of their behaviour. I'm just trying to correct their woefully misinformed understanding of how DS works, and why it works that way. If the OP wants to claim their behaviour was fine because although it was a DS area, they behaved perfectly fine or at least not bad enough to warrant sanction, that's one thing. But they've barely done that at least here; instead most of their comments here have been them trying to claim it was not a DS even though it clearly was, and whether or not they understood DS applied, they knew it was a DS area. It wasn't something they unwittingly went into, it's something they intentionally went in to with an apparent desire to protect an article from what they regarded as harm coming from editing being made due to current American politics dispute. Anyway I've probably said enough on this so I'll leave it on a final comment. I've emphasised we need to treat all sides equally whatever their motivations, for many reasons it's the only way things will work. If you're trying to say you don't see AP2 should apply, then from my PoV this means you're also saying that if an editor was on the recession talk page insisting that the lead needs to say a certain thing and the only reason it says something else is because everyone is trying to protect Biden, this editor cannot be sanctioned under AP2. If that's really how you feel so be it I guess, but I can tell you if an editor has a topic ban on American politics and insists those edits did not violate it, well they'll be given short shrift by the community. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to say you don't see AP2 should apply... Wow! that was out of left field. Read my question. I was just asking for a clarification as to what you see having occurred so that I, and perhaps others, could make sense of your lengthy discourse on this matter.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, the thing with discretionary sanctions is that... they are discretionary. Sometimes administrators don't use their discretion wisely (for example in this appeal there was consensus that Order of the Arrow didn't fall under AP2), but, I believe, most of the time they do. Sometimes things are murky. I believe that many indef page protections made under DS are rather questionable.I don't think this forum should specifically be used to debate the merits of your sanction because you already lost your change to appeal. Politrukki (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes sorry I neglected to mention an editor needs to be aware for any discretionary sanction including for any that relate to page restrictions. Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, your understanding is not correct. You appear to have mixed several things together and gotten them confused.
 * First of all, discretionary sanctions do not apply to articles. The vast majority of discretionary sanctions apply to pages, and many of them apply to edits. This means an editor can be sanctioned under discretionary sanctions for their behaviour in project space, on templates, the stuff they make in their userspace, their interactions with other editors regarding the topic and so forth.
 * Under discretionary sanctions administrators can place restrictions on individual editors (called "sanctions") or they can place restrictions on pages (called "page restrictions"). A "sanction" on an editor might be something like a block or a topic ban, a "page restriction" might be something like a WP:1RR restriction or a requirement to get consensus for changes.
 * If an administrator wishes to sanction an editor, the editor must have been made aware of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, this can only be done by meeting one of the criteria at WP:AC/DS. Per WP:AC/DS the topics under discretionary sanctions are broadly constructed, and the topic ban policy is used to determine their scope. There is no requirement to indicate the DS status of the page, though this may be done as a courtesy. If an editor has not been made aware of the existence of DS sanctions, they cannot be sanctioned. DS/alerts are valid for 1 year, and there is no requirement for further alerts prior to imposing a sanction.
 * If an administrator wishes to place a restriction on a page they must follow the instructions at WP:AC/DS. If an administrator decides to implement a 1RR restriction on a page, for example, then they must set up an appropriate edit notice using ds/editnotice and should add a notice to the talk page. If an admin wants to block an editor for violating that 1RR restriction the editor must both have been made aware of existence of discretionary sanctions, and an appropriate edit notice informing the editor of the page restriction must have been set up.
 * Individual administrators can place sanctions on editors for conduct in the topic area, there is no requirement to use WP:AE. As it says at WP:AC/DS . 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Costco nostra
Concerns were properly and recently raised regarding User:DemocraticLuntz's updating of 2020 census numbers. Even more concerning, it seems, is User talk:Costco nostra, who is now individually revising demographic data on every county page in the United States, and the reference the user is providing for revision of this data does not include the ethnic percentages the user is adding. So what is the source? I asked that question of User talk:Costco nostra. Answer: Well, the user is doing the math individually. So far, the user also has inserted the inaccurate state on a vast number of county pages, which had to be retroactively corrected. In the case of User:DemocraticLuntz, I think the concerns were that the user's automated process had not been previously reviewed/approved combined with the insertion of an inaccurate link that had to be reverted and corrected on a few hundred pages. But, at least in that case, I don't believe there was any questioning that the population numbers (then and largely still at 2010 levels) were in need of being updated and that the user was doing his/her best to insert accurate data supported in the reference provided. In this case, however, we are relying on one user's individual math to update core demographic data to (just looked this up) 3,143 counties across the nation without, to my knowledge, any broader assessment of the accuracy (or even need for) these percentages. This warrants assessment as it relates to process and format for literally thousands of data revisions to pages based on the sole determination of one user that these percentages must be included and that, if so, his/her individual calculations of them is sufficient in place of any primary reference for them. On the format alone, if the census is not providing the data, I do not see any reason that we should be. But if they should be included, the process of one user's mathematical interpretation of the primary reference warrants consideration. I'll alert the user I've raised the issue here and appreciate assessment of the process for mass changes of this magnitude that are being made based on individual calculations. I suspect there is a relevant policy for them and doubt it includes one user doing 3,143 individual mathematical calculations. And if there is no policy for changes this vast and fundamental, perhaps there should be. Keystone18 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah like I said some of this stuff is 20 years out of date, and I'm just adding a template that's already present for countless other counties in other states some of which are already updated. I didn't come up with it I'm just adding it to pages that our woefully out of date.
 * Answer: Well, the user is doing the math individually.
 * And? What approved way am I supposed to be using then if not doing it manually? Routine calculations are not banned on wikipedia. No original research
 * user also has inserted the inaccurate state on a vast number of county pages, which had to be retroactively corrected
 * Which I caught and fixed myself. As I already explained to you that was a mistake I made because I forgot to update the template for the new state I was updating.  Once I saw that I went back and fixed it.
 * accuracy (or even need for) these percentages
 * Well they're on other county pages as I already pointed out but you keep ignoring for whatever reason. If you or anyone else finds a math error feel free to fix it.
 * 3,143 counties across the nation without, to my knowledge, any broader assessment of the accuracy
 * Except as I already stated other states do have up-to-date info using the same template, same source, etc. I take it you didn't even bother to look at the link I already showed you.  All of Alabama, for example, is up to date right now. I didn't add those some other dedicated individual put in the time and effort to do the calculations.
 * if the census is not providing the data
 * The census is providing the data, the most routine of calculations are not synthesis or "original research" so I don't get the objection. Looking back on the information from 20 years ago all they did was provide the calculation of percentages without any raw numbers so by using these tables (which I stress I didn't come up with) we're actually giving more information than Wikipedia used to provide. If anything, it's an improvement.
 * one user's mathematical interpretation
 * When did basic division become an "interpretation"?
 * one user's individual math
 * As I already pointed out plenty of counties have already added these numbers using basic math. 3,143 counties don't need updating. However some of these states are in fact 20 years out of date.  I'm just trying to fill in the gaps.
 * I suspect there is a relevant policy for them and doubt it includes one user doing 3,143 individual mathematical calculations.
 * You really think there needs to be a new policy based on what is effectively copy pasting US Census data combined with elementary tier math? Look up any county in Alabama or Georgia, all data is up to date and I had nothing to do with it. List of counties in Alabama List of counties in Georgia. Why anyone would have a problem updating US Census info I have no idea. Costco nostra (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good news there are plenty of other states with counties that are already updated with 2020 US Census numbers List of counties in Florida, List of counties in North Carolina, List of counties in Texas, List of counties in Arkansas, List of counties in Tennessee List of cities and counties in Virginia. It looks like California is only partially updated. List of counties in California. They're all using the same source I'm using which doesn't provide percentages you have to manually calculate them yourself. Costco nostra (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent comparison is one problem, which I agree might not be major. If state x is updated to 2021 and state y is updated to 2022, then it's apples and oranges for population ranking, ratio of voters to congressional representations, other stats. Martindo (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * it might be a good idea to provide some examples of controversial edits and notes about what's wrong with them. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is unacceptable. Costco nostra, you must know that you cannot calculate a percentage unless you have the  user right (which requires 3 years tenure, 25,000 edits, and a proven track record of successfully dividing numbers as difficult as 11 and 4) and get prior consensus at the Multiplication Noticeboard. I propose an immediate site ban. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Examples of problems to date
Even if these edits were performed with impeccable accuracy and the best of intentions, it presumes: a.) that every county page should have the county's ethnic groups divided from raw sources and broken down into 100th decimal percentages on each of over 3,000 county pages when even the U.S. census is not reporting them in that fashion; and b.) that, if such data is perceived to be of necessary encyclopedic value, that any singular individual user alone should then be entrusted and empowered to use their own arithmetic to calculate such percentages when the underlying reference the user is relying upon does not provide such percentages.

Those are two big picture questions. Then we face the issue of the user we apparently are entrusting to perform all these calculations individually who, in short order, has:


 * Inserted the wrong state on 66 separate county pages. Example (times 66): Adams County, Pennsylvania, which the user's reference lists as Adams County, Minnesota. Edit link:

Questions: 1.) Does a county's population need to be broken down into ethnic percentages to the 100th decimal on each of over 3,000 county pages? Why exactly? Is that not a question deserving of some broader consideration in the relevant Wikipedia Project pages (even if this was done at least partly 12 years ago, in 2010 updates); and 2.) If the conclusion is: Yes, there is an undeniable encyclopedic need to list each county's ethnic representation to the 100th decimal on these thousands of pages, should the user charged with performing these sensitive calculations and updates be one who, to date, has proven unable to even transfer the appropriate state from the primary reference to the page reference updates correctly in over 60 consecutive edits? Whether this data warrants a presence on every county page at all seems deserving of broader consideration, and (if, yes, it is of vital significance), why did the census itself not see the case for it? Finally, if the view is that, yes, there is an undeniable case for including this data, is relying on one editor with a significant error-ridden record on even more basic components of this project the best of all options in going about it? Keystone18 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You're just restating the complaints you already made, which I've already addressed. Yes I screwed up by not updating the state name on the template I was using.  When I realized that it was the wrong state I updated it. As for everything else as I've pointed out the county pages already have this data, the problem is in some places the data is 10-20 years old. Costco nostra (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , what are you asking administrators to do here? Administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. Are you complaining that another editor is voluntarily doing a lot of useful work? That seems strange. Are you complaining that the editor made some mistakes, admitted their mistakes and promptly corrected their mistakes? We all make mistakes and I have voluntarily corrected two of my own errors in recent days. A significant percentage of my edits are correcting my own typographical errors. Are you insisting that there needs to be a team of six or eight editors working on this instead of the one or two editors who are actually willing to do the work? Are you willing to recruit these other editors to this project? Are you claiming that straightforward mathematical calculations are forbidden? If so, which policy or guideline are you relying on? I do agree that excessive precision is not a good idea in the social sciences, and that in most cases, 24.3% is preferred to 24.3482%. I am an adminstrator who has spent a fair amount of time looking at your report, and I cannot figure out what you want administrators like me to do. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I assume the editor is not actually listing things to the 100th decimal place? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a confusing statement for sure, not helped by the lack of WP:DIFFS. Looking at some actual edits[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_County,_Missouri&diff=prev&oldid=1111986003] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pettis_County,_Missouri&diff=prev&oldid=1112142576] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reynolds_County,_Missouri&diff=prev&oldid=1112149995] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dubuque_County,_Iowa&diff=prev&oldid=1111623778] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_County,_Iowa&diff=prev&oldid=1111643930], I wonder if User:Keystone18 is confused by what 100th decimal actually means. For clarity 11.11 is not a 100th decimal. It is 2. 100th decimal would be 11.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 . Anyway while this is not a place to deal with content disputes I will quickly mention that IMO the use of decimal points in most of those examples seem fine. The one example I'd quibble with is it's probably not necessary to say 68.42%, I'd say at most 3 significant figures is enough and also probably no more than 2 decimal places. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "100th decimal" could be taken to mean the 100th decimal place, which would be the number place Nil Einne stated above. What you're thinking of is the hundredths place of the decimal (so 6 in 15.46) as opposed to the 100th decimal. It's a subtle but important difference. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to cosign everything Cullen328 said above. Cosco nostra is doing necessary work.  They are updating out-of-date information with new sources.  Yes, they made a mistake in doing so a couple of times; but they also admitted their mistake, and went back and fixed it when they were made aware.  There's literally nothing for us to do here except commend Costco nostra from doing the thankless work of updating outdated statistics, thank them for fixing their mistakes, and then going about our day.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Happy weekend to all. Catching up on the comments here, and I hope this ends up being a useful discussion, leading to some creative/new ideas and improvements on these county pages. Or--on the other hand--maybe it leaves us all reassured that, of all options available, that the current course (having one user perform thousands of individual divisional math equations-- because even the U.S. Census itself does not report this data as a percentage--and then deeming this calculated percentage essential (and other Census data, including the numbers on which the percentage is calculated, not essential) is the best of all options. And since we're not all sitting in a room trying to work through this issue over a beverage of choice, I want to emphasize my appreciation for all input and for the varied views and my full comfort with however we proceed. This struck me as a process worthy of discussion, which is why, Cullen328, I consciously did not offer my own thoughts on a remedy to the issue I'm identifying. I'm simply suggesting that the current approach includes a lot of assumptions and presumptions among all the options available for the use of U.S. Census data on these pages.

Let me just walk through some facts as part of this consideration:

1. First, this process struck me as deserving of discussion and deliberation because we are not discussing a change on half a dozen pages or so. We are talking about substantive changes to over 3,000 important pages that users will turn to expecting that these pages include: a.) the most important/encyclopedic data on these counties; and b.) that this data is as reliable as possible--which, if it's Census data--must be 100 percent;

2. Second, in fairness to the editor who set about individually calculating and then making these 2020 percentage updates to U.S. county pages, there was precedent for doing what he or she set about doing. In 2010, it seems, this percentage data was inserted on U.S. county pages in a similar format. Is that data outdated? Yes, I would almost guarantee it, as someone correctly observed above. Was the data even accurate in the first place? I don't know. And unless anyone has gone back and done the divisional arithmetic on over 3,000 pages on which this 2010 data appears, or identified some other more reliable format that precluded human error was used then, I'm guessing none of us knows. I do know, from looking at the 2010 and 2020 references, that both then and now these percentages did not appear in the reference provided and were someone's presumption that the data must be included on every county page and that it must be reported as a divisional percentage as opposed to the format reported by the U.S. Census. Lots of assumptions there was my initial thinking;

3.) That raises the issue, as someone raised above, that this is "necessary work." If it is so necessary, then why didn't the U.S. Census do it? With all their resources and the broad use of all this data, they instead decided it wasn't needed at all and reported the number of residents in total and the number by ethnic classification. Or, perhaps in fairness to the "necessary work" comment, maybe you more likely mean that letting the (almost certainly) dated 2010 data stand as it is currently is not an option, which makes the updates "necessary." If that's the point, yes, I agree on that, provided this data--presented in these percentage formats--is necessary at all. Was that issue decided somewhere? There are only three options now, as I see it: It either must be updated as it exists currently by percentages (process to be determined), or presented in the format the U.S. Census presents it, or removed entirely;

4.) It's worth considering that the county data provided by the Census is pretty extensive. Yet, almost none of it is used on these county pages. I just looked it up and a few examples of what is not included on the county pages here include: Breakdown of the county population by age, median age of the county, percentage of the county population over 65 (no division required; they provide the percentage), gender percentages in the county, labor force data (number employed/not employed, etc.), housing statistics, crime statistics, per capita income statistics, education statistics, poverty statistics, etc. Yet (in addition to a county's population), it appears that the only mandated/must have/universally included  data on the county pages is this ethnic representation data--and it cannot, someone determined, be as the Census itself reports it, but must instead be reported by percentage for some reason. It is not raw data; it is derived by an editor's individual divisional math.

Some of these questions may be more appropriate for the WikiProject U.S. counties or other WikiProject, but I think these are the questions:

1.) Along with the county's population, a county's ethnic representation by percentage appears to be the only universally included data from the Census that is included on county pages. Has there been some assessment that the ethnic percentage is somehow of greater value than, say, age, gender, employment, or health data? What census data, in addition to county population, belongs on these pages? On what basis are we including this mathematically developed data and excluding other Census data?

2.) If the answer is that this ethnic representation is essential and the U.S. Census itself does not break it down by percentages, why are we?

3.) If there is some overwhelmingly persuasive reason ethnic representation must be presented and cannot be presented in the format the U.S. Census reports it (thus requiring divisional calculations), is relying on one user's individual divisional math skills X over 3,000 calculations as the final word on that percentage the best of all options available?

4.) Finally, and this is not at all central to the issue here but was raised above, by 100th decimal, I meant 100th decimal as it is classically defined: "the second digit to the right of the decimal point indicates the number of hundredths.":

I hope these are useful questions and considerations. I certainly respect everyone's input on them. And if you really seek how I would present them, Cullen328, I will go over the Census data available and offer a proposal or some options that I think are preferable. I'm not at all looking to shrink from the work at hand. My initial (and remaining) concern is simply that these questions have been considered before all these 2020 updates were made. Otherwise, I trust you guys to consider the questions raised and do the right thing--and if they are foolish questions, let me know. Maybe I'm missing something. Have a great weekend, all. Keystone18 (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , you have been told several times that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. And what do you then do? You post a massive wall of text about a content dispute. What do you hope to accomplish? Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to close this out if it doesn't belong here, and I'll raise the question in the county/other geographic work groups/or talk pages. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I've responded I don't feel comfortable closing it but note that most of the time, there's no need to close discussions like this where there's no need to assess consensus. Just stop responding or posting new comments. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Organizational article merged into Biographical article
On 28 June 2021, User:Skyerise opened a new section at Talk:Arica_School "Suggest merge and redirect" with Oscar Ichazo biographical page because he founded the Arica school. Less than 3 hours later, after a flurry of edits, she followed the WP:BOLD preference (noted also at WP:Move and WP:Move Review) and merged the page without any discussion.

Point 1 (policy): Should Boldness be encouraged, even tacitly, in regard to a Merge? In this case, no formal Request was opened. Consequently, I cannot follow WP:Move Review because the June 2021 archives do not show any Request discussion.

Having been a member of the Arica School during the last 1/4 of the 20th century, I retain some interest in the page and contributed to discussions on Talk during 2009. I had the page in my Watchlist since at least that time, but somehow the actual Merge event did not show up last year as a change. I only saw a change appear when Skyerise tweaked the spelling of Ichazo's given name by inserting an accent mark (despite the fact that he never used it during 50 years of publications in the English language).

Point 2 (technical): How is it that a Watchlist does not alert a user to a major change such as merge/deletion?

Looking around at similar human development articles, I noticed that Diamond Approach was merged into A._H._Almaas by User:Ruslik on 18 July 2008 Talk:A._H._Almaas while Insight Meditation Society is still distinct from Jack Kornfield. The latter's Teachings section is rather impoverished, as I noted yesterday in Talk, so I suppose another eager editor might soon decide to merge those two pages. However, I doubt any would be BOLD enough to merge Fourth Way into George Gurdjieff.

Point 3 (philosophical): If an organization has persisted for 50 years or so (Arica, IMS), is it notable as something more than the "work" (writings, teachings) of the founder(s)? If yes, then what is the justification for a merge? IMO, a merge simply reinforces the popular misunderstanding that an organization of this type is merely the product of an individual guru. NB: even if you feel that these human potential groups are all pseudoscience, an encyclopedia might still find them notable in a historical sense (e.g., mesmerism, phrenology, and similar notions).

I posted a section User_talk:Skyerise yesterday, initially suggesting that the merger should have gone in the other direction (subsuming Ichazo under Arica). However, after reviewing Almaas, Kornfield, and Gurdjieff, I now feel that the Organization and the founder Biography should be kept distinct as a general policy.

FYI, there are still two distinct Talk pages, more than a year after the Arica/Ichazo merge:

Talk:Oscar_Ichazo

Talk:Arica_School

Point 4 (content): Some editors seem rather zealous about third-party sources despite WP:ABOUTSELF indicating acceptance of first person (interviews, etc.) as minor sources for a biographical page. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that the page for an organization like Arica School or Diamond Approach becomes pigeonholed into a discussion about theory (with academics often cited as third-party WP:RS) which IMO is a subtle WP:Undue Weight because organizations of this type generally include social interaction and other applications of teachings, similar to traditional sangha.

In this light, an organization's page could generally be improved by seeking third-party observations of the school itself not merely academic pro/con sources about its theories (most of which are not falsifiable). Otherwise, it tends to devolve into a mere listing of teachings, which can suggest to a zealous editor that the organization is nothing more than a "work" of its founder(s), therefore a merge is warranted (boldly or otherwise).

I hope any or all of these points are deemed worthy of discussion in this noticeboard. I don't know what else to do. Martindo (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone was WP:BOLD then you can always follow WP:BRD so I don't see why the inability to follow WP:MOVEREVIEW matters. Indeed the whole point would seem to be that there is no discussion to revisit, hence why you're free to simply revert without needing to overturn any consensus or establish the consensus was misread. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to contest an editorial decision. You can discuss the issue with the editor or a WikiProject, or if that doesn't work, use dispute resolution.  It sounds like you have a conflict of interest, so you should probably be posting to the article's talk page instead of editing the articles directly, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your two comments.
 * @Nil Einne: Over a year has elapsed. As you've probably seen in your own editing, there is a flag/message indicating that automatic revert is not possible due to intervening edits. My Point 2 is relevant in that the Arica School article was moved section by section, which is probably why there was never a Merge discussion and maybe why I didn't see an alert during my sporadic checking of Watchlist last year.
 * @NinjaRobotPirate: I recommend that you read my 2009 post on the aforementioned Talk page before assuming "it sounds like you have a conflict of interest". Past experience or paid membership is in itself not proof of POV. Viewpoints of editors change, which is sometimes a factor in consensus building. Martindo (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur with Martindo: it seems inappropriate to conflate individuals with movements. Einstein's theories of relativity have their own pages (Special Relativity, General Relativity) separate from his biography; the Declaration of Independence is not a subsection under Thomas Jefferson; B.F. Skinner's bio is distinct from the Wikipedia article on behaviorism. Further, in this particular case, Ichazo had a rich life with many accomplishments, achievements, publications and recognitions separate from the Arica School, while the school has welcomed many other teachers (e.g., Tarthang Tulku Rinpoche, Sheikhs Adnan and Yakzan, Professor Cheng Man-ch'ing, Swami Muktananda, etc.), and continues to grow and develop following Ichazo's death. One wonders if Skyerise has an agenda to minimize the Arica movement or erroneously equate it with its founder. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Einstein's theories of relativity have their own pages Oh good -- I was worried you guys might be cranks but this is very reassuring. JBL (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the specific choice of analogies here bothers you, I will note that the general point is true in less savory cases as well: Enver Hoxha is separate from Hoxhaism, L. Ron Hubbard is separate from Scientology, et cetera. jp×g 13:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, if you choose extremely notable people who had major and lasting impact on the world you will discover that they and their ideas are covered in separate articles. --JBL (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. The reason why two very closely related topics may be covered in separate Wikipedia articles are two fold 1) One article would be far too long if it contain the entire combined set of information (see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:LENGTH).  2) Each topic has enough source text about it alone to stand alone as its own topic  (See WP:GNG, or WP:42).  If neither of those conditions are true, then it is better to cover the two topics in one article.  Saying "Because these two topics have been split up, every possible way anyone wants to split up two topics is fair game" is bad thinking.  That's not how any of this works.  You don't get to claim that because you found one example (or even two or three) of something happening, that Wikipedia is a free-for all and anyone gets to do whatever they want.  We have policies and guidelines that clearly describe when to split up an article, and when to cover everything in one article, and your examples mean absolutely nothing at all.  All that matters is adherence to policies and guidelines.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who the person mentioned above is, and accordingly, no opinion on whether these specific articles should be merged. jp×g 05:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Me neither. But the point is that examples mean nothing in a discussion not about those exact articles.  Every situation is unique, and needs to be approached for it's own sake.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Every situation is unique" is a typical gatekeeper argument when consistency is brought up and rules don't seem to be applied equitably. Please (re)read the part in bold if the rest of my post is too long. Several issues are raised herein. Martindo (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The rules are being applied consistently. The rules says, and I quote, "There are two situations where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible: 1) Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem 2) Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections.  And also If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic.  It doesn't matter that some other article has been split up, because those situations followed the rules.  This doesn't seem to apply.  Rules matter.  Examples do not because the other examples are not identical to this one, so the outcomes cannot be expected to be identical.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Jayron32: Thanks for reminding us of WP:PAG which clearly states as paragraph 2:

'''Although Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices. Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.'''

See also WP:BURO. It should be quite clear to anyone who has read a celebrity's Article, that first-person accounts are a type of "common sense" source, because interviews or talk show appearances that probe the notable person's background are full of it (you can take that as a pun, but I'll try to avoid snarking further). Even a skeptical or muckraking interviewer is likely only to challenge some of the claims related to biographical background -- IMO nobody would grant an interview to a person intent on challenging anywhere close to 1/2 of the interviewee's personal history.

So what we have in a Biographical page is inevitably going to include info from the subject, even if reported in a WP:RS like Psychology Today which interviewed Ichazo back in 1973: countries he was raised in, religious background, traditional schooling, quest, none of which appear on his page, which has basically been reduced to nothing more personal than birth and death dates. In related Talk discussions, I mentioned that Sharon Stone claimed to have an IQ of 154, repeated in a CBS fluff piece (perhaps not really WP:RS except to the most literal-minded defenders of strict WP:PAG) that gave no source. And a contradiction appears in her Article regarding year starting college, based on that 2011 fluff piece vs a 1999 interview cited.

As I noted in Point 4, WP:ABOUTSELF accepts first-person, provided no ads, no unverifiable claims about other people, and a majority of third-party sources in the biographical article. I suppose some zealous editors who do not look carefully at both policy "letter" and flexibility might be inclined to gut a biographical page, which apparently happened to Ichazo, suggesting a kind of POV that begrudgingly acknowledges notability but nothing else.

However, the person is notable, so how can reversion to a Stub be prevented? Aha, merge their teachings/works, which almost surely have some WP:RS criticism, thereby beefing up the third-person content, thus the merged bio. Hurrah, the package is now tied up neatly to fit a fussy view of rules.

What I'm suggesting is that we have a kind of meta-bias here, where people who have spent decades developing some kinds of organization appear to be more likely have their Bio page merged/gutted than those developing other kinds of organizations. But even with good faith, there is a subtle bias that organizations claiming to be spiritual should be described only in terms of Teachings or other claims (often unfalsifiable, which is typically the argument of a fair NPOV criticism). In fact, the organization has other facets, some of which have actually been observed by WP:RS such as styles of clothing, layout/access of headquarters, types of in-group interactions (salutes, hugs, whatever), impact on community (e.g., soup kitchens), etc. but somehow these are omitted due to the focus on refutation of ideas.

It's inevitable that some aspects of a biography will rely fundamentally on (published or unpublished verbal) accounts in the first person. Notable enough to be included in WP doesn't mean notable enough to have multiple biographies written by scholars (e.g., Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or some people currently alive). So the content of "minor notables" is not going to be easily verifiable now matter how reputable the sources.

In this light, the May 2006 statement made by Wales that is quoted in footnote 1 at WP:BLP probably should be revisited because its historical context is outdated. When he made that generic statement ("It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced") about BLP information, WP had a very different reputation. In particular, a large number of college and high school teachers were explicitly telling their students NOT to quote WP in their essays or reports. Stephen Colbert's mock hee-haw coinage wikiality a mere two months later was a direct response to the echoing that prevailed at that time. Now the reverse is true because some respectability has been achieved, so we can look more clearly at what "can be sourced" really means in practice for BLP. Martindo (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Standalone articles must meet WP:N, and it appears the school barely met that, while Ichazo clearly has established notability. Seems like a no-brainer merge, as long as redirects were left behind to point to the appropriate section on their page. --M asem (t) 14:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the evidence that the bio is "more" notable of the two? I keep seeing responses here that fall back on inconsistently applied rules, or subjective opinions expressed as justifications. Nobody wants to address the inevitable reliance of WP:BLP on first-person information recounted in talk shows, interviews, or fluff pieces in otherwise RS. In the case of Oscar Ichazo, editors appear to have applied the May 2006 diktat from Wales indiscriminately, so that by July 2018, his bio had been gutted and included nothing more than his birth date and a half-sentence about founding the Arica School []. If his bio since that point (or earlier) consisted almost entirely of a "Work" section filled with info about the Arica School, how exactly do you conclude that he is more Notable than that organization? Part 2 of the explanation by User:Jayron32 above actually supports my initial suggestion to User:Skyerise that the merger went the wrong way:
 * If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article means that the Ichazo article does not qualify as separate while the Arica school does. Martindo (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to contest an editorial decision. JBL (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See the OP: there was no "move discussion" ever opened, ergo none closed, ergo cannot use that channel to Undo.
 * I guess there's nothing further to discuss here. A.H. Almaas absorbed Diamond Approach but somehow Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber) was never merged into Ken Wilber even though that theory's Talk page is full of condemnations about KW's platitudes, lack of expertise, etc. Probably should be merged, because he only offers theory.
 * However, Diamond Approach and Arica School are organizations, with members and styles of social interaction. Reducing them to theory that is then presumed to constitute the sole Work of the founder(s) is a disservice, because it ignores third-party reports about other aspects of those organizations, thereby limiting possible content to what is usually not WP:RS. Martindo (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

hashtag #CfACP, associated with Meta initiative -- worth making an edit filter?
Check this and this out. It seems that it is associated with Code for Africa Climate Change Project. I recall that with the #WPWP thing from a while ago, an edit filter was created so that we could look for low-quality edits -- might that be prudent in this case as well? I have been seeing a few of these edits in RecentChanges, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere on the site. Pinging, who I found discussing this elsewhere. jp×g 17:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @JPxG Special:AbuseFilter/1073 is the filter that is set up for tracking these, it just needs the hashtag adding to the first line. There's also Hashtags which can be used to find tagged edits. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Added, watch for it in the log here. — xaosflux  Talk 17:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Good stuff. I am looking through some of these now and it looks somewhat dire. this edit adds a formatted reference to a cn-tagged statement ("There is also a renewed emphasis on the importance of client-side JavaScript used to create dynamic web pages"): said reference mentions JavaScript only four times (none in conjunction with this claim), "client" zero times, and "dynamic" once in reference to bitmap rendering. This seems like it has the potential to be extremely disruptive, since checking references is a laborious (and often impossible) task... jp×g 18:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit adds this reference to "In the fall another round of floods hit the African Sahel". Said ref is a paper talking about floods in eastern Africa in 2020, but does not mention any specific instances of floods -- indeed, the latest flooding mentioned by date is in May 2020. The next edit adds a second ref. This is supposed to be supporting the claim that there were floods in August and September -- the paper is titled "Extreme rainfall in East Africa, October 2019–January 2020 and context under future climate change", published in late August 2020. jp×g 18:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that I am not specifically pointing out bad ones: these are literally the first two results from that edit filter log. Both of them are completely invalid citations that required about ten minutes of close-reading papers to determine were invalid. This may be a significant issue. jp×g 18:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing like that should result in blocks (following sufficient warning, of course). I don't have the time to go digging right now, but if you come across any that fit the bill feel free to drop me a note and I'll block. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Project set up by the foundation where you have to apply to volunteer and they guide you what to do? Eew. Secretlondon (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the last 5 edits with this tag. Two were helpful (good wikilink, resolved update needed tag), and two were unhelpful. External links in bodies, citations in activist headings. I'm leaving a note to the organisers asking them to participate in this conversation. Femke (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an Outreach Dashboard to track the edits made through this initiative. I checked the article history of one of the articles on the dashboard and all edits to that page were copyright violations. To the organizers: I'd really like to see this outreach effort succeed. We do need more help with climate change articles. Something needs to change though, because it is a lot of work to find and clean up bad edits. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 15:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging (the Kenyan WiR) and  (who set up the meta page). I really hope this project can succeed, but most edits now need to be reverted, which is a time-consuming process.. It seems like these volunteers need more support to contribute effectively. Femke (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the alert @Femke. @Jwale2 and i will discuss as soon as we can on how best support the volunteers. I will seek support where needed. I do believe too that this project will succeed by supporting the volunteers. Cmwaura (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Femke and other Wikimedians administrators, I have seen your shared concerns and messages, I have spoken to the team on the project and would provide feedback as soon as possible in other to resolve this issue.I will get in touch. Thank you. Jwale2 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jwale2 and @Cmwaura, any updates? Resolving these mistakes is taking up a lot of our volunteer time, and the disruption is continuing to this day. Only today I've spotted the introduction of multiple weird spelling errors in correct sentences, inappropriate wikilinks, external links and sources that do not verify the preceding information. The latter especially is very time-consuming to fix. Femke (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still deleting copyright violations and external links in article bodies almost daily @Cmwaura and @Jwale2, please urgently get in touch with your volunteers.
 * Are there better ways of dealing with this? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Paid editing at CfACP

 * I just noticed this: "The community of volunteers will be supported with monthly stipend while certificates will be handed out to all participants at the end of the campaign. The fellows will also be added to CfA’s Slack channel for future opportunities after the campaign period elapses." (emphasis mine) What the...? People are being paid for these edits! How much is this monthly stipend and who decides who gets a stipend? Which editors have or will be receiving it? Have these individuals disclosed as required by WP:PAID? Note that the "partners" of this project include the WMF. The WMF is among the groups paying for this?? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they mean the WiRs when they say volunteers.. I cannot imagine they'd pay everybody.. Clarification is certainly needed. Femke (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Femke and Clayoquot, this campaign is being organized by Code For Africa in partnership with Wikimedia Foundation, International Fact-Checking Network, Institute for Strategic Dialogue & PesaCheck. This campaign seeks to fight mis/disinformation in the climate space.
 * I know that Wikipedian's are not to be paid but this is a campaign that we are running and I believe you know what goes into running one the wiki-way.
 * If you are talking about payment, the WIR position as we all know is a professional position and so, therefore, there is a need for them to receive some stipend for their efforts.
 * Also, the volunteers recruited by the WIR's would receive support, which will be in the form of providing them with data/internet scholarships respectively. This campaign is 10 months long and we do not to experience complaints or burnouts whiles they are engaging in the project. Jwale2 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I am dismayed that nobody from the Wikimedia Foundation seems to have told you about the paid editing policy, which is at WP:PAID. Is there a particular WMF staff member who has been working with you on this project? Your impression that "Wikipedian's are not to be paid" is not really correct. The Wikipedia community accepts that some people are compensated for their Wikipedia work. However, it also requires that anyone receiving compensation has to follow certain requirements - that's the point of WP:PAID. The project page on Meta names four WiRs for this project and when I checked their English Wikipedia userpages yesterday, none of them were complying with the requirement for disclosure. I will notify them.
 * If a volunteer is receiving a data/Internet scholarship, it's a bit of a grey area as to whether this is a form of compensation that requires disclosure. I'd like to hear what the other watchers of this noticeboard think. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Of the four WiRs, I only see one with a declaration on their user page, which needs to happen per WP:PAID. I'm not quite sure, but I don't think the data scholarship need declaring. The biggest problem is that this project now requires half an hour per day of checking edits, with most requiring improvements or reverts. There urgently needs to be a QA process / training.
 * I've been fighting climate misinformation on Wikipedia for nine years, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page for what forms it takes on Wikipedia (no obvious denial fortunately) Femke (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll do so,I will also communicate with the rest of the WiR to make the declaration on their user-page Femke Jwale2 (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Request to CheckUser for User:Naka.chernqka26
Attempted to repeatedly to sign-in and sign-out. User:Naka.chernqka26 made vandalism hurnful of Grigor Dolapchiev. D2W59E (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE
I can't figure out what User:MasterQuestionable is doing here--or what they're doing with these talk page posts. You'll need to click through their contributions and the history of the talk page, and the 24 subpages of their talk page; they pinged me back with this, apparently expecting me to check user talk subpage 9 as a matter of course. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With 221 edits adding and subtracting single characters from their sandbox I might have thought they were trying to game the system, but if they are I can't see why. Their replies and innovative formatting make me wonder if this isn't someone's AI project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested, they actually had their autoconfirmed added and removed so they wouldn't gain it automatically. It's on one of their random sub pages. This is their word salad reply.<span id="ScottishFinnishRadish:1665869419688:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So they were testing how many changes had to be undone in one edit to ensure that the revert tag was not added to the reverted changes?! I would say they need to explain exactly why they need to know that, but let's not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked through a pile of their edits, and it pretty much comes down to non-standard views on formatting and organization, favoring their own, objectively worse, style for both. Not much in the way of actually contributing. Even their article talk edits are like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried to interact constructively with this user but have not been successful. MasterQuestionable stashed my communication on a subpage and changed the formatting. They've taken up a lot of other people's time by posting unclear questions/suggestions. I'm not sure what's going on, but I see no sign that the user is here to make Wikipedia better. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 21:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They seem to think everything should adhere to some XML schema they are in the process of designing but frankly I don't see anything improving. Nthep (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just our tiny Earth brains are too puny to appreciate advanced stuff like . <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just block this editor. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for someone wanting to test their pet theories about what should be changed in the way that we work. If they were really interested in changing things then they would have communicated clearly by now. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked this editor as not here to build the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cullen. FYI, we've had quite a few editors who've shown a crazy interest in coding and creating labyrinths in user space. CU revealed no socks or previous accounts, but I remember editors like that going years back, so that's not saying that much. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think CIR is more to the point than NOTHERE. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the end, it amounts to the same thing. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you mean that a block by any other name would still smell sweet, yes. However, since AGF is a core principle, NOTHERE should be a last resort. I actually think he believed he was working up to some revolutionary talkpage organization that would make things better, but his arrival on a transporter beam from 18th-century France has left him socially and linguistically incapable of operating here successfully. Thus CIR. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * And now he's block-evading to make goofy formatting changes to his talk page. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Chatime and 99 Ranch Market
MrOllie has repeatedly vandalize Chatime receiving the 2014 World Branding Awards noting that it is not notable. MrOllie has mislabel 99 Ranch Market as an American supermarket instead of a Taiwanese supermarket and vandalize 99 Ranch Market one of 2022 best managed companies. Fiextqbe (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Didetaexe. Spicy (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to delete my account, please.
I would like to delete my account, please. Dont need it anymore. Lars Smth (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Accounts cannot be deleted. If you don't need it, don't use it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Even beyond that, what would be the point? As of writing this, this was their first and only edit... Sergecross73   msg me  01:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for the creation of the page "Battle for Dream Island"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&create=Create+new+article+draft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&preload=Template%3AAfc+preload%2Fdraft&summary=--+Draft+creation+using+the+%5B%5BWP%3AArticle+wizard%5D%5D+--&title=Draft%3ABattle+for+Dream+Island Slaythe (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am a new member of Wikipedia so please excuse me. Slaythe (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Slaythe, you should review Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island and determine whether you can find sufficient reliable sources to overcome the lack of notability identified in the discussion. Schazjmd   (talk)  13:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Also at Deletion Review

 * There is a case currently at Deletion Review concerning this title, brought by the same editor. User:Slaythe – Please read the guideline against forum shopping.  It appears that there have been a very large number of titles deleted in both article space and draft space, due to the gaming of names.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:Cryptic - Case-sensitive titles strike again. See also Battle For Dream Island.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle For Dream Island (BFDI), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for BFB, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for BFDI, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two, plus an rfd or two, in draftspace. It's also made plenty of appearances at WP:AN and WP:ANI - Administrators' noticeboard/Archive328, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive329, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 (related arbitration request) which led directly to the February 2022 AFD, and the current Administrators' noticeboard.  The only other deletion discussion for the mainspace version that I can find, though, is Articles for deletion/BFDI (Franchise).Besides the salting at this title, it's also blacklisted (even in draft!); there's deleted versions at at least 18 different titles in draft and at least 9 more in mainspace. —Cryptic 20:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me add some more: User:Ericallums2007/sandbox, User:Heptasepta/sandbox, User:Samuel Adam Walter/sandbox, User:Ericallu1115/sandbox, User:EricAllums11/sandbox, User:Juvenz123456/sandbox, User:Emanresuruoy/sandbox, User:Bfdiguypersonguy/sandbox/BFDI, User:Ericallums15tetert/sandbox, User:ImJustThere/sandbox, User:KirbyGUY11/sandbox/Battle for Dream Island, User:Slaxflax, User:Inanimateinsanityfan27/sandbox, User:HEHE20/sandbox, Draft:Jacknjellify, Draft:Some Stoopid Voting. MER-C 11:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Community Sanctions
Attempts to create an article on this subject are a Contentious Topic. I propose that the community impose Community General Sanctions on editors seeking to create a page (in article space, draft space, or elsewhere) on the topic of Dream Island, broadly defined. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that serious. It's going to continue to be promoted by fans and is a mostly low-level issue. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Let's wait to see how the DRV turns out, and just adjust the blacklist accordingly. —Cryptic 20:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, this was walled garden, Fandom-like content that has been wasting AFC reviewer time for a few years - i.e. not a serious attempt at writing an encyclopedia article. Looking at Draft:Battle for BFB, things have not changed. There are a few more instances in now-deleted user sandboxes that won't show up in the undelete fuzzy search. A general page creation prohibition for non-extended confirmed editors is the way to go on this. MER-C 11:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, and concur with . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure review of Jerusalem infobox RFC
Hi! I'm requesting a review of my closure of Talk:Jerusalem. It was somewhat of a tricky close and was kind enough to raise some concerns in my talk page. Concerns included: Thus, as both a non-admin closure and the opinion of those that refused to close it at ANRFC being that it would be a tough closure, I think it is in the interests of our coverage of the topic that my closure is reviewed here. I am more than happy to revert or amend my closure in line with consensus here. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 10:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The possibility I closed based on what I agree with rather than the content of the discussion
 * My judgement of the status quo being incorrect (i.e. was the status quo to keep the flag and emblem in the infobox or was it, as I believe, to not give more weight to one side of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute over Jerusalem per WP:RFC/Jerusalem)


 * The close seems substantially fine. I think the crux of that RfC is that adding the flag/emblem turns the lead/infobox from its current neutral stance into something that could be seen as a less neutral stance, which contradicts the precedent in an awfully contentious topic. This concern wasn't really addressed by proponents. Most of them just argued that (in their view) doing this would reflect the reality on the ground, but failed to argue how a) it would improve the content of the article; or b) even if it would, if the content improvements offset the can of worms you'd open. Any attempt at an argument was opinionated or refuted. e.g. OSE is a perfectly valid argument, but the examples of OSE in that discussion were poor, some of which have been nominated for deletion and others (e.g. those relating the Russian annexation) are not stable or have no solid consensus behind their choice.
 * I don't see the point of close review by closer though. If you feel confident in closing it then do that and stick by it unless you're convinced you made a mistake, which you don't seem to be. If others have concerns with the close, they can raise them on this board in their own words. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I just thought it would be good caution to ask for review due to me being a non-admin and the complexity of the topic. I've been confidently incorrect in the past :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 10:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Without comment on the rest of the close, the wording "The "de facto" situation on the ground has no bearing on our neutrality policies" doesn't feel right. It reminds me of the persistent issues surrounding BBC coverage of climate change. Neutrality does not mean a disconnect from reality. Of course, the analysis of a particular reality should be guided by reliable sources, which is what I think was the point that came through in succeeding sentences. CMD (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Eh, whenever you weigh arguments while closing a controversial discussion, someone will accuse you of supervoting. I wouldn't pay that any mind, at least on its own. As for the actual finding: I think saying that the arguments against inclusion were significantly superior is an overstatement. Both sides made arguments deriving from NPOV. To be honest, after reading the RfC, the NPOV argument seems like a wash to me. On the one hand, there is a considerable dispute over the status of Jerusalem, and it is safe to assume that if the Palestinians ever take control of it, they will replace the icons with ones that don't use Hebrew script, among other things; on the other hand, the natural choice for iconography is the set actually employed by the city's functioning government, and refusing to include them could be construed in the opposite direction, as a denial that the government that established the icons is actually the government of Jerusalem (which it clearly is, regardless of whether it should be). So while you were correct to dismiss the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type arguments, I think the NPOV arguments are actually a wash, and given the numbers, I would have found no consensus. If somebody else expresses a desire to press this issue, I will probably vote to overturn, but this is clearly a small detail and I'd rather this not become a whole dramaboard thing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just in case it wasn't clear, the main reason I brought this up was that the RfC clearly did not indicate consensus to remove images from the infobox that had been in the infobox for over ten years. It should also be noted that having the images in the infobox does not mean Wikipedia is endorsing the symbols or taking a side in the dispute. GrammarDamner   how are things?  04:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be better, to avoid what would, in effect, be re-litigating the RFC, if only admins comment here, or, at the very least, for commenters to indicate whether they are admins or not. As far as I can tell, though I may not have read the List of Administrators closely enough, nobody who has commented above is actually one. I am not an admin either. I took part in the RFC.
 * Some observations:
 * Above, a comment states: "The "de facto" situation on the ground has no bearing on our neutrality policies" doesn't feel right. The Neutrality policy says: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, the "de facto situation" is only significant as far as the neutrality policy is concerned according to what reliable sources have said about it (the same is true of the de jure situation, which as far as international law goes is: neither West or East Jerusalem is Israeli; East Jerusalem is under occupation; any Israeli move to change the status of Jerusalem - including, perhaps, extending the Jerusalem Municipality to include East Jerusalem - is null and void). What happened in the RFC is that, rather than discussing what sources say and how that affects neutrality, editors were using their own, subjective, opinion about what the de facto situation is to argue for retaining the symbols. If anything, that's a bypassing of the neutrality policy.
 * It was stated above: Both sides made arguments deriving from NPOV. I doubt that's true.
 * GrammarDamner, who commented above, took part in the RFC. After it was closed, he or she questioned the result at the closer, Ixtal's, talkpage, which led to the current request on this noticeboard being opened. In my opinion, GrammarDamner has poor judgement, making a lot of dubious claims without offering any justification. That includes the claims made in the comment above. That includes the claims made at Ixtal's, talkpage after the RFC closure. At the RFC on the Jerusalem article talkpage, GrammarDamner buttressed his opinion with a claim that the situation in Taiwan is "almost identical" to the situation in Jerusalem: "one country claims a certain area, while another country controls it." That is a pretty inaccurate summary of the situation in both China and Palestine (in China, two regimes claim to be the proper government for the whole {Taiwan isn't an independent country}; in Palestine, the Arab state envisaged by the Partition Plan was never created) and ignores the significant differences between them historically, legally and ethnically/nationally. No situation really bears a close similarity with the one in Jerusalem. Perhaps pre-1967 the situation in Nicosia could have been seen as similar, but we're not dealing with the pre-1967 situation. Perhaps the situation during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait might be similar. But the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait only lasted for months. After I'd attempted a rebuttal of GrammarDamner's argument, he or she responded with "WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDNHT" accusations. Those are more dubious claims for which no justification was offered, showing, in that case, a poor understanding of what those behaviours are supposed to consist of. I wrote a comment on GrammarDamner's talkpage asking him on her not to make any more unjustifiable comments about my behaviour. In my opinion, GrammarDamner's response is irrational and shows a poor understanding of the WP:NPA rule. Overall, in my opinion: not much judgement, not much understanding, not much in the way of reason.
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  00:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the response to my comment, I was not involved in the RfC so do not know the full scope of what was said there, but is the assertion given above that reliable sources disagree about what the de facto situation is? Generally we rely on reliable sources to lay out what that situation is. If editors subjective opinions disagree with what the sources say the situation is, I'm sure that will be appropriately weighted. CMD (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to I think that it would be better, to avoid what would, in effect, be re-litigating the RFC, if only admins comment here, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE wisely makes no such restriction. It's more than appropriate to have two sections: one for WP:INVOLVED and WP:UNINVOLVED editors. But, in general, any editor in good standing should feel free to comment on reviews of closures of RfCs. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the link to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This is the first time I've observed an RFC result being challenged. I didn't even think that I'd ever participated in any discussion on this noticeboard before, though the archives show that I did, once, some years ago. My expectations of what would happen were based on reading the purpose of this board ("This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.") and the closer's statement that a reason for reviewing the closure here in particular is because that closure was a non-admin one. Having expected that the discussion would be carried out among admins I refrained from commenting myself. I was surprised when GrammarDamner commented and then to realise that none of the other participants are admins either. What will happen next? Will it just be a case of Ixtal, the closer, weighing up the comments?  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  03:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to focus on the remove images from the infobox that had been in the infobox for over ten years part. I assumed it was a relatively recent addition. Apparently those images have been in the infobox even after the conclusion of Requests for comment/Jerusalem, permalink on 31 December 2013, which significantly weakens the arguments that appeal to the principles behind that RfC closure IMO (including my own analysis above). So it seems having the flags included is the established stable version. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2013 RfC, in which I was a participant, was narrowly focussed on how the capital status of Jerusalem should be described in the article's Introduction. Afterwards, there was some rippling out of the effect of the result of that RfC on other parts of that article and on other articles. It's perhaps surprising that it's taken so long to address the symbols part of the infobox, particularly given the one-sided and, for the flag in particular, poor nature of the sourcing. This is, though, the first time I can remember it being discussed. The objection to the result of the closure of the current RfC was based on a claim that the symbols had been in the infobox so long that particularly strong arguments were required in order to remove them. It would be good, if there are any, to see WP policies being quoted in support of that argument. Note that my own position was that removal of the symbols wasn't necessary, but that they should be labelled in some way, either to state that they are Israeli or to explain their usage more exactly. The emblem is that of the pre-1967 Jerusalem Municipality of the western part of the city which was latterly extended to control East Jerusalem also. We have no reliable secondary sources stating that "the Jerusalem flag" has any official status (the website of the Jerusalem Municipality not being a reliable source for anything other than what the Jerusalem Municipality says and, in any case, not stating explicitly that "the Jerusalem flag" has any official status). <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  03:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is yet another source, from Can Stock Photo. GrammarDamner   how are things?  22:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You think thats a source? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was never discussed, it was added without discussion and never had anything besides implicit consensus for. Once that implicit consensus is gone it doesnt really matter how "stable" it was. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The RfC clearly did not indicate any sort of loss of consensus. GrammarDamner   how are things?  18:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It never had consensus to begin with is the point. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it had WP:IMPLICIT consensus for a very long time. Then there was an RfC which, at the very least, clearly did not indicate consensus to remove the images. GrammarDamner   how are things?  19:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I !voted for exclusion. A valid challenge per ONUS may override QUO regardless the length of time, particularly if QUO only had silent or implicit consensus. Closer decided that the Jerusalem RFC was a strong argument against inclusion (in the infobox) and from where I sit, it is hard to disagree with that conclusion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Can an admin please review the closure? This has been sitting here for over two weeks. I apologize for using caps in the edit summary, but I'm not sure how else to get an admin's attention at this point. GrammarDamner   how are things?  19:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, can an admin please review the closure? It's been over three weeks now, and not a single admin has looked at this. I guess it's almost funny at this point. Is the administrators' noticeboard not a place where administrators typically notice things? GrammarDamner   how are things?  15:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @GrammarDamner: Although RFC closes are reviewed at the Administrators' noticeboard, admins don't review closures, that's just the place where it happens. Any editor can opine on a close review. You haven't yet posted a request for a close review. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for further info on close reviews. If you think consensus would overturn the close, and you want editors to opine on that, I'd suggest posting here an explanation (like a WP:!Vote to overturn the close) that tells us why you think the close should be overturned, and then you'll see if other editors agree with that or not. (Although there are editors opining on it above, so you'll want to take into consideration what they've already written here.) If you don't think the close should be overturned, then there is no point to discussing this further here. Levivich (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I thought we did that. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I discussed the issue with the closer on their talk page. Ixtal then brought it here. I'll restate my main point about the closure. Ixtal closed the RfC, saying that there was consensus to remove the images, but the RfC clearly did not indicate consensus to remove the images. GrammarDamner   how are things?  15:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, and so far, I don't see any other editor agreeing with you about that. So, I'd suggest either (1) accepting the outcome and moving on, or (2) writing something that might be more persuasive than "clearly did not indicate consensus to remove". For example you might try explaining why the RfC did not indicate consensus to remove. There are at least two editors (PR and C727 above) who have explained why they think the close should not be overturned, so you might want to address their reasoning if you decide to explain your reasoning. The idea isn't to just repeat what you've already said, since that hasn't persuaded others, but instead to build upon what others have already said in response to you and explain why you still feel the closure should be overturned, if you still feel that way. Levivich (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was worried that doing so would be taking an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, but I guess I was wrong. I was hoping that simply requesting a review would lead to uninvolved editors reviewing the RfC and deciding how they would have closed it. Also, if you don't see any other editor agreeing with me, perhaps you should take a closer look. I don't know if you read ProcrastinatingReader's second comment, but they actually agree with me. C727 also said they would probably vote to overturn, and CMD seems to agree with me too. The only editors who disagree with me already participated in the RfC. GrammarDamner   how are things?  17:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, this RfC closure should be overturned because there was no consensus to remove the images in question. For starters, the majority of editors who participated in the RfC !voted to keep the images in the infobox (where they had been for over ten years). Yes, I am aware that establishing consensus is more than a simple tallying of !votes, but the numbers do matter. When the majority of editors agree with one option, the arguments against it must be profound (or their arguments must be very flawed) in order to go against them. That was clearly not the case here. Most of the arguments against including the images in the infobox made the false argument that doing so would give legitimacy to one claim above another. That is not true, this is an encyclopedia article simply presenting the facts as they are, not advocating for anything. I kindly ask that someone else please take a look at the RfC. Thank you. GrammarDamner   how are things?  17:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saying that the people opposed were saying something false is as meaningless as my saying your argument is false. The arguments in favor were extremely weak, making claims not backed by sources and at odds with our previous consensus on Jerusalem, as well as the manual of style regarding infoboxes not supplanting article information. I think the close was well founded and supported by the quality of arguments in the discussion. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Although not directly related to the close, it is worth mentioning that in subsequent AfDs of the two articles about the removed images, the flag and the emblem, the first was deleted and the other merged to the Jerusalem municipality article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The close is fine given the state of the article, the previous consensus on how to handle Jerusalem, and the actual arguments made in the RFC. Infoboxes are for unambiguous data points. Not contentious and argueable discussions. There is no way in hell that listing Jerusalem as an Israeli city is an unambiguous data point, which is why the article is very carefully written to make that clear in line with previous consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Mass rollback request
Could someone with one of the mass rollback scripts assist with cleaning up this mess please?

After this thread at the teahouse replaced all usages of "Pokemon" with "Pokémon". They did not heed the advice to do this carefully, and instead seem to have done it blindly, making 6 or more edits a minute in some cases. This has introduced a massive number of mistakes and errors, such as changing the titles of books websites  and news articles, despite all of these using the spelling with the e rather than an é in the original document. After the mess they had made was pointed out to them they apologised and said they may attempt to clean it up, but they don't seem to have made any attempt to do this and have just gone back to reverting with redwarn.

The list of relevant diffs is here. While a few of them are correct the vast majority should be reverted.

Thank you, 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. While outside of sources, quotes, websites, etc. it would be correct, how they've done it clearly was not constructive and has created a mess that needs cleaning up. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 15:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Request to remove autopatrolled permission
Back in the end of August I had requested autopatrolled permission so I could build up a large collection of articles on lichen. I had planned to publish a few hundred and I didn't want to add strain to the NPP backlog. I haven't had the time I thought I would to make that many articles and the NPP backlog has been brought down below 500. I no longer have a need for this permission and would like it removed. Thank you for your time addressing this request.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 18:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅. Feel free to re-request anytime. DanCherek (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)