Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive347

Close review requested in AP / BLP article
I am requesting a close review of a recent RfC at Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The RfC is here.

The closer refers to having counted !votes and does not indicate that they fully considered the participants’ supporting arguments and concerns or whether there is a valid consensus in the poll. The close does not appear to have fully addressed the significant BLP and sourcing issues, the level of consensus required to change the status quo text, and the discussion of the content of the sources cited in the discussion. Several such issues were raised by the participants who posted more than brief “yes” or “no” responses to support their !votes with reasoning that went beyond merely counting the number of source citations.

The closing text is brief in light of the complexity and controversy raised by the RfC question. After the close, some editors interpreted the result as having decided only the RfC question as stated -- whether to use the word “alleged”. Others cited the close of the RfC as a basis to oppose broader wording that was consistent with the close and not synonymous with “alleged”. Such an interpretation was beyond the scope of the RfC statement discussion, and the !vote arguments and policy issues that might support such an alternative interpretation were not addressed in the closing statement.  SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors (Laptop controversy)

 * This needs to be re-closed by an uninvolved admin/editor experienced in closure, I think. The fact that it was closed by someone who on their talk page describes themselves as a fundamentalist evangelist Christian is one thing, but the fact that poor rationales do not appear to have been discounted (GoodDay's is meaningless and Madame Necker's is simply an opinion about the whole affair; we'll ignore the fact that MN is a new account who has already racked up five different DS notices on their talk page). Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comment about the closer's stated religious beliefs does not seem appropriate or relevant. I think it is possible to evaluate the close without making it personal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's pretty messed up BK. The quote on the userpage is "I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical." What does that have to do with Hunter Biden's laptop? I assume you're suggesting that because many (most?) Christian evangelical voters vote Republican, therefore a Christian evangelical has some kind of bias or COI that should prevent them from closing an RfC about some AP2 political issue? Does your logic apply to closers who have the atheist userbox on their userpage? Because atheists tend to vote Democrat, does that also disqualify them? By this logic, nobody would be able to close anything in AP2. I'm quite shocked to see the suggestion that a closer's religious beliefs are a reason to revert their close, especially when it's a non-religious topic. I think you should strike that. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If somebody described themselves as a fundamentalist Muslim I dont think they would be wise to close RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area.  nableezy  - 18:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * is not the same as fundamentalist in the modern sense of the term (our article Fundamentalism explains the difference), and we welcome Muslim and Jewish editors in ARBPIA without question, as we should. It doesn't matter if they're Orthodox Jews or reform Jews, just as it doesn't matter what branch of Islam. Same with Hindus and Muslims in IPA, etc. etc. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont really see what your complaint is with what I wrote, I didnt say somebody who identifies as a fundamentalist Muslim shouldnt edit in the topic area, they should of course be welcomed like any other editor, but rather they wouldnt be wise to close RFCs in the topic area, given that people may question their objectivity. And that would be totally reasonably to do imo.  nableezy  - 19:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At my RfA, some editors expressed concerns that if we legitimized a categorical criticism of editors' fitness to do a particular thing based on their political affiliations, we would effectively be saying the same about religious affiliations. I disagreed with that concern because, well, political and religious affiliations are different things. For one thing, the former is much more a choice than the latter (although ultimately both are choices to a degree). For another, perhaps more importatly, the former is much more directly tied to events "of this world". One cannot infer how someone votes from their religion. One cannot infer what they think of gay people, or abortion, or drinking alcohol, or whether Hunter Biden owned that laptop. Maybe one could reasonably infer some of these from a more detailed exposition of someone's religious views or their membership in a very niche religious group, but not just from I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical and some references to core Christian doctrine. I know that in my case, there are many ways my lifestyle and politics differ from what might expect if one knew only my religious views (some of which are quite traditional). One can no more infer my political views from my religious affiliation than from my gender or sexual orientation (and talk about a slippery slope there).Point being, if Compassionate indicated a political affiliation on his userpage, this criticism would be fair game (not necessarily correct, but fair game); but saying that religious views disqualify someone from closing a political RfC is a bridge too far, in my opinion.To be clear, none of this is a comment on whether the close was correct, just a rebuttal of this particular objection. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont think it is disqualifying, I just dont think it is wise. Im not saying perception is reality, but I dont find it that off base to raise an eyebrow at that declaration. Especially given the close actually does align with the views that one might infer, and that the RFC is already tight on the numbers. And btw, BK didnt actually disqualify the user, faulting the close itself for not weighting certain positions less than they feel appropriate, that being the more important thing in the "is one thing" comparison.  nableezy  - 21:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the implication was clear. The raising of the eyebrow apparently required it being referenced in a statement regarding the judgement of the closer.  As someone incredibly skeptical of any religion, it was a shit take.  Arkon (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I don't apologise for that at all. This is clearly a very hot-button topic and it should be closed by someone who very obviously doesn't have any baggage over the situation. The closer may be a Biden supporter for all I know but it's the optics that matter, not the actuality. And then there's the closer's comment in the section above, which may lead you in one direction or another. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia should have religious tests for certain actions? And are you implying that leftists can't be religious? Besides being "not appropriate or relevant" as Mr Ernie said, I think it's more a violation of WP:NPA. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * People can keep pretending its a religious test, as though it isnt the fundamentalist part and not the Christian part of it that raises eyebrows, but Sir Joseph would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest.  nableezy  - 22:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * SJ can speak for himself, but if the closes are policy compliant, the religion of the closer is irrelevant. If some bias affects the close, it can then be handled in review and if a pattern emerges, a ban. But to put the ban before any problems simply based on religious views is obscene and certainly not the Wiki way. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone who edits in a biased manner, should not be closing things in that area. Religion is really irrelevant. If you have an issue with the close, then cite policy reason, as Black Kite did in the second half, but merely being religious, or fundamental isn't really a valid reason.
 * I have an American flag in my profile, does that mean I shouldn't close US related discussions? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ill restate the question as you appear to have avoided answering it. Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest.  nableezy  - 02:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I have no issues with Muslims editing Wikipedia and closing discussions. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Im not sure why you are either answering for Sir Joseph or why you are answering a different question.  nableezy  - 02:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to put to bed this viewpoint that religious beliefs preclude participation in a volunteer encyclopedia project. I wholeheartedly reject that notion. Previously I was certain you were on the same tack. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe put to bed the ignoring of fundamentalist in that sentence too tho?  nableezy  - 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I already answered the question. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That has no bearing on the RFC close, which is point I’ve been trying to make. If they didn’t have that tag on their user page you wouldn’t have known. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats why you, and SJ for that matter, wont actually answer the question asked. At least El C did, though I very much disagree with him.  nableezy  - 03:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What question? Maybe it got lost with the threaded replies, but I have no issue with fundamentalist editors doing anything if compliant with policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * RE: Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? — I at least would, though I don't think I've ever encountered one. And I don't really expect to. It seems unlikely that a hardcore religious fundamentalist (which I don't think the closer truly is) would even get to the point of being able to make sound, policy-based closes, though I suppose it's possible, even if not probable. In that sense, it's a bit of a red herring. But in principle, it'd be okay so long as said close conformed to policy and would be well-articulated. Just like it would be okay for a secular Israeli or Palestinian who is an atheist, or an agnostic, a moderate religious Jew or Muslim, and so on. This approach, which is not expressly grounded in policy (quite the contrary) risks users becoming fearful from disclosing their biases or otherwise expressing themselves (appropriately). Which, why should they? El_C 02:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I voted for Biden; does that mean I should move my !vote to the involved section? :-P Levivich (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn’t expect you to dig in on this, but since you did, could you give a list of the topics where Christians can’t close discussions? Also, what does being a Christian have to do with Hunter Biden’s laptop? Could a Jew close that discussion? You are now casting aspersions at the closer. Please substantiate your aspersions that they have “baggage” in this topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As Nableezy said above, you're concentrating on the religion part, rather than the "fundamentalist" part. If I identified as part of a group that overwhelmingly votes for a particular party in the US, I wouldn't be closing contentious USPOL debates. As also mentioned above, I wouldn't be closing ARBPIA debates if I was Jewish or Muslim either, but that's irrelevant here. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Jews overwhelmingly vote for a particular party in the U.S. As do Black people. As do LGBTQ people. This would be a terrifying precedent to set, barring most minorities from closing AMPOL discussions. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's comparing apples and oranges, though, as fundamentalism and politics in the US are inextricably linked. Having said that,  I am not saying that declaring a political affiliation, or even just a POV, disbars you from anything, I am simply saying (and this doesn't seem to be getting through, despite the fact I've said it three times now) that when you have a very contentious issue which needs a decision and there may be the possibility that you may be seen as having an interest, it's almost always better to leave it to someone else.  Also, to be honest, that discussion really needed an admin, or there was always going to be an issue ... as you can see. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , and they're not in other countries? Race and politics are inextricably linked in the US, too. Black people in the US overwhelmingly vote Democrat; could a Black person close this RFC or would they also have too much, in your words, "baggage"? this is not a very contentious issue, it's a run of the mill political squabble.  no, that's so weasel-y. What interest does a Christian evangelical, even a fundamentalist (in the historic sense), have in Hunter Biden's laptop? You're the only person who is claiming a connection between Hunter Biden's laptop and Christian fundamentalism. I have yet to understand the connection between the two. Unless the connection is "they vote Republican" -- if that's what you're talking about, please come out and say it plainly, and then explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Black people, LGBTQ, and other groups like Tamzin pointed out above. By the way, I'm not even sure if the closer is an American at all. If they're a non-American Christian fundamentalist, do they still have "baggage"?  An admin of what religion?  Indeed, because you're arguing that religious affiliation creates a political bias or the appearance of one -- that's offensive, and inaccurate. You're advocating for discriminating against closers based on their religious beliefs -- offensive, morally wrong, and a dangerous precedent. It's really, really bad to suggest that the closer's religion (or race, gender, etc.) be taken into account in a close review. Like really bad. I genuinely hope you take the time to really think about what others have written here, and what you've written here, and the implications of it, and that you come to the conclusion that you were wrong to bring up the closer's religion. Levivich (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am wondering if there was any point writing my previous comment, or the one before that, since it appears that no-one is actually reading them. I'll give up there, I think. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We've read it, but it doesn't actually address any of the problems with your statement. Your comment's disparaging someone's faith (in any way) is an unreasonable and highly inappropriate remark. That it came from an Admin is not encouraging and exhibits a pretty severe bias. The fact that you stand by your remarks...even more concerning. But I suppose that's par for the course... Buffs (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This really isn’t that contentious anymore. It was 2 years ago, but now, per one of the RS quoted in the RFC, “almost no one” disputes the laptop’s authenticity. Apparently those who do are the editors in that RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, that is awful behaviour. You should retract your borderline personal attack against the closer immediately, not double down, triple down, and quadruple down. Politrukki (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I was actually about to start a closing draft when I saw on my watchlist that it had been closed. My initial reading was that it was too close a call to find any sort of consensus for either option, specially due to the raised NPOV and BLP issues. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 15:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While I lean on overturning to no consensus due to my own reading of the discussion, I think it's important to note some of the comments on the closer's personal bias here are way out of line. Overturning a close because the editor is from a certain group or minority, without any proof that it affected their close, would set a terrible precedent in precluding editors from closing RfCs in certain areas, as mentions above. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 01:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Though numerically the vote was close, with the "No's" being in the majority by only a few votes, I agree the closer properly weighted the votes based on the quality of arguments and application of policy, in particular WP:NPOV. Some editors thought we should use "alleged", other thought not, but then everyone started compiling sources, and as the "no" voters pointed out, the sources were almost unanimous in not using "alleged". WP:NPOV means we summarize those sources--i.e., we don't say alleged because they don't say alleged. The "Yes" voters did not rebut this in any way (e.g., by showing sources predominantly using "alleged"; not just one or two sources; and not from 2 years ago, but current). So, if most editors agree that most sources do not use alleged, then that's consensus to not use alleged. I don't see any error here, it's the proper application of WP:NOTAVOTE. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like a great close. I'm particularly looking at Some editors asserted that the ownership is still unclear but largely failed to support this with reliable sources, while editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection, which simply doesn't line up with the quotes from sources produced in the RfC. There were a few more "no"s than "yes"s, but there were also more inexperienced/new editors saying "no" and more poor arguments on the "no" side (although not by much). The later comment by the closer extending the RfC about "alleged" to apply to qualifying the belonging in any way is an overreach. I'm not saying there was consensus for the "yes" side, either, though. We have sources that appear pretty split on this, in terms of the language they use, and both sides have arguments backed by policy. I suppose I'd be inclined to err on the side of BLP, but that's my own $0.02. Although I don't think anyone would love the idea of a repeat RfC, it might be more effective to provide a set of options for wording and/or do a more thorough analysis of the sourcing apart from the RfC, along with weighting by how recent the sources are. i.e. what is the consensus of sources published since June (arbitrarily)? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same sources? That sounds sarcastic, but I am genuinely seeking clarification, as among the sources cited in the RfC, I count three sources that consistently use language like "alleged" and "purportedly" (all from April or earlier), eleven that pointedly omit such language, and a couple that use "alleged" when describing what earlier sources said about the laptop but omit that language when speaking about it themselves (as well as a couple whose constructions are too ambiguous to confidently parse). Where is the disconnect in what we are perceiving? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a section, "sources" which lists several bulletpoints. In order of whether they use/describe some qualification of ownership: no, yes [here and elsewhere, there is ownership/verification attributed to the emails, but not the laptop], yes, yes, yes, no, yes, sorta [for the first part, but again regarding emails], no, no, [quote from someone who funded the effort, not the publication], yes [again separating laptop from emails], no, yes [sorta], no [but the sentence isn't about this], yes, yes, [someone "yelling about Hunter Biden's laptop" isn't a statement about authenticity], yes, [doesn't address it], mostly no [attempts to rely on inference from the title]. While it's entirely possible to come to different conclusions about the consensus among those sources, it's hardly one side failing to support their argument and the other producing a plethora of sources. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: my evaluation of the close has nothing to do with the closer's userboxes/religion. Yikes, that doesn't seem like good practice. Those arguing that we should overturn on that basis are providing an easy target so people can endorse without addressing the substance of the close (as two of the last three endorsements have). i.e. this "the closer is a fundamentalist Christian and fundamentalist Christians vote a certain way that probably gives them an opinion about this topic ... so optics" line of argumentation isn't just lousy in its own right, but people seem to be focusing on that rather than the problems with the substance of the close (see above). It's weird to me that I'm the only one to flag that the closer declared their closing statement to extend far beyond the actual RfC, for example. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Vacate for a more experienced closer to re-close. With US politics, it's not enough that the close is right; it has to be seen to be right, so we leave closes that touch on US politics to the wizened and elderly who enjoy the fullest confidence of the community.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably a WP:BADNAC, but the close is correct anyway. Nearly every comment saying yes is a WP:TRUTH vote, that we dont really know if it is or it isnt. Those votes should be given less weight when there are users providing numerous reliable sources that state as a fact what those users dispute to be a fact without any sources that likewise dispute it. The numbers may say no consensus, but as ever this isnt a vote and the strength of the arguments for "no" were much stronger than those for "yes". Id have closed it as a consensus for no as well.  nableezy  - 17:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the only issue is WP:BADNAC, what do you think we should do in light of WP:NACRFC? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a BADNAC because it was a close call, and we leave that to people we've said we trust to make those close calls. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse close Well thought out and justified through and through.  These objections regarding experience or the users religion (really?) are incredibly superficial.  Arkon (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse close. It's a reasonable decision, and it reflects the median point of mainstream news coverage at this time. And if you read the lede of this article as a whole, it contains plenty of indications of how murky this whole saga is and how not every claim about it is credible, so readers will not be misled.  And the religion of the closer is irrelevant.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn close, and re-close by uninvolved admin or experienced non-admin closer - per Black Kite and S Marshall. It's the optics that matter here, and a good close by a partisan closer is not acceptable in controversial subjects.  Also, the rigamarole over "give me a list of what Christians can't close" is hyperbolic and absurd, a very good indication of why a pristine close is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the closer was partisan or was that a hypothetical unrelated to this case? If the former, I would ask you to substantiate the claim. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not an appropriate line of argument, BMK. What proof do you have of topic area partisanship in the editing history of this closer? If you have no such evidence, then I submit that the close should be judged on its merits. Which is to say, there would need to be some record of problems involving the topic area by the closer — ones that go beyond a declaration of adjacent (?) bias on their user page. And while I agree that optics matter, without evidence of such problems, they only matter with respect to the appearance of the close as being of substance.
 * To that: though I haven't read the discussion and I don't know if I'll get a chance to, it does seem a bit insubstantial, though it may well be a correct assessment (or not, I have no idea). Personally, for a subject of this import, I probably would have written twice to four times more if I were to close that RfC myself. So, again, even if correct — optics. That said, I have been criticized on this board in the recent past that my standards for closures of weight are too high. Still, to me, at a glance, the close seems too brief. El_C 00:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn - Many of the sources in the "source" section seem to support "alleged" being included, and many don't. There is sourcing that was presented in the article that supported both sides. So I'm not really seeing the "no" side having such stronger arguments that the discussion should have been closed in the "no" favor despite a near even split among participants. This close was not flat out terrible and I wouldn't say it even arises to the level of unreasonable, but nonetheless, it's best for the close to be done right, and I think the right close would have been no consensus. I don't believe the closer was trying to make a WP:SUPERVOTE, but it can sometimes be hard to balance the line between super vote and strength of arguments. <b style="color: #8B0000;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b>t@lk 00:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse close per Levivich and Wasted Time R. As I see it, the close was correct based on the sources. Those seeking an overturn, as Levivich and others have noted, are using reasoning I will collegially term dubious. Jusdafax (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Vacate Having read the RfC, I agree with those above who point out that this closure does not appear to have accurately weighed the !votes which do not have significantly different strengths of argument. C727's response to inquiries about the close also point to that being the case. Should be reclosed by an administrator. –– FormalDude  (talk)  05:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @ This is the section for uninvolved editors. Since you were active in talk page discussion and made 1 of the 4 controversial post-RFC edits, please move your response to the "involved editors" section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved this comment to the involved section from the uninvolved per our guidance on fixing format errors. Formal appears to be away from Wikipedia at the moment. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I didn't think to do that myself, in case Formal wanted to challenge their "involved" status; it didn't seem like a 100% cut-and-dry formatting error. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the objection by FormalDude below, I've moved it back. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm uninvolved with respect to this RfC as I did not participate in it in any form. Please move my comment back. –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅— <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse Regardless of the closer and possible COI, at the end of the day, it seems that sourcing wins out here, but as a broader comment and reading through what's there, I think that that was a poor RFC and/or the issue wasn't fully explored first. In context of the laptop story, it is important to recognize the media's treatment of the story and how that changed, and there may be points where "alleged" ownership should be used to describe the broader media's stance on the matter when discussing the history of when the story first broke. It's now at the time that the media seemingly all agrees about the ownership, so we would no longer need alledged. I would recommend editors on that page to revisit this idea, knowing when "alleged" is actually appropriate in terms of the historical facets, and when it can be dropped. --M asem (t) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Dunno &mdash; stumbled on this from following up on WP:AN3. It's a harder one because the closer needs to be confident in weighing policy against (and potentially overriding) arguments given. Given BLP, specifically, unless there are RSes with clear assertions stating it was definitely his (i.e., the sources themselves are putting their asses on the line from a legal standpoint), the inference should be reworded to disclaim/avoid it so as to avoid using Wikipedia's voice to assert factual-ness (at least, that's my interpretation of policy and my superficial skimming of the discussion). If I were closing it (I've done many of these via ANRFC), I would not say there's clear consensus based on policy; it's not a good argument to say "but there aren't (m)any sources saying it wasn't his" as it's still SYNTHy/OR to imply fact in Wikipedia's voice unless the positive sources, themselves, are 100% confident in stating ownership as a fact. I would, however, also suggest options combining the arguments involved to discuss for a subsequent RFC.  For example, even though nobody mentioned it, "involves a laptop computer , its contents, and whether it was owned by Hunter Biden" is possibly a more neutral, factual representation of the topic at hand, because it unquestionably gets to the meat of what the article is about (and ironically the RFC) without making any risky statements of fact.  This could help steer a subsequent RFC into a more productive direction focusing on examining sources and reporting facts as cut and dried as possible to avoid Wikipedia making determinations.  Long story short, BLP sets a significantly higher standard for factually assertive statements to begin with, and that's the more important question; a new RFC to discuss these issues and/or rewording options would be warranted.  -- slakr  \ talk / 10:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment and Questions - How are we to tell new editors that they MUST follow and include reliable sources but then turn around and tell them not to follow reliable sources in this case? I have no political affiliations. I don't care anything about a laptop and who owns it. I just want to make sure I understand how to tell new editors when to use and when not to use reliable independent sources. How do we determine that a reliable source is being lazy? Don't they have an editing process? We very curtly inform editors all the time that Wikipedia isn't trying to present the truth, we only share what reliable sources say about notable subjects. If the sources are wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. That is mantra used across the encyclopedia all the time. Is that just lip service or do we apply our policies and guidelines equally across the board? -- A Rose Wolf  14:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse. With respect to The fact that it was closed by someone who on their talk page describes themselves as a fundamentalist evangelist Christian is one thing, merely being religious does not make one WP:INVOLVED with respect to Hunter Biden's laptop. The fact of the matter is that we should not be deprecating people's ability to participate on Wikipedia simply because they express religious belief. I really can't get behind the notion that, in an analogous situation, all religious Jewish people be prohibited from closing articles within the scope of WP:ARBPIA if the sole basis for trying to exclude them is that they are religious Jews; doing so would be almost textbook antisemitism. The closer also appears to have properly weighed the arguments in that discussion, so I don't see any reason to re-close. WP:BADNAC, if you actually scroll down the veru same page to the WP:NACRFC section, notes that any non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin, so the claim of BADNAC here is self-defeating if that's the only remaining issue. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse BK's highly inappropriate response notwithstanding, the logic of the closer is sound. While some (politically) want to draw doubt about the laptop, the fact is that reliable sources indeed show it was. "Alleged" is not needed. Buffs (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Concerns: Having read the discussion and the close, I would second 's concerns about the quality of the close, though I suspect a new close could very well come to a similar conclusion. That said, I do have serious concerns about 's addendum to the close here where he uses his position as closer to prohibit any qualification that weakens the claim of ownership based on how he " imagines " the RfC participants would vote on the issue if asked. I don't see any consensus in the RfC that should prohibit someone from writing that the laptop is "widely believed to belong to Hunter Biden" as User:Korny O'Near suggested. (I'm not sure if that's the most accurate representation of the sources, as I haven't looked at them myself.) if you're reading this, would you consider striking or modifying your addendum to reflect what RfC participants actually wrote?  ~Awilley (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems we disagree about what … participants actually wrote. Opponents of using "allegedly" wrote that RS express no doubt that Hunter Biden owned the laptop and that it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to do so. While the impetus for the discussion may have been the word "allegedly," the result logically and intuitively applies to any other construction that does the same thing. The question, then, becomes simply whether or not a given construction is casting doubt on the ownership in our voice; I opined that "believed to be" does, at least as used it, and I am far from the only person who has said that. That does not mean that we can never say anything except simply that Biden owned the laptop:  rightly notes that there are contexts where that is appropriate (notably indirect discourse) and this discussion was about the first sentence of the article, so it's about the use of such qualifiers in summaries (and extremely short ones, at that). So I'm definitely not imagining this as a blunt prohibition on any qualification in all contexts, and I'm currently mulling over how I might best clarify that, but I don't believe the rational core of the addendum was off-base—though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse close. There was a consensus to omit "alleged", based on the strength of arguments. The close is perhaps not as nuanced as it should be – it doesn't mention that the "yes" opinions largely weren't grounded in policy and guidelines – but closers don't have to be perfect. There's no evidence that the closer tried influence the outcome by "super voting" or such.The filer refers to "significant BLP and sourcing issues", but it's not clear what the alleged issues are. In the RFC they were asked about potential BLP issues, but they evaded the question. Yes, the material is covered by the BLP policy, but BLP per se is not a trump card; if the material is properly sourced (NOR and V), it still must strictly adhere to NPOV policy.For what it's worth, I think the RFC question was too unspecific. Questions like that tend to lead to unclear situations that may require too much interpretation in edge cases. Which is what happened after the close. Politrukki (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The BLP and NPOV issues relating to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden have been extensively discussed on talk on this article's page and before this page was created on the AfD and related page. They have been clearly specified and identified and "evasion" is not at play here, thanks.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another evasion noted. What do you mean by "significant BLP and sourcing issues"? And to my knowledge, nobody has suggested that the laptop belongs to Joe Biden. Why would you mention Joe? How are "the AfD and related page" relevant to this discussion? Please be specific. Maybe I missed something. Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the actual BLP issues were previously discussed is no reason not to bring them up in the RfC. RfCs by their nature are designed to attract editors who have no participated in previous discussions. The reason why you never explained the BLP issues is that there are none
 * I phrased the question that way following the recommendations at Requests for comment. They are supposed to be concise. While SPECIFCO claimed that because the RfC was about alleged, it did not preclude "believed to be," there will always be editors who wikilawyer. I posted the RfC after near unanimous support for keeping the term and notice that the first six votes after mine were to keep. SPECIFICO immediately posted "An irksome revert is no reason to call for an immediate RfC. Ordinary discussion is the next step. Please withdraw this RfC. Or write an essay "BR-RfC"". [14:43, 28 August 2022] Obviously there is a hard core of editors who cannot accept anything that remotely reflects on their political leaders. So support for following policy in the RfC was never going to be overwhelming. TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus Seems just blatantly like a supervote to me. And when people in the discussion even here have to get into numerical specifics of whom discussed the sources or not, then that even more indicates a no consensus result because consensus was split. Add to that the non-NPOV closing description and the close itself seems way out of line. Silver  seren C 01:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors (Laptop controversy)

 * . To put this in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE language: "the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". C727's closure depends heavily on his assessment that This is untrue, as participants on both sides were equally likely to make no explicit reference to sources, and it's safe to assume everyone was responding either to the sources already in the article or in the list posted in the RfC. I inquired about this issue at C727's user talk page (here), and C727 said  and then  I see this as clear evidence of a WP:SUPERVOTE. The trend analysis C727 is using as the basis of his closure was not presented by the RfC participants, nor did anyone reference WP:AGEMATTERS, the policy C727 linked in that last quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would welcome a review from an experienced closer in order to solidify the consensus. There have already been attempts to circumvent the close by messing with the descriptor. What sticks out to me in the RFC is that the sourcing presented came overwhelmingly from the "No" !voters, which the closer noted. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy Here is a link to the section in the RFC listing the sourcing that many of the No votes seem to base their vote on. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And Yes votes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be more honest than I feel comfortable being, it feels to me like is forum-shopping because he didn't like the result. Shortly after I closed the RfC saying there was a consensus against stating that the laptop is "alleged to have belonged" to Biden, SPECIFICO added that it is "believed to have belonged" to him, which  reverted; at that point, SPECIFICO reached out to me via email thanking me for my closure and asking me to weigh in on the issue (there was no indication that SPECIFICO felt anything about my closure was incorrect); I did, explaining why I felt the arguments against using "alleged" also covered "believed" or any similar weasle-ish words, at which point he attempted to downplay it as "an after-the-fact personal opinion" rather than the clarification of the closure that he had requested. Now that several other editors have agreed that SPECIFICO's new wording contradicts the consensus I found, he's here seeking to overturn it.
 * Between my various comments, I believe I have adequately explained why I found the consensus I did and don't intend to engage extensively with this unless people have questions. But to summarize one last time, for the benefit of uninvolved persons: pretty much every source cited in the discussion was provided in a list mid-discussion; many of them, including pretty much all of the most recent sources, described the laptop as Biden's without qualification. A majority of editors agreed that there is no longer any dispute in the RS that the laptop is Biden's; whether they explicitly mentioned Adoring nanny and his list or not is immaterial, I think it is clear from reading the comments that they are aware of it, and it would be foolish to say that they need to say exactly the right things for their intent to be relevant in shaping the consensus. Likewise, WP:AGEMATTERS was clearly on at least some participants' minds (see e.g. 's reference to "current" sources), even if nobody explicitly linked to it (and it is relevant regardless). I likewise took into account the way the discussion unfolded; while in total, 11 people supported using "alleged" and 14 opposed, the ratio of support to oppose votes swung heavily in favor of the opposers as more and more sources were added to the list. For example, after 's large addition on September 1, three people voted for using alleged and six against; nobody would question that a two-thirds majority is a solid consensus without a compelling policy reason. And given the large number of RS produced in favor of directly stating the laptop is Biden's, I don't think BLP is a highly salient issue (BLP is not a license to ignore sources), especially when it only indirectly implicates Biden, given the ongoing controversy over the authenticity of the documents.
 * I'm willing to admit when I screw closes up (I have done that here before), but I don't see any compelling reason to believe this is one of them. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This misrepresents my email to the closer, in which I followed what I believe to be best practices to first approach the closer with a concern before formally requesting a close review. Compassionate, as I think is now clear, thanking you for your effort was not an endorsement of your conclusion.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thing is, Specifico, your edit on Sep 28 at 12:46 adding "believed to have", with the edit summary, shows that at that time, you were fine with the close of the RfC, and were even making an edit that close. No close challenge from you at that time. It was only after the discussions at the article talk page and ANEW (last post: 2:40 Sep 29) (both of which you participated in) resulted in the reversion of "believed to have" on the basis that it was against the RfC closure, that you then filed this close review (at 13:47 on Sep 29). It looks to me like you didn't have a problem with the close if you could change "alleged" to "believed to have" (i.e., if you could ignore the result with crafty wordsmithing)... only after that was shut down did you seem to raise issues with the close itself. In my view, this seriously undermines your argument. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidently, and even if it were, it would be reasonable for you to change your mind about my closure after discovering that it was broader than you had thought. I mention the email because 1) it seems to fit within what a pattern of back-peddling here and, more importantly, 2) I had wondered even when I first saw the email why you had reached out to me privately concerning such a public matter as on-wiki consensus, instead of using my talk page. Given everything that has happened since, I wonder if it was so that it wouldn't be obvious to everyone else that you had asked for my input (and implicitly assented that I held a bit of authority on that issue) in case that turned against you, which seems like an oddly underhanded way of seeking clarification of consensus, but a rather natural one if you had been planning to challenge an unfavorable finding the entire time. I find myself struggling to articulate that there was anything truly improper about it, yet the level of cynicism I see there discomforts me. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you were forum shopping. Thanking the closer doesn't mean endorsing. But your article edit surely (see Levivich's comment above) looks like a smoking gun.Moreover, you can't make an unsubstantiated allegation that Compassionate727 mispresented you. Would you kindly publish the email – as Compassionate727 is likely unable to do so for copyright reasons – so that the community can be the judge or retract your allegation? Why would you even use email if the message didn't contain any so-called harmful content (private data, defamatory content, etc.)? Politrukki (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One admin already reviewed this RFC case and determined that the closer was correct in their assessment of consensus on the WP:ANE case, and also opined on the article's talk page that the subsequent edits were out of line based on the RFC. I guess you're looking for a second admin's opinion, then? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * just letting you know that two comments you've made have been referenced in this discussion. <b style="color: #8B0000;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b>t@lk 23:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Merci, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a challenge or a review of this close and whether it was a WP:SUPERVOTE. 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%);">🚐 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure- I promised to accept the RFC result (no matter what it was) & I'm keeping that promise. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As your entry was cited specifically one of the reasons to challenge this close, re: "meaningless", your endorsement carries virtually no weight. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a matter for the closer or the re-closer of that RFC, to decide. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If you noticed, understood and worried about things like that then I doubt you'd ever sleep. Begoon 14:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, while it's not clear to me why they participated in either the RfC or this review, that was uncalled for. It's not like they're hurting anything. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse close. I commented already welcoming any review because I think it should be clear, but here are my thoughts. Of the 10 "yes" !votes, only 3 refer to sources, and none refer to any policy. Consequently, of the "no" !votes, 10 explicitly refer to the sources provided, with the remainder hinting at them and referring to evidence. On this basis, the close is firmly on solid ground. The OP here challenging the close uses their !vote to attack the RFC as premature and suggest the opener of the RFC made a mistake. One RFC participant suggested NPOV wording which avoided this issue altogether (also suggested by Slakr above), which I believe should be pursued as a much better way to handle this. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Overturn Apparent supervote by an inexperienced editor unfamiliar with measuring consensus. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 7 years, 27k edits = "inexperienced editor" 😂 Levivich (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ValarianB meant "inexperienced closer"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be accurate, either. Levivich (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse As the closer correctly pointed out, editors who thought the ownership was unclear failed to provide sources. Nor did they present any policy based reasons why facts reported in mainstream news media should be reported as allegations in this article. I note also that did not inform RfC participants of this discussion. TFD (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think participants in the discussion should be notified, since they'd just come here and re-do their same votes (ie exactly what you're doing). Uninvolved people are the ones who should be in this discussion. This weird section splitting in that regard is a new one on me. Silver  seren C 01:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because "review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself." (See Closing discussions.) Before posting my endorsement of the close I carefully read through this discussion and reviewed the close.
 * On re-reading the RfC, I was surprised that SPECIFICO's side was unable to provide any evidence that ownership of the laptop is currently questioned in reliable sources or any reasons based on policy or guidelines to question it in the article. So whatever the vote was, the closer was correct because only one side provided valid evidence or arguments.
 * It was therefore important for participants in this discussion to be aware of this situation, since it was not expressed at the beginning of the discussion thread. TFD (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The substantive content question of the RFC was whether the older sources which described the laptop as alleged, were superceded by the newer sources that just referred to it as "Hunter Biden's laptop," That was not a clear-cut question and the opinions were varied as to whether there was sufficient sourcing to say that in fact, Hunter Biden's so-called laptop was in fact his since some amount of the provenance and the authenticity of the laptop was unclear at best, and there was evidence of tampering. So should it be called his "alleged" laptop since it is still unclear how the laptop was "lost" or "left" and that it appears to have evidence of being tampered with and/or part of an oppositional plot involving Rudy Giuliani, etc.. Not to rehash the dispute, but you shouldn't hand-wave the existence of a dispute as simply being a 1-sided matter. An allegation of possible crimes being proven by the existence of incriminating information on a laptop being used to accuse people of wrongdoing or malfeasance is a BLP issue. The content question of whether it was in fact truly all his in entirety, remains relatively vague even though RS refer to it as his laptop without elaborating on its vague backstory. 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%);">🚐 22:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those arguments were made in the RfC, probably because they are weak. Early news reports tend to be guarded. For example, on 9/11, ABC reported, "There has been some sort of explosion. We don't fully know the details. There is one report as of yet unconfirmed that a plane has hit the World Trade Center." Do you think the 9/11 article should therefore say a plane allegedly hit the tower?
 * Expressing doubt where none exists is often a polemical tactic used by the tobacco industry, climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists and has no place in serious articles. There's even a Wikipedia article about one example: Teach the Controversy.
 * Whether or not the laptop was tampered with is irrelevant to whether Biden owned it. If you sued in court for the return of your property, the defendant could not argue that he had tampered with it, therefore it no longer belonged to you. And of course the article mentions this possibility and it was never an issue. TFD (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Both points are straw man. The WTC bit is especially egregious -- the claim that we should evaluate sources and BLP content based on a false equivalence comparing the chaotic early moments after the WTC calamity to the blind-man laptop tale published in an unreliable tabloid via Trump political operative and sanctioned liar Giuliani.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's a good point. Things that are reported as unconfirmed at first later become confirmed. Once they're confirmed, we should not and do not state that they're unconfirmed. Allegations, once accepted by the RS as true, are no longer allegations. Whether the 2020 election was "stolen" is another example; having been disproven, we no longer say "allegedly stolen" or talk about "alleged irregularities". We don't say Nixon's men "allegedly" broke into Watergate. Also, truth doesn't become less true because "sanctioned liars" say it's true. There are many examples, of which WTC and Hunter Biden's laptop are two. Giuliani says Al Qaeda did 9/11, that doesn't make it any less true. We don't say Bill Clinton "allegedly" had inappropriate sexual relations with an intern, even though that story was broken by Matt Drudge. There are so many examples of this. It's not a straw man, it's how the world works. The laptop belonged to Biden, according to RS. Not allegedly belonged to Biden, but did belong to Biden. RS says it directly and no RS says otherwise. We're not going to use "allegedly" or "believed to be". Time to drop this stick and move on. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the crux of the dispute. RS never said the allegations were confirmed, they just stopped referring to them as allegations. Our assumption that they are confirmed is original research and synthetic. 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%);">🚐 14:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another straw man: . This really is not complicated.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder what would make them do that? 🤔 Anyway, that sentence is the best explanation I've seen as to why Wikipedia should also stop referring to them as allegations. Levivich (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But WP:BURDEN. Let's just await the close.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN . Many such citations were provided in the discussion, but only one is needed to satisfy WP:BURDEN, and the best one in the discussion was probably the Feb 2022 The Guardian article, which said Specifico, this is what irks me about your everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to arguing content disputes. You know very well that BURDEN, part of WP:V, isn't an issue here, at all, because there were over a dozen sources in the RFC that did not use the word "alleged" and referred to the thing in their own voice as "Hunter Biden's laptop" or similar language. This isn't a WP:V issue. It's an WP:NPOV issue, because there are some sources that still used "alleged" or similar. The issue here -- the only issue -- is how to neutrally summarize the sources. That's what editors discussed, and the closer closed, and while there are multiple valid viewpoints on the NPOV issue and on whether the close should be overturned, WP:BURDEN is not among them, nor is (as you said above) anyone making a . You waste editor time by making these specious, irrelevant arguments, and refusing to concede any quarter, such as by suggesting WP:BURDEN or WP:V hasn't been met here. (It's ironic, because "deny everything, argue everything" are classic Trump tactics.) But I agree, let's just await the close. Levivich (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. SPECIFICO, you made your point, but WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you and "the horse" is nothing but a smear on the street. Let it go and let's have a closer end this pointless drama. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't see that the consensus was so clear. I'm not sure how this discussion will be closed if at all or what will happen, but I find that @Levivich's allusion to "Trump tactics" is a personal attack or adjacent. Specifico's argument hinges on the idea that was never given an RS that the "Hunter Biden laptop was confirmed authentic," quite the contrary in fact: it was confirmed, at least in part, to be inauthentic, but other parts were confirmed authentic: but this does not confirm it as authentic and there is a burden to satisfy as to its authenticity. RS stopped referring to "Hunter Biden's alleged laptop" and mostly began referring to it just as his laptop: the substantive question of the RFC was whether this is sufficient for Wikipedia to follow suit. I do not believe there was a consensus that it should since doubts remained. Instead, it would be reasonable to refer to the laptop as a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden. Anyway, I am not litigating the close here but pointing out that there was a substantive issue at dispute that is not clear-cut. 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%);">🚐 23:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Vox (cited at the article), nothing has been confirmed as inauthentic / misinformation yet. If you have a source claiming something has been verified as inauthentic, please link us to it (although it would have been better to do that during the RFC). Side note: can someone please close this? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Among the reasons for the inconclusive findings was sloppy handling of the data, which damaged some records. The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years....The Washington Post’s forensic findings are unlikely to resolve that debate, offering instead only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic. The security experts who examined the data for The Post struggled to reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive. 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%);">🚐 23:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your previous post said some things were confirmed to be inauthentic but this source you quote here says some of the data is confirmed to be authentic. Are you mixing that up? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What I should have said was, it was confirmed at least in part that the laptop was unable to be authenticated. By which I mean the "other files" on the drive. people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI. Maxey had alerted The Washington Post to this issue in advance, saying that others had accessed the data to examine its contents and make copies of files. But the lack of what experts call a “clean chain of custody” undermined Green’s and Williams’s ability to determine the authenticity of most of the drive’s contents. 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%);">🚐 00:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Without going into the merits of any of these arguments, I will note that they are all about the underlying content dispute rather than the closure itself, which is exactly why said that participants of the RfC should not be participating in the close review. Lay it to rest, please. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No sources say people other than Hunter Biden had "written files to it." They say it is possible and therefore each email has to be individually authenticated. So far the Washington post has authenticated 22,000 emails and not found any that were tampered with. But again, the question in the RfC was not whether the emails were authentic, but "Should the article use the term "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop computer?"
 * Suppose someone steals your laptop and hacks into and misuses your email accounts. Do you think a judge would buy the argument that it wasn't your laptop because the alleged thief had added fake emails?
 * I suspect this is filibustering. Some editors try to slow down the improvement of articles about Democrats by challenging anything that could possibly reflect poorly on them. No reasonable editor would present any of your arguments in an article that had no political significance. TFD (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually the Washington Post does say that, which I just quoted, TFD. 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%);">🚐 18:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Is another RFC gonna be necessary or not? It's been 3 weeks, since this challenge was opened. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Please close this
The last opinion voiced (excluding follow-on discussion) was 9 Oct. The last comment of any substance (excluding "are we going to end this?") was 2 days ago. This discussion has run its course. Buffs (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * now 5 days... Buffs (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I requested closure at WP:ANRFC. I agree this is ripe for a wrap-up Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Buffs (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * now at a week... Buffs (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Attempt made at an involved user closure. At least one disagreed...it appears to be over procedural grounds. Buffs. No offense taken nor malfeasance assumed :-) . (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion advice
Amou Haji was mistakenly speedy deleted this morning. When I pointed out the mistake to, they undeleted the article. However, they didn't undelete the revision where the speedy deletion nomination was made. I thought this was an oversight (without that revision, the contested deletion comment at Talk:Amou Haji doesn't make sense, plus I reckon it's a good idea to have a record of speedy deletion nominations), so I undeleted it. However, this means that the next diff makes it look like the first editor after the undeletion removed the speedy deletion template, when they didn't. Perhaps this is why Cactus.man left the one revision deleted. For future reference, can I ask for advice on who was right here? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I made an error in comparing the then curent article version versus the AFD deleted version. I mistakenly looked at the wrong date revision from the entire history which I msitakenly thought was largely similar to the article tagged for the speedy. Cordless Larry pointed out to me that he had earlier declined the speedy because the recreated version was not the same as the AFD'd article. Upon re-checking I realised my error. So I determined to restore the version I had incorrectly speedied, minus the speedy tag, so didn't restore tha revision that had added it. In hindsight I probably should have restored the full history then manually deleted the addition of the speedy tag, which is the procedure I'll adopt in future to avoid any similar confusion.-- Cactus.man  &#9997;  21:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, . For the avoidance of doubt, my post above wasn't intended as criticism of you. I'm just genuinely unsure about how undeletion is best done in this situation. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cordless Larry, I never took it as a criticism but rather you got me thinking about the optimal procedure in those circumstances. On reflection, I think fulll revision restoration folowed by selective deletion of the relevant revision is preferable, so thanks for raising the query. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  22:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I would disagree with that, too. I would restore everything, and then manually remove the speedy notice with an explanatory edit summary ("page initailly deleted but then undeleted, so removing db template" or similar.  I don't think I'd advise the selective deletion route.  There's no reason to revdel the speedy tag, and i think it causes more confusion than it solves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done ↑this↑ when restoring articles. Restore article, remove CSD tag with an edit summary noting that I'm removing it as the page has been restored per request. Easy peasy (assuming I'm reading the sequence of events correctly).-- Ponyo bons mots 22:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @ Floquenbeam Yes, I agree. Preserving the full prior history is less confusing for all. @ Pony Yes you've read the sequence of events correctly. I think I was just over thinking things and got lost in the confusion of brain fog - perhaps I've developed a form of Long COVID? Lessons learned though, so all is well. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Asking for the recreation of three redirects
I'm not sure if this is the right venue (most of the WP:AFC/R regulars are not admins), but I'd like to ask for the unsalting of the following redirects: Thank you, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * — Yes, I'm aware that this title was deleted and undeleted numerous times, but it all occurred before the article Vandalism on Wikipedia existed. This vandal is currently mentioned at the #Miscellaneous section. Of course this redirect should remain at least semi-protected, in view of the very long history of disruption.
 * – Target is Neo-libertarianism
 * – There is a snippet of information on this "phobia" at List of phobias. This redirect could target there.
 * I've gone and created the last two; those were perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial. On the first, I am going to play the WP:DNFT/WP:IAR card.  Yes, it has been a long time.  No, I am not going to validate them by creating such a redirect.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. And, yeah, only a single sentence, perhaps not worth a redirect. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
I'm not an admin, but it seems like there has lately been neglect of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist - requests over the last couple months seem largely to be ignored, archived without comment, and forgotten about (see e.g. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2022/09 and MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2022/10). If there is a reason a request is denied (be it policy or a procedural error) it should be clearly stated, if for no other reason than to prevent repeat improper requests. I'm most concerned with links that are, or are effectively, candidates for Official website. Some more attention paid to the Whitelist requests would be appreciated. Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Loureira
The article Loureira has always been about the Portuguese grape variety (more commonly known as Loureiro, though). However in this edit the article has been completely rewritten to be a stub about a Portuguese populated place. It now appears there is no article about the grape variety on en-wp (or at least I could not find it).

I guess both the grape variety and the Portuguese parish are valid subjects for articles, so how can this be sorted out? There is Loureiro (grape) which is currently a redirect to Loureira. Perhaps the article on the grape variety can be placed there? (It is more commonly known as Loureiro than Loureira, see e.g. .) -- 2001:16B8:1EFF:A000:7547:1D22:5D04:FE35 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I split the history out to Loureiro (grape). If someone has a better title, feel free to move the page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fantastic, thank you! -- 2001:16B8:1EFF:A000:7547:1D22:5D04:FE35 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Reaper Eternal How on earth did that editor manage to create that page in article space using the content translation tool? It is supposed to be disabled on this site for editors who aren't extendedconfirmed, see Content translation tool. Is Special:Abusefilter/782 Broken? 192.76.8.80 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The line  would prevent the filter from matching that edit, since this wasn't a new article. The access to Special:ContentTranslation is restricted to logged-in users as far as I can tell, although why the tool allows overwriting an existing article...I have no idea. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time this has happened, either. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that CXT was restricted to extended confirmed editors (and indeed, that is what the landing page says). If an editor with basically zero edits can overwrite an article using it, that's a significant problem.  I would suggest that Filter 782 is extended to stop that happening. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to block overwriting existing articles. I think technically any logged-in user can use Special:ContentTranslation&mdash;the  requirement is enforced through the edit filter.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will just observe that, although this happened with the Content Translation Tool, accidental hijacking (and occasional intentional hijacking) of an article due to a shared name also happens with ordinary editing, and editors should be alert to it. In this case, thank you, User:Reaper Eternal, for resolving it.  I agree that a hatnote is the solution.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User talk:121.58.222.107
After warning to using vandalism. Please see Special:Contributions/121.58.222.107. 2603:8001:3C03:234A:1526:AC59:10EF:C491 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320 / User:RespectCE
The user RespectCE is a blocking evasion see. This user writes in articles related to Ukraine, but has been found hateful to Ukraine on the Metawiki. I think the contributions should be carefully reviewed. WikiBayer (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, looks like the same user. Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree they look quite similar behaviorally. checkuser requested to confirm and look for sleepers, given that this account was created prior to Planespotter's unban request. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 10:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . Sleeper check didn't turn up anything useful. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Primefac. Wow, don't remember the last time I saw someone request an unban while already getting away with sockpuppetry., deleted 28 articles that miraculously had no substantive edits from others (and only accidentally tagged rather than deleting 4 times! progress...). Up to you whether we keep . Up to you whether we keep . (The presumed answer here is "yes", so no need to respond if you don't want to.)Will leave the files for the bots to sort out. Redirects, template, and category all seem fine to leave up, but anyone can G5-tag if they want (bearing in mind that templates and categories need to be unlinked before they can be G5-tagged). Also, my standard disclaimer when G5ing: I am almost always willing to restore a G5'd page to draftspace or userspace, if requested by a user in good standing with experience in the relevant topic area who is willing to take full responsibility for its contents before publishing.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the author's behavior at Articles for deletion/Rachel Chaikof was pretty disturbing. I definitely should have brought it up at WP:ANI then, but figured simply deleting the article would be enough. I'd recommend deletion of every article they've made, since it appears they've been attacking people in multiple locations. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The only remaining articles are the two G5-ineligible ones I mentioned above. I haven't looked closely enough to see if either would be worth AfDing. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, is closed. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For everyone's context:, followed by a confession to the socking and then several massive walls of text. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (Freddie Mercury singing) (Don't stop me now) // Yes, I'm havin' a good time // I don't want to stop at all --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Request to ban IP User
I'm requesting for IP User: 112.211.70.39 be banned because they keep vandalising Subic–Clark–Tarlac Expressway, Tarlac–Pangasinan–La Union Expressway and Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria and unrevert the rollback that I and ClueBot did. Check Special:Contributions/112.211.70.39 ― Dulcetia 06:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime : accusations me of hate speech and ableism
It appears that is offended by my use of a rhetorical device in a comment above and has responded by accusing me of hate speech and ableism. They removed my request for recall from their talk page  and banned me from posting in their talk page. While I obviously regret that my comment has triggered this reaction and would have found a different form of words had I know how they would take it, I am appalled that they have accused me of hate speech. I do not believe this outrageous personal attack should be allowed to stand but cannot raise this on his talk page. Could an uninvolved admin please address this and counsel TNT about appropriate standards of behaviour and discourse. Shockingly we appear to need to remind a steward about fundamental like NPA and AGF. Thanks. I gave pinged in lieu of the required notification given my ban from his talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 21:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But you did engage in ablism and a personal attack when you said if you think no one else viewing these edits isn't thinking the same then you are truly deluded . It's not a rhetorical device to say you are truly deluded to another editor. Had I not wanted to draw attention to this, as it largely had gone unnoticed, I would be asking for you to consider the personal attack you made per WP:ADMINCOND.
 * Also it's pretty clear that per their signature TheresNoTime uses they/them pronouns, not he/him. Could you fix that please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when has this not been a valid rhetorical device. Admittedly it's 35 years since I went to a school but on what basis am I supposed to understand this term is now banned and it's a damned site less offensive then accusing me of hate speech. I gave corrected pronouns, I checked TNTs page but couldn't see a statement and missed it in the signature. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 21:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the pronouns. In future when referring to the pronouns of an unknown editor, I find it easiest to use the they template and its derivatives, as it uses whatever pronouns the editor has set in their preferences page.
 * on what basis am I supposed to understand this term is now banned It's called ableism. In this case it stems from the usage of the word to refer to people who have delusions. If you've not encountered it before, perhaps you may wish to seek out a modern equality and diversity training program. If you want a thorough but not exhaustive list of various ableist words, this blog entry is pretty comprehensive for both the words and why the words are problematic.
 * less offensive then accusing me of hate speech You've used ableist language to attack another editor, whether unintentional or not. TNT's response both and on their  is rather polite and measured in the circumstances. Perhaps instead of causing more heat in this circumstance, you should use it to reflect on the language you feel is appropriate to use, despite it correctly being pointed out as an issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No, "delusional" is deprecatory twitter-speak used by people with opposing viewpoints. It's plainly insulting language, so that's truly not a word we should be using on Wikipedia regardless of how offending it is. But "delusion" stems from the actual mental illness Delusional Disorder, so wouldn't you find using that term a bit (very) insensitive? I mean, obviously you don't, but maybe you should. Thanks! — VersaceSpace  🌃 21:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes, it is ableist, which seems to be a main point of contention here. Forgot to mention that in my original post — VersaceSpace  🌃 21:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don’t assume what I think please, I have said multiple times that I am upset by the unjustified accusation of hate speech Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about what you think, it's about what you said. That's the important thing here, because nobody could actually know your thoughts just by looking at words on a screen. I'm of the belief that having said some discriminatory things doesn't make a whole person discriminatory. But it's still wrong to say those things, and yes in this case what you said was ableist, whether you meant it that way or not. Sorry — VersaceSpace  🌃 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems like both of you are acting sub-optimally, but each is convinced the other is acting more sub-optimally. Wouldn't the rational solution be that both of you just stop talking to/about each other, starting now, and then no one else has to wade thru yet another clash of personalities?  (Based on a historical evaluation of previous similar suggestions, the odds of a rational solution occurring naturally on WP are approximately 24%, and fall significantly lower every time either person mentions the other person after the initial suggestion.  But, it isn't zero, so I'll still give it a shot.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * why should anyone expect me to just accept a false claim of using hate speech. Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did TNT accuse you of "hate speech"? Or are you suggesting that "ableist trope" is synonymous with "hate speech"? –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrase used was Please take some time to reflect on your words, there's no need for such hate. which PackManEng immediately below took to mean I was being accused of bigotry. Spartaz Humbug! 23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And you're continuing to call TNT "he" after being informed that their pronouns are "they/them". Why are you doing that? –– FormalDude  (talk)  23:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Already fixed and I'm very angry and upset so my typing is getting ahead of my proofing. Spartaz Humbug! 23:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would be beneficial for you to take a break from this for a bit. Tempers running high never helps a discussion. –– FormalDude  (talk)  23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * it would be easier to do so if people stopped attacking me for not understanding another person's pain while doubling down on mine. Spartaz Humbug! 23:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, it would be wise to step away for a bit. I've spoken up in your defense below as I feel that many of the comments here leave something to be desired, but I'm not convinced that TNT intended to explicitly accuse you of hate speech (certainly, the word 'hate' was inflammatory regardless of its intended meaning). If I suffered from a condition that caused me to experience delusions, I'd probably react angrily if I was arguing with someone and they implied that I was delusional. However, upon further reflection, I'd realize that they probably weren't actually referring to my medical condition. Hopefully TNT will eventually arrive at that same conclusion, but for now I don't think there is much to be gained here. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * you are undoubtedly correct. Spartaz Humbug! 23:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm likely not winning any friends by saying this, but FWIW: Spartaz, please, don't escalate this any further. I assume, as should everyone watching this, that you didn't know about any medical condition TNT has, and that your language was, as you say, a rhetorical device; one I've used on occasion. Even so, knowing what you do now, I think it ought to be obvious that rhetorical device would be hurtful to someone in TNT's position. And their reaction should be understandable, at the very least. Besides, I genuinely struggle to see how anything TNT brought up above requires escalation to recall. Surely you ought to discuss things with her before going there? TNT, I don't know if you're watching this; but if you are, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to assume, as I did, that Spartaz didn't know of your condition, and was using a phrase that, directed at another person, would generally mean "you are gravely mistaken". I have nothing but respect for both of you: I don't believe anyone gains by escalating this further. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not going to stand still and just leave an unjustified accusation of using hate speech unchallenged. I would happily let it go If the accusation were withdrawn but I’m damned if I’m going to just accept such a slur without defending myself against it. Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So instead you've come to AN to try and sanction the person you derogatorily insulted? (and, fwiw, who you misgendered as well) I hope this results in a WP:BOOMERANG. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your words were hurtful, even if unintentionally so. I've asked TNT to accept that no ableism was intended, but I'm asking you to try to understand why you got the reaction you did. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't entirely get it as the term in my British ears is mildly rhetorical and in no way equates to hate speech. The latter of which, I associate with antisemitism, fascistic nationalism or homophobia and is possibly the worst thing you can accuse an aging lefty of. It's a disgusting slur. Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, ablism is a form of hate speech. Disability, which includes both physical and mental health, is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. It is punching down on a minority, in the same way that antisemitism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or ageism is. I'm telling you as another British person, regardless of whether or not it was unintentional, what you've said is problematic and has been perceived to be problematic. The correct response when you are informed of this should be to apologise, and not to double down by saying it's a "false claim", or trying to deflect based on your age.
 * I urge you to please reflect on this. Because regardless of your original intent, you are currently making things worse by refusing to acknowledge the problem that multiple editors have now tried to inform you about. This is not helping. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, as another British person I find that a ridiculous overreaction. Accusing someone of "hate speach" in this context is far more offensive and unaccepatble. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Spartaz acknowledged in the very first post in this thread that he should have chosen his words differently. What's not helpful is the fact that so many of you are either oblivious or indifferent to how deeply Spartaz was hurt by TNT's words. This is a very delicate situation to resolve as both editors acted in substandard fashion. Let's stop hammering Spartaz over word choice that he already admitting regretting. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All TNT did was say Spartaz was using an ableist trope, which is true whether he meant it that way or not. And that's not deserving of an apology; I seriously hope TNT ignores this. — VersaceSpace  🌃 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the comment I first wrote but you are being one eyed and ridiculous. Spartaz Humbug! 23:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a little more to it than that. TNT's use of the word 'hate' in this comment is what seems to have set Spartaz off. I think both editors have overreacted by reading more than what was intended into one another's words. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * they took it as hate, and were well within their right to do so. An apology is in order to TNT, not from them — VersaceSpace  🌃 23:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. 'Delusion' was a poor word choice. 'Hate' was a poor word choice. Neither of them rose to the level of AN thread, but here we are. And I'm not interested in telling other people when to apologize to each other; that usually doesn't end well. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not either, but that seems to be the intention of this thread. If anything, TNT wants to not engage with Spartaz, hence the removal on their talk page — VersaceSpace  🌃 23:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Thankfully, it seems that tempers have cooled for the time being. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And I've said above that I understand the sense in which you used it, and that it does not equate with ableism in a traditional lexicon, let alone with hate speech (I would draw a clear distinction between ableism and hate speech, mind you, but that's somewhat besides the point). However, TNT has made it public that they struggle with a medical disorder that sometimes causes delusions. In context, therefore, your comment sounds like you're telling TNT they cannot believe the evidence of their eyes, rather than just saying they're mistaken. Under the circumstances, I think a sharp response was understandable, and merits empathy. I think says it better than I do below, so unless you'd like further clarification I think I'm going to step away now. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly I missed the part where TNT made their struggles public. Clearly I would have chosen different language had I been aware of it but it's ridiculous to behave as if I or any other editor should be expected to behave with any deep knowledge of another editor pontificating on a public noticeboard. Spartaz Humbug! 23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not personally holding you to that expectation, and I have clearly asked TNT above to reconsider that expectation themselves. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody here believes Spartaz was referencing an actual mental illness. Still, that phrasing (especially in an unsubstantial hate-post) is very odd. It's akin to calling a neurotypical person "autistic" because they did something stupid, in my opinion. — VersaceSpace  🌃 22:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling a neurotypical person "autistic" because they did something stupid is just "odd" to you? What year is this? Suppose it's fine to call things we don't like "gay" too? –– FormalDude  (talk)  22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Odd in a very negative way. I guess the emphasis wasn't clear because of the plain text, but it was meant very negatively. — VersaceSpace  🌃 22:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is directed at me you actually don't know what I meant by the term I used Spartaz Humbug! 22:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My usage of the word "odd" was meant very negatively. That statement had nothing to do with you — VersaceSpace  🌃 23:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there is a generational gap here as the term I used when I grew up had the meaning of "deceiving yourself" and certainly I never grew up with it having any kind of mental health association. Spartaz Humbug! 22:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling someone "deluded" for holdng an absurd opinion is mild (albeit arguably to some ears regretable). Accusing some of hate speech isn't and is a gross and serious overreaction. I'm with Spartaz on this. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as time progresses, so does the lexicon. Ten years ago people threw around "faggot" like it's "fuck," but people got informed and stopped doing it, and now the same trend is happening with neurovariance, mental disorders, and more. From your comments here it seems to me you didn't intend to offend, and this whole AN/I thread is a mountain out of a molehill. I recommend that apologies are exchanged, everyone ditches the AN/I thread, and we all go on our merry way. DatGuyTalkContribs 22:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See my comment above about exactly how offensive I find being accused of using hate speech is. Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Call me old fashioned, but I understand not thinking of deluded as an ableist word. It continues to be used in the common meaning of having been duped, or believing something incorrect. It's also still commonly used as a word for convincing someone of something incorrect. The medical disorder was named using a word that already existed because it was descriptive of the disorder, rather than the other way around. Even googling "deluded ableism" returns a large number of sources on ableism that user the term deluded. It should have been said in a less personal attacky way, but I think it's pretty clear it wasn't used as ableist language.<span id="ScottishFinnishRadish:1667083816204:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm at the younger end of millennials and I have virtually only ever heard "deluded" being used as a moderate indictment of someone's beliefs. No chance I would have interpreted it as an ableist slur. I can see how someone who has been diagnosed with a delusional disorder might feel it was personal...but it is also nowhere near calling someone "autistic". A search of the DSM Library for "deluded" returns just 266 results, with under 10% of those in publications after 2000, and of those, over half are on history of psychiatry or philosophy rather than clinical research. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether you intended it to be hurtful or not, and I assume you didn't, the fact is that it can be and in this case does seem to be. You didn't know that it was? Fine. In former times it wasn't and that's how you learned it? Fine. You didn't mean offense? Fine. But it's time to recognize that now many do find it offensive, and in particular the person to whom you referred. So now you have a chance to learn from this. You now know you made a mistake, you can appologize and move on, better-positioned to avoid offending people with whom you need to collaborate. DMacks (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is TNT not expected to apologise for accusing me of hate speech or should I just accept that unchallenged? Spartaz Humbug! 22:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what any of this has to do with creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Folks, I do find calling someone delusional to be aggressive and rude. I'd never heard anyone describe it as hate speech or ableist but with a web search, I am seeing some do consider it ableist. But jumping to accusing someone of hate speech for using the word is just wrong and I do think an apology is called for. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Who called anyone delusional? The word in question was 'deluded' which means one has been fooled or misled. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggested apology Levivich (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2022 (
 * This page is not used for creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia. Levivich (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be much ado about political correctness and feelings. Zaathras (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Trying to undermine one group's opinion with buzzwordy phrases doesn't really work when the other party escalated the situation and created the thread — VersaceSpace  🌃 02:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No way can ableism be normally construed as a hate speech in everyday conversation, but in a collaborative environment such as WP where plenty of users look under every rock to see if they can find an excuse to complain about being insulted, it does more harm to our environment than the occasional use of centuries old colloquialisms. Indeed, insist enough and what you find under the rocks can get the nicest people sanctioned and the same complaint will ruin an admin’s Wiki career and enthusiasm to continue working as a volunteer in Wikipedia’s minefield.


 * There’s an excellent BBC article about it. The very last paragraph leaves us all with food for thought. I’m an old Brit and I finished high school getting n for sixty years ago; I’m also a professional linguist, but it would be hard to make me stop to think before I say things that were perfect culturally acceptable 60 years ago. When I'm writing speeches I naturally take more care.


 * This is all a blowback from a recent Arbcom case and I think it’s time to simply end this thread and leave alone - they are worth more than ten of any of us.  We all have better things to do with our keyboard time, and the thread is falling largely on 'deaf' ears - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ironically as a screen reader user, I didn't initially notice the apostrophes around the word "def" in the previous message (as I have it set up not to read out such punctuation unless I request it to do so), so I was about to ask whether the last few words were intentional. I'm not at all phased by ablist language though; I'm happy to turn a blind eye to it, as are most people in my little corner of the blind community ... for us there are bigger fish to fry. But I can't claim to speak for all blind/visually impaired people let alone all people with disabilities and I understand that many people take ablist language a lot more seriously than I do. Graham 87 05:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is hard to drop all language that is ablist, as much is well-integrated into our popular vernacular. But the best policy is to, when offense is taken, at the very least apologize for causing offense. And another crux to note here is that the term was used for personal disparagement, regardless of any ablist implications. SecretName101 (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Spartaz, any way you look at it your comment was a personal attack, and therefore against Wikipedia policy. I don't think it merited an ANI thread so you could try to have the last word and get back at someone who gave as good as they got and then banned you from their talkpage. Let's all go back to abiding by Wikipedia policy and discussing edits, not editors; content, not people. This is easily avoided by never using the word "you", and commenting only on points, not people. If you have to resort to personal attacks, it's usually seen by others as coming from a state of weakness anyway. It does take discipline to avoid remarks about people, but it is a discipline that should be cultivated in a collaborative project that has a policy against personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically, If I inadvertantly use a phrase that offends someone I am at fault but when their angry response ssed a term that I find truly offensive then I'm supposed to suck it? That's fair and equal and not at all unjust or ridiculous. Spartaz Humbug! 06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are your three consecutive edits: an unprovoked personal attack and threat on an AN thread, followed by an even stronger personal attack {and an insistence on resignation} on usertalk , followed, when preempted by TNT's well-warranted removal of your TP attack, by opening this ANI thread  even after TNT had twice explained on the AN thread their issue with the specific personal attack used. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Spartaz it’s obvious that you started it by jumping into an incredibly benign thread with an extremely disproportionate level of hostility, and started a completely pointless flame war, which you are now continuing. Don’t go looking for drama and maybe you won’t find any.
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - Spartaz has retired. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Some people just can't bring themselves to say, "Sorry for the foregoing. I really lost it there." That's all it would take. If such is not forthcoming after they calm themselves, might an IBAN be in order? SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Knowing when to walk away (when to fold 'em) is a huge part of avoiding PAs. It's another skill, a discipline. Just let the whole thing go, and either avoid wiki for a few days or focus on some other part of the 'pedia. I think all it would take here is just to withdraw the thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Just saw this. I suppose little use in continuing this thread. SecretName101 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it is useful to the conversation or not, but I will point out that the blog entry mentioned earlier by Sideswipe9th does include the notation "Note that only some of the words on this page are actually slurs. Many of the words and phrases on this page are not generally considered slurs, and in fact, may not actually be hurtful, upsetting, retraumatizing, or offensive to many disabled people. They are simply considered ableist." That noted, I agree with the essence of VersaceSpace comment (echoed by others) that it was defamatory. Regardless of any debate about whether or not the application of the term "deluded" was an offensive application, it was certainly aggressive and disparaging towards another editor. I am no angel, and have certainly have had my share of moments on this site where I put a wrongly aggressive a front up. That being said, I would discourage Spartaz from taking such a tone. The same sort of message could instead have been conveyed writing something like "I am confident that other editors viewing these edits are thinking the same thing". SecretName101 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to provide my thoughts as an uninvolved editor, being that I have not participated at AN in the past (I did at ANI, once, to report a legal threat) nor do I have an active working relationship with any editor here. It is my hope that this may be beneficial for people who have gotten invested here as I see a lot of people I respect participating. This is not intended to spark further heated debate. I welcome any uninvolved administrator to counsel me for having done this if they feel it appropriate.


 * Two wrongs do not equal a right, even if both wrongs are of different severities. Spartaz acknowledged he would have used different terminology had he known how it would effect TNT. I do not find that his questioning of whether what he said was ableism or hate speech to be unbecoming or disrespectful here. Wikipedia is a diverse community, and this includes those who hold a minority view. Generally, we should not in our pursuit of assigning appropriate weight disrespect the view with lesser weight. So long as Spartaz does not continue to make such statements without care on the English Wikipedia, he is free to continue to hold his own personal beliefs relating to the broad usage of "deluded", and I find no evidence that Spartaz would partake in such behavior.


 * Should Spartaz have acknowledged and apologized for his unacceptable behavior unrelated to the usage of "deluded"? Yes. Should he have explicitly apologized for how his statement was reasonably interpreted rather than focusing on stating it was not his intent? Yes. I believe he should still endeavor to do both these things should he decide to return to active editing. That said, I would like to believe that Spartaz has more than gotten the message that his behavior was unbecoming from the community members in this thread. I would assert that this is not a typical case of WP:BOOMERANG. It is standard for the behavior of all parties to be reviewed. That is even more necessary here, as this thread involves 2 editors with many years of tenure and who have advanced permissions. I also respect TNT's work quite a lot. But having said that, the accusation that Spartaz was pushing ableist tropes rises beyond being dropped in my view. Making an ableist statement, which I do not see any commenting editors above assert was done intentionally (which is necessary to point out, as if it were intentional the accusation may have credence), and pushing ableist tropes are not equivalent. The latter implies advocacy, which has not yet been demonstrated. Spartaz, I believe, was reasonable in requesting some form of acknowledgement of error by TNT even though their error is not nearly as severe. I feel that this nuance was not communicated sufficiently or is currently not accepted by the community, for which if the latter is true I shall concede to the majority but disagree. — Sirdog (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, in that Spartaz started a ridiculous unprovoked fight immediately calling for a longterm admin/steward/etc. to be recalled or resign. He immediately took the fight to the innocent party's talk page, attacking in even stronger tones. All TNT did was figuratively tell him to buzz off, using words that were sharp but not literally intended to indict Spartaz any more than Spartaz's word "deluded" was literally intended to medically diagnose TNT. It was a knee-jerk self-defense reaction to multiple ridiculous uncalled-for personal and professional attacks. In terms of I would like to believe that Spartaz has more than gotten the message that his behavior was unbecoming from the community members in this thread, clearly he hasn't, since in his last post he instead re-justified his own untenable position and stormed out, clearing his talk page and retiring from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to post since this isn't my fight and I don't know much about the backdrop. However, at some point it seems like, intentional or not, this is weaponizing victimhood.  It looks like Spartaz's usage was in line with the dictionary definition, "believing something that is not true."  That definition doesn't say anything about metal issues.  If this is an issue then we need to scrub articles of references that say "X was deluded in thinking Trump won the 2020 election". Springee (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've never heard the word "deluded" used in a way that suggests mental illness. Rather, it suggests that the person was taken in by hype, propaganda, or their own wishful thinking. NightHeron (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: you think the person who briefly expressed offense at what can only be described as an insult is the one weaponizing victimhood, not the person who in response started a noticeboard thread and rattled off over a dozen comments instead of apologizing, or, hell, simply moving on? –– FormalDude  (talk)  13:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * After my initial post I thought, I probably should go back and say, calling someone deluded is almost always not going to be viewed as civil. I'm only commenting on the ableist part.  Since you and I have had editorial disagreements (but not uncivil disagreements) I will pick on you ( :D ).  If you said I was delusional for wanting some content in an article it would be reasonable for me to be offended that you called me delusional.  It wouldn't be reasonable for me to suggest you are some type of "-ist" for using "ableist" language.  Springee (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Where to go for a history merge?
Is AN the right place to request a history merge? It's somewhat controversial and I feel weird going to an individual admin. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * histmerge if it's easy, Requests for history merge if it's not. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I couldn't find that somehow... Hobit (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrators acting in their personal capacity on private committee evidence
Something highlighted just above by is the fact that arbitrators from "time to time" will act on private evidence emailed to them (assumedly with the express purpose for the committee to investigate) in their personal capacity as admins — I'm all for the reduction of bureaucracy, but this raises a worrying question: how do we (the community) deal with unblock requests of these blocks? Blocks made by the committee are appealable to the committee, CU blocks are appealable to CUs, etc. In this case, the block in question is "normal" (i.e., appealable via a normal unblock request) but based on private evidence only available to arbitrators. No other functionaries have the ability to review these unblock requests, only the committee. That doesn't "feel right" — we should strive to be clear and fair, with as "open" an appeal process as possible. Are we, the administrators of the English Wikipedia, happy with this practice? At the very least, I feel the community deserves the transparency of knowing just how often arbitrators make "normal admin blocks" based off of arbitrator-only private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In response to this comment, no — I don't believe this can be compared to private evidence emailed directly to an individual functionary. I'm referring to evidence emailed to the committee, at the committee's email address and available to all members of the committee. In these cases, there's an expectation of review and action by the entire committee. This is a fairly clear fact, else the user who emailed the evidence would have just emailed a functionary directly. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm off to bed since it's rather late my time, but I'll note this before I go. If a user emails us, and says "so and so is a troll", that isn't ArbCom business. But it would be a grand waste of time for an Arb to say to them "oh, we don't handle that, go report it at ANI", when instead said Arb could block the troll and also tell the emailer that in the future they should go to ANI. We do stuff like that fairly often because it saves everyone time. All 15 members of the Committee don't need to vote on every single email we get. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 09:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you consider being emailed "so and so is a troll" as private evidence, or would their contributions be sufficient to prove that, thus negating the issue of how any other admin/functionary could handle an unblock? I think the answer to that is fairly clear. I entirely agree with any action which reduces bureaucracy and allows our elected arbitrators to focus on the important things, which I hold that on average y'all do very well — this isn't a criticism of any of you, but it was jarring to me to discover this happens, when I'd have thought the easier thing for the committee to do would be to refer "unactionable" (or, more accurately, unactionable by the committee as a whole) evidence back to the community (which, in this case, would be as simple as forwarding an email to the functionary mailing list) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's confidential information it shouldn't be forwarded to the functionaries list given that nda compliance is not necessary to be subscribed (and the list has an archive so such info would be available in the future to people who didn't qualify). In this situation my opinion is if Eek is relying on offwiki evidence it should be a CU block. If the email just drew Eeks attention and all evidence is available on wiki it can be an admin block and the email needn't be mentioned. I agree that either way the block should be clarified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have clarified I of course meant the checkuser mailing list... — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the block rationale. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it  — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The chain of accountability and oversight when it comes to non-public matters is something like individual functionaries < the functionaries < individual arbs < ArbCom < OmbCom < the WMF Board. So no, I don't see anything odd in the fact that other functionaries can't review actions by an arb or arbs; that would be going backwards. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Equally,there is not defined role of "individual arbitrator", it's "member of the arbitration committee acting as a CUOS" does that cover what we are looking at, well, possibly. I'd certainly be very interested in hearing other community member thoughts on how these situations should be handled <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So you agree this was an arbitrator action made in the capacity as an arbitrator? That's perfectly fine and I agree with your assessment that this would be going backwards — this however wasn't marked as an arbitration committee block (there's no such this as an "individual arbitrator block", nor does being an individual arbitrator infer any additional rights etc.) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Being an individual arbitrator does confer additional rights. There are several rights, such as oversight, that arbitrators are automatically given ex officio. This whole discussion seems to be an enormous waste of time per WP:NOT. Do you really want the whole committee, which is distributed around the world in multiple time zones, to discuss every email even if the action needed is simple and obvious? That would increase their workload enormously. This is a work place, not an exercise in utopian governance. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah I should have clarified — "does not infer additional rights individually above that of a functionary" 🙂 and I'm not sure where I've stated that I'm asking the committee to discuss every single email. I apologize profusely if I've given that impression! I'm hoping this discussion, which is not much more than a pulse-check, will save time and reduce complexity in addressing the concerns around how we as the community deal with these "not really individual actions, not really committee actions". I detest bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy — but neither a desire for clarification nor an appeal to common sense, strike me as that. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, is it utopian governance to want accountability and transparency? To ensure the community can act autonomously as much as possible and not be beholden to a (very overworked) committee to answer all our questions and help us review unblock requests? I don't think it is — I'd just call that the bare minimum expectation of governance. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be eliding "the community" and functionaries here. Of course, ultimately we're all part of the community. But in a governance sense, I think it's a mistake to consider the functionaries as being somehow closer to "the community" than the Arbitration Committee. If anything it's the opposite: ArbCom is an elected body with responsibilities delegated to them by the community, functionaries are appointed officers with responsibilities delegated to them by ArbCom. I can't see how having functionaries review arbitration actions would meaningfully increase openness or transparency; arguably it would lessen it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking cross-purposes here — review ≠ unblock. Functionaries don't review the actions of ArbCom, nor am I trying to suggest that's the case. I'm speaking solely on the point that an arbitrator, acting as "just" a functionary, depending on private evidence only available in their role as an arbitrator, taking an action not marked as an arbitration committee action, leaves us in an ambiguous situation when it comes to unblock requests. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On a personal, and mostly unrelated note, there is no "closer" to the community — we are it. I personally dislike any attempts at introducing a feeling of "them and us". I'm a community member with added buttons. ArbCom are community members with added responsibilities. At our core, and key to how Wikipedia works, is a flat hierarchy. I appreciate that is more idealistic than things may be perceived, but we can try and hope.. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion seems to be an enormous waste of time per WP:NOT#BURO. +1. JBL (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "this" is – I thought you were asking an abstract question, not asking for comment on a specific action? Worm is right – there really is not such thing as an "individual arb" role. Thinking back to my own time on the committee, while we certainly did things on our own initiative from time to time, we almost always explicitly noted that it was with our admin or CU/OS hats on. Those should not be marked as arbitration actions or treated any differently from regular actions. More rarely, there were non-public matters that were in the remit of ArbCom alone (i.e. not disclosable to other functionaries) but were either not serious enough for a full discussion-and-vote or too urgent to wait for one. A response to that type of thing should be marked as arbitration action, with the understanding that the individual arb is acting with the implicit consensus of the whole committee, which can be reviewed by the rest of the committee if necessary. Doesn't the cover the full range of possibilities? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This makes perfect sense, thank you for the insight. I think, as I note above, I've been speaking at cross-purposes (and have referred to a specific action as merely a simple example) — where a member of the community has multiple hats, clarification is key. It needlessly complicates things when we're left guessing which hat took the action, especially when this influences how we handle unblocks. This is the reason why checkuser blocks must be marked as such. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm always bemused when users subject to arbitration processes start policing the actions of the committee. All these high sounding concerns kind of lose their impact when you reflect that you have conveniently failed to declare your interest while sounding off. Frankly this is thunderingly poor judgement. Even if I'm the only one saying this to your face, if you think no one else viewing these edits isn't thinking the same then you are truly deluded. Are you open to recall? If you are, I'm calling for it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would you think this has anything to do with that case? If you honestly thought that, and wasn't using this as an odd platform to attack me, you'd realise that if I was at all concerned about how this would affect that I obviously wouldn't say anything. Please don't ever call someone with a publicly disclosed condition which can cause actual delusions "delusional" — you don't know what that word really means, and it just comes across as ableist. I'm open to recall (and have listed the process for that for a long time), but frankly this is so clearly some thinly veiled attack, so your words mean very little. Please take some time to reflect on your words, there's no need for such hate. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I could see why people might think there is a connection between someone being critical of the committee while there is a case against them for misuse of advanced permissions. Even while I agree with your points here, it takes some of the punch away. I would also caution against basically calling someone a bigot and then elsewhere declaring they are pushing ableist tropes, generally it is not very helpful. I think a better course of action here could of been to ignore the comment. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Pushing ableist tropes"? Oh my. There'll be evidence of that, I expect, coming soon. Begoon 16:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See above. I know no one is asking me to explain how calling someone who has publically disclosed a condition which can cause actual delusions "delusional" is ableist — I trust that the community knows how inappropriate that is! 😌 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Public disclosure in what sense? Generally, I think it's a mistake to conflate use of the word 'deluded' as a rhetorical device, intellectually, with its clinical usage vis-à-vis someone who is actually sufferings from delusions as mental health affliction. So, I don't think it makes sense to call it an ableist trope here, in this instance, since the reference concerns a failure to observe machinations, attitudes, etc., on-wiki — rather than anything like paranoid delusions and so on. El_C 16:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at your userpage in detail, so I have no idea what you "publically disclose". I only recently glanced at it to find a link to your calvinballesque recall requirements.
 * Is there a requirement that I, or Spartaz, or anyone else, explore and drill down into all of your "disclosures" in detail before commenting on anything that might involve you?
 * If so, I'll adjust my behaviour, but it does seem like a quite onerous requirement for each comment one might make in the daily "to and fro". It'll certainly delay a lot of responses, I'd have thought, and complicate the way I thought things worked here. Begoon 16:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * sounds really weak when it comes from an admin who is not open to recall, . You should add yourself to the category before threatening any other admins with it. Levivich (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Arbs are elected on the explicit understanding that they'll have access to sensitive offwiki evidence and it's right that we extend them enough trust to do their job. But arbs aren't elected to take unilateral action. The authority figure is the committee, not the individuals who make up the committee.
 * If an arb sees private evidence, takes immediate interim measures to prevent disruption, and then says to the committee "hey, I've done this, yell if you disagree", then I think that's fine. Most such decisions would be uncontroversial.
 * If an arb takes unilateral action that the rest of the committee doesn't know about, then I have concerns.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a long discussion with a sort of diversion in between so I didn't read that carefully but is there some reason these cannot be handled like any other admin's block? While this hasn't been something I've followed that well, as I understand it admin's used to just block based on private evidence emailed to them sometimes without any followup or explanation anywhere. Fairly recently, it's been recognised this is a problem since appeals are very difficult if the admin has disappeared and even if they're just away for a few weeks it still creates an unfortunate situation. So my understanding is efforts are being made to change this requiring that admins give some more information some where to assist appeals. The way I see it, if arbitrators are making blocks as regular admins, then they should also follow this procedure providing whatever documentation is expected of admins to wherever it's expected. If they cannot do so because they need to provide some of details that were sent to them which they can't do given confidentially requirements expected of emails and the differing standards of different lists per Barkeep49, then I would agree this cannot be treated like a normal admin block, it's effectively an arbcom block and while I don't really care how arbcom wants to handle this internally, they need to do so in a way that they accept it's their block. Alternatively, I assume the blocking arbcom member could seek and maybe receive permission to forward the essential details to where it's needed and keep it as an admin block. Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your general points. One small correction between normal admin action and arbcom block is a CU block. That is how Eek resolved this particular situation (and to TNT's satisfaction). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right my comment was too limiting. Any blocking procedure can be used provided the norms of that procedure are followed. In some cases it may be given to the WMF to take over when it's something arbcom should not have to deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Block User:Almustee
User:Almustee is a sockpuppet of User:Almustyy, and should be blocked indefinitely. WPEditor42 ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This has already been answered on the SPI case by and . I don't there is anything else to be done here. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Request of opening a page for Over The Top SEO (OTT)
Hi,

I'm trying to open a page for Over The Top SEO (OTT) and have been referred to the administration notice board.

Can somebody this page for me please and I'll update it.

Many thanks,

Michal Michalyogev (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you've been asked to come here, but I gather you are associated with this company. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures; disclosing a paid relationship with a topic is a Terms of Use requirement. You may create drafts via Articles for Creation if the topic is a notable business as Wikipedia defines it and it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are not press releases, interviews, or annoucements of routine business activities. The vast majority of businesses do not merit articles, and creating one is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia even without a COI. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a blacklisted title, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit directs would-be article creators here. This discussion may be relevant, too. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I haven't dealt much with the blacklist. That makes sense now. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the blacklist entry was added in 2017 by -- RoySmith (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Isabelle Belato · Whpq
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Atama · Astronautics~enwiki · Athaenara · Eddie891 · GraemeL · Marianocecowski · Natalya · Pratyeka · SB Johnny

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ragesoss

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Blablubbs · Firefly
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Joe Roe

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DGG

Guideline and policy news
 * The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
 * An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
 * The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
 * The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
 * , and  have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections.  and  are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
 * You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
 * Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like or.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible compromised account
Based on comments at WP:THQ (diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1119332857) I suspect account Damnester is compromised and the current user of the account is planning maliciousness. I have not notified them or pinged them, since if it is not the account owner posting, I wasn't sure that was sensible. This is my first AN post and first time reporting a compromised account, apologies if I am not doing it right. RudolfRed (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * AN or AN/I are good. I've asked in IRC for the IPv6 to be blocked for the compromise as well, but so as to not duplicate effort, is the compromiser.  —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 01:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked by Reaper Eternal. Locked by AntiCompositeNumber. I gave the IP /64 72 hours. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't want to ping the user, you still should have linked to the user. This could have been done either by use of Template:Noping or by saving the edit as you did and then going back and linking in a separate edit. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 07:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not really necessary to link to the user. There's sufficient information given for anybody who is competent to be able to find the user account. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SecretName101

 * Appealing user : – SecretName101 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed :

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Relevant Links
To make this easier for administrators and to be fully transparent I have compiled all related discussions and links I could think of below. Not all of the threads are flattering. But I am not going to make an effort to bury them. SecretName101 (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning now on sharing this (was not sure if I would earlier), but my early reactions to the ban and my reactions to the first appeal were likely shaped by a time of emotional turmoil I was experience outside of Wikipedia at the time. I was more reactive here than I am proud to have been. SecretName101 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Original ANI discussion
 * A thread on the User talk page of SecretName101 (the appealing user) that preceded this
 * Talk-page notice/discussion
 * First appeal to Administrators' noticeboard (result: “oppose”)
 * notification by SecretName101 (the appealing user) to El C (the administrator who put in place the topic ban) of this appeal
 * Second appeal to the Administrators' noticeboard (result: “no consensus”)
 * notification by SecretName101 (the appealing user) to El C (the administrator who put in place the topic ban) of this appeal
 * Post on Administrators’ noticeboard where I brought to the attention of others that the request was archived without closure
 * Closure request at Wikipedia:Closure requests
 * Closure request at Administrator’s noticeboard
 * Most recent post (as of appeal being made) on an August 2022 thread on the user page of SecretName101 (appealing user) requesting further clarity and input from several users that objected to their second appeal
 * Posts by SecretName101 (appealing user) on the talk page of El C (the administrator that imposed the sanction)]
 * Posts by El C (the administrator that imposed the sanction) on the talk page of SecretName101’s (the appealing user)

On the topic ban and its circumstances
One year ago, this topic ban was imposed upon me. In April 2022, I made my most recent appeal, which resulted in no consensus.

I would like to first apologize for any and all damage for my practice of poor judgement/actions that spurred this topic ban.

I would like to reiterate, as I said in my previous appearance, that, "I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution."

I did not create the article which spurred this topic ban with malicious intent. Instead I made stupid and careless decisions, which I acknowledge and have learned from. Regardless of why and how, I still caused regrettable harm.

The seed of the article in question came from seeing that the individual had been the owner of what was described as a notable and successful nightclub. Seeing other things, such as their induction into the Delaware Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame, I figured that they would perhaps be just ever-so-barely notable enough to be described on this project.

In creating the article, I had access only to limited resources on the subject that were made available online. That should have been the first deterrent to not start a new article on the individual. The resulting article painted an incomplete picture of the individual due to my access to only limited information. It was stupid to move it from the draft space unreviewed and in the shoddy state that it was in. The information I did find on the subject was largely about negative aspects of their bio, and the article consequentially placed disproportionate emphasis on these aspects. Other bad decisions and misjudgments that I made in editing exacerbated this negative lean.

The draft of the article should have been abandoned until such a time that I or someone else could find sources that would paint a more balanced and complete picture on the individual. If I wanted help in fleshing it out, instead of publishing it and hoping others might help improve it, I should have actively called attention to the draft in discussion areas and requested other users lend a hand in fleshing the article as a more complete and balanced picture. The fact that I did not ask for others to review a shoddy article and advise what to do with it was very stupid.

Since I tend to find myself editing often in the sphere of government and political biographies, I am primarily familiar with the practices of those sorts of articles. Many political bios that I have seen in that sphere either correctly or improperly describe(d) convicted politicians as "convicts", "convicted fraudsters", or similar descriptors in the opening sentences of their articles. Seeing this, I made what others later informed me was a misassumption that this is the regular practice for any biography of a convicted figure.

I also carelessly included a very bad source in the article, however this source was not supportive of negative-leaning information. The negative information on the individual was largely sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. It was factual information. But that information was nevertheless cartoonishly over emphasized, especially considering the length all other aspects of the biography were given.

There was no urgency for this individual to receive any coverage, even if they met the bar of notability. I should certainly not have rushed to have content published. If I could not get it right, I should not have published anything at all. It is even more so the case that an incomplete article on the individual shouldn't have been published, given that his article was presumably low-trafficked enough that others users weren't going to give it needed attention.

Additionally, I see how the negative information flew in the face of the WP:NPF principle that I am now familiar of. I did not practice the needed caution and the information was not principle to their notability.

I have also recognized that the topic that might have been more likely to be worth creating an article on was the nightclub, not the one-time owner. I have zero plans of touching that subject again in any respect, though.

In the past, there have been some users that rejected my appeals because they believed I was lying about the intent of my actions. They've attributed bad faith to my edits, an intent to hurt the subject of the poorly-conceived article, and will not accept anything short of a full signed confession to that being the case. I cannot, in good conscious, give a false confession. My edits were the result of aforementioned poor judgement/misunderstanding and not due to ill intent.

In discussions that preceded the issuing of the topic-ban, I was foolish not to have done an immediate about-face. Instead of admitting what I did wrong, I first hyper focused on confronting incorrect accusations of Mal-intent. I should have denied those once, and focused myself instead on giving recognition to the areas where I did recognize my own fault. I engaged poorly with the editing community in that respect particularly.

I also acknowledge that I did a poor job at numerous moments before my second appeal to the topic ban at recognizing, familiarizing myself with, understanding, and remembering the limits imposed by the topic ban.

I feel that (with the acknowledgement that the edit that brought the ban was indeed a disruption), I am not a characteristically disruptive user, and have put great good faith effort into demonstrating that. The purpose that a topic ban serves is to prevent disruption the project. I'm not a perfect editor, but my editing has been strongly net-positive and done with positive intent. I will be a more careful editor with balancing articles (particularly BLP) going forwards.

On what work I have done since topic ban was put in place
It was suggested that demonstrating good work in this project would be the best means to prove myself during my topic ban, and so I will detail some of the work I have done since my topic ban was put in place.

To somewhat summarize the biggest highlights of my work on Wikipedia since the topic ban:


 * Elevated Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson to a “good article”
 * Elevated William McAndrew to a “good article” and worked towards elevating it further to a “featured article”
 * Created new articles related to a variety of subjects
 * Improved three articles that I have nominated to undergo pending “good article” reviews, . There are a good number more articles that I have worked on that I intend prep and nominate for “good article” reviews after the ones for those are completed. A list that I created is currently nominated to undergo a “Featured List” review also.

Below is a more detailed (partial) overview of my work since the topic ban in prose...

____________________________

Since my last appeal, I have done a much more cautious and better job at being mindful of the limits of my topic ban in my editing. I have worked on many appropriate articles/revisions.

In the time since by my previous appeal alone…..

I have continued to improve articles related to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. This has been time-intensive. In this effort I improved Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, which has now become a good article. I had originally created this article after my topic ban was put in place. Among the other Johnson impeachment-related articles I have been giving attention to are Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson, Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson, 1868 impeachment managers investigation, and Command of Army Act, Timeline of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Articles of impeachment adopted against Andrew Johnson. Most of these articles were first created by me in the time after my topic ban was instated.

It is worth noting that, before my editing on the topic of Johnson’s impeachment, some massive details about Johnson’s impeachment were completely missing from the project. More aspects were poorly represented or misrepresented before my editing on this topic.

Outside of that subject, I have also done a lot of other work. I authored the new article Louis Brandeis Supreme Court nomination. I have also continued to enhance William McAndrew. I have an aim of ultimately elevating this to a “featured article”. I also made some positive and sizable improvements/ additions to Betty Ford. Pretty substantial details about her bio were missing or underexplored. I will also aim to ultimately elevate that article to a “featured article”.

I also improved Benjamin Butler and a number of other articles. I also created the new article Marshall/Goldblatt mansion. I also created other new articles such as John Rutledge Supreme Court nominations, Betty Ford's August 1975 60 Minutes interview, Sherman Minton Supreme Court nomination, Wiley Rutledge Supreme Court nomination.

I also made a large number of less ambitious edits to hundreds of articles on long-dead American politicians’ and judges. These changes included adding infoboxes, inline citations, better sourcing, corrections, adding missing information, and reorganizing the layout of articles. It also included improving existing infoboxes. While the changes made to most of these articles were often not particularly ambitious individually, it was an immense effort when you cumulate all of those changes together.

I have also made a few edits on transportation-related articles. This has not been the primary area of my focus at the moment, however.

I made many other good edits not summarized here. I have started a number of additional efforts that I am planning to continue.

_______________________

Prior to my earlier appeal (but after the topic ban was put in place), I had also………


 * Elevated William McAndrew to a “good article”.


 * Worked on improving/expanding 1927 Chicago mayoral election


 * Created a variety of new articles, including, Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, Mayoralty of Thomas Menino, Michael Cassius McDonald, 1969 Detroit mayoral election, 1973 Detroit mayoral election, Benjamin Willis (educator), 1927 William Hale Thompson mayoral campaign, Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system, United States House Select Committee on Reconstruction.

Statement by El C (imposing administrator)
As explained here (permalink), I prefer not to participate. El_C 18:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes, succinct enough (sorry, is that a thing from some thing?), but I didn't get your not an endorsement of the WMF bit. I don't remember there having been a W  00   MF facet to this, though maybe there was and I just plain forgot. Regardless, it looks like this appeal is going good, which... good. I'm happy most of everyone's happy with, to whom I wish success in navigating BLPs and otherwise fulfillment in their editing contributions. El_C 10:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the well wish. I am thankful that there has been an attitude here willing to give me a chance. I will try hard not to mess up this potential second-chance. SecretName101 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the "not an endorsement of the WMF" appears to be a standard disclaimer that Yngvadottir puts in all of their edit summaries. SecretName101 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Buffs
My statement at the previous AN stands as I wrote it then (so I guess I'm "involved"): Support as requested People can make mistakes even when banned, however, no one addressed them at the time. Had they done so, it could have been clarified at the time/fixed. To continue to use it now is pointless. It isn't swept under the bridge, but holding on to it for 3+ months just to drop it and then hold against them for over a year...was it really that much of a problem? He has admited msitakes. Give him another chance. We can always block/re-ban if necessary. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yngvadottir

 * Support. I'll put myself here, since although not an admin, I participated in the original discussion and the subsequent appeals. Although this appeal format is daunting, and although SecretName101 is not one of our best writers, including here as well as in articles I looked at before coming to a decision on my position (I'm afraid I couldn't resist making some edits), my concerns are mostly allayed by the tenor of this latest appeal, and I didn't find anything substantive about which to be concerned in my look at their edits. However, if this appeal succeeds, I hope they will think especially hard about BLP content going forward. For what it's worth, I appreciate the decision to notify both past supporters and past opponents of this appeal; I understand Floquenbeam's initial concern, but they also bearded dragons like me. I'm hoping and, who played important roles in previous discussions of SecretName101's edits and, I think, have better skills than I in evaluating editing patterns, will have the time and inclination to post here. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

 * Unsure, and only responding here because Yngvadottir asked me to. On the positive side, SecretName101 seems finally to understand what the issues were with the biography that started this all. That it took so long to sink in isn't encouraging though, and I'd have to suggest that rather than just avoiding "any pages strictly related to Biden", SecretName101 might do better to avoid biographical content directly or indirectly concerning contemporary US political figures in general. If the topic ban is lifted, any such content is liable to come under particularly close scrutiny, and I can't imagine they will want to go through this again. The community certainly won't, and there would be little prospect of a favourable outcome if the gross errors of judgement that started this all are repeated. Perhaps SecretName101 should ask themselves whether they might be better off avoiding all this, and sticking to less controversial topics, for their own mental well-being? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Begoon

 * Comment: Similarly, replying only in response to Yngva's request. I'm not going to support or oppose. I've been extremely unimpressed with SecretName101's previous attempts to firstly justify the behaviour for which they were originally tbanned, and to explain away subsequent tban violations by basically asserting that they did not understand what a tban from BLP, broadly construed, meant. If this was genuine confusion then that's worrying, because the concept is not one that should need explanation - if, instead it was 'wikilawyering' then that's a concern for obvious reasons. However, if the mood of the community is to relax the tban now, because "it's been long enough" and SecretName101 is saying "the right things" then I won't actively oppose that, mostly because, as Andy points out, it is likely that future edits will be under great scrutiny. SecretName101 should, in those circumstances, carefully consider future actions in the areas concerned. Begoon 21:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Involved editor 1
section only to be edited by an involved editor

Involved editor 2
section only to be edited by an involved editor

Discussion among editors about the appeal by SecretName101

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved editors. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * : This uses the AE appeal template, but AN appeals have an audience of all uninvolved editors, not just uninvolved admins, so I've combined the "uninvolved editors" and "result of the appeal" sections. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Apologies for the error. SecretName101 (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems you have chosen AN instead of AE due to latter's word limit. I won't read through this, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the past appeals I feel that I have been faulted for anything I neglected to say. For example, a user voted against my first appeal because I did not provide a broad overview in my 500 word limit of the work I had done since the sanction was imposed. In my second appeal, several users cited things that they felt I had failed to say. This conditioned me to be more inclusive of details this time around.
 * I am sorry to see you are taking the "TLDR" ("Too Long, Didn't Read") approach as a consequence of me making an earnest effort to be more thorough in this appeal.
 * I hope others will be more willing to look at my case. SecretName101 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I understand your position, your entire answer could be condensed to a simple "Yes". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to what you mean. "Yes" to what if you care sharing? SecretName101 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to say that, in a wordy response to a complaint about wordiness, you have confirmed that using WP:AE for the appeal was not an option for you (at least partially) due to its word limit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you really just canvass 4 people to this discussion because they supported your previous appeal? That's really, really, really unwise.  I'm not sure how to fix that now so it doesn't doom your chances, but step one is to stop it until you figure out what step two is.  (see below)  Step two might be to notify all the people who opposed your previous appeals as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was already in the process of compiling the user names of negative voters and drafting the carefully-worded statement I planned to send them. SecretName101 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, seeing the nature of your new posts to previous opposers, I'll strike that. Either you're doing the right thing and just did it in an unfortunate order, or you're fixing doing the wrong thing. Either way, that resolves my concern. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If I missed anyone (I think I covered everyone) feel free to let them know. I did skip any accounts that were blocked (however, I did lean on informing a retired user rather than skipping them) SecretName101 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed there IS one user who contributed to a past appeals discussion that I accidentally failed to give a notice to. I just contacted them. Want to be transparent about that. SecretName101 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just notified one more user who was relevantly involved. SecretName101 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removing these restrictions for the same reasons I did so the previous time this came up (noting that they notified me about this discussion, but as they notified previous opposers as well, I'm not concerned about the canvassing aspect here). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional support; I would strongly suggest that SecretName101 voluntarily stays away from any BLP relating to the Biden family. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? If he is editing in a responsible manner, what's the problem? Buffs (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure that I could go as far as granting absolute assurance in perpetuity. But what I can sure you is that I certainly have no immediate plans to focus on any pages strictly related to Biden anytime soon. SecretName101 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I also would like to express to Black Kite that I very grateful that you, particularly as an editor that was highly critical of my previous two appeals and extremely unconvinced of my sincerity previously, have been willing to approach this with an open-mind. SecretName101 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I opposed the first appeal, as I thought it was too soon. An additional ten months have gone by. The editor made a big mistake, but their comments above indicate that they understand their error and will avoid such problems going forward. This editor has otherwise been productive. Cullen328 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. SecretName101 has blatantly WP:CANVASSED 13 different users (so far) about this appeal. Check his contribs to usertalk pages since 25 October:, The three "uninvolved" support votes so far, and the sole "involved" support vote so far, are all from editors he canvassed. All support votes from the editors he canvassed should be disregarded. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * this has already been addressed above. Do you disagree with 's assessment? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is canvassing. Contacting and sweet-talking those who previously opposed you is canvassing just as much as contacting your supporters. This appeal should have been thrown out the minute the canvassing was discovered, and the user should wait at least 6 months before another appeal. Softlavender (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as canvassing. Being nice to people is... normal and how we should expect editors to interact? The fact that SN101 reached out to both opposers and supporters indicates to me that they were not intending to canvass. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Softlander's assessment. WP:CANVAS says are among those who can be notified and  The notifications are appropriate under the wording of the behavioral guideline. For what it's worth, I was already aware of this discussion and was in the process of refreshing my memory by reading again the original ANI discussion when I received  the message from SecretName101 on my talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not aware there was an identically worded notice rule if that is the case. Wikipedia has so many rules and policies even someone who edits for years learns a new one on a regular basis. I thought that acknowledging past votes would be a nice way to make the notice appear more cordial/polite and less robotic. I feel curtness and in-personal messaging too often comes across as impoliteness and ingratitude on this platform and have been making an extra effort in recent months to pepper communications here with niceties. SecretName101 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * wouldn’t those concerns best be taken as a consideration weighed by the closing administrator when determining consensus?
 * This opposition vote gives no weight to anything other than a concern of canvassing. No mention or weight is given to the initial sanction, conduct and editing since my last appeal, or anything else.
 * I am very bewildered that Softlavender feels a proportionate action to their concerns of canvassing would be a six month extension to an indefinite topic ban that has lasted one year. SecretName101 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of canvassing. He reached out to those previously involved. That does not violate our ethics in any way. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ROPE. I am convinced by the statements that the user understands what they did wrong, and understands how to avoid the same problems.  If they return to the same issues, their editing history and prior bans are a matter of record and I expect any future behavior issues will be dealt with swiftly and severely.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - seeing the pledge that they’re not in a hurry to edit any BLP articles related to the Biden family. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - SecretName101 seems to have gotten the point, and much time has passed. He has earned the opportunity to prove it. --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Request close
There seems to be no significant dissent or discussion in the past 72 hours. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/DWEC-FM
Can any admin close the discussion already? It has been over a week since it was relisted. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently AFD closures are slightly backlogged to 21 October listings. I am sure someone will get to your AFD soon. For future reference, if a closure is long overdue (I'm talking a week or more past the expected closing date), WP:ANRFC is the place to be. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (Involved at the AfD) The most recent comment was today, so beyond the backlog, I wouldn't be surprised if closers give it more time to make sure the discussion is actually over before closing. signed,Rosguill talk 21:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup may be needed
I just CU-blocked. Unfortunately they managed to rack up 700+ edits in their 3 week tenure. They have edited extensively in project space and participated in a number of discussions; I'm hoping a handful of editors would be willing to check through their edits to note the socking in discussions and/or strike their comments when appropriate as I'm about to log off for the day. I'll do what I can in te next 20 minutes or so, but extra eyes on their contribs would be appreciated.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ponyo, I'm cleaning up too. Can this discussion be closed: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Smartphones?<span id="Nythar:1667346300234:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 23:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's been deleted by Liz. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Stifle, I wrote that message when it was still blue :)<span id="Nythar:1667377668358:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Terracon
SmokeyJoe and I both requested undeletion of American engineering company Terracon at Deletion review/Log/2022 November 1 and WP:REFUND. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * REFUND is not the correct venue to undelete articles deleted via discussion. You have the DRV ongoing. No need for AN. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done a temp undelete - see my comment at the DRV. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed
The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has now closed and the final decision has been posted. The following remedies and motions are part of the final decision:


 * For breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms, Lourdes is warned.
 * For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the CheckUser permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
 * For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
 * For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, TheresNoTime is admonished.
 * The Arbitration Committee wishes to express that does not apply to TheresNoTime given that a majority of active arbitrators had opposed desysopping them at the time they relinquished their adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

unabele to add legitimate to a article
I have tried to legitimate info to a article to a page for a broadcast,how ever noone has bothered to check out the provided info submitted,this is unacceptable for wikiprdia,but I am accused of edit war according to the reverts made on KTVV-LD Othelum (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So, discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page to seek consensus for your changes. If unable to resolve the dispute, seek dispute resolution. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Othelum: I don't think KTTV-LD can sustain its own article, so I listed the redirect at RfD. RAN1 (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Disclosure
I want to disclose that I may possibly engage in some paid off-Wikipedia consulting and training work, related to Wikipedia article creation. I will not edit Wikipedia directly for any such client but may advise potential clients about policies, guidelines and best practices. Feel free to ask me for clarification. This is the type of advice that I already provide at the Teahouse and the Help Desk. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for disclosing this. I'll reiterate what I said some time ago at . I don't think off-wiki training or consulting requires any disclosure, although I think some level of disclosure is desirable, especially coming from an admin. MarioGom (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Help needed with the Article creation at scale RfC
,, and I have begun working on the RfC close. For Question 2, I've generated a google docs spreadsheet to help me tabulate the responses. I'm looking for a volunteer who I can deputize to proofread it for me, just to verify that I've transcribed all the data correctly. You don't need to be an admin, just somebody who didn't participate in the RfC and is willing to slog through a big pile of numbers to check them for accuracy. In return, you will earn the thanks of the committee and the right to display this handsome deputy's badge on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * PS, drop me an email if you're interested. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And we have a winner. Thank you to  for stepping up. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * However it comes out, thanks to all four of you for donating your time and sanity to the project. Levivich (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A closing statement has been posted at Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable Username
Hello, I am Costas Sacalis and I am from Greece. Please delete the User:Αρχιδάκια page. --2A02:85F:F5FF:BD72:20A4:6D1C:6F87:86EE (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with the username? It translates roughly to "chiefs" or "chieftains". Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No, αρχιδάκια means testicles in Greek. --2A02:85F:F5FF:BD72:20A4:6D1C:6F87:86EE (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a blocked account that hasn't edited in five years. If its existence offends you, don't look at it. Or at our article, testicles, for that matter. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bollocks to that! (I couldn't resist). Dumuzid (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite why anyone should be bothered by a userid that has been blocked for five years is beyond me. Yes, we could delete the user page, but why bother? Nobody who wasn't looking for it would find it anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The formal word for testicles is όρχεις (hence the English word Orchiectomy), but Αρχιδάκια is apparently one of many slang words for the same. We could speedily delete the user & user talk pages under WP:U5, although I suspect that the anon has only taken offence against it because somebody else had beaten him to register the account first.
 * As for the anon's first edit User talk:Δημιουργία λογαρασμού, which means "Create an account", that account has never edited, and was blocked sitewide in 2016 for socking on Greek Wikipedia, so we should delete that page. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and watch list
Second time I come across a sockpuppet editing a slew of articles that they've edited before... of course this is not out of the norm.....but in this case they're simply reverting edits. My question is do administrators have the ability to see a watchlist. As in can admins tell/see if a watchlist has been copied pasted from one watchlist to a new users  watchlist? And if so is this method used in an investigation...and if not would this not be a good idea? Moxy - 00:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, no one is able to look at another user's watchlist. I don't even like looking at my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. I assume sysadmins could do some kind of DB dump, but that's well beyond our capabilities as volunteers. Also, there's no reason to assume they're using a watchlist in the new account the first place - maybe they're using the blocked account's watchlist, or maybe they just keep a bunch of tabs open...who knows. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats mostly true, with the exception that a user who has your watchlist token (see Special:Preferences and Syndication) can view a RSS feed of your watchlist (although that still doesn't let you see which articles are on it, and sharing that requires active effort) -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  19:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have access to both accounts, you can use the "Edit Raw Watchlist" function to copy and paste a watchlist from one account to the other. But it's just a straight text copy and paste, and presumably leaves no record in any logs. 82.17.168.217 (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From Help:Watchlist: No user, not even administrators, can tell what is in your watchlist, or who is watching any particular page. Publicly available database dumps do not include this information either. However, developers who have access to the servers that hold the Wikipedia database can obtain this information. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 14:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Appeal for lifting topic ban

 * Appealing user :


 * Sanction being appealed :  (Diff)


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :
 * Notified : Special:Diff/1120321456

Statement
I have been topic banned from editing topics related to Politics on Wikipedia on 25 October 2022.

I was page blocked for edit warring, on an article about ongoing political event. After the block expired, a fellow significant contributor of that page posted on my talk page asking me to help maintain the page. I wanted to respond positively to the request by the fellow contributor but I was worried that another revert I make on that page could lead me to a month long block for edit warring. Due to significant concern, I asked this question to the admin, who had given me the page block on the page but instead of replying, the admin topic banned me indefinitely from politics. The admin listed more than 6 month old ANI cases against me as reason, but all of those cases they listed were non actionable and were filed as a way out of content disputes by users having ongoing content disagreements with me. I want to stress that there was no disruption by me since my page block and this topic ban was prompted by my question to the admin. I request the Admins to review and consider if the topic ban can be lifted. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to, A new 'edit warring" did not precipitate this Topic ban, my question did. I have said it several times in my user talk comments, and I repeat here again, that I do not intend to edit war and would exercise extreme caution in my editing to abide with Edit warring rules. Due to abundance of caution of inadvertently violating any EW rule, I decided to get my concerns clarified from the admin before editing the page, little did I know that my asking a question, would precipitate a 'topic ban' on the only topic I am interested in editing on Wikipedia. But here I am. For seeing evidence of my constructive and collaborative editing, you have my entire editing history to review. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by El_C (sanctioning admin)
Just a brief note that I'm aware of this appeal. If any person reviewing it has questions for me, I welcome these (please ping). Otherwise, I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks. El_C 18:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion among editors about the appeal by Venkat TL

 * I don't see a strong reason to lift a narrow topic ban so quickly -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The topic ban was warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This request does not contain any information on what you would do differently. You've got three blocks for edit warring since July and you've been cautioned for tone at AE. How will you avoid this in the future? In addition to some reflection, I'd like to see constructive editing in an other area before the topic ban is lifted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This user has been highly disruptive over a substantial period both at DYK and in pagespace, often bludgeoning discussions and complaining of mistreatment. Disruptive edits always seem to be in the content topic from which they were banned. I see no reason to allow them more opportunities to disrupt, just because they have a current pressing interest. My suspicion is that this topic ban will never be relaxed, unless, as User:Femke suggests, the editor has demonstrated they can again be trusted with the responsibility. The Tek Fog page is illustrative; this political app page was created by this user based on The Wire coverage which now appears to have been fabricated. I have no reason to believe this user directly involved with the fabrication, but the user's judgement in the case reveals much about why they are now topic banned. BusterD (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I'm not sure they could have known or suspected it was fabricated. It was reported on by Deutsche Welle and Le Monde too. That said, the behaviour in the AfD wasn't quite ideal, with comments on the (later-blocked) nominator . —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. The editor has been disruptive enough in the topic area to have been blocked several times in the last four months. El C advised the editor to wait six months before appealing, but Venkat TL waited only two weeks. Wait six months. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose for six months of constructive editing in other topic area. I thought you had retired? The pattern is clearly visible, you start an edit war, and when you are at ANEW, or blocked, you say "block is preventative, not punitive. I'm not going to make controversial edits so the block is not necessary now". You also add "retired" banner whenever you are under scrutiny or something goes the way that you don't prefer. Another thing is your personal accusations. In this edit you accused El C by saying please contact the admin User:El C who has blocked me calling me a threat to that page and made sure no one else unblocks. (emphasis by me) do you have any evidence that El C made sure no-one else unblocks you? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No way. From an editor that has managed to get himself multiple times blocked for edit warring (which they managed to get reversed every time by arguing that blocks had become moot and infructuous), topic banned from DYK, and now topic banned from a part of ARBIPA, one expects at least some remorse or even acknowledgement of their presumptuous and flagrant conduct and disregard for the policies and how they would avoid its recurrence, but I see not one scintilla of remorse or acknowledgement coming from this user. Though my interactions with them have been limited and largely confined to talk page discourses, they have typified the hallmarks of tendentious editing in almost every instance: consider, for instance, their special efforts at Raju Shrivastav to edit war (that eventually got them a 3RR infraction block) in order to skew the recently deceased BLP by labelling the subject a "hypocrite" (for an opinion they had aired irl), citing Twitterati (bots and trolls), showing a flagrant contempt for BLP. The topic-ban thus is well deserved and they can benefit from the forced break should they desire. They were urged to make productive edits elsewhere for six months before writing an appeal but they choose to disregard even that advice. Introspection and attendant reforms on their end are all the more necessary because it is evident that much of their disruption and tendentious editing flows from their POV-driven and partisan editing in ARBIPA. Wikipedia is not the place to engage in WP:RGW so they would do themselves a favour by aligning themselves with the goals of the encyclopedia, eschewing tendency to game the system, wikilawyering and assuming bad faith and casting aspersions on others. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, obviously. T-banned just 13 days ago and advised to wait 6 months before appealing it; has made no edits at all (claiming "retirement") between then and now; appeal makes no mention that they understand why they were banned and how they would approach similar issues going forward.  In short, pretty much a textbook example of how not to appeal a topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to make of special:permalink/1120502514. Maybe Venkat TL really got a beating in IRL, or maybe it is a troll, or maybe Venkat TL is doing this to get sympathy. I am feeling bad by just imagining that it happened. The date of incident is given as Nov 4th, then the IP reverted their own edits. This appeal was made yesterday, and Venkat TL did not mention anything. The comment on talkpage was posted after this appeal was made. Should we run a CU on Venkat TL? Given their participation in controversial areas, and their heated approach/interactions with others, I believe for the sake of their privacy/security their photo should be deleted (it is on commons though). Pinging who have been around for a very long time. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A CU isn't able to connect an IP to a user, so unless Venkat TL himself has shown evidence of account compromise, I doubt a CU could be justified; nor would it help with either trolling or a genuine incident. I suggest contacting emergency@wmf, which I can do myself when I've a better connection in an hour. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually doing so as we speak. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did the same, my connection improved. Redundancy is good in such circumstances though. Not sure what WMF can do from SanFran, but at the very least they may be able to verify the provenance of the message in ways that CUs are restricted from doing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

A Demonstration of the Untrustworthiness of Information on Wikipedia
The following was posted here User talk:Doug Weller I have often heard warnings about using caution in obtaining information from Wikipedia especially on topics outside of settled factual matters. Your actions prove exactly what I wished to test. I'm summarizing this here to serve as whatever record it may (assuming you don't further abuse your authority to delete or modify this):

I made the following 2 modifications to the page in Sinauli [34 ] and you cited both of them as examples of unsourced information: User talk:HandleDePlume

You, nor any of the other 3 individuals who kept reverting my change, have yet to explain why I need to prove a negative. No mainstream scholar agrees with the assessment that is provided in the quote. It's as simple as that. And yet, instead of presenting any evidence of agreement by mainstream scholars, you simply abused your authority and blocked me. It makes one wonder what your rationale is for controlling information like this.

And, the other change you cited is quite comedic. The existing source cited was already to a popular non-academic media. My minor change only clarified the sentence.

It's also interesting the strategy the 4 of you took. From my brief understanding, 3 reversions of an edit in a 24 hour would result in someone being blocked or something negative. So, 3 different editors chose to keep reverting my changes. Not too shabby! HandleDePlume (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If you see your edit being reverted by three editors all way more experienced than you (the number of edits is not always a good measure, but these three editors made 5K, 9K, and 49K edits, respectively, against your 22 edits), you should go to the talk page of the article and discuss. Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You made these edits as a "test"?
 * Huh? Doug Weller didn't post anything related to this here. Why did you add this?
 * Avestan addition of "hypothesis" wp:WEASEL Everything is a "hypothesis" until validated by multiple studies? wp:WEASEL? Adakiko (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They apparently posted this complaint at DW's talk page before reposting it here, because DW indef blocked them from editing the Sinauli article. InsaneHacker (💬) 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why not state that? My first impression is that it was posted by DW or copy/pasted by DW. 12:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate username
uses an inappropriate username, which translated from Serbo-Croatian stands for "I F* your mom". This goes against WP:DISRUPTNAME. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The user hasn't edited for 2.5 years, so blocking or not blocking is unlikely to make a difference here. In the future, please report bad usernames to WP:UAA. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Usernames should only be reported if they have recently edited, likewise last week or two. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, they only had three edits, so apparently the mom wasn't a major muse. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking anyway, no sense in letting someone resume using what was probably intended as a burner account to begin with. There's no cost to blocking and some risk of disruption for not. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate username 2
User:‎Extreminatethejuice Juice sounds similar to Jews, and that seems intentional. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking maybe it was referring to O.J. Simpson. Either way, it's a WP:ATTACKNAME violation that needs to go. However, the proper place to report this is WP:UAA.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:WaltCip, I think this place is just fine and things happen quickly here. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at their contributions, they appear to be an Indian editor with no interest in topics related to Judaism or OJ Simpson. I suspect that its not intentional, but the name should be changed anyway to avoid disruption.
 * However, they do appear to be engaged in plagiarism; their article Auniati Satra appears to be plagiarised from Tour my India and Auniati. BilledMammal (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it isn't intentional. I've hardblocked.  If they can actually come up with a believable alternate explanation, it can be turned into a softblock and they can get a username change.  But it can't be something like "oh my goodness, that never even occurred to me".  Someone should actually believe it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm too generous in assuming good faith, but I would expect an anti-Semitic editor to edit topics related to Judaism and their edits are instead focused on Hindu temples and appear to have no relation. BilledMammal (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems too generous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at that unblock request, it was. I need to be more cynical. BilledMammal (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Good block. The editor apparently wanted attention & got it. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unblock request on their talk page. Any admin is free to do whatever they think best without talking to me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yamla declined their first unblock request and I've declined the second. However, because of formatting issues with the request, I haven't been able to remove the "Requests for unblock" category. If somebody smarter could do that for me, I'd appreciate it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC).
 * I wouldn't say I'm smarter, but I think I fixed it. And declined as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rick. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC).

The line is apparently from the film Sausage Party, but this clip definitely proves the context of the name was definitely not innocent (or funny). Good block.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The block then was 100% warranted here since they referenced that awful movie. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Appeal my topic ban from BLPs
I was topic banned from BLPs. I would like to be un-topic-banned. '''I completely admit that some of my edits on/about 25 September 2021‎ to Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Douglas Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, and John Werry were unbalanced, cut-and-paste edits; bad encyclopedia-writing up and down. They were made in the heat of the moment and I should not have made them. They will not be repeated should I be unbanned.''' In the meantime I've: Please be aware that there a technical reasons why old twitter content cannot be deleted (only the first 3,200 tweets of each account are accessible via API); all/almost all of my remaining tweets fall into this category.
 * 1) made a mistake
 * 2) made a couple of thousand edits (link slow to open due to age of my account and the number of edits)
 * 3) recieved a (procedural) NPP barnstar (another one, maybe two, likely see New_pages_patrol/Backlog_drives/October_2022)
 * 4) seen some drama on meta (since en.wiki is the only WMF wiki I'm really active on, I'm assuming this was related to something on en.wiki)
 * 5) had an en.wiki BLP I largely wrote nominated for Translation of the Week on meta
 * 6) had a pretty good record of PRODs
 * 7) since it was mentioned at the original ANI thread, I've also used an alt.
 * 8) been contacted off-wiki about Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_R._Fieve by someone who appeared to think this was relavent. I don't think it's relavent, but I'm including here for completeness.

In addition to my topic ban being lifted, I request that someone fix the copyright issues with Listener letter on science controversy. The initial version of this contains text lifted from one of the above-mentioned BLPs without declaring the source of the copyrighted text. Due to the close link to the previous issues I should probably not touch that right out of the gate. TBH, I'm not sure how that gets fixed either. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I posted an edit summary to note the copying within Wikipedia, per the instructions at §Repairing insufficient attribution. I think that what you meant is that this copying happened without such a note—more of a licensing than a copyright issue—but if there are also issues with insufficient attribution to copyrighted source, I think you could (cautiously) be more specific without breaking the spirit of the TBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Firefangledfeathers. I think your edit covers my concerns. I'm unaware of any further issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm leary to extend grace in this case; your allocution above seems to focus on the more technical violations involving copy-paste issues; but completely ignore the meat of nearly every person who supported your ban which was that these were essentially attack pages. It's not just "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing"; your whole request seems to be of the "mistakes were made" type.  You edited Wikipedia articles specifically to disparage and attack real living people.  You wrote things in Wikipedia to maliciously damage the reputation of several people.  That's a far worse behavior than being "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing".  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in general agreement with on this matter. In order to support removing the topic ban, I would expect a much more frank addressing of the indisputable fact that Stuartyeates created a bunch of non-neutral, poorly written BLPs for the purpose of besmirching living people who took the other side in an academic controversy than Stuartyeates's personal opinion. And then he gloated and bragged about his BLP violations off-Wikipedia, bringing this encyclopedia into disrepute. As one editor said in April, weaponzing Wikipedia to attack opponents who are living people in a misguided attempt to "right great wrongs" is a truly egregious violation that requires a much more detailed and much more "on point" self-reflection before I could support lifting the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Jayron and Cullen have already said everything I would have said about this appeal - no need for me to repeat. Begoon 11:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding, as perhaps a still outstanding issue: At the previous discussion I remarked: "Back on topic, and I think this was mentioned above, the User:Stuartyeates user page says: "Disclaimer: I own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." Obviously those accounts are subject to the same topic ban, since it is the person, rather than a specific account, to whom the ban applies. I don't immediately see where/if Stuart names the 'multiple' accounts, though...". Stuart confirms the use of "an alt" above. If the topic ban is maintained then unless any other "alt"(s) is/are linked then I'm not sure how these "multiple Wikipedia accounts" can be monitored for compliance. Unless, of course, "an alt" means, or is supposed to be taken to mean that it is the only one... Begoon 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have this account. I have User:Not your siblings' deletionist. I have one other recently-active account, I have sent an email to AC about, as per WP:ALTACCN. I have a bunch of inactive accounts like, User:StuartYeates (last edit 2011), User:Stuartyeates (code test) (last edit 2014), User:Stuartyeates_randombot (last edit 2014), and probably others I've forgotten the names of. I have no other recently-active accounts. I am 100% aware that my TBAN applies to all of these and believe my only breach has been the one listed above which was dealt with proactively. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced. The BLP violations and off-wiki behaviour that led to the ban were egregious, which the appeal does not really address. Stuartyeates has not sufficiently explained what kind of BLP material they would edit after the ban is lifted or how they would avoid repeating their mistakes. Politrukki (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) At the time, I argued for leniency, not because I thought Stuartyeates' edits were justified, but because the bad behavior was highly focused on a singular event, and a blanket ban from all BLPs seemed both disproportionate and punitive. I am not sure how to phrase a narrower interdict (a ban from editing BLPs on scholars and academics? from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed?, as a couple people suggested at ANI?), but I continue to think that a response along those lines would be more proportionate to the offense. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many/most of my edits post-TBAN have been assigning new/orphan articles to wikiprojects, which are talk namespace edits. Narrowing the interdict to only apply to article space would allow me to do this for BLPs and BLP-like articles which I've had to avoid. Also a much more black-and-white test than 'controversy'. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would "narrowing the topic ban" be seriously considered while the crux of the matter remains unaddressed?
 * Above, Cullen said: As one editor said in April, weaponzing Wikipedia to attack opponents who are living people in a misguided attempt to "right great wrongs" is a truly egregious violation that requires a much more detailed and much more "on point" self-reflection before I could support lifting the topic ban.
 * Do you disagree with that assessment?
 * I don't. Begoon 12:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose I do. That is, I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: It has been pointed out to me off-wiki that it's been six months. I am, however, unable to partake of the WP:Standard offer which doesn't seem to apply to a TBAN, only a site ban or an indefinite block. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Standard Offer is an essay and has no real value except as a vague indicator of the minimum time many editors like to see between appeals or before a first appeal. It has no actual value and no more impact on blocks than on Tbans or anything else. Fram (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Alert to IP posting links to Taiwannews
An IP has posted two links to articles in Taiwannews.com.tw (in English) to my user talk page, about the hacker group Anonymous and about Wikipedia. They have also posted to the unprotected web page of Jimbo Wales, and to the talk page of resigned administrator Pratyeka. I am guessing, but this is only a guess, that they are also posting from other IP addresses to other users. I am just mentioning this. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Perhaps, dear readers, some of you may know more, and will have a look at User_talk:Softlemonades. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is much I could say about this, but won't for WP:NEEDTOKNOW and WP:OUTING reasons. I will say that this is not the first time this particular editor has been brought up at at an admin noticeboard, and that I have my suspicions as to who the IP editor is (I'm happy to discuss this by email with a CU), as well as some of their off-wiki accounts that are being used in a way to manipulate both us and Taiwan News to try and cause a Streisand effect. Ironically that article was edited by the same user earlier today to try draw further attention to it. I'm not sure if there is a best way to handle this, other than perhaps applying the concepts behind WP:DENY and related essays. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Other than permanently protecting some of thosee pages, Im not sure what to do. Maybe Taiwan News is worth another RfC since theyre getting taken advantage of and their staff writers or at least the one in question are pumping out 5-8 articles a day? But theyre syndicated or used as sources for others in the region, which the IP editor is also using to jam in as many sources as possible
 * I dont think I have anything else to add that Sideswipe didnt see or I didnt write on or link from my talk page but if admins have any questions Ill try to answer Softlemonades (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a new RFC is needed, though I've always preferred The Taipei Times and The China Post now unfortunately demised as sources. That aside, the COI of Keoni Everington is evident, and we shouldn't be using his articles as references in that topic area, or possibly anywhere given that he changes them without acknowledging any correction being made see compared to, which is rather undesirable from a WP:V perspective. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * cf. zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 21:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , no translation needed. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Block of Rathfelder
I have just blocked, an editor with over half a million contributions, indefinitely for socking. CU data shows that they have also been editing as, and have repeatedly used that account to back up their main account in discussions. Posting here since I know a lot of people will be surprised to see the block. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 09:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew what it was that makes people who seem level-headed do such silly things. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Well, I've looked at the history and the evidence is clear. Sorry to be losing another prolific category editor, even if he was abrasive. I guess it's one way to be cured of Wikipediholism. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Before anyone reports me to the Ombuds, I have not shared the CU evidence with . The publicly viewable evidence was sufficiently strong for me to run a check; the CU data was obvious and undeniable. I don't want this to be the end of the road for such a prolific editor - it's an indefinite block, but I'll say for the record that it doesn't need to be permanent. If they address why they did this, and make a convincing undertaking not to do it again, I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted – I just meant that I had reviewed the editor interaction history, and found it conclusive. Apologies for implying anything else. For the record, I have no objection to Girth Summit's other statements either. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No apology needed! Just didn't want any unnecessary dramah... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew what it was that makes people who seem level-headed do such silly things. The fact that we view them as level-headed is generally what opens the door for them to do it. The vast majority of fraud is not committed by overtly bad actors, but by people with access and the wherewithal to know how to get away with it. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  00:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. I didn't expect to be shocked when I visited the noticeboard today but here it is. is a long-time editor I've seen around Wikipedia for nearly forever who has done good work here. I also agree with  that if Rathfelder addressed why they did this and undertook to not to do it again, it would be reasonable to support an unblock.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I think I understand how good editors could wind up doing a bad thing like using a sock for support in discussions: An editor is dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, and makes many edits that do so, but they find that at times they are prevented from doing so by objections from other editors. Discussions are held, but the other editors aren't convinced by our editor's arguments, and consensus goes against them. Wikipedia has no mechanism to make certain that the "right" edit is advanced, so our editor starts to feel that having another voice in discussions would help them to win consensus and continue to improve Wikipedia.  Probably they know that what they are doing is wrong, that it's against the rules, but improving Wikipedia is the bottom lime, isn't it?, so they keep on doing it.  The ends, they feel, justifies the means.I have no idea if this is what happened with Rathfelder (and my description is not something which I ever did or would so, I assure everyone, although the thought has certainly crossed  my mind), but that's surely one way it could happen.  I think that many of us have come across what feels to us like wrongful blockage of good change -- I know I have -- so I have empathy for Rathfelder, and agree with those saying that a full explanation and a undertaking not to do it again should be sufficient for an unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I assumed happened. I've seen it more than a few times and the siren's song is certainly there from time-to-time. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rathfelder has certainly made an inordinate number of edits and created and populated an enormous number of categories (100s per month). However many of these categories are ill-conceived, badly named, incorrectly parented, and only partially filled, absorbing the patience and time of other editors at cfd after cfd (see Rathfelder's talk). At least 2 editors have recently called for Rathfelder to be banned from category creation (user:BrownHairedGirl at this cfd (June 22) - "it is long past time for Rathfelder to recuse themself from categorisation or be banned from it for repeatedly demonstrating a severe and disruptive lack of competence" and user:Johnbod at this cfd (Oct 22) - "At the moment I would support a ban on new categories creation"). My own view is that an indefinite ban for sock-puppetry is draconian, but that unblocking without a general discussion would be far too lenient. I also concur with BHG and Johnbod: Rathfelder should slow down, pay attention to other editors and cfds, do things properly or not at all. (The combination of Rathfelder and Bigwig7 at this cfd is particularly egregious.) Oculi (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Unblock
I have unblocked. They have accepted a one-account restriction, and TBans from categories, and from XfD discussions. These may be appealed in no less than six months, at this noticeboard. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 00:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist propaganda
Hi

Could you delete this from history? Panam2014 (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not see any WP:REVDEL condition it meets.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Giving the public the radio station frequency of a terrorist group...I dunno, that might meet the criteria for what we do. Buffs (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * URL of Amaq News Agency have been removed from history. Panam2014 (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , while the url was removed from the article on Amaq, the edit removing the url from the article is not revision deleted. What do you mean by URL of Amaq News Agency have been removed from history? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

it have been blacklised. But I think we should remove it from history because the links and frequences are illegal.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * What country's laws are you claiming this is illegal under? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 94.3 FM is an illegal frequency? Tell that to, e.g., . There are only so many FM frequencies. It's not like a Tor node. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether the frequencies should be in the article is a content dispute. I believe this is otherwise a WP:NOTCENSORED issue. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

it is illegal to have content to illegal organization per US and EU laws.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I have restored the deleted content, though not in the same section as before. Continue discussion at the article's talk page, if this is contested. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

User is consistently edit-warring and seems disinterested in consensus in principle
Has been edit-warring at Folklore (Taylor Swift album), e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album)&oldid=prev&diff=1121410786 and per comments at Talk:Live_from_Clear_Channel_Stripped_2008 I believe is either straight up trolling or is fundamentally uninterested in learning our guidelines and policies and editing according to them. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ok suree make me look like the bad guy when i'm a literal MINOR ok... Lovinqxcherry (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Change the cause of death in a page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Gobind_Singh The cause of death of Shri Guru Gobind Singh ji in this article is wrong, it should be corrected immediately, it was stated that he actually left his body and wasn't assassinated. 103.5.133.161 (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AN isn't the place to discuss this. Please take it to the article's discussion page, Talk:Guru Gobind Singh, along with your reliable source (WP:RS) showing your claim. Be warned, such an unusual claim will require a strong citation. Anyway, there's nothing we can do for you here at WP:AN. --Yamla (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User is consistently edit-warring and violating WP:SYNTH
This editor is edit warring and violating WP:SYNTH by adding content that is not explicitly supported by sources in the article The Life of Pablo. In this discussion at the article's talk page, they seem disinterested learning our guidelines and policies and have not addressed any points by made me and other editors Binksternet and Kyle Peake. I think this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1
Open for 40 days, relisted three times. Perhaps it's time for a close? The discussion there immediately below can also be closed, IMO. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK closed it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at Requests for unblock
There is a serious backlog of unreviewed unblock requests at CAT:RFU, with some pending requests having remained unreviewed for weeks. Most blocks are for good reasons, but we promise blocked users a reasonably timely review process and we should keep that promise. If a few admins with some available time could take a look at these, it would be very helpful. Regards to all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Where do we "promise" this?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I echo what Newyorkbrad said. Although it's somewhat controversial, template:decline stale may be an option for the older requests. Fundamentally, though, we can't and don't keep up with unblock requests these days. I'm hoping to put together some thoughts on this and solicit feedback from interested parties, perhaps a WP:RFC later this month. Though, shudder. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unblocks are one of the areas I'm interested in patrolling, but was waiting till I had a bit more experience. I'll take a look a bit later and see if there's any I'm comfortable handling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Be warned. It's a thankless job. Lots of commercial spammers, lots of WP:IDHT, daily death threats once you've been around long enough. Still, someone's gotta do it. And occasionally, you get to actually unblock someone and they turn out to be a constructive contributor. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If a prospective non-admin wanted the tools with the express purpose of clearing out the backlogs in areas such as CAT:RFU, how would they break their teeth on it, i.e. prove that they've had sufficient experience in this area to warrant being given the tools? I guess they wouldn't, would they; they'd just have to build trust in other areas of Wikipedia.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The solution might be an unofficial RfU "clerk" function for non-admins who review blocks in a systematic manner and make recommendations for admins to act upon. Perhaps in the form of a colorful template box (because we like those) with specific criteria to check off, so that it's not just somebody's drive-by opinion.  Sandstein   20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I'm not an admin and also busy I'm not going to look at the backlog myself, but what are the 'weeks' request actually like? When I looked maybe ?2 years ago, I noticed that most of these seem to be like that for a reason. Often they were cases where it wasn't an obvious deny but also wasn't an obvious unblock. Perhaps including or alternatively a large amount of TL;DR or other things which may require significant time investment for a ~fairish review. My gut feeling was most case it wasn't that no admin looked at, I suspected at least one maybe more had but they'd just left it for someone else to deal with. I'm sure there are some who fall thru the cracks, and also the persistent requester where they may start to hit problems of the small number of admins who regular reviews requests most of who'd already reviewed a previoua request or otherwise were either involved or felt it better to let someone else deal with it for fairness. Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your description is pretty accurate in the best case, but the amount of such requests can lead to a situation where "obvious deny" or "obvious unblock" requests get buried between tough cases in the list. An attempt to improve the signal-to-noise-ratio, if you like, was the introduction of Category:Requests for unblock awaiting response from the blocked user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

RPP backlog
Although the oldest request is only 12 hours old, there are 23 pending protection requests at RPP. Nothing else at the moment. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 11:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review
The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Proposed decision

Bad module deletion
Respected admins, I would like to bring to your attention a module which has been improperly deleted, resulting in redlinked calls appearing in millions of pages.

The module in question is Module:Class/configuration. This was deleted by admin as "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: made obsolete by changes to parent module; also I am sole author of this page". This most definitely was not a non controversial deletion that had to be done unilaterally. If you click the "What links here" link in the left sidebar of module, you can see it is still called by 3.3 million pages. Pick any page and see the list of templates used in the page, this red module will be listed there. All these are broken due to premature deletion. This module should be undeleted ASAP and wait till the count comes down to zero, only then is it safe to delete.

Thank you. Tasleem Shah Junejo (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Why haven't you discussed this with Nihiltres? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also for the benefit of people like me, what is this module here for? I am looking at two pages that link to it, Talk:Tic Tac (TV series) and Talk:Hunting Venus, and see nothing broken. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Module:Class renders table cells with article ratings, mostly for use in WikiProject banners. Module:Class/configuration contained configuration details and loaded the JSON-based definition file (which required a separate loader page for importing the JSON file). With the release of some new Scribunto code,, that allowed directly loading a JSON file, I imported the configuration into the main module and used that new code rather than an external "loader" module. That made Module:Class/configuration obsolete, so I deleted it, believing it to be uncontroversial cleanup (G6) and as the sole author (G7). {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 17:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See Special:Contributions/Tasleem Shah Junejo; their only edits so far are to start this topic and notify me. Especially given that this action happened weeks ago, this smells like an attack on me more than a legitimate complaint. That said, being who I am, if others want to entertain it, I'll happily defend my actions.
 * In particular, can anyone show me a page with a broken call? I changed Module:Class in a way that removed dependence on Module:Class/configuration before deleting Module:Class/configuration, so the only calls to the latter should be pages that haven't been re-rendered since I made the change. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a dummy edit to Talk:Harina de otro costal made it disappear from Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Class/configuration, so I guess that these redlinks are leftovers that the database hasn't noticed yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that the OP has been CU-blocked by . -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 17:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Level II desysop of Stephen
The Arbitration Committee has determined, through the CheckUser tool, that has edited while logged out in a manner that harasses another user. The Committee has been unable to establish a satisfactory or alternative explanation after discussion with Stephen. Accordingly, the administrator privileges of Stephen are removed under the Committee's Level II removal procedures.

Supporting: WormThatTurned, Cabayi, Primefac, Donald Albury, Barkeep49, L235, CaptainEek, Izno, Beeblebrox

For the Arbitration Committee, <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 18:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Self-requested review: Tamzin's blocks of Volunteer Marek
Brief summary:
 * At 4:39 on 6 November, I blocked from editing the article Aaron Maté for 7 days, for (in my view) gaming the 1RR in effect on all Syrian Civil War articles. This came alongside blocks of  and  for edit-warring on the same page, and a subsequent lengthening of the 1RR on that page to a 72-hour window.


 * VM's edits to Aaron Maté, making the same revert after 27 hours, and then again after 31 hours, while making no other edits to the article, appeared to be deliberate gaming of the community-imposed 1RR on Syrian Civil War articles. VM doesn't seem to dispute that this was deliberate; he just feels he didn't do anything wrong in doing so.
 * Even if this was not a 1RR violation by way of WP:GAMING, it was regular old edit-warring. Repeatedly making the same edit that you know will be reverted is edit-warring. The timeframe does not matter. VM is far from the first person to be blocked for three reverts in under 60 hours. VM also doesn't seem to dispute that he was edit-warring; he just insists that it's okay because he was (he feels) right.

Now, to start off: I fucked up. Removing content from your own unblock discussion is more straightforward disruption than personal attacks, and, importantly, much less personalized. And disrupting one's own unblock discussion is routinely grounds for loss of talkpage access. So I thought that the same optics issue involved in taking action over the personal attacks would not appply. Clearly, I was wrong. From my perspective, having already made the decision not to block over the aspersions, the crucial role of the comment removals was clear to me, a but-for cause of the block. But I recognize now that to anyone other than me, this came across not much different than if I'd blocked one step earlier. I also felt there was some time-sensitivity involved, as potentially an admin could come along to review the unblock, be deprived of the information that the blocking administrator felt the blocked party had engaged in personal attacks during the request, and unblock based on imperfect knowledge; in retrospect, this was unlikely, and it would have been better to bring the matter to AN or AN/I promptly.
 * Marek's response to that block prompted to request he strike an aspersion, which VM obliged.
 * VM's subsequent comments echoed that same aspersion though and were otherwise incivil; while an administrator does not become INVOLVED because a user responds incivilly to their administrative action, I recognized that it was bad optics for me to take action, so I asked NYB to assess whether action was needed.
 * VM then removed that comment with summary.
 * I restored it with summary
 * VM removed it again with summary
 * I siteblocked VM with rationale

I apologize for falling short of the expectation that administrators not give off an appearance of impropriety, and await the community's trouts and admonishments. That leaves us, though, with the question of what to do with the block. I do think my block was justified, and did not violate INVOLVED, but I recognize that it should not have been made by me. So I am opening it up to peer review. I have no objection to any admin restoring TPA, reverting to the p-block, or unblocking outright, if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction. Update 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC): Reverted to p-block (see below); review still requested as to whether to maintain p-block or unblock outright.

Courtesy pings:  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 12:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for admins, noting without comment 65091. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 12:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You think just "trouts and admonishments" are what should happen?
 * This was a "respect mah authoritah" block, or lèse-majesté if you prefer.
 * Way outside of what the community expects from an admin.
 * It leaves me, for one, with absolutely no confidence that you understand how to behave impartially and fairly.
 * Yeah - you fucked up... Begoon 12:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Two things -
 * 1 - Tamzin is a great (in my opinion) but newish administrator and we are all humans, mistakes happen.
 * 2 - We'll probably see all of those crawling up here because of the editor affected by the block. Just ignore them. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin was absolutely in the right to initially restore her comments/questions regarding the unblock (no comment regarding later actions), and it would be a mistake to think WP:OWN does not apply here. VM's interests in maintaining his talk page do not outweigh Wikipedia's regular unblock processes. For the record, this comment is meant to solely address the OWNTALK concerns here. I don't have any other comment about Tamzin's behavoir here or elsewhere. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC) You don't actually own your talk page as explicitly stated by WP:OWN. Also, just to be clear, WP:REMOVED makes it pretty clear that there are certain things that shouldn't be removed by users if they're part of wider community processes; the list provided isn't exhaustive. The unblock request process is clearly a part of that process. I don't have any opinions on whether Tamzin should've commented there in the first place or not, but I know all users have a right to comment on active unblock requests as a matter of process (per ). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Tamzin, where's the "personal attack" in feel free to post on NYBrad's talk page. But in the meantime, since you've said "That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin" and since you WEREN'T pinged by anyone, including any reviewing admins, and since this is MY talk page and I don't feel like being threatened by someone who has already made one bad block: please. refrain. from. posting. here. .... ever again (unless pinged by a reviewing admin)? Is it saying you made a bad block, or is it saying they feel threatened by your subsequent behaviour? I don't see an "attack" in either thing... Begoon 13:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I addressed te matter of the personal attacks in this comment on my talkpage. To answer your direct question, I was not saying there was a personal attack in that edit summary. Looking back, I wish I hadn't mentioned personal attacks in the block rationale at wall. The presence of any personal attacks was merely context for what came next; the block itself was for removing the comment (and, pace BilledMammal, I have never seen OWNTALK interpreted to mean that an editor can pick and choose which comments an unblock reviewer sees, especially those by the blocking admin). --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 13:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any editors choose to use the provision in those circumstances, but that doesn't mean they aren't permitted to do so. At the moment, there are four justifications that would permit you to restore the comment, and as far as I can tell none apply here and as a consequence your edits were both WP:EDITWARRING and a violation of WP:OWNTALK. This comment restoration was an understandable mistake, but still a mistake and I believe it would be best to quickly reverse the mistake, as well as the actions that were taken using that mistake as a justification. BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I really do not think it wise to suggest that Tamzin violated WP:OWNTALK here. Users should not be able to remove comments they don't like from their unblock request. OWNTALK (a guideline) yields to WP:OWN (a policy) where the two contradict, and they most certainly do with this section: [User pages] are still part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by ownership behavior. If users could remove any negative comments from their unblock requests, that would make editors (or in this case an uninvolved admin) trying to communicate their concerns to unblocking administrators more difficult.
 * When someone is asked to not post on another's user talk page, they should do so unless absolutely required to do otherwise. There was no need to restore said comments (or, quite frankly, even make them in the first place). No one is required to keep disparaging remarks on their talk page. Buffs (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Buffs: That would completely change the nature of how unblock requests are conducted. You are suggesting that if User A requests an unblock, but User B provides evidence against them (or any other feedback meant for administrators), User A has the authority to remove it because it's "their talk page". That'd be absurd and clear gaming the system.
 * Just commenting to reiterate that you are absolutely right here and the relevant guideline that explicitly prohibits this sort of thing is WP:TPNO which I didn’t see anyone point out. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong. While editors generally have the right to delete comments from their talk page, yes people, it is absolutely prohibited to selectively delete a part of a significant exchange in a way that misrepresents the record of the exchange that occurred. You obviously cannot just suddenly decide to start to delete someone else’s participation from an ongoing conversation which they are party to. And you obviously can’t just appeal a block and choose to delete the blocking admin’s comments about the block or appeal (I’ve never even seen anyone attempt it!)
 * Also, just to remind everyone, while “banning” users from your talk page like VM did here is hardly a foreign concept on Wikipedia, it is not a right, it is a specifically-articulated form of tendentious editing. Regardless of everything else, let’s not defend the actual policy violations here. ~Swarm~  {sting} 08:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

(2) REMOVED is written with the idea that comments are normally addressed the user who's talk page they are posted on. Unblock requests are an obvious exception to this since people are going to want to talk to the blocking admin, reviewing admin, etc. Whether certain comments have been read by the blocked user is not relevant when the comments aren't being addressed to them. (3) No, User B can not post evidence against User A on their talk page or AN/I, etc. The community discussion about whether to unblock User A is happening on their talk page because (under normal unblock requests) that's the only page they can edit (and why would forking the conversation even be seen as a desirable outcome?). User A can't effectively respond to evidence presented outside of their talk page, so it'd be maddening to allow discussion about them to happen literally anywhere else besides their talk page. If User A is uncomfortable with that, then they either need to (i) appeal to AN/the community directly so this conversation doesn't happen on their talk page despite the fact they won't be able to as effectively respond (also risking a CBAN if their request fails), or (ii) not appeal their sanctions in the first place. Before you point out that this was just a PBlock, please consider the fact that policy explity treats the unblocking process for both PBLOCKs and regular blocks as the exact same. The logic may not always apply, but the community decided that was what the case should be. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Tzemin’s comment that I removed was not part of the appeal process. It was made *after* they said “I’m not going to say anything more”. Then they decided to come back to rub it in some more. There was absolutely nothing necessary about it. If they wanted to they could have made the comment on Newyorkbrad’s talk page. It was gratuitous and unnecessary, and provocative, to put it in mildest terms I can.  Volunteer Marek   08:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There was an active appeal on your talk page at the time, and the comment was specifically addressed to an admin known to be reviewing it. If the comment was gratuitous and unnecessary, and provocative (a claim I have no opinion about), that still does not mean you were in the right to remove it. Perhaps Tamzin should've posted directly to NYB's talk page (which could've avoided further antagonizing against you - again no opinion there), but two wrongs don't make a right as far as I know. You shouldn't have removed that comment, VM; and this shouldn't be that big of a deal to admit outside the context of the remainder of these events. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed "they should do so unless absolutely required to do otherwise". If it is required, then it is required.
 * If User A requests an unblock, but User B provides evidence against them (or any other feedback meant for administrators), User A still has the authority to remove that from their talk page. That isn't gaming the system. User B is under no obligation to provide evidence on their talk page when they've been asked to stay off. They can just as easily post that information on their own talk page, an admin's talk page, or AN/ANI (at which point a notification would be appropriate). I don't think WP:REMOVED says what you think it says: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred...There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so."
 * "The unblock request process is clearly a part of that process." You're interpreting something that isn't there.
 * WP:TE is an essay whose interpretations have "not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I can write an essay supporting literally all of anyone else's behavior (pick someone), but that doesn't mean it carries weight. If you're going to hold people to account based on the not-widely-shared-or-codified opinions, this is going to get really messy really quickly.
 * As VM stated, T's comment was well after the appeal process, not part of it. The idea that the blocking admin has an obligation/duty to vocally correct anyone they've blocked and to publicly do so on the User's talk page and the user is obligated to keep it there is absurd in the extreme. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) The appeal process was still active. This page clearly shows unblock is active, and the block log makes clear VM was still partially blocked. How anyone can claim the appeal process was over is beyond me.
 * (1) "The appeal process was still active" WP:REMOVED states "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block" may not be removed. At this point, this was not declined. Tamzin's remarks after VM's request to leave the user talk page had nothing to do with the unblock, but were remarks about the user's actions AFTER the block.
 * (2) you kinda proved point 1 above
 * (3) Whether or not someone is blocked doesn't mean you cannot seek another venue for your discussion/further administrative action nor is he obligated to keep material on their talk page that doesn't fall in the realm of the exceptions noted in WP:REMOVAL. Whether it is wise to ask for the blocking Admin to stay off your page is irrelevant.
 * (4) I have no idea what you're getting at with the Pblock...I never made any statement about it. Pre-emptively attempting to take apart an argument I didn't make...really odd... Buffs (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s clear you’re one of the users who feels very strongly about this situation but you’re straightforwardly wrong here and obviously you’re one of the main reasons for my comment. Nobody has to listen to me but in spite of the contentious circumstances this part is fairly straightforward and the policy considerations are clear. Do not try to push a narrative that VM did nothing wrong here, they were absolutely not allowed to delete comments that misrepresent a significant exchange (in this case the blocking admin was commenting on further sanctions being warranted) or ban a good faith editor from their talk page just because they’re in an unpleasant dispute. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * obviously you’re one of the main reasons for my comment Me personally? I'm touched. I thought we were supposed to Comment on content, not on the contributor.
 * Do not try to push a narrative that VM did nothing wrong here What a wonderful argument! Oh wait...there isn't one here. It's just "don't disagree"
 * they were absolutely not allowed to delete comments that misrepresent a significant exchange nothing was misrepresented. It was a comment to another editor and was removed. He didn't refactor the comment. It cleanly/clearly falls within the bounds of WP:REMOVED and you've shown no rationale otherwise.
 * ...or ban a good faith editor from their talk page just because they’re in an unpleasant dispute. Again, this is explicitly allowed. "If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected...[it goes on to state that required notices cannot be banned]"
 * You are completely entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not policy. FWIW, I agreed with you under prior rules (WP:OWN)...and was blocked by an admin. That segment of WP:User Pages was added in response. Buffs (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not have an opinion, I am completely uninterested in this situation. I am just clarifying policy implications that you and others are leaving out of your arguments, because that’s part of my job as an administrator. Beyond that, I have no desire legitimize your attempts to undermine policy considerations just because they don’t line up with your side in a dispute, and I’m not going to become baited into an argument with you. Your repeated insistence that I’m wrong is irrelevant, I’m not trying to convince you, I’m simply documenting this for the record. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not have an opinion, I am completely uninterested in this situation Okaaaaaay...they why are you replying?
 * I have no desire legitimize your attempts to undermine policy considerations just because they don’t line up with your side in a dispute I'm not undermining policy. I'm quoting it. In summary, you have yet to actually show how any part of what I stated was incorrect in any way. Effectively, all you've said is a Trumpian "Wrong!" and declared your opinion correct because you're an admin.
 * I’m simply documenting this for the record. You don't have to do any of this, but you're continuing anyway...that's pretty much the definition of an argument. Buffs (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok, I don't see any of those things as "attacks", and, as Brad says below, an admin who has just blocked someone, particularly questionably, is going to need a thicker skin than that before escalating to harsher blocks unilaterally (and I'll go further - should in nearly all circumstances not do so themselves at all). I'm not sure there's really any defence for how you used your tools here, frankly - it seems to me like "how not to admin" 101. Begoon 13:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed Buffs (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Editors are forbidden from removing four types of comments from their talk page; I don't believe any are relevant here, which means WP:OWNTALK applies and Volunteer Marek was permitted to remove the comments.
 * In such circumstances, I believe the correct response would have been to make the comment on Newyorkbrad's talk page, rather than edit warring over it and then blocking the editor you were in an edit war with. Without considering the wider dispute, I think the correct response now is to revert the block. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * agreed Buffs (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Tamzin, in the past I've seen you try to deescalate a situation . I think that would have been the proper thing to do here.  In this case VM was frustrated by original admin action and got frustrated.  Their actions on their talk page may not have been helpful but given the wide latitude people are given with respect to their own talk pages I don't think it crossed any lines nor did it require further actions to protect Wikipedia.  Thus I don't think the further escalation was justified and the action taken could certainly be seen by others as "respect mah authoritah" even if that wasn't the intent. Springee (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Newyorkbrad:
 * Volunteer Marek e-mailed me yesterday asking me to comment one way or the other on the page-block. I asked Tamzin for her response first, which she provided, for which I thank her. I view the page-block as being of borderline necessity. As Tamzin acknowledges, VM did not violate the 1RR/24h that was in effect on the page at the time, and if I am reading the chronology correctly, there was an ongoing talkpage discussion. I would not have blocked, even p-blocked, but it's well-known that I am less of a "hawk" on "edit-warring" than many other admins. In any event, even before this escalated, I was not planning to act as the reviewing admin on the page-block, because I was specifically called to the page, and blocked (even partially blocked) users do not get to select their own reviewers; but the page-block has served its purpose and I suggest that if not reversed, it at least be commuted to "time served." The same goes for the other editors who were blocked at the same time.
 * In my view, the full block, while placed in good faith, was unwarranted and should be overturned, whether by Tamzin or by consensus here. Adverse comments by sanctioned users against sanctioning admins are part of the territory. While I'd prefer it to be otherwise, sometimes these comments become personalized, and while I would not have expressed myself as VM did, I don't think he crossed the line into blockworthiness with his comments. (He did, at the outset, strike one comment I thought particularly unnecessary.) As noted above, it can be especially escalatory for an admin who perceives herself as the target of an attack to place the block, except in cases of gross abuse or harassment, and this was not that. I do, however, agree with Tamzin that VM should not have removed comments by the blocking administrator from his talkpage while an unblock request was pending.
 * The removal of VM's talkpage access was unnecessary. I suggest that that be reversed immediately so that VM can comment on-wiki, rather than in an UTRS thread that only some administrators, and no non-admins, can read.
 * One user has suggested bringing this matter before ArbCom. That is not necessary and I hope it will not be pursued.
 * Lastly, while looking into this yesterday, I noticed that many of the unblock requests in CAT:RFU have been pending for weeks or months. We promise blocked users a reasonably prompt review, and should keep that promise, even for blocks with a much lower profile than this one. It would be useful if some admins with some extra time would give attention to those; I will try to do my part in clearing the backlog. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed TPA because the disruption was happening on the talkpage itself, so otherwise a siteblock would have seemed purely punitive. But I'm not going to argue on that if even one admin disagrees, so, TPA restored. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 13:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have opened a case request at ARBCOM here. That is about Tamzin's poor decision making and use of advanced tools in enforcing that. Not about overturning Marek's block, which this noticeboard is more than capable of doing. What it cannot do is remove tools from an Admin who slaps someone with an escalated block for being annoyed at a particularly poor block to start with. ARBCOM have made it clear over the years removal of tools is their remit and I have no wish to see Tamzin continue with their high-handed approach, and this sort of poor thinking is exactly why they were lucky to pass RFA in the first place.
 * As to Marek's block I think it should be lifted ASAP for being poor in the first place, and poor in the escalation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Talking some specifics, the partial block needs to stay. In this talk page section numerous editors pointed out that Mate should not be described as a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikivoice. VM has put that language back in twice now,. There clearly is no consensus for this and the continued attempts to reinsert it is disruptive, requiring editors to "burn" their revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness. One hates to see this. One of the most difficult parts of being an admin is being able to show restraint in the face of comments that could be seen as pointed or escalatory. In light of the essay that Tryptofish posted, I don't want to jump to any sort of conclusions regarding what the next steps are in this scenario. But within the scope of this thread, it's safe to say this was not a good block. It seems that at the very least, some formal apologia is needed in order to avoid an ArbCom case (which I think at this point is a little too aggressive a next step for a relatively new admin).--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with Newyorkbrad. Both the page block and the site block should be lifted ASAP, ideally by the blocking admin. 28bytes (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The original block could be debated but it was rather mild and not much out of the ordinary. The second block looked too much like a personal response to VM's angry reaction to the first block. When people are blocked, they often react badly but taking this on the chin is in the administrators' job description. In the most severe cases a different admin should step in. VM's removal of a paragraph was improper but didn't prevent the pinged admin from reading it. I would prefer to see the second block lifted. Zerotalk 14:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, Tamzin has undone the site-wide block. The page block remains, and can/should be discussed here.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's clear there will be no consensus to maintain the siteblock, so I have reversed that, and have apologized to Marek for overreacting and escalating the situation. I've left the p-block intact, and will leave it to another admin to decide whether to maintain it or unblock outright.I do want to say a word on thickness of skin. I get a lot of criticism way worse than this, and shrug it off. Just as I shrugged this off; I took no personal affront, because I learned long ago to disregard those kinds of comments. I don't think I was acting emotionally here. The emotional response would have been to run for the hills, out of knowledge that blocking an experienced user would likely lead to stress. Instead I did what I thought was the right thing, based on facts, not feelings; I just miscalculated badly. Really badly. And I'm sorry for that, and sorry to be taking up volunteer time with this. That's the opposite of what I ever want to do here as an admin and as an editor. I hope people trust that, if this were the kind of mistake I make habitually, it would have come up about a thousand blocks ago. I can assure everyone it's not a mistake I will make again. I thank my peers for their feedback here, and will bow out from here on out unless anyone has any questions. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do have one question. You say you "miscalculated badly". Can you expand on that? What calculation did you make, and what was its "wrong" result?
 * And one more: " I can assure everyone it's not a mistake I will make again". What was the mistake, and what will you do next time instead?
 * I'm not trying to flog the horse, really, but the answers to those questions aren't really clear to me yet, sorry, from your perspective...
 * I know what I think you did wrong, I'm just not clear on what you think you did... Begoon 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I welcome the questions.
 * The miscalculation was not realizing that this would come off as retaliatory. As I said in my initial post, in my mind, the removal of the comment was a bright enough line that it differentiated things from if I'd blocked purely over the aspersions. I do genuinely think I would have made the same block if I saw this on some random unblock request without previous involvement. But clearly to anyone else this just looked like me getting my feelings hurt and blocking over it. I should have realized it would look that way.
 * The mistake is maybe better framed in terms of the lesson learned: If one is having to say (words to the effect of) "I'm not technically INVOLVED", it's probably best to proceed as if one were INVOLVED. (Or more precisely applied to this case, just because no policy outright prohibits an admin from blocking a user who has been criticizing their administrative action, that doesn't mean that it's remotely a good idea.)
 * -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 15:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the "optics" were far worse than you seem to understand - in fact I'd much prefer you to be contrite about what you did than how it might look... The fact that your reply above is basically wikilawyering about how you might have conceivably thought it would be ok is quite telling. On the other hand, you did open this section by saying "I fucked up", which is to your credit - I guess I was hoping that meant more that you knew what you did was basically unjustifiable, and an utterly incorrect use of tools, than that you thought it might just be tricky to explain away... Begoon 15:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that you don't see this as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. You and VM had a dispute, which included edit warring by both of you, over whether it was permissible for VM to remove your comment. This is clearly a dispute in which [you] have been involved, but you persist in saying I'm not technically INVOLVED. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally dont think the original blocking admin should be the one to respond with escalatory blocks for conduct after the block, leave that to somebody else. And I like VM, but I do agree that the initial sequence was "gaming" (and I note Zero's distaste for that term, but still use it). If you are actively working towards some compromise or resolution or pursuing DR then sure partial reverts may not be gaming, but the 1RR is put in place to not just slow edit-wars but to stop them. If you are repeatedly reverting, without change, you are edit-warring, and if you are doing it just outside the x number of hours then you are gaming. That said, I am sure VM would have taken a hey, this looks like slow-motion edit-warring, can you please pursue DR instead of reverting comment in stride and done exactly that. The block was justified but not necessary, and that being the case means it should have been handled with less forceful means. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Fully protecting the page, a notice of 72h 1RR time expansion and eventual warning was a more fitting way. Original blocks (all 3 editors) should be also lifted. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully protecting the page would have prevented the edit warring, yes, but it would have also prevented the lead from being expanded and rewritten to more closely follow MOS:LEAD and address the SYNTH concerns on the talk page. Full protection should rarely be used, and the use of p-blocks seems more narrowly tailored than full protection towards stopping edit warring if only a limited number of users are actually edit warring. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * P-blocks prevented access to the talk page. That terminated the ongoing discussion among affected editors. A straightforward warning with a request to continue the discussion and reach consensus first, would work much better in my humble opinion. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it was just a block from editing just the page Aaron Maté. Not Talk:Aaron Maté or any other place where discussion would have continued. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it 👍 - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Did affected editors know that they still can edit talk page? I think they didn’t 🤔 ? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind, they did know. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

- do you stand by your statement that this was without a doubt, the most unbecoming conduct I've seen from an experienced user in response to a block?  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC) VM's site-block has been reduced to a page-block, his talkpage access has been restored. Tamzin has apologised for her actions as an administrator. There's no need for an Arbcom case. Let's remain calm & move on. I've been around the 'pedia for about 17 years, so trust me. My advice 'here', is the best advice. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 17 years, you say? Well, that's me convinced. Thanks for your deep analysis - it's always a joy to absorb. Begoon 15:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, the perils of p-blocking, I could sing tales of dread and wonder on these. ;) Look, Tamzin, like I said to you last time when you acted too authoritatively by way an intentionally-cryptic public warning — you are moving too fast and loose. It's one thing to study experienced admins, it's another to actually be and act as one. You are still very new. You're did half things right and half wrong here. Credibly, what you did right, the p-block, etc., was done exceptionally well. [ Stricken : this was mostly stated about how well WP:GAME was explained. Beyond that, I'm a bit hazy about the overall timeline.] But after that, it's all down hill.
 * When you venture into the GS/ACDS topic realm, you're going to run into users that perfected walking the line like a tight rope without ever crossing it in a major way. VM is an exceptionally challenging editor to deal with in that regard. I try not to repeat this too often, because what came to pass came to pass, but to my ever-lasting regret, I was instrumental in arguing before ArbCom for his EE topic ban to be lifted, which came to pass.
 * Yet, here he became the victim. VM will usually respond uncivilly and unkindly even to warnings (not to mention sanctions), no matter what. That's something you ought to expect, and not just from him; there's no shortage of users who act that way. But keeping your finger off the trigger when it gets heated, when you feel that heat, that, as alluded to, is the other half where you faltered. So, you really do need to start taking it slower. Temper non-emergency actions against users whom you've sanctioned. As I know you know, it is standard practice to give sanctioned users extra-leeway. The challenge as an admin is to live up to that maxim. Because the fallout when you fail to do that, is this easily-avoidable time sink. El_C 18:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur that Tamzin is "moving too fast and loose," as I described here. The ban I previously received from another admin was dubious enough, but Tamzin's subsequent block was reflexively capricious, absolutely without merit, resulting in a permanent black mark on me in the block log. I see absolutely no contrition on Tamzin's part, which only deepens my concerns about Tamzin's suitability to be an admin. soibangla (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla Your topic ban and resultant block were completely correct and followed policy to the letter. You were given numerous warnings that your talk page comments fell within the boundary of a topic ban and were told to stop commenting - the "black mark" arose entirely due to your own actions. You have already had this explained to you at your talk page, at the talk page of the enforcing administrator and at AN  where every single person has pointed out that you have a flawed, incorrect understanding of how discretionary sanctions work. How many times are you going to continue beating this dead horse? How many times do you need the workings of discretionary sanctions explaining to you? Your request to have the log entry removed is completely without merit and would be an example of gross administrative tool misuse - Revision deletion . 192.76.8.87 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not consider the views on this contentious matter from any editor who posts IP. soibangla (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP is absolutely correct. This isn't an opportunity for you to air your grievances or relitigate your block. -- Ponyo bons mots 22:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Discriminating against IP views is an uncivil act by definition unless backed by evidence of sockpuppetry/block evasion. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Undo P-Block of VM and apply a solid trouting
 * From a technical standpoint, Volunteer Marek did not violate WP:1RR as all the edits were outside the 24-hour window. You want to view that as gamesmanship? That's fine, but the justification for this block is flawed at its premise. Now, is this the start of or a continuation of edit warring? Probably, but you didn't make that case. If someone is going 58 in a 60 mph zone, you don't write them a ticket for for speeding "because it was clear what they were trying to do." Buffs (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a flawed analogy. The correct analogy is someone driving 62 in the 60 mph zone knowing nobody would usually bother to write a fine, and if somebody would, they have good lawyers. Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why do they have such good lawyers? When I started editing here, an admin warned me: You need to read WP:3rr carefully. It’s not an allowance. Well, I guess the same applies to 1RR. VM is constantly edit warring in the EE area while formally abiding by the 3RR rule: he literally does it all the time. Why doesn't anybody intervene? And the same applies to incivility. El C says VM will usually respond uncivilly and unkindly even to warnings. Ok, but this happens not only when VM deals with admins issuing warnings and blocks, but also and especially with fellow editors and even newcomers. Since no one is paid here to be bullied, I don't understand how this could be allowed to go on for so long. I welcomed the block, although I thought it would have been better applied in response to some of his many intemperances against non-admin users. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I intervened last time and you remember what the result was. Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even NYB stated "As Tamzin acknowledges, VM did not violate the 1RR/24h that was in effect on the page at the time, and if I am reading the chronology correctly, there was an ongoing talkpage discussion." The "law" wasn't violated. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There was ongoing talk page discussions, which VM was participating in. Which makes the 2nd revert of the “conspiracy theorist” language disruptive, as clearly VM was aware that most editors did not support it in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then wouldn't a simple warning be sufficient? The threshold for "disruption" is exceedingly low. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3RR and 1RR are both bright-line rules. You cross them and the punishment is clear/crisp/unambiguous. To both of you, no, the analogy is driving 58 in a 60 zone, but what he really should be cited for is reckless driving because the road conditions warrant a slower speed. You want to cite VM or anyone else for 1RR or 3RR, then you better have clear evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you need to provide other evidence of an infraction. What you are describing is incivility and/or edit warring. If he's to be blocked for that, honestly, given the general sentiment, I don't particularly have a problem with it if it's backed up with evidence, but that evidence is not presented here.
 * ...in short, this is NOT 1RR or 3RR and VM is following those rules to a "T". Buffs (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say the gaming description seems quite reasonable. A new account would probably be warned, maybe p-blocked.  An experienced editor should know better.  I'm not sure what the right way to handle the issue would have been, but I don't think the original p-block was crazy. As long as VM acknowledges that their behavior wasn't great here and they will avoid similar things in the future, I think we're good and the p-block should be removed. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors - Please learn all the facts before expressing your opinion - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Gizzy, perhaps you should WP:AGF and assume we've all read the history and know the facts. I don't agree with Gitz, but I assume he/she has read the history and relevant criteria. 1RR and 3RR are bright lines. Anything else really falls under edit warring. If the person is edit warring, block them for that, not a violation that didn't happen. Buffs (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it 👍 - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually I hadn't missed a single comment and I had followed the drama in real time as the events unfolded, a bowl of popcorn on my lap, so there might be lack of understanding on my part, but no lack of information. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Gizzy. Misread the comment. I think we're on the same page here. Buffs (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming the comment from GCB was directed to me: yes, the blocking reason should have been something about a slow edit war and gaming. And yes, I think a warning might have been best as a first stop.  But I do think a p-block in this case isn't crazy.  Is there some other point that I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

IMHO the concerns brought up at ARBCOM should instead be raised as a separate thread here. A request for a self-review of a block does not have the scope to deal with the issues raised.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but anyone reviewing please look at the page history for the context. Volunteer Marek reverted 5 times in 3 days - (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), all while a talk page discussion was ongoing and had been started on the first day of the edit warring. This is a pretty clear cut 1RR violation that would have probably been handled with stricter sanctions had it been reported at AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No one, and I mean absolutely no one editing that page was aware that there was a 1RR restriction on that article until Tamzin announced it. There was the additional problem of various brand new, fly by nights accounts showing up reverting and removing info left and right (obviously such accounts don’t really care much about 1RR).  Volunteer Marek   07:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, a very similar situation to the one on Aaron Mate article is taking place at Mariam Susli AfD (these two persons are linked, they share the same “propaganda space” and both have canvassed users off wiki to edit their Wikipedia pages). There’s some really over the top shenanigans going on over there (and the article) with some very likely coordination and/or sock puppetry from like half a dozen accounts. It’s also Syria related so I’m assuming under 1RR, basically the same kind of POV, but drooling donkey donuts, now I’m all paranoid about engaging and trying to take care of it.  Volunteer Marek   08:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And on that note let me point out that having a GS/SCW 1RR restriction on contentious articles such as these *without* a concurrent 500/30 restriction that allows for reverting non auto confirmed accounts is really really really foolish. It’s basically handing over the relevant articles to fly by night throw a2ay accounts who, unlike established editors, don’t care about 1RR because they simply move on to the next account. Why do we never think this stuff through? Just love of making up rules? The “something must be done and this is a something” mentality?  Volunteer Marek   08:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No one, and I mean absolutely no one editing that page was aware that there was a 1RR restriction on that article until Tamzin announced it — that's because there wasn't, until Tamzin announced it (on Nov 3, you were pinged). More importantly, in order for WP:1RR to come into effect, an admin must place the required notices (added also on Nov 3): talk page notice, page notice. El_C 09:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it doesn’t seem like thats what Tamzin thinks : (1RR) which I did not impose, but rather merely noted the existence of; it had rightly been in effect since the article was created. Now I’m even more confused. Is it always in place if it’s Syria related or does it have to be officially “announced” first? How come the admins don’t know this?  Volunteer Marek   09:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It came into effect once Tamzin imposed it in the manner I described above. Until then, while the WP:SCW sanctions regime was pertinent to that page, it only existed in potential. El_C 09:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek @El C All articles related to the Syrian civil war and ISIL are under a community imposed 1RR restriction, which does not require notice. See WP:GS/SCW&ISIL: . 192.76.8.87 (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See also the preamble of the remedies section 192.76.8.87 (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IP, that's the thing with WP:GS rules, they can be especially arcane. With WP:ACDS, across the board these notices are required for enforcing 1RR, etc. Which is why there has been a growing push to subsume GS into DS, so they could be better standardized. And which is why I felt WP:GS/RUSUKR was a step backwards in that regard. But as for WP:SCW, indeed, its page states:
 * The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors must be notified of discretionary sanctions with the syr template (emphasis added).
 * So, due to these arcane features, technically, the page notices were not required. But also, technically, the syr was, and Tamzin placing it alongside the sanction itself was (technically) inappropriate, as it is meant to alert editors to it [full stop]. In my view, none of that really matters. I presume VM was aware that it was put into effect on Nov 3 when he was pinged. And if he somehow wasn't aware of it until being sanctioned, well, that would be a fuck up (not on VM's part, I miss pings all the time). El_C 10:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @El C Per the GS page, these sanctions are modelled after the Palistine-Israel Arbitration case. The only part of the ARBPIA Sanctions that requires awareness are the discretionary sanctions,, the extended confirmed restriction and 1RR rule do not require an editor to be aware to be enforced. This has been clarified in these 2020 clarification requests . Reading the general sanctions page I think the same setup was intended here, the 1RR restriction is applied "In addition" to the general sanctions, rather than as a part of it, and the requirements for user talk page notices doesn't make any sense combined with the statement that the 1RR rule "does not require notice". 192.76.8.87 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As a matter of principle, no editor should ever be sanctioned for violating a restriction unless he or she was reasonably aware of the restriction, using the term "aware" with its common-sense everyday meaning. The only exception would be if the edit would have been improper anyway, even in the absence of the restriction. But this thread is probably not the best place for any further discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IP, I've moved downstairs because this section is too long, and it's too annoying trying to find this thread within it. El_C 17:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment: the situation at Aaron Maté had developed into a shit fight. There was some discussion through edit comments which isn't ideal but does demonstrate editing toward consensus. IMHO somebody needed to call time-out, have editors go to a neutral corner and listen to the ref and start up a real discussion. Gaming the system would state: "Borderlining" – habitually treading the edge of policy breach .... I don't think a pattern of gaming conduct was reasonably established. Gaming the system would state: A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. Nor is it clear that has been made DS aware, though I would think that VM probably is. Seven days block does seem somewhat excessive in the first instance. I don't think that these blocks were reasonable or appropriate. has already been unblocked. So should. As to the block applied to VM re civility: nemo iudex in causa sua. VM does need to watch their civility but I think that the circumstances should be considered and significant latitude given. I would agree with the observations of (and ) in this and that the block should be fully removed. If possible, I would suggest these blocks be erased from the record if possible. To Tamzin, others observe that they are a new admin that has generally shown good judgement. They acknowledge (at least in part) that they fucked up. They are prepared to accept a trouting from the community if that is our decision but IMO a Beluga sturgeon is more in order. Such an admonishment should be noted but I don't think that in itself (this incident) any further action is require in respect to Tamzin. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The situation at the Mate article has become a shit show for a very simple reason - for the past few months (and maybe even going further to 2021 when apparently there had been some COI looking editing going on) there has been a steady flow of brand new (occasionally sleeper) accounts coming to that article, trying to remove any negative information about the subject no matter how well sourced it is. This of course escalated recently when apparently Mate posted about the article on twitter, effectively encouraging his followers to go edit it along the same lines (remove any negative … etc.) A lot of these accounts have like five or ten edits to their name yet they also possess an uncanny knowledge of esoteric Wikipedia policies (like quoting WP:COATRACK in their first ever edit). They also have absolutely zero compunction about misrepresenting their edits with false edit summaries (like falsely claiming that text sourced to The Guardian is sourced to a “blog” or “LinkedIn”) or following 1RR for that matter. Because for them there’s no consequences to breaking the rules - just make a new account.  Volunteer Marek   09:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time, the Guardian source presented as a hyperlink "[1]", where ref 1 was to Lidekin. So, unless there was deliberate interference with the citation (I didn't see one), the revert comment was in "good faith". Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true. Initially the ref was not formatted but it did not "present as" or link to LinkEdIn. All you had to do was click it or hover it to see that it was indeed the Guardian. Am I missing something here? By the time I restored it it was properly formatted.  Volunteer Marek   16:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

More eyes please
I have been partially involved in adminning the Aaron Maté page over the past few days although has borne most of the burden. Now with them potentially stepping back from the article + ongoing Ukraine war + upcoming US elections + change of ownership at Twitter, the article is likely to receive more outside attention in addition to the ongoing disputes. So can some experienced editors and admins add it to their watchlist, help resolve the current differences, and keep an eye for more flare ups? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this, Abe. To be clear, this isn't an outright recusal from the article, but an acknowledgment that most heavier-duty admin situations there would probably not benefit from me being the handling admin at this point in time. If it's something like a disruptive SPA or a sock, or an incredibly blatant 1RR violation, I may still take some action. But the last thing a contentious article needs is an admin who will only invite more contentiousness if they make an even slightly controversial block/ban. I'm also around if there's any questions about the scope of the page sanction I imposed, although it should be quite straightforward: same as the regular 1RR, just change "24" to "72". --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe)

Response needed at VM's
BTW - Would an administrator please respond to VM's unblock request. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Unblocked VM and Poyani, for time served. I don't think they'll be fighting in this article again. I guess I should unblock User:Hobomok for the same reason, though they seem to have quit and I'm not impressed with the enormous amount of bad-faith editing they displayed. I don't know, though. Should I unblock without an unblock request? Does it matter? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hobomok unblock? why not. My guess is, he'll un-retire, shortly after. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you remove the DS from the topic area if nobody will bother to enforce it? Get rid of the bureaucratic nonsense that is routinely unfairly enforced. I am bookmarking this thread for the next time an admin tries to tell me about 1RR. It is officially dead. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration - Drmies you don’t have the authority to undo DS admin actions unless certain provisions are met. Looks like we may need an Arb case after all. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh Jesus Christ. Well. Someone redo the sanction, whatever. Or, Mr Ernie, make me party to an Arb case, whatever. And make sure you slap the two now temporarily unblocked editors on the wrist for incorrectly placing unblock templates on their own talk pages. I'm going to read a book. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unblock as you see appropriate. Let's just end this.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the block on Poyani appears to be an ordinary edit warring block, not a GS enforcement block. As such, I don't see a reason that Drmies is prevented from unblocking that user in response to the unblock request. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn’t make the rules. In fact I’ve been outspoken that they are stupid. I’ve also been outspoken that they should be enforced uniformly and fairly if they are to be enforced at all. But again, I’m pinging you to be my savior if I revert 5 times in 3 days on a 1RR article. Thanks in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW I believe we can modify AE sanctions with a clear consensus of uninvolved editors on AN (ie, here), so all we need is a quick straw poll (or not even that, if the consensus is obvious.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we please all stop repeating the same nonsense? VM didn't "revert 5 times in 3 days on a 1RR article", they reverted 3 times on a standard 3RR article, then 1RR was imposed, and they reverted twice in the next two days. If you want to enfirce rules uniformly and fairly, or if you want to start an ArbCom case, first make sure that you have the facts, which have been explained in this discussion again and again, right.

Secondly, what's with the "Drmies you don’t have the authority to undo DS admin actions unless certain provisions are met." According to WP:GS/SCW, "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard." The blocking admin started a review here, and stated explicitly "I have no objection to any admin restoring TPA, reverting to the p-block, or unblocking outright, if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction." So, please enlighten me, what "authority" did Drmies miss to undo the block, which "provisions" weren't met, and what would warrant an ArbCom case? Please don't needlessly and wrongly create additional drama in an already tense situation. Fram (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fram All articles relates to Islamic state and the Syrian civil war are under a community imposed 1RR restriction, which does not require notices to be enforced: WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. The article was never a "standard 3RR article", it was always under 1RR, it was just that the people editing the article don't seem to have realised that such a restriction existed.
 * I completely agree with you about the reversal of the block though, it was brought here for review with the explicit instruction that any administrator could remove it. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not feel happy, however, about sanctioning an editor for breaking 1RR on an article where there was no notice whatsoever about discretionary sanctions on the talk page (and no mention of them in the 21 talkpage threads that existed before the DS notice was added on 3 November), let alone a 1RR notice. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To reiterate what I just stated above, until an editor is made aware of the sanctions regime being in effect, it cannot be enforced. So, if we're following the rules to the letter, as noted: Editors must be notified of discretionary sanctions with the syr template (emphasis added). Therefore, technically, only those violations that come after that alert, then become sanctionable (or deemed violations, however you phrase it). El_C 10:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And to reiterate what I said above, you are incorrect. 1RR restrictions passed as a remedy do not require awareness to be enforced, 1RR restrictions placed under discretionary sanctions do. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which inevitably leads to the quite reasonable defence by an editor that they could not break a restriction which they were unaware existed, regardless of whether "awareness is required". Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That defense is usually not accepted. It happened to me a few weeks ago, and either the reviewing admin didn't look very closely at the details or didn't care. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not see the sanction discussion against you (I haven't been very active lately), but as a matter of principle I uniformly oppose imposing sanctions for any edit where the editor was not reasonably aware of the restriction he or she allegedly violated (unless the edit would obviously be improper in any event). This has been my consistent position for 15 years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

IP, wrt to there being discretionary sanctions inside General sanctions and general sanctions inside Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, no one understand any of that (save maybe NYB, above, who is a lawyer). I wouldn't be able to devise a more confusing system if you paid me. And I'm one of the most active admins in that area. But as to the purpose and function of an alert, and in general, the alerts — these are intended to come before a sanction derived from the sanctions regime they alert over, always. They are never meant as mere info packets alongside a sanction message for that same sanctions regime. Imagine the following. An admin sanctions a user in 2022 over, say, WP:AA2 (easy to write), but also attaches a-a alongside the sanction message. They then tell the sanctioned user something to the effect: ''I see you haven't been given an alert to this sanctions regime since 2018, so here it is again, to remind you of it. Oh and btw, I'm also sanctioning you on the basis of that sanctions regime that maybe you forgot existed. If so, tough luck for forgetting.''

Beyond that and more concretely, there is a best practice which started with WP:ARBPIA at the enforcement level (not at the arcane committee level) a few years ago, then went on to be applied elsewhere. It goes as follows: barring chronic repeat offenders, sanctions for WP:1RR don't really happen anymore unless the editor in question is first given a chance to self-revert (and if it's too late, they're usually given a break). I'm ballparking here, but this easily ended up reducing the number of blocks for 1RR by, like, 80 percent. And anywhere you'd go: WP:AE, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, an admin's talk page — the reporting user would be asked the same thing: did you let the user know that they broke 1RR and ask them to self-revert? So, ultimately, regardless of what all these weird rules of code and code of rules that no one understands actually say, that's how 1RR is enforced in practice. El_C 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @El C I think I've caused some confusion here regarding the words "alert" and "aware" and their wikispeak meaning vs their normal usage, for which I apologise. The discretionary/general sanctions requirements for talk page notices, edit notices etc (to make someone "aware" of the sanction) only apply to discretionary/general sanctions. They do not apply to the 1RR restriction because it is not a part of discretionary/general sanctions, it's a standalone sanction in its own right. The 1RR restriction essentially runs on the basis of use common sense, give people notice, giving people to self correct etc. as you describe, but the formal awareness system and templated messages do not need to be followed. The whole argument that they couldn't be blocked for edit warring under/gaming 1RR because they didn't have the awareness template doesn't hold, because the awareness template is not related to the 1RR restriction and ample efforts were made to inform them of the existence of the 1RR restriction via edit notices, talk page notices, talk page messages etc.
 * The original ARBPIA sanction was modified in 2019 to require edit notices on pages before it could be used, which brought it more in line with normal discretionary sanctions on the basis that it was possible to sanction editors who did not even know these sanctions existed,, but this requirement is not present in the 2012 era version of the restriction used here and was removed from ARBPIA again in the most recent case.
 * I fully agree that DS/GS are a complete mess, but I think that's just an artefact of it being a confused system that has grown out of 2 decades of arbitration cases. Really it needs a full rewrite - defining some boundaries on what an admin can do as an individual action and what requires a consensus of admins would be a good start (can an individual admin place an indefinite topic ban or does it need to go to AE is a perpetual debate). 192.76.8.87 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IP, what I'm getting at, is that in the vast majority of topic areas covered by sanctions regimes, it doesn't matter if it's 1RR or any other enforcement mechanism (that's a direct sanction). When these are applied while invoking a sanctions regime, then that sanction has to be logged and all the awareness criteria apply. That's as per the cross-currents of conflicting rules.
 * Anyway, I think we're sort of getting lost in the sauce. The issue is to have a good, consistent standard across the board. As I mentioned at the DS reform page, many (most?) of ArbCom are not that experienced working on the ground floor of the day-to-day AE, so they may have gaps about some established best practices; what works best in practice. But, regardless, there is no reason for DS/GS to be that opaque. I'm sorry to repeat this and even quote myself for emphasis, but the presentation: discretionary sanctions within Wikipedia:General sanctions and general sanctions within Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions — is incredibly confusing and counterintuitive.
 * But even with all it's failing, I think there needs to be a sweeping move to, if not subsume (like with WP:GS/COVID19→WP:COVIDDS, WP:GS/IRANPOL→WP:ARBIRP, WP:GS/IPAK→WP:ARBPAK, et cetera, etc.), at least standardize WP:GS to follow WP:ACDS. I haven't kept up with the DS reform developments, but I suppose the question is how long will it take. If it's soon'ish, wait. But if it's gonna be a long time, might as well (with the power of magic) standardize all GS with un-reformed DS, just to have a semblance of overarching consistency, at the very least. El_C 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Stating the obvious: The endless murkiness and contradictory guidelines and policies and recommendations around GS and 1RR and sanctions thereof need to be straightened out and clarified and codified, stat. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Discretionary sanctions have a different appeal route than normal administrative actions. Appeals can only be made by the sanctioned editor, by asking the sanctioning admin or opening a review at AE, AN, or ARCA. Additionally, no admin may modify the sanctions without explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator or consensus at AE, AN, or ARCA. I don't believe Tamzin's statement opening the discussion here qualifies, as it also states "if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction." I don't see consensus that the partial block was not justified. Finally, as the article is a BLP, and valid BLP concerns had been raised, edit warring to insert contentious material 5 times (especially against a talk page discussion consensus) is never appropriate. Editors get blocked for that on a daily basis without much drama. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a DS topic area. It is a community GS topic area. All DS are GS not all GS are DS. Arbcom controls DS. Some GS are controlled by arbcom some by the community. This GS is controlled by the community and so it's not actually appealable to AE or ARCA which are Arbcom spaces. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reads more like "I was blocked unfairly, so everyone else should be as well" sour grapes than an actual defense... In any case, Tamzin agreed to an unblock "if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction.": not an active consensus that it was a bad block, but lack of consensus that it was a good block. In the above discussion, from a rapid glance (bound to miss some people), I see Newyorkbrad opining that the block was "of borderline necessity" and that they "would not have blocked, even p-blocked", Only in Death called it "a particularly poor block", 28bytes said "Both the page block and the site block should be lifted ASAP", Zero said "The original block could be debated but it was rather mild and not much out of the ordinary.": Tamzin then said "I've left the p-block intact, and will leave it to another admin to decide whether to maintain it or unblock outright." (so no longer requiring a lack of consensus even). After this, discussion continued with Nableezy saying "The block was justified but not necessary, and that being the case means it should have been handled with less forceful means", you said "the partial block needs to stay.", Gizzycatbella said "Original blocks (all 3 editors) should be also lifted", Buffs said "Undo P-Block of VM", Gitz said " I welcomed the block"
 * So it seems obvious that there was absolutely no consensus to maintain the sanction (more leaning to a consensus to unblock), which means that Drmies was following both the "prior affirmative consent" of Tamzin (see also their later comment I included above), and consensus here (plus what Barkeep said). Fram (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not blocked, so I'm not sure what the sour grapes refers to. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you weren't blocked, then I don't know what this was about. Fram (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "I was not aware" defense. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You used that defense, and you weren't blocked. And somehow this justifies or is comparable to VM's block? Never mind, I doubt this will become a fruitful discussion. Fram (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * My $0.02 based on reading the whole thread and looking over the sum total of the evidence: I think at this point we don't need an ArbCom case or any sanctions against Tamzin at this time. This entire thread serves the purpose of educating them on the mistakes that they made; they have admitted to the mistakes, proactively sought feedback, undone their mistakes themselves; all the things we expect out of anyone who screws up.  Rather than being evidence that they are not responsible enough to use the tools, the response here by Tamzin, proactively starting the thread themselves, and conscientiously taking on advice from more experienced admins, accepting the well-deserved criticism with grace, is literally a model for how admins should behave when they screw up.  Perfection, even by admins, is not required, but this is how WP:ADMINACCT should work.  Given all of that, this entire event should be taken as "lesson learned" and the thread closed with a trout for Tamzin and no further action at this time.  I think if we see this behavior again by Tamzin, then we should consider moving forward with an ArbCom case, but at this time, it is not necessary.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion
In the midst of the firm head shaking above, I think something of some importance has been lost. When a 1RR is imposed in a hot-button topic you have a mix of good and bad faith editors. In ARBPIA, when the 1RR was imposed topic-area wide it was imposed along with the extended confirmed restriction so as to prevent the fly-by-night made an account to revert and vanish type of editors. I cant really think of a case of a topic that is so disrupted that it requires DS/GS imposed 1RR but also not so disrupted it does not need extended confirmed also. The Syrian Civil War GS goes half way there, saying Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. I propose to modify that to match ARBPIA, so that reverts of non-extended confirmed editors and IP editors are both exempt from the 1RR and not considered edit-warring. Can use the standard phrasing found in whatever arb page that uses it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as point of information on the history here, which may clarify how we wound up in this situation, ARBPIA 1 (2008) had no ECR or 500/30 clause. That was ARBPIA3 (2015, as 500/30 restriction; converted to ECR last year). The SCW GS were created as an extension of ARBPIA1&2 in 2013. As they were explicitly intended to be identical to the PIA sanctions (except where procedurally impossible), I imagine they would have included the ECR if it existed at the time.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * EZ support and a . A clear improvement in a number of ways. One reason I've always found this clause, which I believe is unique to this GS, discomforting is that it relegates IPs as 2nd class citizens while still being allowed to participate in the ongoing editing process; as opposed to just fixing a tenure in the normal way. In my view, once an IP is allowed to edit a page, they should have the same rights as any other named account, regardless of tenure. It seems to also distinguishes IPs from nonconfirmed named accounts. As such, theoretically, a 2-day named account would have an advantage over a 2-year IP (this wouldn't actually happen, of course, but it's still worded like that). Not to mention that we get the wtf cross-current of a 1RR exemption that at the same time is still subject to the usual rules on edit warring. El_C 21:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Any time El C and I see the same on an issue, it's probably a good idea...support Buffs (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good discussion to have, but would rather not see it buried in another discussion in a user-behavior thread. If we're going to make such a change to standard practices, even a much needed one, I would prefer this were a new thread, and either held at WP:VPP or held as a new thread at WP:AN and advertised at VPP.  If it's important enough to do, it's important enough to do right.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, we could retitle the header from "suggestion" to "proposal to," I suppose, but it seems fine as a subsection. Also, WP:AN is the correct venue (by far), WP:VPP, not so much. We're not changing the policy in significant way on WP:GS; we're altering a specific thing about one of many GSs, and AN is where that's done. Most recently, to expand the scope of General sanctions/Uyghur genocide (that discussion is here, if you're interested). El_C 15:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC) Added: oh, that was WP:ANI, actually. But it doesn't matter, the two are basically interchangeable in that regard (i.e. proposal in a subsection that follows an incident @Incidents). El_C 15:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just don't want this discussion, which is really unrelated to the discussion to which it is attached, lost or see that people who have an interest in contributing can't find it because it is in an unexpected location.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's true that while the incident above involves this sanctions regime, it only does so wrt its general features and it as a general example. This proposal concerns its unique features. So, a subsection or refactoring to a new thread, I'm good with whatever. But WP:VPP would be good for having the WP:CENTRAL discussion about standardizing the myriad of hodge-podge WP:GS sanctions regimes to align with one standard: WP:ACDS. Myself and an IP editor discuss that issue at some length above. BTW, I was of course in favour of expanding the scope of WP:GS/UYGHUR. But, truth be told, I, myself, had always treated it with expanded scope (because, fuck it). El_C 15:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC) Added: Jayron32* (ugh!). El_C 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that if the idea is to do some larger standardization to wait? Hopefully in the next couple of days the Proposed Draft of the revision to WP:AC/DS will be posted and before the end of the year it will be possible for the community to amend their GS authorizations to allow them to be heard at WP:AE. Given the feedback ArbCom has received I suspect the community will want to do this in at least some instances and it's conceivable to me that the community could want to do this writ large. This feels of a piece with some larger scale wording standardization of community GS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, days, wow. Okay, we got our answer. Self quote from above: I haven't kept up with the DS reform developments, but I suppose the question is how long will it take. If it's soon'ish, wait [...] El_C 16:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Barkeep, sounds good, but just provisionally I'm going to support the above suggestion.  Volunteer Marek   16:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear I was commenting about larger scale changes. This was not a suggestion or comment about nableezy's suggestion in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Unblock Volunteer Marek, Trout Tamzin, Move on per Jayron32. FOARP (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You do know that VM has been unblocked for over 2 days, right? Unless we want to double-unblock them... (how does that work?  Is it like a Get Out of Jail Free card?  Do they become an admin automatically?  How does unblocking someone already unblocked work?)  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Does one get Jimbo's user rights if they are triply unblocked? :) – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not for now... Sarrail (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayron32 - I was under the impression that the P-block was still in place. If it's been lifted happy to celebrate this having been done. FOARP (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the block log. Drmies lifted said block on November 8.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayron, I wasn't clear if that mean the p-block was gone or not, but if it does...nothing much more to say except Support the above suggestion as eminently sensible. FOARP (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all good man, I was a bit of an asshole back there. In reality, the thread is so WP:TLDR anyone should not be blamed for missing stuff like that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions: discretionary, general, standing
So, to continue my rant, consider the following. Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles (WP:PIA) mentions three kinds of sanctions: Who understands this? El_C 04:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Discretionary sanctions are mentioned in the opening paragraph ("the discretionary sanctions procedure") and elsewhere throughout.
 * 2) General sanctions are mentioned at WP:PIA,  WP:PIA, and elsewhere.
 * 3) Standing sanctions are mentioned at WP:PIA.


 * Given that 1RR is mentioned in the lead section but not under General Sanctions, does that mean all articles in the topic area are subject to 1RR by default? Never mind; according to the documentation at ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice, The visibility of this template is a prerequisite to sanctioning an editor for violation of the 1RR restriction. Does this contradict what the IP said above, or is the template documentation wrong?This page and WP:AC/DS (pretty much mandatory to comprehend any of this) are awfully hard to parse; they're certainly not structured in the same way most policies are. They're written too much like laws, not like prose essays, and Wikipedians are not all lawyers. Evidently (at least, according to ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice, in absurdly small text), we average users are expected to familiarise [ourselves] with WP:PIA, WP:AC/DS, WP:ARBPIA4, and Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement before editing pages in the topic area. Fine, but surely at least the reading experience of WP:AC/DS can be improved. That page is cited all over the place, and it's incredibly difficult for a first-time reader (like me) to even figure out what exactly a sanction is without reading minutely through half of it. There is a single sentence that explains what sanctions are, and it's all too easy to miss when there's absolutely no indication of what parts are important and what parts are irrelevant trivia to anyone besides administrators. Shells-shells (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Like myself and the IP, you're kinda getting lost in the sauce, Shells-shells. So, welcome to the club. The 1RR notice thing (etc.), though, it's really not that important to the thrust of my argument, which is about accessibility. What actually prompted me to create this subsection is that earlier today, following a request at RfPP, I WP:ECP'd an article under ARBPIA. Then, I imagined a new (unconfirmed) or newish (confirmed) user trying to edit that page and seeing the following (emphasis added):
 * Then, I imagined such a user clicking on the highlighted link. A link containing contents that even I, one of the most active admins in the DS/GS realm of the project, struggle with. So, that's where I'm going with this. El_C 07:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I catch your drift. I guess the question is: Why are these abstruse policies so public-facing? Sanctioned articles, by their very nature, typically attract new and inexperienced editors. If restrictions must be placed on them, surely they should be as clear and straightforward as possible, no? After all, most of Wikipedia is not impenetrably bureaucratic like this. How come these specific bits are so confusing and incomprehensible? Shells-shells (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that (public-facing) is the right question and direction. Needless to say, it should also make more sense to experienced users and enforcing admins. I still don't know what Standing vis-à-vis General vis-à-vis Discretionary is suppose to mean exactly. But it would stand to reason that someone does.
 * Like with the point I made concerning discretionary sanctions within General sanctions and general sanctions within Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions — "impenetrably bureaucratic" is an apt description. Are we stuck? El_C 16:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do. General sanctions are the largest category. Discretionary sanctions are 1 kind of General Sanction which authorize admin to act. Another kind of general sanction is Extended-Confirmed protection which means all pages in the topic area can only be edited by EC editors. This particular set of sanctions came into existence over time and so standing sanctions details how to rolls this out. I wish they'd used another name.On the whole this is needlessly confusing. ArbCom is attempting to clarify some of this with more understandable language. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please consider, as you work on this, the public-facing versus the deep. It'd be great for 'deep users' to also be able consult a simple guide, 'cause who can really remember what's what?
 * Also, if "General sanctions are the largest category" of Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, would the reverse be true — that Distortionary sanctions are the largest category of General sanctions? Because there's a music to that, and also it's fuckin' insane. Cheers! El_C 00:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With the caveat that some users might not follow the specific definitions laid out on the guidance pages, general sanctions are a type of Wikipedia sanctions that apply to all editors working in a particular topic area. These contrast with editing restrictions, also called "personal sanctions", which apply only to individual editors. So page-specific restrictions are general sanctions, such as page-specific one-revert rules or extended-confirmed protection. Editors should know about a given page-specific restriction before receiving a sanction for violating it. An edit notice is the usual mechanism, but there could be other ways (for example, you might participate in a discussion where it is mentioned).
 * For topics where discretionary sanctions have been authorized, a single administrator can apply sanctions that would normally require community consensus. One possibility is for the administrator to apply a page-specific restriction (thus, a general sanction). Just like community-imposed page-specific restrictions, editors should know about it before being sanctioned for violating it, and there are multiple ways to learn about the restriction. Administrators can also impose a personal sanction on their own authority, provided the editor has first received a discretionary sanctions alert message on their talk page, using the officially designated template, or one of the other conditions for awareness of the authorization of discretionary sanctions has been met. isaacl (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * isaacl, as a policy authority, could I maybe press on you to voice an opinion as to my repetition? Which is as follows: citing the use of  discretionary  sanctions under Wikipedia: General  sanctions, like with WP:GS/UYGHUR (top Ombox→) as a "community-authorised  discretionary  sanctions regime"; and citing the use of  general  sanctions for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/ Discretionary  sanctions, like with WP:PIA#ARBPIA  General  Sanctions — does the way in which these things are worded sound intuitive to you? And if not, would the solution be colours? El_C 04:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Without colours, I've come to realize that a solution that would take us a good ways forward would be to simply rename the Arbcom and Community sets of sanctions. So, change Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (WP:ACDS) into something like Arbitration Committee authorized sanctions (WP:ACAS); and change General sanctions (WP:GS) into something like Community authorized sanctions (WP:CAS).
 * I mean, both redirects are taken (Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale and WikiProject Military history/Fortifications task force, respectively), but that can be worked out. Or they could be renamed into something else, just without the Discretionary / General in the title of either. 'Authorized' should do, then outline discretionary and general to one heart's content within each. Anyway, maybe I'm just speaking into the ether with this, so I'll stop talking now. El_C 05:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of General sanctions/Uyghur genocide seems to be an example of the term "general sanctions" being used to mean "community-authorized discretionary sanctions" (or, as the closing statement of the relevant discussion put it, community-imposed discretionary sanctions). I agree this is confusing. (The first paragraph in the "Remedies" section does seem to be correctly using Pages with discretionary sanctions to mean pages where a restriction has been enacted by an admin on their own individual authority.) The ongoing review of discretionary sanctions has discussed new terminology and a somewhat different approach, which I think could be used as a common base for authorizing more administrator authority by either the community or the arbitration committee. The community could also take it out of the hands of the arbitrators and modify policy to generally allow more kinds of sanctions to be enacted directly by admins, without requiring community consensus. (For example, policy could be modified to allow admins to impose a one-revert rule on any article when they deem it is warranted.) isaacl (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, isaacl, I remember, Counter-Terrorists win, I love the Krieg most, etc., but my issue above wrt to #Name isn't that Discretionary sounds intimidating or whatever. Rather, it's that this weird Discretionary/General inversion and intersection across both WP:ACDS and WP:GS is extremely disorienting. In that sense, I'm not sure resigning ourselves to only renaming the former would be enough. Thus, I hope to see you push for that broader view, so that we don't end up with a bandage solution where that confusion still remains acute. El_C 20:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say anything about "discretionary" sounding intimidating, and I've already espoused unifying the framework for authorizing additional administrator authority, so the terminology is the same no matter who did the authorizing, or just reaching consensus to approve additional unilateral admin actions across the board, which will also simplify matters. isaacl (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not you, I meant, the first bullet point in #Name is that It's implicitly intimidating. Anyway, I believe in having community-authorized sanctions regimes, but with that "unified framework" (i.e. standards), and I want any of the weirdness with Discretionary/General inversion and intersection gone. So, I hope we're on the same page there. El_C 21:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not you, I meant, the first bullet point in #Name is that It's implicitly intimidating. Anyway, I believe in having community-authorized sanctions regimes, but with that "unified framework" (i.e. standards), and I want any of the weirdness with Discretionary/General inversion and intersection gone. So, I hope we're on the same page there. El_C 21:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Cascade-protect Manual of Style and all subpages
The Wikipedia manual of style, including all subpages should be always cascade-protected. There is no reason to edit it. Vandalizing a template or file transcluded in the page may cause disruption to the page. Protection parameters: (edit=Need administrator access) (move=Need administrator access) (cascading) (indefinite) Thank you. 143.44.165.14 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The MoS is only semi-protected at the moment, so full-protecting is a bit extreme. The policies are also constantly changing every year or so, and that would mean the page and its templates need to be edited just as frequently. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - Wikipedia guidelines are supposedly descriptive and not prescriptive. Fully protecting the pages would prevent them from being updated to reflect the current situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

1. High-risk templates that should always be protected, using cascading protection. On occasion, accidental unprotection or transclusion of unprotected templates into protected templates have led to severe disruption. 2. High-risk files transcluded by them or used in the interface.
 * Strong oppose per MJL and BMK. Pages should not be protected preemptively, and cascade-protection of the MOS would also cascade-protect all templates transcluded onto it. Per WP:CASC: This page is used to protect:
 * Neither of these criteria are met for the MOS or its subpages; the MOS is not a high-risk template or file.
 * – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Professor Penguino appears to have breached the "WP:1RR"
Their edit was amended here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Famine_(Ireland)&diff=1121631017&oldid=1121629882 because 2 of their 3 sources did not check out.

Their original edit was discussed on the talk page Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

And then removed here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Famine_(Ireland)&diff=1121882175&oldid=1121769529

So they've now reverted 2 edits within 24 hours??? Without engaging on the talk page.

I recommend a permanent ban for this user. Clearly they don't not deserve it but Wikipedia Admins

P.S. Just joking. Their edit was really unsourced rubbish. Perhaps an admin could explain it to them without a ban? Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is totally unfair. Sourced content was removed with little or no explanation. I did not know I was breaching WP:1RR. To be fair, it looked like someone was just blanking citations. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So much for WP:Please don't bite the newcomers and WP:Assume good faith. I love Wikipedia. I'm shocked at this accusation and over-reaction. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you. Wikipedia is very harsh about rule breaking. Even if you did not know about it. However one of the reverts you reverted did contain a link to the talk page. I suggest you revert your reverts and engage there. I don't want you to be banned. Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? On my end the revision just says "see". I've already breached WP:1RR, I don't feel like it's my place to revert my edits. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It says "Potato dependency: see talk" Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see it, but I'll take your word for it. I'll revert my edits in a few minutes. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification that you were only joking -- still, not a great joke. Not funny. You had me really disappointed and worried. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If any admin wants to ban anyone because of Professor Penguino's reverts then please ban me. Cheezypeaz (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate your clarification. Live Long and Prosper. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Article mistakenly moved to Wikipedia namespace
Would an admin mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Bomb the Rocks: Early Days Singles 1989-1996? The article Bomb the Rocks: Early Days Singles 1989-1996 was, for some reason, moved to the Wikipedia namespace with this edit, which looks like just a good-faith mistake. I've moved the article back to the mainspace under it's new title, but that created a cross-namespace redirect and I'm not sure how to deal with that. There is also a redirect at the pre-move article title Bomb the Rocks: Early Days Singles that redirects to the Wikipedia namespace; so, that also probably needs to be cleaned up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of this . -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

General sanctions question
Would 2022 missile explosion in Poland fall under General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It should, since it appears to have been a side-effect. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 09:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing problems with #CfACP
Ever since problems were raised three weeks ago with the #CfACP campaign, I've been keeping an eye on the edits of Special:AbuseFilter/1073. To recap, this is a meta initiative with four Wikimedians in residence, to combat climate disinformation. The quality of the edits has been very poor: copyright violations, weird wikilinks (for instance, global ), nonsensical citations (f.i. a dermatology paper to talk about the environment), and additions of unsourced text. Participants barely engage on talk.

@Jwale2 is coordinating. The participants from the Kenyan part of the project, for which @Cmwaura is the WiR, are responsible for most edits. @Clayoquot has been so kind to offer training, but disruption has continued. Not entirely sure what we do in similar circumstances. @Astinson (WMF) may advice from the WMF side.

I propose we ask the organisers the following:
 * 1) Immediately stop recruiting volunteers
 * 2) Deal with problematic edits themselves. Cmwaura is a new editor herself, so I'm not sure they have the skills to do this.
 * 3) Monitor edits. Check each for copyright. I have not seen a single comment on participants talk pages from organisers, nor any corrections in main space. Which means volunteers have had to check around 400 edits, most of which require reverting + warning, or fixing.
 * 4) Inform participants of basic policies on copyright, linking and citations. Ask problematic editors to stop editing unless they have finished training.
 * 5) Clarify to participants that they will not get compensation for data usage if their edits are unconstructive.

In addition, I think it would be good if an uninvolved administrator could keep an eye on the abuse filter, and place partial blocks from main space/CIR blocks where appropriate. Many participates continue to disrupt after multiple warnings. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sending brand new users into a topic area with DS is unwise -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 12:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * An experienced editor is needed to guide brand new editors in this area, which we don't seem to have. For a DS topic, it's a relative friendly topic area. The disruption is around generic WP:Competence is required issues, so I think the DS angle is less relevant here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is deeply unfair that the (apparently paid) organizers of this project are refusing to engage appropriately. This essentially forces unpaid regular editors into the position of having to scrutinize and correct 400+ problematic edits added by barely-competent participants in another stupid WMF outreach project. This goes double in the area of climate change, where editing usefully may take more scientific understanding than many volunteers have (myself very much included). Frankly I think we should mass-revert anything with this hashtag and block participants if they keep adding rubbish to articles. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking through that edit filter log, here's a summary of the last few edits from that contest, ignoring edits that were just adding images:


 * Why does the WMF continue to run these "contests" and "campaigns" which do nothing but degrade the encyclopedia and waste editor time? From what I can see, the campaign participants have not responded to any of the concerns other editors have brought up on their talk pages, and nor have they tried to rectify any of those issues. For example, VickyOmondi's talk page is filled with dozens of warnings about copyright which all seem to have been ignored. I get the feeling that under normal circumstances, some of these users might have already been blocked for disruptive editing/WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues. Thank you Femke for donating your time to help clean up their contributions, but I heavily question why it was made necessary for you to do that in the first place. Endwise (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Today's edits were inappropriate changes of WP:ENGVAR, and the insertion of citations at random locations; I reverted all. Still no response from the organisers. @Jwale2 was active yesterday.
 * Is this type of disruption sufficiently straightforward that I can impose blocks myself, given how involved I am in this topic area? (I prefer somebody else deal with it, not only because I've yet to figure out how blocking works).
 * If we do not get a credible route for improvement from the organisers in the next few days, and disruption continues, would it be an idea to disallow these edits with an edit filter? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given multiple warnings, I'd be inclined to it now. Distinct, I would also (now) contact the WMF grant-giving setup stating the issues being had and that we advise against the provision of any grant to any of the four, until sufficient guarantees of engagement have been carried out. Those receiving grants have a vastly higher obligation to make damn sure those editors they're supposed to be supporting are, and that communications are adequately handled. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, indef anyone who isn't responding to warnings (especially copyright), until we can get them to communicate. Communication is not optional and we have had way too many of these ridiculous contests creating major issues. Asking nicely hasn't worked, so we need to take more drastic action. It's immensely unfair to those who work in that area to have to deal with this on top of the normal level of bad edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Femke lets have a call if that works for you, to further address the situation. Jwale2 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , I don't feel that it's fair of you to expect Femke, as a volunteer editor, to handle this via a phone call. Can you please respond to these concerns onwiki? That's where the damage is being done. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Premeditated Chaos, I am not saying we should have a phone call, I ment we should have a meet-up either online using any of the suitable tools like google meet or zoom, also I am not looking at only @Femke joining, everyone here in the forum can join because of the openness of the community. If that has been agreed a follow-up link will be sent so that we can discuss this.In the mean time you can all watch this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=196DsSMUfy0. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Jwale2, If you're wondering what to say, I strongly recommend saying that you will immediately email all the participants of CfACP and ask them to pause editing, and that you also commit to reviewing all of the edits that participants have already made and fixing any damage that they have caused.
 * What you're seeing here and on the User Talk pages of various participants is serious warnings from the Wikipedia community. If the problems continue, Wikipedia will take steps to stop the disruption, even if that means banning your project altogether. The only way to avoid that is to stop the disruption yourself. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's see: "Hi, your project for which you are a paid (?) coordinator, is causing tons of problems, can you please help us in cleaning up the mess and reducing the flow of further problematic edits?" "Nah, not really, but you can join me on zoom or watch a 30 minute youtube video instead!". Time for an edit filter to stop the project, and blocks for people persistently adding copyvio's and the like. And in the future, we should be blocking all these initiatives a lot faster once they turn out to be timesinks here.

I mean, this is the kind of shit this effort produces: an editor changing from one English variant to another, and along the way linking "gangs of professional poachers" to Ganges. Before this, the same article was edited by another CfACP editor, who succeeded in linking poachers to Poachers (film) (twice!) and skirmishes to Skirmisher (amidst a see of overlinking, e.g. linking modern). Fram (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Other edits from yesterday are less a lack of competence and look more like sneaky vandalism or whitewashing: this "typo" correction removed the whole "controversy" section. Perhaps it needed removing, but doing it as "edited typo" with a minor edit indication looks very bad. Fram (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed this thread being started, but if there are problematic editors like this they should be blocked, even if only for short periods, until they can demonstrate that editing appropriately is more important than winning a t-shirt in a contest. Primefac (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Issues concerning Wikipedia are discussed in the open using text comments that everyone can see (we don't meet-up in private calls). Assuming the claims above are correct, the participants must stop immediately or all those involved must be indefinitely blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq, well noted. Jwale2 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Spot check, recommendations
Pardon the new subsection. Uninvolved spot check here. I just opened a list of the 300 most recent edits in the edit filter and clicked the diff for the first time each username popped up (excluding unrelated hashtags). Here are all of them:
 * changing focussing to focusing. Focusing is generally more common, including in Australia (the subject of the article), but focussing isn't wrong. Meh.
 * adding a citation to the official website in the lead. Not in line with best practices for leads or citations, but not particularly damaging, either.
 * adds an organization to a list of organizations. looks good.
 * changing English spelling variation. I don't see, at a glance, if the article uses one in particular, but it's likely unnecessary.
 * adding wikilinks. At least one seems more or less positive; the others are WP:OVERLINK.
 * adds an image to an article on the 2020 East Africa floods, but the image is taken in 2019. it's possible the image could help illustrate issues with drainage/water management in that region, but the context should be clearer. Just "rainy day in bujumbura" isn't particularly useful.
 * adds a citation (to material I think the same user added). Seems like a decent source, added properly.
 * Expands an overview with a statement that's implied in the preceding sentence, though I could see why someone may find it useful to spell it out (i.e. X affects Y, so changes in X affects amount of Y). Not necessary, but not damaging, either.
 * adds a wikilink. Looks appropriate as first instance of that term. It's linked below, but that doesn't make this addition incorrect (the next AWB user will grab it).
 * links first instance of "weather disasters" to natural disaster, which seems pretty reasonable.
 * adding a citation to a section the same user just added. The section is clearly inappropriate in style and tone, and the wikilink is not intuitive. The citation looks reliable enough, but I cannot access it to ensure it's appropriate where cited.
 * adds wikilinks. One looks constructive, one is a redlink (with some formatting trouble), and one is circular.

On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is extremely constructive, 1 is extremely damaging, and 5 is neither constructive nor damaging, the average of these edits is roughly a 4 in my subjective estimation. That is, they're mostly not so constructive, but not all that damaging.

That's not good, but I question the urgency to undo all of them en masse, both because the problems are pretty minor, and because this isn't the great big bomb of bad edits that I was expecting from this thread. The combined impact of this campaign and 1lib1ref and WPWP amounts to about 12.5 edits per day over the past few weeks. It looks like about two thirds are this contest, so we're talking about 8-10 less-than-ideal edits per day. That's not nothing, but it doesn't strike me as an emergency.

That said, participants clearly need more training and guidance, and organizers need to understand a cardinal rule of Wikipedia-related campaigns: volunteer Wikipedians really really really resent feeling like they have to clean up after people who are getting paid/supported. I dare say it's the surest way to turn people against whatever you're working on and make your life hard. The best thing you can do is stay in communication on-wiki, work to fix the existing problems (although some will make it seem like you have to go through all of the edits, making a visible effort to fix things is what most people are really looking for), and, most importantly, explain how you're going to help prevent additional problematic edits through training/dissemination/oversight.

Just based on these edits (and what other people have mentioned), here are a few best practices to disseminate:
 * 1) It is of paramount importance that everyone understand the extent to which Wikipedia respects copyright. Failing to summarize material in your own words, leaving it too similar to the source, will get you banned from Wikipedia faster than any of the other issues being raised. This can be a cultural challenge, because copyright rules and best practices vary by country. Wikipedia has to adhere to a strict view as practiced in the US.
 * 2) When adding wikilinks, click on them to make sure it's the correct page. Only link the first instance a subject is mentioned, and don't add links to subjects that don't exist. Never link a general concept to a specific subject (like from the term "climate change" to an organization with "Climate Change" in its name).
 * 3) There are multiple variations of English, with different spellings and stylistic conventions. It may be wise to google a term before "fixing" a spelling to see if what you're changing is actually considered valid, too.
 * 4) If a new user is unsure what they're doing is correct, they can ask first. Ideally, there are people connected to the contest they can ask, but there are also new user resources like the WP:TEAHOUSE (although that, too, is volunteer run, so we must be mindful not to flood it).
 * 5) I'm sure others may have things to add.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So if the average of these edits is a 4, what is the weighted average? That is you looked at a sample of 300 by 12 different editors. If 100 edits were done by someone who is at an 8 that means something very different than if 100 edits were done by someone who is at a 2. If the larger number of edits is coming from editors lower on the 1-10 rating that suggests a different course of clean-up than if the edits are more evenly distributed among editors or more edits are done by the more competent editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good question, though I don't have time to calculate that. (and on consideration checking the most recent edit from each person and generalizing the impact is better suited to something like WPWP than this project, since here someone may make a larger edit followed by smaller ones). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If a spotcheck shows that most edits are not really useful (but not actually damaging), and a detailed check shows that inbetween these "meh" edits you have a number of clearly negative ones (copyvio, bad links, ...), then you end up with net negatives. You may "question the urgency to undo all of them en masse", but if your spotcheck has shown anything, it is that nothing much of value is lost by undoing these edits, while the checks of others have shown that actual problems will be removed: and en masse reverts will at the same time save us a lot of work and frustration (as evidenced by Femke's comments). Nothing to lose, lots to win, so why not? Fram (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fair argument from the content perspective. Mass rollback just comes off as a rejection of the project and its contributors, and inevitably catches some constructive edits that shouldn't be reverted. That's a drastic move I'm not ready to support. This is obviously a big project with a big budget that has the potential to do a lot of good. Rejecting it when the negative impact just isn't all that expansive seems like too much. Obviously any bad edits should be reverted, but, you know, let's make sure they're bad. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

For the people who still expect something useful from the paid coordinator Jwale2, see Paid editing disclosure. Refusing to disclose thei paid status, refusing to engage meaningfully with the community here and instead setting up zoom calls, and then failing to show up at the appointed zoom call with an unpaid volunteer without bothering to let them know that they are too busy. The utter disrespect for enwiki while running a campaign which creates lots of issues while providing no benefits for anyone but Jwale should be enough to show them the door. Such parasitic behaviour should be eradicated, not tolerated. Fram (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the Zoom suggestion. Many people consider making the time to connect "in person" (in the sense that Zoom is more personal than enwp communication) is a gesture of good will and friendliness. If I were Jwale2 I'd probably also be looking for someone to meet with to better understand the problems and how to fix them, and just have a conversation removed from the angry clamoring to "eradicate [my] parasitic behavior" (people tend to be less willing to say such things when you're looking at each other, after all). Missing a call when a volunteer agrees to one is pretty bad, though. We all have freakishly busy days sometimes, but there's some catching up to do now. A question, though: what's the breakdown of responsibilities. Each country has a Wikipedian in Residence -- is it them, rather than the coordinator, who is ultimately the one who needs to check edits? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In a Zoom, you get to explain things to one or a few people, and then what? Then these  people must relay the responses here? Why would we add an intermediate level to have this discussion, which is about the edits on enwiki? And not with some newbie, but with someone experience enough to become the paid WiR for this? Someone with more than 300 article creations (with 62 of those deleted, a very high ratio of about 1 in 5 articles deleted!). And of course, you are reversing cause and effect; I talk about "parasitic behaviour" just because they want to have the position and the money, but not the consequences, the work, the responsabilities that come with it. To use that as an excuse not to come here is reversing cause and effect. If they wanted "good faith and friendliness", they could have shown perhaps some inclination to take the issues serious (and no, posting a link to a 30 minute youtube movie is not really helping). Jwale2 was made aware of the issues on 19 October, nearly a month ago. Nothing has improved since. Fram (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I just revisited your spotcheck. Your first one was part of a series of 4 edits, which I just reverted. The editor came across "floral and fauna" and instead of correcting it to "flora and fauna", they linked "floral" to Floral (emblem) and added a source for both the words "flora" and "fauna". That's not a "meh", that's an "ugh", a negative we can do without.

Your third one may seem useful, until one notices that the same organisation was already included twice in the list... So labeled "looks good" in your list, but I reverted it. Your fourth and fifth ones were already discussed and are both reverted already. The 8th one was already partially reverted, and I reverted it completely as a copyvio. 9th one was already reverted. This one was reverted as well. The few others were mostly meh are at the very best a useful wikilink, but overall this is a clear timesink, a waste of money from the side of the investors and a waste of time of volunteers both those enlisted by the WIRs and those here. Fram (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As recommendations have already been given, both to individual participants by volunteers and to organisers, and all were basically ignored, that route is not feasible any more. While the conversation has moved from the edit filter, I still think that's the best solution for now to ensure these concerns are no longer ignored. Can somebody set up and edit filter to disallow?
 * I don't know who at the WMF is responsible here (@Jwale2/@Cmwaura)? In an unrelated call, I have spoken to somebody who knows the funders well, who will do some enquiries. I afraid my involvement ends here, as an old injury has resurfaced. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Tgr has provided some Quarry queries that could be of interest here: The latter gives an overall revert rate of 26% for all #CfACP edits. This includes complete manual reverts in addition to automated ones. Edits that are partially reverted, like this one which I partially reverted in this edit and this edit are not included. The second query gives us a list of users whose contributions should be individually checked, preferably by people who are part of the Code for Africa project. There are definitely edits with the hashtag that still need to be reverted (again, preferably by people responsible for the project) but unfortunately it's too late to do some of them automatically. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 05:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Revert percentage for one or more users
 * Revert percentage for a hashtag

Finance stuff
I'm just going to leave this here: One of the sources of funding for this project is a USD $95,000 grant from the Poynter Institute. I have asked to make a paid editing disclosure; people might be interested in the reply here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jwale2#Paid_editing_disclosure. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 02:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. If anyone should be getting paid, it should be those such as Clayoquot who are cleaning up this mess and have tried to resolve this without shutting down the campaign. If it were up to me, I'd hand Jwale2 an indef right now for UPE. Looking at Jwale2's history here, I am flabbergasted that anyone though putting them in charge of an editing campaign was a good idea; they have no clue about how policies work here. Their response to a copyright warning from Diannaa was to, and I'm not making this up, invited her to a podcast interview. Creations that end up deleted as at Articles for deletion/List of Filling Station In Ghana give me no confidence either.
 * Editors far more skilled and polite than I have tried their best to resolve this. As Femke says above, they've been stonewalled. All that leaves us with is an edit filter and/or blocking the participants. One or both should be done in all due haste. This is a tremendous waste of volunteer time and we shouldn't have to deal with it anymore. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the Wikimedia Foundation didn't fund the project, we did send them documentation on how to create WIR roles, but we were not involved in the WIR selection or plan of work process. Several previously successful organizers are involved in the project, so I would recommend giving benefit of the doubt -- and that they are learning from their mistakes. We do have some contact with the team, and will bring some of the concerns in these threads to them -- I also have more direct contact with some of the WIRs and am providing more mentoring and support as is requested, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From our perspective as volunteer editors, we don't see any of that. What we see is a continuing pattern of campaigns like this causing disruption, and those responsible for the campaigns not being responsive to community concerns. We are not getting paid to handle any of this, but the WIRs are. That's immensely unfair to the community. These edit campaigns may be well-intentioned, but time and time again this happens. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Pausing editing
I just got an email from that she asked me to share here as she doesn't have a good Internet connection today. SHe has told the Kenyan editors editing climate change articles to stop editing for now. Cmwaura is the WiR for the Kenyan volunteers in the project. I am not sure if her message will get to the other countries, but this should dry up most of the stream of bad edits. She also shared details of how she is arranging for more training for herself and others. Best, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Edit Filter log has been quiet for the past 24 hours. I hope it stays that way for a while. Femke and I, and maybe other volunteers here, need the rest. Hopefully, the CfACP organizers will use this pause in activity to fully examine what went wrong and address the root causes. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Need spot-checking for #CfAEP
Jwale2,who brought us #CfACP, also seems to be the organizer of #CfAEP. I looked at edits to two articles and one of the edits turned a correct factual statement into a factually incorrect one. Hooray for misinformation-fighting! Would anyone like to do some further spot-checking? Here's the hashtag search tool. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 22:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there ANYONE besides Jimmy Wales in charge of things at Wikipedia anymore?! This is an absurd situation. $95,000 is a lot of money. I read this entire thread, the Diannaa interaction, saw the invitation to watch the youtube video (I even watched the 1st few minutes of it), and saw the responses of Jwale2 (who is always agreeable and assenting but apparently does not carry through on anything). Please, Clayoquot, don't run yourself ragged over this. I am a woman too. You and the others in this thread should be getting that $95,000. Well, the solution would be if Wikipedia were better managed and these ridiculous initiatives were not even undertaken.--FeralOink (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Stephen - case request
Consistent with the Arbitration Committee's procedure on return of permissions following expedited removal, has requested that the Committee open normal arbitration proceedings to examine the removal of permissions and surrounding circumstances. Stephen has additionally requested that the case be heard privately, and the Committee agrees that there are significant privacy issues constituting extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Committee directs its clerks to open an in camera arbitration case titled "Stephen", with no public evidence or workshop phase. Instead, relevant evidence may be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Request to create a bunch of redirects involving ɕ
The character ɕ seems to be part of an edit filter. I've been adding a load of International Phonetic Alphabet redirects from the symbols to the relevant pages (e.g. ʈʂ), but I can't add any involving this character, as apparently it's restricted to administrators.

Unfortunately, each sound tends to have quite a few different variants. Could the following all please be redirected to Voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate? My intention is to make things as easy as possible for anyone who copy and pastes one of these into the search bar, so I want to add every possible variation. The redirects tɕ and t͡ɕ already exist, so no need to create those.


 * cɕ
 * t̠ʲɕ
 * c̟ɕ
 * ȶɕ
 * c͡ɕ
 * t̠ʲ͡ɕ
 * c̟͡ɕ
 * ȶ͡ɕ
 * t͜ɕ
 * c͜ɕ
 * t̠ʲ͜ɕ
 * c̟͜ɕ
 * ȶ͜ɕ

Many thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The character is found on the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, line 13.  – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. That is why I’m requesting that an administrator make these pages here. Theknightwho (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, I believe that bypassing the title blacklist does not need admin privileges; page movers also bypass it. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Template editors bypass it as well. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 20:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll get on it. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I'm happy to sort out the redirect categories etc. once they've been created, so bare redirects would be great. Theknightwho (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The bare redirects have been created. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Great - thank you. Theknightwho (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Severe UAA backlog
Title speaks for itself. Need some eyes over there. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Cleared for the most part (some bot leftovers).  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Contacting IPv6 users
IPv6 addresses are generally allocated with one /64 per customer. See these pages for more information:

IPv6 subnetting reference

User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64

Contributions per /64 IPv6 block can be viewed by adding /64 to the Special:Contributions URL. That, however, is just about the limit of MediaWiki's helpfulness in dealing with them. Viewers for other types of logs (edit filter, etc) only work with individual users or IP addresses. This is fine for IPv4, but not for IPv6 where a "user's IP address" is effectively an entire /64 subnet. Some system configurations switch addresses within a subnet much more frequently (daily or more) than an ISP assigns a new subnet.

Single IPv6 addresses are much less stable than single IPv4 addresses and IPv6 /64s.

Which brings me to the point: It is very difficult to contact an IPv6 user because you can only leave messages on talk pages of individual addresses. If their operating system switches addresses, they won't see the messages ever again.

This is a technical limitation of MediaWiki. Are there any solutions or workarounds? --Frogging101 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , it may (eventually) be moot. IP masking has been coming for 3 years now. Cabayi (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to this forthcoming feature, phabricator is probably full of requests for a /64 talk page notification feature. Nothing will be done about that, especially with IP masking on the agenda. One extreme option that I've used to great effect before is to use a block message. But that's extreme, and not always effective. For normal cases, there's detailed coverage of solutions and workarounds over at IP hopper. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The /64 thing isn't very reliable anyway, it depends a lot on where in the world you are and who your ISP is. Lots of people jump around much wider ranges than that. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IP masking? Where can we tell them that this is a bad idea? Frogging101 (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you can. However, start here: m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IPV6 addresses can be automatically configured by the attached router to include your connected devices UNIQUE MAC address, making unmasked ipv6 edits traceable in some cases to specific people and not just networks. This MAC address can follow you from network to network of they are also configured to provide guaranteed unique addresses, allowing a user to be tracked easily as they travel. Masking is good, unless you really need to find dissident voices as part of your government job. The night king kills Arya in the winds of winter (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Two suggestions for consideration:
 * Add a link to MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext with a list of IPv6's with a talk page in the same /64...
 * e.g. on User talk:2600:100F:B1BE:D70D:7DFA:D992:F760:3915 → Special:PrefixIndex/User_talk:2600:100F:B1BE:D70D:
 * Start leaving messages on the /64's :0:0:0:0 address & redirect the actual talk page there. It would coalesce the /64 for talk purposes. If :0:0:0:0 causes problems, maybe use :77:69:6B:69 (wiki)?
 * I've not fully thought it through. Just spitballing. Cabayi (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that will work. You want to trigger that "You have new messages" WP:OBOD, and centralizing the discussions onto a page that isn't the IP address you're currently using won't have that effect. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The elephant in the room that unfortunately often doesn't get discussed in these situations is that IP editing, and policies and procedures and norms surrounding it, including talk page communication was enacted basically 2 decades ago, before IPv6 existed, where all addresses were IPv4, and where most editing happened from hardwired, desktop computers with stable, static IP addresses. This is not the world we live in, and yet most of our standard practices around IP addresses still operates like we are.  It's been an openly known and not often discussed problem that has existed for a long time.  I'm not sure there is a solution, or at least, not one worth working on, as the entire IP editing system is being massively overhauled with the IP masking processes coming down the pike from WMF.  And no, it's not worth arguing against at this point; the natural conflict between privacy and security will always exist, and the pendulum has swung towards privacy.  If you can square that circle and somehow create a system that perfectly protects privacy and allows perfect security, good on ya.  A lot of minds smarter than you have been working on it for centuries, and have not yet figured it out.  No, we have no reliable way of communicating with IPv6 users.  The reality is, we never have, but we've also never really tried to fix it.   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding contacting admins for Level 2
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 00:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

User:LDS20 - block review
I've just indeffed this editor purely on the basis of their user page (linked above) which I've only blanked, not deleted. I am unconvnced that a user whose userpage claims them to be a member of the "Ground Forces" of a neo-fascist and racist organisation, as part of "1st Woodland Combat Brigade" and whose "battle campaigns" include 2020–2022 United States racial unrest is worth keeping in a collaborative environment, regardless of their actual edits.

Your mileage may, of course, vary. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Without actual evidence of disruption or violation of policies via diffs, I don't think an admin should not be justifying actions with essays when deciding to indefinitely and unilaterally block editors. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Without ... I don't think ... should not be justifying"... Well, there's a triple negative for the ages. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">Trey Maturin has spoken 19:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely concur with DWF. It's a slippery slope without any rails. Buffs (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm too busy laughing at someone claiming to be a Proud Boy saying "I believe if we can move beyond all the hate and divisiveness..." to come up with a good review of this block. Maybe just a kid role-playing? Trolling? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Their edits are actually OK (I think - I'm not sure about this stuff). The block is purely on the basis of the userpage, which probably violates at least two of the five pillars. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is, apparently, Runic. Makes "kid role-playing" slightly more likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And it looks like a phonetic translation of the info already on their page, as well as a personal name. Dumuzid (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They are specifically Anglo-Saxon runes rather than the similar long branch Younger Futhark (the Ear (rune) gives it away) and are indeed phonetic-based spellings of personal names. I'm trying to say this as neutrally as possible, but runes are often used by groups other than kids roleplaying, so their usage shouldn't be discounted, but also shouldn't be taken at face value as something negative either. Edit: thinking about it, there's no sense beating around the bush. Runes are sometimes used by white supremacists. They're not the only ones that use it so seeing runes isn't a clear-cut indication that someone is associated with white supremacy by any means, but a self-professed member of the Proud Boys saying that the 2020–2022 United States racial unrest is a "battle/war" that they took part in does raise an eyebrow and the runes should not be used as evidence that it's a kid roleplaying (the other details not fleshing out, however, does suggest that). That said, they've put their name, DOB, and location in that infobox, if they're trolling they might be trolling in someone else's name. - Aoidh (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're going to block someone and discuss them here, please state specifically why, in policy, they should be blocked. Citing essays (which aren't policy) and "probably violates at least two of the five pillars" is inappropriately vague. I'm not here to say "let's invite all the Nazis in!", but if he isn't disrupting anything, why not simply remove the portions of his page that are generally not permitted and move on? You've already blanked his page. There's literally nothing for him to do at this point to be unblocked other than acknowledge he can't promote his affiliations.
 * I would expect that the same rules apply to these users of ? Buffs (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If any other admin thinks this sort of thing is OK, they are of course welcome to accept the unblock request that is currently at User_talk:LDS20 (which appears to contain little self-awareness, but whatever). Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support block. The Proud Boys are designated as a terrorist group in my country, Canada. In addition, they are basically what WP:NONAZIS is all about. I think proudly proclaiming your membership in (indeed, directorship of a chapter of) a "neo-fascist, white nationalist" group is incompatible with collaborative editing good. Oh, sure, the edits may be fine, but this reminds me of the bartender story. Also comment I placed the unblock request on hold. Can the closing admin please resolve their unblock request as per whatever consensus emerges here? Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not unblock. Infobox officeholder? OK.. apparently the office held is that of Director of Proud Boys of St. Clair County. 1st Woodland Combat Brigade? And under the heading "Battles/wars" in the infobox, we find 2020–2022 United States racial unrest. (This is a long, detailed Wikipedia article which does not even mention the Proud Boys. I guess that does not prevent the user from being proud of the group's achievements during the unrest.) Also 2020-21 United States election protests. This user who is attempting to bring "battles" and "wars" to Wikipedia needs to be blocked either per WP:NONAZIS or as a flaring troll. Do not unblock; do not waste more time on them. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC).
 * Dont think we should be blocking people without evidence of actual disruption. Started with Bedford, and looking back at how this has continued I kind of regret talking myself into that block on the basis of a couple of shitty edits to the mainspace, but at least there were shitty edits to the mainspace that could justify it. Not going to spend energy arguing for an unblock, but I do wish the block had not happened. Theres enough crap going on that we dont have to actively look for problems. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We are going down a path of blocking people for political differences. In no way do condone any of these groups, but the block itself is based on claimed affiliation, not actual edit history. Buffs (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Theres close to 0 chance this is going to get overturned, nobody is going to go to bat for a user with 327 edits saying he's a proud Proud Boy, but down below theres a statement about "divisive and polemical views" being by themselves disruptive. And Im sure somebody will come along with a Hate is Disruptive wikilink, but we are continuing down this path of a Wikipedia orthodoxy that if one strays from it they are shunned from the community. A place of knowledge is not supposed to be a place free of divisive views. It is not supposed to be a place where you are always comfortable. The body that makes up the editor base of the English Wikipedia is largely white, male, liberal (by US standards at least), progressive on most social issues. I dont even have to base this on my own userbox, as was discussed earlier and others are hinting at below, as I dont even consider it to be a "pro-Hezbollah" userbox anyway. What it is being against results like this. Results in which a body of editors decides that it is unacceptable to hold a view. Not make an edit, but hold a view. Whatever view. And I can understand that this is to make this a more welcoming place for the minorities that are underrepresented in our editor base. I can imagine that it would not be comfortable to be Black and editing Murder of George Floyd alongside a self-declared Proud Boy. Not everything is supposed to be comfortable. We should be blocking people based on their actions as it relates to other editors directly and our articles. Not on some idiotic infobox on their userpage. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the user page I'm envisioning for that example is something that says explicitly something along the vein of This user supports Hezbollah, not a weird green and yellow box that explicitly supports violent resistance but doesn't name a specific group as the desired target. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even then, shouldnt matter. You are basing the idea that this should be prohibited on the basis that some other states have condemned them. So what? (And as far as the 911 report, it also calls the 83 Beirut bombings "Hezbollah's massacre of marines", which would be a surprise considering it was founded in 1985). But really, so what? The African National Congress was designated a terrorist group by the United States and other South African allies. So what? What does that have to do with anybody's editing? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding What does that have to do with anybody's editing, perhaps nothing. My intent with the questions below were to try to elicit policy-based reasons from editors that support the justification for the initial block, but I'm left without seeing a strong policy basis for it. I think there's ample justification for blocking per WP:NOTHERE as a troll, but I'm unsatisfied with the original rationale for the block if nobody can point to policy that justifies it. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support block: I don't think that editing privileges should be extended to a self-identified member of a violent, neo-fascist organization, the Proud Boys. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we block members on site if they are part of violent, anti-fascist organizations too? Buffs (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * there's no need to bludgeon the discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. "don't like the group = deserving of blocking...but only for groups I don't like. Others are fine if I like their organization". Buffs (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Questions. How do people feel about blocking supporters/members of violent terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah? Is there a policy basis for such a block if they indicate their support/membership on their user page? If so, what is that policy basis? If not, what policy basis applies to this block and not to the case where a supporter/member of Hezbollah is editing Wikipedia and disclosed so on their userpage? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ^^^ What WTH said... Buffs (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I am less familiar with Hezbollah. My understanding is Hezbollah has a political wing as well as a militant group. My personal position is someone identifying themselves on Wikipedia as a part of a terrorist organisation should be blocked. I believe, but could be mistaken, that the militant group part of Hezbollah may qualify, but the political wing would not. The Proud Boys, by comparison, only have the militant part. The specific policy is harder to find, and may not exist. WP:POINT by posting the infobox? User_pages? WP:CIVIL? I accept the possibility that my position may not backed by policy and we may be obligated to allow people to post their support or participation in terrorism, white supremacy, and other distasteful topics, though I hope that isn't the case. --Yamla (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The proscribed remedy for advocacy as you cited is "These may be removed, redacted or collapsed by any user to avoid the appearance of acceptability for Wikipedia, and existing speedy deletion criteria may apply." It says nothing about blocking him. Buffs (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to reply to this, but what do you think would be the reaction of a non-white US editor who came to this editor's page to discuss an issue, to find they claimed to be a part of a group that included violent racists? Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, that's not the issue at hand (the issue is what have been his actions that justify a block), but I'll address it anyway. The answer is: I haven't the least idea what some hypothetical person's reaction would be. It could be anything from indifference to curiosity to anger to rage to "well this guy is clearly an idiot" to "man, I want to be part of Proud Boys" to "I hate that they just let anyone on WP" to "well, I don't like that opinion, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion" to...who knows? There isn't a simple monolith opinion or reaction that's possible to describe for a "non-white US editor". The idea that you believe there is a single opinion is highly concerning. Likewise, and more importantly, you have no idea of my minority status, so you seem to indicate that you feel that my opinion should be discounted minority (
 * You should deleted the offensive material (as directed at Wikipedia:User_pages#Advocacy_or_support_of_grossly_improper_behaviors_with_no_project_benefit). Nothing you've cited justifies your block. In fact, you openly stated that none of his edits were inappropriate in articles.
 * Since you've bothered to reply to a comment that wasn't directed at you, perhaps you can explain why there's no effort on your part to block avowed members of a organization dedicated to using violence to achieve their political goals? You've already made remarks that people of specific religious faiths shouldn't be allowed to close discussions involving political matters (and defended that action).
 * If you want to block someone, it should be for policy reasons, not an essay that does not have widespread acceptance. Buffs (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hezbollah's delegation depends somewhat on the country; some countries (like France) recognize a difference between the political wing and the militant wing, while the United States and United Kingdom don't distinguish in status. Page 68 of the 9/11 Commission Report even notes military ties between the group and Al-Qaeda in the mid 1990s.
 * There's a content guideline that Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive, but in general the solution is to simply delete the pages that are in violation of that (and, while technically that wasn't a userbox on the right side of his page, I think that this same logic applies here). This user should remain blocked under WP:NOTHERE for being a clear troll whose account was made to intentionally be as inflammatory as possible. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, so you think the block was fine, and your Questions above were literally just an attempt to hijack this discussion into an unrelated third rehash of a specific user's page that I've seen people post this week. Parabolist (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not quite. If you read my rationale for the block, it's that the user's a troll who made an inflammatory userpage in order to drum this up, which leads me to believe that they're WP:NOTHERE. That's quite different than the original rationale for the block, which I'm not able to find a strong policy basis for. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, here. Buffs (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox on their user page is an extremely bad look that goes well beyond the "advocating violence" litmus test that is more or less consensus right now, as it suggests having proudly committed said violence (as well as holding a view of the George Floyd protests that could be described as "fringe", but is so out there that "tendentious" may be more accurate). Their unblock request is also weak, as the focus on their lack of racist intent seems like sealioning. That having been said, I don't think jumping to an indef block is appropriate. I also strongly disagree with the litmus test to userspace propriety being based around the question of terrorism, a label which says more about a group's relation to institutional authority in its area of operations than it does about their moral character or the extent that advocating for them would be disruptive to other editors. I also think that the "advocating violence" test is overly simplistic, but don't have a 30-second solution other than the Solomonic "no political content in user space at all" that I don't think anyone wants. signed,Rosguill talk 22:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that they "proudly committed said violence". There were lots of people who simply protected businesses against rioting and that may be to what he's referring...no idea if that's true. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that framing it as participation in a military campaign, on behalf of a paramilitary grouping, pretty clearly suggests violence. "Protecting businesses against rioting" can also be a violent act. signed,Rosguill talk 23:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even the US military has decorations for humanitarian missions. While it's vague, I think you're concluding WAY too much. Buffs (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Floq below that the odds that LDS20 actually are a member of the Proud Boys is very, very low. signed,Rosguill talk 23:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. Creating user pages of this sort, promoting divisive and polemical views, is in and of itself disruption, as such content violates WP:NOT and WP:POLEMIC. The user should be unblocked if they convincingly promise not to repeat such conduct.  Sandstein   23:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if I were to guess, I'd say that "Second Director of the Proud Boys of St. Clair County, 1st Woodland Combat Brigade" has about a 0.1% chance of actually existing. It's something a 7th-grade idiot would think sounds realistic.  LDS20 has shown, once again, how easy it is to troll WP.  Someone should just decline the unblock, archive this section, and ignore the kid and/or troll behind this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So...why should he be blocked then? Buffs (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they're trolling. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And, as I've said above, imagine if I was a non-white editor who came to discuss an issue with this editor, only to find they were part of a violent racist group? But you do you, Buffs. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse block per Floq and Bish. WP:PACT.  Mini  apolis  23:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Block, my thoughts here is that this would on the surface further the idea that Wikipedia is a liberal website. I have a very strong distaste for their sentiment and views but can't this be handled by Discretionary sanctions IF the editing rises to that level? That seems like a relatively simply fix without a block that can be twisted in purpose by those who wish to? Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything can be twisted any way people want it to. Decisions should be made on the basis of the rules, and what's best for the encyclopedia. Second guessing every decision with "how could a bad faith actor spin this?" will ruin your ability to do anything, and it's not worth spending the brainpower on. Parabolist (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Parabolist, their actual edits seem constructive though, I'm not seeing problematic editing other then the obvious userpage. Unbroken Chain (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't reviewed the full edit history, but this case is a fairly obvious troll and blockable as such. I would still caution that blocking solely for userspace stuff when they're not disruptive in mainspace is a dangerous road.  If the user in question here wasn't a probable troll, a better solution would have been to just blank the problematic material and then give the user a pointer to the userspace policy (again, not really suited for troll situations).  There's a line between being a host for problematic material on all ends of the spectrum and/or feeding trolls, and excessively policing userspace and personal speech.  Does the fact that I have User MSG descendant and User CSA descendant alongside other similar US military history userboxes violate No Confederates, which I've seen cited on par with the NONAZIS essay?  No, but based on the tenor of some discussions I've seen here and at MFD, I'd bet there'd be some established editors who would say yes. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that he is a "fairly obvious troll"? Buffs (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The user says that they are from St. Clair County, Alabama. An early edit was to remove content about a vicious local campaign of racist violence and harassment against Black Muslims in that county, as reported by Time magazine. The Pell City Public Library in the county seat maintains an archive of newspaper articles about that racist campaign. LDS20 removed that content three times, calling it "vandalism" in their third edit summary. The editor who added that accurate but unreferenced content was brand new, but left Wikipedia after their contribution was reverted three times. Nobody explained the need for references to them. LDS20 hss also tried to keep any mention of notable drag queen Trinity the Tuck out of the "Notable people" section of Springville, Alabama, despite the fact that person spent much of their childhood in that town and attended high school there. I think that LDS20 started out as a civil far right POV pusher and morphed into a troll playing the role of a civil POV pusher. So, I endorse the block, although I do not think that NONAZIS should be given as the reason. That essay may be popular with many but I do not think that it enjoys widespread enough support in its present form to be used in this fashion. Whitewashing racist violence, erasing gender minorities and grandiose userpage trolling are enough to block for disruptive editing. As for the troll's skills, they got a bunch of us to discuss a controversial Lebanese organization and the definition of terrorism, did't they? Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are going to cite someone's history, you really should provide diff's to illustrate. You should also provide them in context.
 * First, you stated, he had An early edit was to remove content about a vicious local campaign of racist violence. While that was indeed the content removed, you failed to mention that the reason it was removed was that it didn't have a source mentioned...and it didn't. While could have been used, unreferenced material can be removed on WP. Furthermore, it appears the information was grossly disproportionate in the subject's history section (clearly violating WP:UNDUE). I'm not saying it should/shouldn't be mentioned, but when one issue accounts for 1700 of the 2100 characters for a county over 200 years old, I think that pretty clearly violates WP:UNDUE.
 * You also stated LDS20 hss [sic] also tried to keep any mention of notable drag queen Trinity the Tuck out of the "Notable people" section of Springville, Alabama. Look at the whole history. While I see the removal here and here, I think there's a reasonable debate as to where someone is "from" and seems to be a reasonable content dispute. He wasn't arguing for exclusion, just placement elsewhere. Later, he trimmed unnecessary details, but left it in-place...this was 2 months ago. It seems very much that discussion yielded keeping it and he was willing to abide by consensus. I also see some highly defamatory remarks added to the article about LDS without any justification in violation of WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, WP:Casting aspersions, etc. I think that this pretty reasonably could be considered "Vandalism" and was correctly removed...arguably it should be revdel'd. To argue that the person left WP is without evidence. To the contrary, it is very likely that this person didn't leave, but became a registered user: Special:Contributions/AbbyN1982.
 * In both of these instances, you've made a lot of assumptions in bad faith and inappropriately left out details. Buffs (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Buffs, diffs are needed when the edits in question are hard to find or confusing. I provided links to the two articles where the edit histories are not at all difficult to parse. The edits are readily visible and obvious. As for the racist violence and harassment that took place in Springfield in 1969, I was able to find evidence of it with a ten second Google search and the local public library maintains an archive about it. It was not minor. It was violent, egregious and institionalized, and the then governor of Alabama was a cheerleader and an enabler. Perhaps this kind of thing could be forgiven from a genuinely naive new editor, but their ugly indistrial strength trolling in late 2022 renders that theory spurious. Nice try, though. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , did you not notice that I wrote ? Please read what I wrote more carefully. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also,, you are entirely mistaken about the editor I mentioned who might have been discouraged fron editing Wikipedia by LDS20. I was talking, as should be clear to anyone looking at these edits, about User: Onnani and their factual but unreferenced newbie edits to St. Clair County, Alabama. Read the edit summaries by LDS20. They never claim that the content was false but rather that it was . What does "significant staple" mean in this context? Staples are wire fasteners for papers or basic foodstuffs in a region. Do we need to pad out the article about a that county to include its minor role in the Creek War or its impressive Cotton mills in order to also include content about the vicious violent racism that took place there? If so. please feel free to add more content about that other stuff. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SIGNIFICANT...WP:UNDUE applies as well. I'm not for its removal entirely, but it was clearly and unnecessarily heavily weighted. Buffs (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse block - per WP:NOTHERE, WP:TROLL, and WP:NONAZIS. We are in control of what we want this community to be, and I, for one, don't want this person in it. I'm sure there are those who consider that an entirely unsophisticated reason, not based on firm philosophical grounds, but I could care less. Kick the guy to the curb and let's get on with improving the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and perhaps reblock on review for gross incivility or the like. RAN1 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite: Just an aside, this block reason falls under WP:NPA#WHATIS: Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. RAN1 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then he should have been blocked for that reason. Buffs (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this first edit is of a 22-year-old Alabamian named Wesley S. Heath? Someone is playing games here but the purpose behind it is unclear. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC) - (no opinion anymore if the account should remain blocked because most of their edits seem to be fine, besides for those spotlighted by Cullen328.) -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to comment on it above because even though it's not hard to figure out I didn't want to just come out and name the person, but since they gave the name in the Latin alphabet themselves, that name is exactly what the Anglo-Saxon runes at the top of that infobox says, for whatever that's worth. - Aoidh (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll be the guy who first goes beyond questioning the block and I'll go straight to: Oppose block on procedural grounds. None of the required methods of communication with this user were followed. No attempts at correction were made. No warnings were given. The blocking admin went straight for an indef block with no justification based on policy (only an essay) and without any attempt to WP:AGF. The portions of their user page that were not allowed should simple have been removed per User_pages (this is policy, not merely an essay). Buffs (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All right,, that is your sixteenth post in this thread in a timespan of seven hours. You seriously need to be done now. You have made your position absolutely clear and then some. Bludgeoning the discussion is disruptive. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC).
 * Gotcha...people who respond and have questions need not appear on here. A solid chunk was simple agreement. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Do not unblock per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LDS20&diff=prev&oldid=1111294273 where user claims leadership of a chapter of a terrorist organisation. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse Block I just want to briefly note a slightly different take here--were I an admin, would I have made this block? I would not have.  But I think it is entirely reasonable and within the sphere of discretion afforded to admins.  We need not agree with an exercise of power to decide that said power was validly exercised.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse Block per WP:HID. Yes, it is an essay.  Let me clarify for all of the people who repeatedly refuse to understand why people link essays in discussions like this: because it saves the time of having to type an entire WP:TLDR rationale every time.  Hate speech, and support of hate groups, is disruption and is thus legitimate grounds for blocking.  But you'd have known that had you read WP:HID.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ...which is another essay...not really helping your point. If you block for "repeated violations of WP:V as outlined in WP:AN ESSAY" that's viable. You're saying there is a reason for the block as outlined in WP:policy and it is explained by an essay. I'm fine with that. I'm actually not against blocking him based on his user page. But once that inappropriate information is removed, what is the rationale for the block? The rationale for a block should not be WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, but based on policy. If you cannot outline the actual policy violation, the block should not stand. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse Block per WP:NONAZIS: Right in the user's info box was what could be seen as an SS logo. No thanks.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse block If someone comes right out and tells you they are a violent fascist, take their word for it and take appropriate action. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did he say "I am a violent fascist"? Buffs (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, specifically the part, linking to the article that identifies Proud Boys in the first sentence as a organization that . Levivich (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. The Proud Boys are no "violent fascist" organization. All they do is meet for tea and crumpets on Sunday mornings and read from The Bible while listening to Easy Listening music. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken - 😂 I’m sure that’s exactly what those folks do - GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse block I think a lot of people above are missing the part where this user advocates for race war as an armed conflict in which they are a director of a contingent of a "woodland combat brigade" of the "ground forces" of the Proud Boys. This is a group that has attempted to violently overthrow the US government. This user is trolling us. They also say they support "actual science, real history, deep philosophy, and politics." WP:DUCK and this sure is quackin'. WP:DFTT. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of some questions I had about the 1st Woodland Combat Brigade of the Proud Boys of St. Clair County:
 * First, how many Woodland Combat Brigades do the Proud Boys of St. Clair County have, such that they need to disambiguate "1st" vs. "2nd", etc.?
 * Secondly, what combat brigades do they have other than Woodland Combat Brigades? St. Clair County, Alabama has a total population of 91,000 -- which in some parts of the world would be called a "town" and not a "county", but this county is apparently so large by Alabama standards that it has two county seats: Ashville, Alabama (population: 2,000), and Pell City, Alabama, which is a "city" of course because it has a population of 12,000. So, I think we can safely estimate there are zero Urban Combat Brigades among the Proud Boys of St. Clair County. What does that leave us? Mountain Combat Brigades? Well, St. Clair County exaggerates its "mountains" about as much as its "cities": St. Clair County's highest peak, Bald Rock Mountain, is 1,575 ft (480 m)... it's a medium-sized hill. So, is there a 1st Hills Combat Brigade?
 * Third, who the hell are they preparing to engage in combat against? Who is threatening to invade St. Clair County, Alabama, such that it needs a brigade to engage in woodland (and, possibly, hills) combat? Or, even more perplexing, who would St. Clair County, Alabama want to invade such that they need a combat force? Neighboring Etowah County, Alabama? This is the thing I never understand about these conservative militias in the US: liberals are notoriously anti-gun, anti-war, anti-violence... so who is it that conservative militias expect will take up arms against them? Other conservative militias, right?
 * Which leads me to my final question: is there a 1st Woodland Combat Brigade of the Proud Girls of St. Clair County?
 * Inquiring minds want to know. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 Arbitration Committee elections: last day for nominations
There are a little under 24 hours left for eligible editors to nominate themselves as candidates in the upcoming 2022 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. Your nomination must be transcluded no later than 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2022; per WP:ACERFC2020, this is a hard deadline, and we may not be able to grant exceptions in the event of any technical issues. In this election there are 8 vacant seats to be filled for either a two-year or one-year term depending on the candidate's level of support. At the time I am writing this, 9 candidates have nominated themselves. Mz7 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for removal of permissions
Hi there! Please remove page mover, file mover, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker from this account. Thanks so much! 🥒 EpicPickle (they/them &#124; talk) 17:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅  Hut 8.5  18:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Unicode encoded pages and user pages
has created unicode encoded user/user talk pages of themselves, which may end up rendering stuff like using Twinkle or notifying this report of them useless if one is not too careful. This behaviour is exhibited at Talk:Franchise_Tax_Board_of_California_v._Hyatt_(2019) which they closed without waiting for further inputs. They had also created similarly unicode encoded pages and done copy and paste moves to affect the changes. Whilst I would like to engage this user like how I would have engaged any other closers over such closures on their talk pages, this editor's peculiar usage of unicode encoded user page and mainspace pages might need to be addressed first.

Their user page: The unicode encoded (non-existent) user pages:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hanover_Amenity&redirect=no
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D0%9D%D0%B0n%D0%BEv%D0%B5r_%D0%90m%D0%B5n%D1%96t%D1%83
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D0%9D%D0%B0n%D0%BEv%D0%B5r_%D0%90m%D0%B5n%D1%96t%D1%83

On the RM discussion: – robertsky (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%85_Board_of_California_v._Hyatt (copy and paste from Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019))
 * Notified at the user's own talk page Special:Permalink/1123048133. – robertsky (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In case anyone else was wondering what they were up to, they were alternating Latin and Cyrillic script characters. I've deleted the rogue userpages. The user talk page is not where it was. Some other cleanup is still needed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back. —Cryptic 14:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The copy-paste move at Franchise_Tax_Board_of_California_v._Hyatt_(2019) has been reverted and the partial-Cyrillic title has been deleted as G6 by . – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the talk page is still at the old title, could you fix that as well? Thanks, ansh. 666 16:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant that I'd moved the user talk page that zzuuzz mentioned back, but I've fixed Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019)→Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt now too. —Cryptic 17:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is User:Hanover Amenity/bio impersonating User:Randy Kryn? Or is that supposed to be an article draft? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that was a good faith article draft. Not impersonating. And by that point the issue had been resolved. I really don't see a reason for blocking just because an editor is working on an article draft, please reconsider (I don't need an article, that's not the point, and it's too soon anyway, but blocking someone for this seems excessive and not accepting a fellow Wikipedian in good faith). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear about it,, they were blocked as a sockpuppet of , who is banned, and has been impersonating you and others for I think most of this year. Frankly their obsession with you should be concerning. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I get the block, but what I'm saying is there was no reason to even check the account as a sockpuppet. There should be stricter criteria for checking for a sock other than a hunch. We've talked, and hopefully share a mutual respect for each others work (check the edits of this newly blocked account, good and productive edits, and nothing there to suspect a sock unless it is that anyone who talks to me or edits pages I do is an automatic suspect, which seems very unfair). Even knowing that this account is a sock I'd ask that admins consider reverting the ban and restore the good edits until and unless something outrageous happens which actually warrants such a cover-all approach. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that dedicating 190 edits to creating an obsessively detailed biography about you was a bit of a clue, although, we have dealt with so many sockpuppets that yes any new accounts interacting with you are now automatically suspicious. With the amount of nonsense this person has been up to, including the impersonation and harassment, and especially including the vandalism starting this thread, I don't see their ban being lifted any time soon. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My request was to reconsider the ban of this one particular account. It doesn't seem fair because the official criteria for opening a sockpuppet investigation doesn't include "interacting with user Randy Kryn". I don't know about coding or the specifics of what opened this thread, but the thread seemed to be completing itself and resolving until my name popped up. Not fair to the user or to me, and fairness should be in every Wikipedian's DNA. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bans are applied to people, not accounts. You could argue that this is not the same person as Awolf58, but that would be incorrect. Does this person look like someone who should be unbanned? Not while they're keeping that up, they don't. Do they look worryingly obsessed with you? I'll leave that in your court, but hint: yes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Missing the point. The identification of this named user only came under question because my name came up and (see above), someone asked if he was impersonating me, and that was answered in the affirmative when it was not true. It seems unfair that a ban was placed on this named user because of that, everything else is probable guesswork. Where's due process on something like this? Thanks for the concern, lots of dynamics between him and I that you and others are missing. He incorrectly believed until recently that I played a major role in his being banned in the first place, during his United States edits, giving him reason to be exceptionally an asshole because, mistaken about me being a negative influence in him getting banned and equally mistaken that I was a regular on the United States page when I seldom had edited it (he was banned, as I remember, for pretty much being way too enthusiastic while editing in his own style with almost all of his edits being pretty good, but then wall of texty like this when trying to defend himself) what happened next, and this is the good part, he found out about James Bevel. And he, like myself, and to be honest not that many others, if you love American history and how the nation evolved, when you find out about Bevel (especially if you've never even heard of him, but you're interested in an era-defining subject: the 1960s civil rights movement) it's like a huge WTf? This guy did what? You must be kidding me. And he saw that the editor who he imagined did him shit was a subject matter expert on Bevel but had pretty much not done any substantial edits on Bevel's article in what, seven, eights years, I don't even know, and did his Wikipedian ignore-all-rules Beastrage thing and came at me with an army of sockpuppets and Wikipedia-only threats trying to get me to edit and improve Bevel's page. Because Bevel's page deserves to be really something, packed with substantial information and the length of the pages of other great Americans in history, Washington, Madison, Lincoln, Dr. King, Franklin, those type of people. Thing is, I agree with him. I should be working more on the page. Although I have no intent to personally expand it to huge lengths, he's right about that. But as I've told him, sure, I think so too, but in my own time and thanks for putting my attention on it. We only disagree about the speed, and he kept on playing strange Wikipedia games, ruining my revert percentage in the process as one way of trying to force me. But that has kind of stopped after he found out that I actually was doing the opposite of what he thought during his initial ban. And I think he was writing an article about me not because of my personally, but because he realized that I am the historian who happened to tie-together Bevel's work, publish a few small things about it, and placed Rev. Bevel's accomplishments into their proper context within the literature of the field. By writing that article on a user page, a pretty incorrect article by the way which is what you often get from sources, he was honoring James Bevel, not Randy Kryn. For a long time I thought that doing that in a principled and accurate way was pretty important too. But kind of lost interest in the last eight or nine years until this fellow decided to remind me. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of words to say that you want to unban someone because you liked their edits. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ↑This↑ is spot on. HandThatFeeds was able to express in one short succinct sentence exactly what is wrongheaded about Randy Kryn's response to the block.-- Ponyo bons mots 17:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello . Wrong, but thanks for chiming in. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for removal from AWB CheckPage
Hi there! Could my bot (DoggoBot) and I be removed from the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage, please? My bot is inactive and I no longer need access to AWB. Thanks so much! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 00:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅. DanCherek (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Review request re my unblock of Rathfelder
This morning, drew my attention to a piece on Wikipediocracy, criticising my recent decision to unblock, who I had blocked shortly beforehand for sockpuppetry and votestacking. There is some stuff in the piece that I was unaware of until now, and which might have made me respond differently had I known about them at the time. However, since I'm in the position of catching off-wiki flak for the decision, I feel that my judgment could be called into question on the best way to go forward - hence, I am passing the buck asking for a review.

The background: I received an e-mail from an editor outlining their concerns that Rathfelder and might be one and the same person, and pointing out multiple CfD discussions where they had overlapped. The concerns seemed credible, so I ran a check, and confirmed that they were being operated by the same person. Since they were obviously votestacking, I blocked, and notified the community at this noticeboard. A couple of days later, Rathfelder requested unblock, we had a discussion, and he agreed to accept TBans from categories and deletion discussions, and the withdrawal of his Autopatrolled flag (I felt that was needed since any articles he created would, by necessity, be uncategorised and hence would benefit from NPP review), and also a one-account restriction. Since the only inappropriate editing I was aware of was the use of multiple accounts in deletion discussions, I felt that this would be sufficient to unblock (preventative not punitive, etc).

What I didn't know at the time: mainly using the Bigwig7 account, Rathfelder created the article Alex Scott-Samuel (he has also edited it with his main account). Now, Rathfelder is open about his real-life identity (public disclosure). Scott Samuel was the chair of a body, the Socialist Health Association, which Rathfelder had been director of. There was a clear conflict of interest there, which was not disclosed on either account; further, he used sources in the article in which he himself was quoted. I believe he alluded to this in his unblock request: I also used it a few times to edit controversial pages about living people who would recognise my name. That should have been a red flag for me, and I should have probed it before unblocking. To be honest, I think my eyes glided over it - it was a long unblock request, and I already thought I knew what the problem was - I missed it, mea culpa. I don't know whether there were other instances of COI editing.

At this point, I would like the community to consider what the best course of action is - whether that be reinstating the block, warning, or nothing at all. I would also be grateful if an experienced uninvolved editor were to look over that article closely. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 18:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ouch. That's a tough call man.  First of all, let me say that I hold no fault with you.  You've done everything right here, you acted in good faith and had appropriate empathy towards a user who themselves said things that any reasonable admin would have taken as reasonable conditions for an unblock.  If someone is going to err one one side or the other, to err on the side of empathy will always be the proper call for me.  Secondly, you've asked for outside eyes on a situation where you've clearly botched it up yourself.  That's the proper course of action, and if more admins did that, Wikipedia would be a utopia of good governance.  I'm not 100% sure I have the answers for how to proceed until I hear some input myself from other people.  I've not fully made up my mind yet, but if we do decide to leave Rathfelder unblocked, I would impose an additional community restriction of a TBAN on ALL WP:BLP editing, broadly construed.  They have proven themselves untrustworthy in that area, and any continued presence at Wikipedia (if they are not blocked or sitebanned outright) should be under some restrictions.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what I did and why it was wrong. I would like to have a chance to show that I have seen the error of my ways. Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that you previously didn't realize that using a sockpuppet to promote your side in a real-life dispute might be objectionable? Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didnt see it like that. I didnt think I was promoting my side.  I know this sounds stupid. I can only say I was in a stressful situation and clearly not thinking straight. And I did actually try to present the positive sides of Alex Scott-Samuel's work. It wasnt meant to be an attack page, and I dont think it reads like one.   I made only a few  minor edits to the Socialist Health Association article, only one of which I think really had a conflict of interest, after controversy broke out and I was  sacked.  I have kept away from both pages since and I will continue to do so. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rathfelder created Socialist Health Association in 2005 and has made 120+ edits to it as Rathfelder {and 7 as Bigwig7) which is hardly a few. And this is not a minor edit (and was after the sacking). Oculi (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * True, but I was attempting to be fair - Its mostly about Scott-Samuel's speech to the Labour Party Conference. Most of my edits to the SHA article were about its history, nothing to do with any conflict. Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The second half of that edit removes the reason for your dismissal and implies that it resulted in the loss of key financial support, which may be fair to you. NebY (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you didn't think you were doing anything wrong in creating Alex Scott-Samuel, why did you use a sockpuppet to do it? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think an unblock is unreasonable, but given the COI editing, and the apparent creation of an attack page on somebody else, a topic ban from all things Socialist Health Association and additionally a BLP ban would be appropriate. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With the added socking and restoring very poor edits to a BLP he has a COI with, reinstate block. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are few "high crimes" on Wikipedia, but sockpupppetry to game consensus, and COI BLP editing to gain advantage in a real-life dispute, are two of them. Girth did nothing wrong given the information available at the time and hindsight is 20/20. My !vote is to reinstate a full indef block and let the editor pursue unblock avenues in the ordinary course like everyone else. Unblock conditions like TBANs etc can be handled in the ordinary course as well. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This discovery is all the more disappointing following my prompt on 7 November for Rathfelder to come clean if there was anything else to disclose. Given his history of vote-stacking on articles about health service–related organisations, I suggest that if there is to be an additional topic ban, then we should be considering a ban on health service–related articles rather than all BLPs. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But I did disclose this. That is why I disclosed my personal history. And in my defence I have created or editted a lot of healthcare related articles but I have never done anything improper with any but these two where I was personally involved.   Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean this in genuine good faith, but I think you have made your point. I don't think arguing here does you any favors.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they may be referring to another apparent sock account used to vote at a RfC in which both your Rathfelder account and BigWig7 sockpuppet also voted. But that's just a guess. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoting, "we should be considering a ban on health service–related articles". Drmies (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - user:Harry Boardman's last 20 edits include the organizations rfc mentioned above by EnPassant, Alex Scott-Samuel and Socialist Health Association (edit summary:‎ Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction); Bigwig7 has this (edit summary:‎ Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction). Healthcare in Belgium has been edited by both Rathfelder and Boardman. 11 of the first 13 edits to Alex Scott-Samuel are by Bigwig7, Harry Boardman and Rathfelder. What are the chances? Oculi (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. This addition to Alex Scott-Samuel of a thoroughly nasty phrase without quotation marks but with attribution to The Times (actually it was the Sunday Times)—so I am unable to check whether the phrase is even in the article cited—on 25 March 2019 by is unacceptable. (It followed the addition of his being on a list in The Economist, with neither source being flagged as opinion articles in the edits.) And that was in our article, unchanged, when I edited it a little more than 24 hours ago. If those edits were made in the heat of emotion after dismissal, quite apart from that being a very good demonstration of why COI editing is wrong, I would have expected that human decency would suggest going back at some time during the next 3½ years, re-examining that biography of a living person, and changing at least that passage in wiki-voice. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can find the source here, and it did indeed include that phrase, but it isnt any better. It is an editorial by Sarah Baxter, and it should have been attributed to her if it should have been included (and imo it should not have been). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Restored by Harry Boardman. (Harry Boardman was a folk singer from Manchester.) Oculi (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time, I did think you were a bit quick to accept Rathfelder's explanation at face value and unblock, . But that's nothing to criticise and you didn't have the full story at the time. But now we know, the indef needs to be restored. Levivich has summed it up well already, but years of deliberately manipulative socking and creating attack pages on your real-life political opponents is not something you come back from with a slap-on-the-wrist topic ban. And yes, Rathfelder's version of that article was an attack page, that described its (Jewish) subject as a ringleader in "antisemitic bullying" and "a swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist". I can't imagine we'd even be having this conversation about someone with a lower edit account. Like the Wikipediocracy writer, I'm also very suspicious of and potentially more sockpuppets. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Joe and others that an indef should be restored, as I feel Rathfelder was unblocked under false pretenses. I further detail my reasoning in my follow up to the original notice I posted to GS' talk page last night: User_talk:Girth_Summit. Sorry, am writing in haste. Thanks. El_C 07:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since GS made it clear below that he is leaving the matter entirely to the community, meaning that the CU block is unlikely to be reinstated, and because I find a standard indef that any admin can undo insufficient — like many users below, I also support a community site ban (WP:CBAN). I should add that Rathfelder's comments since I've written the above did the very opposite of convincing me against this being the only viable outcome at this time. El_C 01:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes Harry Boardman was me. I'd rather forgotten about that.  That was a very difficult period in my life which I had rather shut out.  And I entirely agree that these conflicted edits are more serious than vote stacking.  All I can say in my defence is that neither had much effect.  I dont think any decision about categories was altered by my vote stacking. I did my best in the article by Scott-Samuel to be objective, but he was effectively my employer.  I put in material about his career and achievements, and it was all referenced to respectable sources. I have put a lot of time and effort into wikipedia.  These discreditable episodes are a very small part of what I have done, and my circumstances have changed.  There is no reason to suppose that they would recur.  I would see a complete block as an excessive punishment.  I would hope to be given a chance to redeem myself. Rathfelder (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was on the fence until this half admission, which I doubt Rathfelder would have disclosed if not for direct questioning. Time for a site ban. Note, I have no issue with Girth's unblocking under the information available at the time. This was an established user and no reason to question the disclosure. Star   Mississippi  19:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site ban. I'm not really active here these days. But I think long-term "good" editors who abuse Wikipedia for their own ends are one of the project's most insidious problems, and I just have to offer my thoughts. now says "I did my best in the article by Scott-Samuel to be objective." No, he painted him in a bad light, while whitewashing content about himself, that much is clear. And used *three accounts* to keep it negative. Someone trying to be objective would have discussed it rather than edit war, and wouldn't have hidden their obvious COI. Then he says "These discreditable episodes are a very small part of what I have done..." I'm not seeing "episodes" here. I'm seeing Rathfelder socking to abuse consensus for years, right up until he was caught and blocked. And that has involved using at least three accounts, in some cases, to votestack discussions. And now we get gems like "I think I understand what I did and why it was wrong"! I'm generally pretty forgiving. But Rathfelder has acted as though he's superior to the community for so long, I think he should be removed from it until he can make a convincing case to be readmitted (after spending some time away). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep blocked we have much more useful editors banned off Wikipedia for similar activities with socks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site ban. Like Tenebrae, this is an abuse of the community processes.  I echo Boing!.  Jip Orlando (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site ban. Given all that has been revealed above, I don't think the community has much choice in the matter. Vote-stacking with socks is grounds for an indefinite block. Socking to create and maintain a conflict-of-interest BLP attack page alone would be grounds for a community ban. Combine the two, and add in the lack of disclosure of the Boardman account when asking for the block to be lifted, and the continued attempts here to minimise the significance of what has been done, and anything less would be untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site ban per Boing and AndyTheGrump.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Full Community Siteban - I'm unhappy this is happening, but it goes much deeper than what may be resolved with a topic ban from medial subjects. We've all been here long enough to know using sockpuppets to votestack is not ok and there is a serious breach of trust here. That combined with the COI editing puts it over the top for me. If Rathfelder would like to return at a later date, he may go through the usual avenues available. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a site ban or, failing that, an indefinite topic ban from BLPs, in addition to the restrictions he already has. I get a feeling, looking at his latest contributions, that he may have done some good work on categorizations. At the same time, the revenge editing, the lack of disclosure of another sock account, and the apparently false statements suggest that a site ban is the only appropriate solution. If he wants to appeal, he can follow the instructions at WP:UNBAN.


 * Several of his statements are suspicious:
 * – The evidence in the above comments suggests that the misbehaviour was not restricted to category space;
 * – You created an attack page with content describing the subject as a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" ;
 * – No, you made 130 edits to this article, when including edits made by your socks. Many of them weren't minor;
 * – Untrue. The subject of the article was reportedly very distressed;
 * – I find it incredible that an editor with almost 550,000 edits wouldn't know what "TBan" means.


 * Finally, even if the WPO post contains inaccuracies, the evidence presented on-wiki clearly demonstrates that he needs, at the very least, these three topic bans. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Site Ban I'm not sure why this is even up for discussion. No one is bigger than the project, and I don't care how much "good" was done, socking to vote stack, on top of having a COI negates all of that and then some. Also if someone is going to need multiple topic bans to even be allowed to edit, they shouldn't be editing period. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason it's up for discussion is set out at the top of the thread. I hope you can understand why I brought it here for discussion - I made a mistake, which has been publicly criticised on an off-wiki site, so any action I take now would be open to accusations of trying to cover my own arse. I want to step back from the situation entirely from an administrative angle and hand it over to the community. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In any case, since 3X clearly does not apply, if an editor wants a site ban this needs to be up for discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site Ban from my reading of the above thread. The extension of discussion here, provides the editor considerations which are not afforded to every other blocked editor. The editor is free to seek an unblock on their own after some time has elapsed. Bruxton (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site ban per above discussion. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 22:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site ban - I hesitated between !voting for a site ban and simply restoring the indef block, but I think that the editor has abused the trust of the community too many times now in too short a period, and has stretched our AGF well past the breaking point. If he wants to return to editing, let him convince the entire community to give him another chance, rather than a single admin who may or may not be aware of the background of the case - that requires a CBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site ban per BMK and Boing (good to see you again).  Mini  apolis  23:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site Ban per Levivich and others. This editor cannot be trusted.  If they are reinstated with multiple topic bans, I don't trust them not to find another area in which to edit corruptly.  The apology is of the "Mistakes were made" type.  We would be making another mistake to reinstate this user.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Restoration of Indefinite Block to be treated as a CU block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Site Ban per all of the above. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Case of WP:BULLY and WP:CPP I have trouble handling alone
Hello, I recently expanded the article Samuel Aba. You can compare the current version of the article with the one including my edits. The article uses arguments backed by two ancient sources to present one view, failing to mention a third ancient source that would discredit the view that's being pushed. more specifically, there are two ancient sources claiming that Samuel Aba was of Attilid descent through his father's line (a 13th-century work by Simon of Keza and a 14th-century manuscript), and one source that does not deny this but fails to report it (a 13th-century work by an anonymous writer, the so-called Anonymous).

The article, as it is now, fails to mention one of the ancient source (Keza) while putting an emphasis on the source that does not mention the subject's Attilid descent, and (incidentally) highlights the fact that the source claiming Attilid descent was written a century after the source that does not mention this (Anonymous vs. the 14th-century manuscript).

When I saw this I was surprised, so I edited the article, adding the missing part. But my edits were reverted by User:Borsoka. They justified their action with a WP:NOR. Other parts of this article are backed by primary sources, as most articles on this topic are, but ok, it made sense. So I spent quite a while to gather sources to back my addition and republished the deleted content. Borsoka, however, removed again my additions, as they kept on claiming I am "relying on a primary source".

I again edited the page, adding a few templates to ask for more sources to back the part they don't want to delete (I don't disagree with it being in the article, but I felt it should have more citations, with quotes, since I couldn't check all the sources used therein and there are some mildly stretched/dubious sentences).

My edits were reverted again however, this time by another user, Surtsicna, who justified their action with: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_Aba&diff=1122921972&oldid=1122921503 That really does not look like improvement. Please use the talk page to explain your edit]''. Surprised and unable to see what they exactly want me to explain, and at this point honestly thinking that the whole thing doesn't make sense unless someone is willingly trying to hide a part of the story, I did as they asked, went to talk page and explained what I already explained.

Surtsicna apparently gave up discussing after asking me to discuss (cf. 1 and 2), meanwhile the content stays removed of course, so I guess it's fine for them.

Borsoka meanwhile keeps on talking about primary sources, now implying that the sources I used are "not reliable" either. I replied to them again, now starting to lose my cool a little bit.

I don't know what's going on here, but I can't possibly explain it all unless there is some form of WP:CPP and/or WP:BULLY.

As I finished to write this, I gave a look at the talk page and noticed that User:Borsoka had already tried to downplay/hide (whatever) the aforementioned part of the story. Giray Altay (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are required to notify of this report per the instructions at the top of the page. I'd also suggest paring down your complaint as it's way too long.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry Bbb23, I thought that pinging them here was enough... Ok, I will shorten it ASAP.--Giray Altay (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Having now looked through the edits on the article and the Talk page, it looks like a content dispute that should remain on the article Talk page. I see nothing wrong with the conduct of Borsoka or Surtsicna, both of whom disagree with Giray Altay's edits. Giray Altay should go back to the talk page and be more patient with the process of reaching a resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 normally I would agree with you. That's the process. But I saw too many times disputes ending the wrong way because nobody cared. This is a kinda Balkanic related topic and I just can't stand some type of stuff.
 * Why do you have to hide something from the article? Should I wait? Nobody'll care, and if they do they'll WP:Bully them out of the discussion again. Just give another look at the edits. How can you remove fundamental content backed by five reliable sources and claim "you are using a primary source", or "I don't see how this is an improvement"??
 * Edit for whoever's reading, for whoever cares: I edited the article again, adding four more sources to state the obvious; what is willingly kept out. Now there 8 sources supporting a well-known fact.--Giray Altay (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Giray Altay, just base your edits on modern secondary sources and then certainly someone will care, but they might not agree with you. Nobody is bullying you, but simply asking you to justify your edits. You know that your edit is contested, so you should not be reinstating any of it until the talk page discussion has come to a conclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Memphis 901 FC season
Seems the article, got removed and deleted while at AfD. I am not sure what the process is here, if the AfD should be closed, or if restored. The article looks like it could have been speedy deleted anyway. Regards, Govvy (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was moved by its originator into draft space while still tagged for deletion, and is at Draft:2023 Memphis 901 FC season, where it is displaying an error message. My preference as nominator of the AFD would be for it to be moved back to article space to allow the AFD to run its course.  Moving an article to draft space while it is tagged for AFD is an effort to game the system that I see from time to time, and the policies are less than clear on what to do in that situation.  My own opinion is that moving an article that is tagged for deletion should be disallowed, but other editors have reasons that they understand.  Someone else can figure out how we should handle this, since I seem to be in the minority in thinking that the move should be disallowed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I screwed up and need admin assistance. I moved the draft back to mainspace so the AfD could finish, only to find that the AfD had been closed because the original move from fraftspace to mainspace was accidentally. So, I moved it back to draftspace, but now I can't find the version of of the article which has content.  My apologies -- could someone please clean up after me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I have the right version inthe right space now. If someone could please delete Draft:2023 Memphis 901 FC season - bad I would appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My thanks to . Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Requesting deleted articles to post their contents off-wiki
Is deletion review needed to request the retrieval of deleted articles (e.g. by e-mail) not for the purpose of restoring the article on Wikipedia, but to post it on another wiki? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Nope, deletion review is only needed to restore deleted pages to mainspace. If you'd just like article text back to post elsewhere, you're welcome to post at Requests for undeletion or email an administrator individually. Many of us (myself included) would be happy to send you deleted article text, so long as it's not grossly inappropriate material (e.g. something deleted under CSD G10). Ajpolino (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 05:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So no inflammatory BLP material and copyvios right? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Since the articles and page histories have been deleted, the considerations in WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD) also apply: attribution must be provided explicitly, a link is not sufficient. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kiev on a spree at WP:RPP in order to get ECP.
I count 52 requests. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Forgot - they were only told a short while ago about ECP. Doug Weller  talk 16:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * I am not "on a spree" in order to get ECP. I went through the (Category:Russo-Ukrainian War) and picked articles that looked like they should be restricted from editing by editors like me. I chose those articles intentionally: I excluded articles that do not have to do with the war closely, such as Good Evening (Where Are You From?) and Hydraulic warfare, because I don't think those are restricted from what was posted on my talk page. I then started to go through (Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) before made copy edit on Skylar Kergil and removed section where someone had attacked the transgender musician because of Twitter.
 * If you do not want me to request that so many articles be protected at one time, I can slow down or stop, but I did not do this with malice. I want to help Wikipedia be better, and I am sorry if I have made it worse by making too many requests for protection. Ghost of Kiev  (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yea, I have half a mind to remove the entire set of nominations as inappropriate. Little to no care was given to the nominations; for example, you nominated several under the rationale "Persistent vandalism", but where there is absolutely no evidence of vandalism.  Also, policy says that ECP is not required for enforcing the Arbcom GS sanctions in the topic area.  There's just WAY too many bad noms for me to weed through to find the ones that are appropriate.  Please don't do anything like this again.  When you dump this many requests at once, and where most of them don't have an appropriate rationale, it just makes extra work for admins to investigate all of the bad noms.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that this has created so much work and that I have harmed Wikipedia. I will be more careful in the future and will never again nominate a large number of pages for protection at once. Ghost of Kiev  (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's okay; you're acting in good faith, but remember that real people, who are just volunteers like yourself have to do all of this work. If you have specific articles where there is a specific need for protection, nominate those, but rarely is preemptive protection used.  Applying page protection as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied solely for these reasons..  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I went and removed the whole batch. After looking at more of them, there's just too many false positives to deal with.  ECP is only necessary where disruption is active and ongoing, even the ArbCom remedy states "this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required." (bold mine)  It appears that Ghost of Kiev is trying to get the entire set of articles ECP all at once; this strains the resources of the admin corps and is not necessary, as the policy does not require it, especially not all at once.  Let's focus on articles where there is conflict or disruption is actually actively happening.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 17:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC being overwhelmed by meatpuppets?
Not sure we are getting a real consensus at Talk:Iroquois. Not sure the best way forward here....

editor interaction tool. Moxy - 19:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, for now, feel free to tag those users with the spa or canvassed tags. El_C 22:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What a surprise... Canvassing on Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/Haudenosaunee/comments/z09kmz/update_wiki_title_to_haudenosaunee/. The starter of the RFC has the same username as the reddit username of the starter of the thread. Jackattack1597 (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There was on-wiki canvassing too, although they were subsequently informed of the canvass guidelines. That said, the RM isn't that overwhelmed yet, and it's pretty obvious who is familiar with en.wiki policies and guidelines and who has been blindly canvassed. Should be easy enough for a closer to sort out. CMD (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I just posted at the RM-in-question. Looking it over, there certainly is puppetry occurring. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged two SPA accounts (the only SPAs in that discussion). Nythar (💬-🎃) 02:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Uinko
This user had made countless unsourced, disruptive, and ungrammatical edits over the past several months, and has been warned countless times. The user has also apparently made personal attacks in the past, and the response when I last reached out was passive aggressive at best. I think that a block is clearly warranted, and that these harmful edits be reverted. Cpotisch (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a mix of positive and negative edits, but very infrequent and over a considerable time. Not comfortable issuing blocks at present. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps page protection is warranted for the Aaron Mate BLP talk page
I wanted to bring this to your attention, Administratiors. I fully realize that talk pages are not typically page protected, however, I have never read a talk page like this before. There ARE standards of decorum that should be upheld for talk pages, especially for BLPs. Yet the tone is like 4chan, but crueler. It is a cesspool of hate and malice directed at this poor soul because bad editors are allowing their own political and other biases/opinions to run wild. For example, I found 35 word counts of "journalist" and at least three sub-sections where editors challenged whether Mate should be described as a journalist, followed by vigorous WP:RS and WP:NPOV supported discussions, and resolution achieved. Yet yesterday another he's not a journalist sub section appeared and had to be addressed.

Unsourced hate is directed toward Mate because (these are all examples on that talk page; I'm not being sardonic): "he writes for a publication that isn't sympathetic to Uighyurs", "he's just like Max Blumenthal", "Tablet says he's okay, so he must be a propagandist shill", "he's pro-Russia", "he's pro-Assad", "he's a propagandist because it pays better", "CounterPunch has included his work on occasion", "The Guardian UK says he's one of 28 bad guys that spread disinformation", "he's a Houthi apologist"! And of course, that he is a conspiracist. That he's left-wing is generally agreed upon. He's pro-Palestinian. I'm not left-wing. I'm not pro-Palestinian. Regardless, I can write with a neutral Wikipedia voice. Just because Zelenskyya kicked up a fuss and got Aaron and Max disinvited from some event doesn't mean that all impartiality must fly out the window. If Aaron is pro-Assad, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should use pejorative adjectives in describing his work. Please, will someone do something about this? I don't have the permissions to. FeralOink (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When I look at this, I don't see anything that merits page protection. There are some heated discussions on the talk page, but I see nothing to indicate in the page history that it is the target of disruption or vandalism, or bad faith; nothing from the talk page has been removed or reverted, aside from archiving, in the last several weeks as far as I can see.  If there's nothing worth reverting, then why do we need to protect it?  If there are some diffs or examples of vandalism, disruption, or other problems that I have missed in combing through the page history, please post them here, but I see nothing in the page history that indicates that protection is warranted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are a few examples.
 * ONE This thread is verging on a WP:BLP violation, where it is argued that "journalist" should be changed to "propagandist" despite having had the same discussion already, four times in a few months on the talk page, and now 48 mentions (up from 35, three days ago) of whether or not he is entitled to that title as his occupation.
 * TWO derogatory claim is discussed ad infinitum, specifically, "a clearly derogatory claim about a living person requires far more rigorous and widespread sourcing than a single mention, which does not make the specific claim, in a document written by a charity, published by a campaign group, and mentioned only by a single news organisation".
 * THREE Section head "This article is turning into a sewer": "There are countless examples of violations of the WP:BLP, WP:NPV and WP:RS policies here. It looks like a few activists have taken over this page and have inserted all sorts of defamatory language...." Yet it is continuing. I wouldn't call this merely "heated discussion".
 * FOUR "the state that this talk page is in is horrendous", which then goes on to an argument between two editors accusing each other of possibly being Aaron Mate. One of these editors seems to be an extremely active advocate in favor of Mate (the "talk page clogger"), so that's a good point, and disturbing as well.
 * FIVE In an attempt to get everyone to settle down, a nice administrator did this but it hasn't been effective: "1RR for all Syrian Civil War articles, in effect here, has been supplanted for the next month with a 72-hour 1RR, imposed as a discretionary sanction under the same Syrian Civil War sanction regime. Please stop reverting each other so much."
 * SIX Certain editors repeatedly advocate for describing the BLP subject, a young leftist Jewish man, as a fascist in the lead of the article, see here for the most recent example and note similar a few days earlier here. Another editor refers to the BLP subject as "a tankie" twice. This is a problem. It is not merely heated discussion. The editor who used the term tankie started out calm, collected, and impartial but maybe he's getting exasperated with that talk page mess.
 * I shouldn't have suggested page protection for a talk page, Jayron32. You're right about that. I do know that Wikipedia policies are being violated, and that the subject of the BLP is getting cranky about being defamed, or so he seems to be saying loudly on Twitter. I'll just avoid anything to do with the article from here on out and let y'all handle it.--FeralOink (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Try WP:BLPN, which is more designed to deal with actual BLP violations. People who frequent that noticeboard may have something more to say on the matter.  I will note that not every claim of a BLP violation is always a BLP violation.  Maybe some of these are, maybe some of these aren't.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea! I didn't even know it existed. Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive political editing by User:RobertBanclair
This user just started editing under this account within the last 24 hours, and so far all of their edits are to add political misinformation or unsourced claims to articles about the recent U.S. elections and current U.S. political candidates. They altered the title of a source in 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election to make it appear to report the opposite of what it really says. And although it's not definitive, their recent edits to that page are suspiciously similar to an IP user's previously-reverted edits to the same page a few days ago. SS451 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indef'd for NOTHERE, though vandalism as well would have worked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections
Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates in the 2022 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. Nominations must be transcluded by 23:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC). Please note that there is a change to the process this year: per WP:ACERFC2022, questions may only be asked on the official questions pages after the nomination period is over. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Long stale DRV
Can someone close Deletion review/Log/2022 October 19? Disclosure: involved, but I think consensus is clear subsequent to long closed ANI. Courtesy @Stifle who listed this at the ridiculously backlogged Closure_requests and @Nfitz who requested closure earlier this month. I think it just fell off all the logs. Thanks! Star  Mississippi  20:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If no one beats me to it I'll close it later today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's now . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Star   Mississippi  18:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Black hat
Black hat (computer security) please look at the edit, it uses Wikipedia as a source multiple times, and Wikipedia is clearly not a reliable source in and of itself Jamaal5 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The removal is indeed appropriate. I wonder why those other editors reverted it; have you addressed on the talk page? This isn't really an admin issue; any user can and should fix it, as you tried. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Question re: removal of user page
An en.wiki editor has a global user page, hosted on Meta, which is displayed on en.wiki, however the content of this userpage, in my opinion, violates WP:UP in that it contains "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia." I've inquired of the user on their talk page, but they refuse to fix the problem. I could not nominate the page for deletion at MfD, so I WP:BOLDly created a local user page which contained all the contents of the global user page except for the violating material. This had the desired effect of blocking the global page from displaying here The editor in question asked for and received a deletion of the page I added, which once again allowed the violating material to be displayed on en.wiki.

My question is, what is the best way to get a community discussion started on whether the editor's global uses page violates en.wiki policy and, if so, having it then blocked from displaying on en.wiki? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Meta page "Global user pages" says: "Your global user page should not contain content considered inappropriate on projects where it will be displayed" It seems, therefore, that there must be a local procedure to determine that appropriatness to the local project of the content of a global user page.  Does anyone know what that procedure is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Beyond My Ken, please explain what this is about. It is hard to answer a question this general with no idea of whose user page you are referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I had to guess, based on recent logs, BMK is probably talking about User:Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123. SkyWarrior  03:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is correct. See this, and this for background, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As the page is currently a violation of the WP:GS/RUSUKR extended-confirmed restriction, I have now (re-)created it empty with an edit summary and a talk page message describing this issue. This is a pretty temporary measure as the user is less than 20 edits away from not being affected by the restrictions anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They of course immediately filed another deletion request which I decline. Time to block, given the situation. Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See also this on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell: Page is overriden by an empty one, user is blocked. Regarding the original, more general, question: Anyone can create a user page, but only administrators can delete user pages. If there's something on a global user page that is incompatible with local guidelines or policies, the easiest way to solve the problem is to create the user page emptily with an edit summary explaining the situation. WP:U1 has an exception for "rare cases" in which "there may be administrative need to retain the page", and this would be such a case. Unless there is a disagreement between administrators about this, the deletion request can simply be declined. All the user can do is asking for a deletion or copying the objectionable material to the local page, at which point we have procedures to deal with the issue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, that's really good information to have if something like this happens again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor refusing to communicate
is engaging in a slow edit war and refusing to communicate. Case in being Deloitte where editor has reinstated his post fives times in a month:
 * 21 October
 * 27 October
 * 4 November
 * 11 November
 * 21 November

Multiple attempts to communicate with the editor both through the edit summary and their own talk page with the editor just deleting without responding and then reinstating their post.

I did bring this issue here 10 days ago. Was advised that I should make a further attempt to communicate. This was done and reverted without response.

Editor has decided to describe his edits as Reverat vanadalism. After being being blocked in 2021, editor was warned against falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, something that has fallen on deaf ears. Zoumestein (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A block of the individual, just might get some attention. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How much "attention" do you feel like the 2021 block and warning, mentioned in the post you replied to, got? Begoon 14:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have just realised I have taken this to the wrong noticeboard. Please close with no further action. Zoumestein (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Akshit 108
This user continues to add "genocide" at Kashmiri Hindus despite having received numerous warnings, last one being this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Clearly NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

UAA backlog
There are 18 bot-reported and 3 user-reported usernames awaiting review at WP:UAA, plus 6 user-reported items for accounts who haven't edited. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 10:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not really a serious backlog. As with AIV, urgent or obvious cases tend to be handled quickly and the bot produces a lot of false positives. (Not a criticism of the bot; it looks for usernames that match certain character strings and flags them for attention, but there are many innocuous uses for most of those strings.) <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? 10:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Panel close for the fundraiser banner RFC
I've started a discussion at WT:VPR about the formation of a panel regarding the closure of the RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign. Interested parties should respond there rather than here. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Double sinces
Not around uses "since" when using any date parameter. In some protected user talk pages (e. g. User talk:Hephaestos), the date parameter has "since" in the date parameter. Thus, my request is to remove the word "since" from not around, for it makes (when the date parameter is "since January 2016"): "Example has not edited since since January 2016." (i. e., the word "since" is repeated). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The solution is not to remove "since" from the template, the solution is to not add "since" to the date when using the template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hephaestos duplication removed, agree with BMK that updating the template is unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

New essay about noticeboards
Editors and admins here may perhaps be interested in WP:Don't knit beside the guillotine. It addresses some aspects of the wiki-culture at noticeboards, and grew out of a now-archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a fantastic essay, definitely needed more than ever in this day and age. I will thoroughly ponder its lessons, and will do my best to take them to heart. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well written, Tryptofish! But ... is this your way of telling us that you have a completely unrelated doppelganger who looks just like you? --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a far, far better essay than I could ever write... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a really excellent essay. #Dealing with it is especially good advice. The (thankfully few) times I've been the subject of the ANI mob, I've felt appallingly alone, and wondered why nobody is stepping in to speak reason. But when I see others being subjected to it, I can't even bring myself to read the whole thread, never mind try and de-escalate. We should do better. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * In our current culture, I don't see mob rule going away any time soon, but we would do well to avoid such behavior. Hyperbole and assumption of nefarious motives is the way people see the world (especially online). I applaud the effort all the same. Buffs (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Much as I like the content of the essay, on the essay's talk-page I commented that the choice of title and historical examples is peculiar, and could cause the essay to be criticized for (unintentional) gender bias. NightHeron (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's history...it's hardly gender bias... Buffs (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A choice is being made concerning what history to include. Obvious historical examples of the harm caused by a mob mentality would be the witch hunts in Europe and America, the pogroms in the Russian Empire, or the lynchings in the American South. In all those cases virtually all the perpetrators were male. But those examples weren't chosen. NightHeron (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They weren't chosen not because someone hates women or prefers men, but 'cause angry mob of lynchers is already used as example here. Please don't be quick to assume bias or discrimination. a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 21:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't notice the word "unintentional" in my posting above.
 * BTW the picture at WP:Angry Mob Noticeboard is not of a lynch mob. NightHeron (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, as someone from the US, you know more about lynch mobs than me. If you say that toy villagers on the picture don't look like they're going to do pogrom in Lego City's ghetto, I trust you. This all was intended as lighthearted nod to humorous "noticeboard", but I again messed up like dummy. Sorry and have a nice day! a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Great essay, Tryptofish. The mob mentality at ArbCom proceedings and other dramaboards can be horrific. They often function as kangaroo courts with no rights or protections for the accused. All forms of gross violations of our rules of conduct are allowed, including real-life slander and libel, with no repercussions at Wikipedia, but very real damage in real life elsewhere. I was once dragged through an ArbCom trial, and I was very close to committing suicide. Never in my life had I felt so helpless and alone. Fortunately, some other editors defended me and exposed the dubious nature of the accusations, my accusers community banned, and I was later vindicated.

I asked an admin whether BLP applies to editors and was told it does not. All living persons, including people not associated with a BLP article, are protected, but not editors. That's awful. That explained what happened. Ever since then I have been reluctant to participate at dramaboards. They are not places where justice is served. I have never fully recovered from that experience. Before that, I never had issues with depression. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that post, . As someone who has long had depression myself, but not in any way as a result of Wikipedia, I am very moved by what you describe. The thought that anyone could even briefly consider suicide as a result of an experience at this website chills me to my core, and I hope everyone keeps it in mind whenever they interact with any of our noticeboards. I won't be so presumptuous as to hope that the essay I wrote will lessen the risk of something like that ever happening here again, but I do hope so. I also hope that you are getting all the medical help that you need; that's had a tremendous benefit for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then the next step would be to reign in the de facto power of the WikiProjects. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

File:ParameswaraPortrait.jpg
may i ask for the file description of File:ParameswaraPortrait.jpg? the last revision by the uploader. i suspect this image is not the uploader's own drawing, and plan to nominate it for deletion on commons. RZuo (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was uploaded by user:L joo on 28 April 2006, at 04:09, with the description

<tt> == Summary == A Parameswara portrait

Licensing
</tt>
 * -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that L joo's user page says they are an illustrator. It links their Geocities page, which is dead, but wayback has mirrored some of it here. Whether that seems like enough evidence to support the belief that they did in fact draw it themselves, I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A totally different comment is whether or not the illustration is actually useful to be included on the many many pages it's been inserted into. Honestly I don't think there's any value in it, it's something someone drew one day and adds zero understanding to any of the articles it's included in. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * given these findings, i wont send it to deletion.
 * has there been discussion on whether (wiki users') artists' impressions can be used in articles? RZuo (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, they could, in principle, but when it's about imaginary portraits of historical personalities, they are almost always useless. WP:PORTRAIT (an essay) has some thoughts about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You know what, I've just gone and removed all instances of it. It's someone's impression, no evidence it's based on any portrait, no provenance to the likeness. For all we know it's as accurate as a kids drawing on the fridge. As a result it carries zero encyclopaedic value. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Blanking inactive LTA pages
Hello, I have been reviewing the subpages of Long-term abuse, blanking and marking as historical LTA pages like this that have been inactive for years. The material is still available in history if there is a need for it. From what I have seen, it is an acceptable practice to blank inactive LTA pages so they won't continue to exist as a shrine giving recognition to long gone vandals from years ago. This search shows 30 pages blanked this way from 2018 onwards excluding the 5 or so I blanked today.

User:331dot asked me to post a notice about this since previously it was usually done by admins. I became interested in this task as it is somewhat related to MalnadachBot task 13 (approved following this) which is to blank warnings and other stale message from inactive IP talkpages. If there is no objections, I will continue with blanking and marking historical. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks for performing this type of maintenance tasks in general. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * LGTM as well. I have no concerns. -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably a naughty mouse, but
... this (inconsequential, mostly) edit happened at a time when my laptop was closed and I wasn't editing. I was moving the mouse out of the way sometime around then ... and I really think it's just a case of a very unlikely couple of clicks (and rollback doesn't require any confirmation, so yes it's possible). This is the first time in 15 years and 120k+ edits that this has happened. No one has access to my account, and there's no way someone could have guessed my password. I'm just reporting this here to be super-careful ... if I've been hacked and this account starts going wild, someone please block me, but I really don't expect that. I'll keep an eye out for any unexplained edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're truly worried about a compromise, ask a checkuser to run a check on your account. It sounds unnecessary to me, but I'd be willing to do it if it calmed your anxieties. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried enough about a compromise to ask for anything, it seems very unlikely ... I'm just being super-cautious, which I don't think is a bad trait in an admin :) I'm just saying, if something really weird and unexpected happens, don't hesitate to block me (anyone), but it's probably nothing. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I ran the CU - we have to take compromises (especially admin compromises) seriously. has only edited from one IP address today. So no compromise - feels like some kind of misclick (do you have a touchscreen Dank?). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, good to know. I do have a touchscreen but my laptop was probably closed at the time. I think my mouse is just being weird, I'll check into it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't let your pet mouse near your computer. Indeed, mice generally can damage all sorts of things, e.g., spark plugs and telephone cables. Perhaps your mouse is upset with you because you haven't been feeding it enough or paying sufficient attention to them. Mice have feelings, you know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When I saw a thread about a naughty mouse, I thought someone else must have noticed .Sometimes mice mean to cause trouble... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb confused me a little. Is Dank talking about a computer mouse or a live mouse? —usernamekiran (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "I was moving the [computer] mouse out of the way ...". Not a pet mouse or an infestation. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions regarding suspected article hijacking
I became aware of this article via this post: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. After doing some investigation, it seems that originally, the article Pavel Naumov was created in 2006 for a Russian athlete, who world athletics states was born in 1979. Over the course of late 2018, IP users changed the biography to be about the academic, who seems to be an entirely different person. The biography of the academic on their own personal website makes no mention of athletics ), and their PhD thesis states that they were born in 1970 . I suppose the question is here, how do we resolve this? At the BLPN questions have been raised about the academics notability, and honestly I don't think the athelete is that notable either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there is really a need for administrator action, unless some complicated history merging needs to get done, which I doubt. I think there's a content issue that needs to determine whether we are sure that these are two different people. (I'm leaning towards thinking so.) And if so, there are potentially two separate AfDs that might need to happen. But in any case, more eyes would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, probably notable as an athlete, so it's likely to be a matter of changing the page back, way back, with assorted attendant cleanup. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I have moved the underlying edit history for the athlete to Pavel Naumov (long-distance runner). If the article on the logician is deleted, and the athlete is kept, the athlete can be moved back to that title. Cheers! BD2412  T 03:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no need for anything else here. An AFD to delete either article, or an RM to determine which article should be at Pavel Naumov, may be opened by any user, and if opened it will run its course and be closed by an admin without any need for anything on this noticeboard. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 05:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's well under control. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI discussion getting a bit longish
Just a quick FYI that this discussion is getting kinda lengthy in case anybody wants to take a look before it becomes firmly TLDR. FWIW I put 1RR on the article Torture in Ukraine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's supposed to be enticing? I mean, a too-long discussion at ANI. Sounds like torture in Wikipedia to me. I actually glanced at it (before this post), and if I were a drinker, I would run to the nearest bar. Cheers!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought about closing it as the OP once you put the 1RR on, but I didn't know if that would be appropriate. For what it's worth, virtually every comment in that thread is accusations and content disputes (and if the discretionary sanction applies to ANI threads about the article, then it might already have been violated since you commented). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've closed the discussion. It's gotten far too long and ceased to be productive. The 1RR is likely the only admin action required for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well you tried to close it. It's just kept right on going since. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've applied 1RR to Human rights in Ukraine and reclosed the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Unarchive and close RFC
Request for a kind admin to unarchive this RFC and answer the closure request to determine consensus. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @IntrepidContributor: I went ahead and have done so given the discussion was relatively straightforward. Not an admin tho &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Find upload date + licensing
Hi, could a sysop please find the upload date + info. in the licensing section for. I need to check whether disclaimers apply. Thanks, $$M^{atr1x-}_{101}$$ { userpage! | talk! } 22:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * File was uploaded 15:47, 26 June 2004. File description page at the time of deletion -  F ASTILY   23:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Eddie891 · Euryalus · TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alex.muller · Excirial · RedWordSmith · Ron Ritzman · TheresNoTime · Stephen

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

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

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
 * The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
 * An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news
 * A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget.

Arbitration
 * Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
 * The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
 * The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
 * The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
 * A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous
 * Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add  to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

User Botteville wreaking havoc on Shaolin Monastery page
Apart from posting a number of borderline abusive/bullying messages on the Shaolin Monastery article talk page, User:Botteville has been making a series of erratic edits, including reverting my edits without explanation, duplicating entire sections, etc. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I note this deleted discussion which worries me slightly. @Revirvlkodlaku you need to inform @Botteville that you have opened this thread &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @talk thanks for chiming in. I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you: are you worried about the content of the "deleted" discussion that you mention (I'm worried about it too, hopefully for the same reason as you) or the fact that I removed it from my talk page and transferred it to the Shaolin Monastery talk page (here: Talk:Shaolin Monastery)?
 * I did inform the user, do you not see this on their talk page? (User talk:Botteville
 * Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That request was closed as invalid. There is no pointer to this discussion. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Some one bullyied me
I was. Bully by C.Syde65 for having autism and trolling me cross wiki and wikia GoodKindFriendly (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging by your only article edit so far, it looks like you are the one acting inappropriately. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They've also vandalized Black Friday (partying). I checked CentralAuth, they don't have any edits off of enwiki. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 19:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's User:IAmACoolKindPerson with a new sock. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

TS, İ and ı
Primefac (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Call me, maybe?
Some advice, please. Hypothetically, say someone found a couple of articles where people have added actual telephone numbers (their own or other people's, can't tell). If someone did, would administrators appreciate a (very long) list of diffs to delete or oversight? If so, would you RD or OS them? And where would you like someone to report them? Or should that person, whoever they are, walk away, perhaps whistling a jaunty tune to themself, and pretend this never happened? It is a very long list of (otherwise anonymous) telephone numbers going back over a decade. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">Trey Maturin has spoken 19:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it looks like spam, just remove it like you would any other junk. If it looks like they might be private numbers, email the oversight team and we'll make it disappear if necessary. <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? 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just echoing what said above. Even if you do think it is spam, feel free to contact the Oversight team. We would rather have an editor err on the side of caution and report any personal identifiable information. --    LuK3      (Talk)   19:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's almost never attached to an individual's name (call Robin on 0012345679 for a good time) – it's anonymous-but-real numbers (replacing Sodorland numbers begin +42 with call +42 12345679). — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">Trey Maturin has spoken 19:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to suppress. Whether it's someone's personal number or someone trying to prank a friend, those numbers shouldn't be out there for any passer-by to try and call. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Some numbers will charge the caller and are scams. Doug Weller  talk 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for telling everyone, Doug! Now how am I gonna pay the rent? Levivich (talk) (+42 12345679) 21:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeated claims of advertising+mass deletions
Under the Wiki The Emperor (tarot card) a user, @Mr.Ollie has taken it upon himself to reduce the number of alternative references under the subcategory "Alternative decks", preferring to enter in "edit wars" rather than civil discussions.

I am new to Wikipedia, so my first addition to this page did include an external backlink to the alternative deck reference. I have since then removed that external link, and made repeated attempts to explain this to Mr.Ollie, yet he prefers to undo changes without explanation, just the default comment "advert"

After clearly explaining that my edit follows the exact same formatting as the previous contributions by @Thejeweledweevil on March 2018‎, Mr.Ollie has now removed multiple contributions in that subcategory under more subjective terms "clean out some nonnotable decks".

Of the previous contributions he removed, one was based on Voodoo, another based on Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro's work. He's intentionally removing decks that are non-traditional and ALTERNATIVE to the Ryder-Waite deck. This is a disservice to anyone new to tarot decks and are looking for alternative artwork that represents them.

Thank you Pratherpublishing (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the first problem is the username you've chosen. You'll need to change that before anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically that's not an issue, though if they have connection with a "Prather Publishing", then they must declare any WP:COI they may have. That said, I can't find any Prather Publishing of any note on a google search, so that may just be something else. M asem (t) 02:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It may be an issue as it sounds like a WP:ROLE account, rather than an individual one, and violates WP:CORPNAME. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The misspelled user name probably prevented MrOllie from noticing this; I added the required notification to his talk.
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * —Cryptic 10:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * need a styptic? — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 13:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This would scan better as "When you add" fwiw. --JBL (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone looking at this should also have a look at the contribs of MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone looking at this should also have a look at the contribs of MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of my permissions
Hi all, I've decided to hang up the boots on Wikipedia, can I please ask for an admin to remove the active user rights on my account? Cheers. Steven  Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 04:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done with regret. All the best. 🍀 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Valley View Center
Can someone please move Valley View Center Mall back to Valley View Center? It seems to have been moved back to fix a double redirect and aborted renaming of the property, but the name without "mall" at the end is WP:COMMONNAME per the logo. This seems like an uncontroversial page move. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RM/TR is the place for uncontroversial technical requests to move a page. If you think there could be opposition to it, then you should open a move request following the instrictions at WP:RM/CM. Iffy★Chat -- 21:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:Standard offer for User:Orange_Mo
I am copying here an unblock request made by User:Orange Mo on their talk page, per WP:SO.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC) "I understand if you don't want to unblock me, but it's been 2 years since I last edited Wikipedia and I'd like to be unblocked for my 3rd (and probably last chance).

I understand that I was blocked for using multiple accounts in the wrong manner. I understand that this indefinite block is no longer necessary as I have not edited Wikipedia in 2 years and I'd like to return. I understand that I will be blocked again if I continue to use multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia. Because of this, I will make useful contributions on one account (this one) going forward.

I plan to contribute to local places in Southern California and edit those and help to improve the encyclopedia about those articles. There is a lot of unsourced and underdeveloped information.

My last block was declined to me because I took the standard offer, which is 6 months without editing on any account. I have waited longer than 2 years and would like a third chance, and I won't mess this up. I already have changed my password on User:Yay Dad and don't intend to edit on two accounts anymore. I understand that was the reason why I was blocked. I already have stated that this third chance will be my last and if I get blocked again for sockpuppetry, I could be WP:BAN (not block) from editing Wikipedia. I guess a third chance is not welcome and I'll stay blocked forever (which according to WP policies, means that I'm banned).

If there is something I need to do to prove I can be given another chance, please let me know. However, as I have been blocked previously for the same issue, I understand if I am no longer welcome back. Please let me know if I am no longer welcome here, so I can log out and never be back here again, if that makes you feel better. Orange Mo (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)"


 * Procedural decline User:Yay Dad is the master account, the unblock request should be coming from there, not a subsidiary sock account. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 22:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I'm interpreting their unblock request correctly, they seem to be saying that they scrambled the password on that account. I don't think a procedural decline would make sense in that case. No opinion on the merits of the request otherwise. Spicy (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Unblock per WP:ROPE after a request by the sockmaster. I agree with Canterbury Tail; Orange Mo still seems to have two accounts. Changing a PW may not mean scrambling it. All the best,  Mini  apolis  22:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From their talk page: "If it helps, I changed the password on Yay Dad to something random and forgot it. It doesn’t have an email so basically gone forever." It's been unusable since 2020. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support subject to a CU check. If nothing suspicious turns up, I support this request based on the terms laid out by Orange Mo. Their appeal pretty much ticks off the boxes I tend to look for in block appeals. But yeah; this is the last stop on this particular train. Don't screw up again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on a less than conclusive CU check, and noting OM's comt on their talk page about where they edit, I'm going to say yes to this. Reiterating that this drink is being served in The Last Chance Saloon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support subject to a CU check, per One last chance. Quoting Ad Orientem's wise advice, . Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Checkuser result I don't see any evidence of recent socking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This statement was too definitive even at the time I made it and another CU has made a compelling case that there was some IP editing in September. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I was the one with that take – technical data is a bit messy and boils down to, but combined with behavioural elements I'd say it's more likely than not that they've edited logged out over the past few months; the edits are relatively few, harmless in substance (uncontroversial mainspace contributions), and there is remaining room for doubt. Assuming that they did make them, it's still not the sort of thing that I would consider "dealbreaker" evidence of bad-faith conduct, so I would encourage participants here to not give it too much weight. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blablubbs, editing while logged out and while blocked without disclosing this is simply "bad-faith" editing. It doesn't seem reasonable that a user with a history of socking who can't even write their unblock request truthfully, should be allowed to return to editing while knowing they were socking only months ago. (that is, if the results of the check are correct and they did edit in September)<span id="Nythar:1669846310613:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 22:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have trouble with statement "to not give it too much weight". Block evasion is block evasion, regardless of whether it's "uncontroversial". However, Blablubbs's statement about "remaining room for doubt" is more important. Perhaps we should at least ask the user whether they edited logged out in the last 6 months (remember, CU data goes back only 90 days).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not trying to say "this happened, but I think it's fine because the edits are ok"; I'm trying to say "I think it's more likely than not that this happened, but it falls short of certainty". In a perfect world, these edits would've been made by an account that I could dump here, say "this is and a solid behavioural match", and let the community figure out the rest – but they weren't, and so I can't. I think I fall on the strict end of approaches towards sock puppetry and evasion, and I do agree that it matters (hence my bringing it up), but I also think there's a difference between "logging out to stir the pot at AN" and "logging out to fix some typos and add some refs while steering clear of the issues that led to your initial block". My comment above is an attempt to capture that difference because I think it may influence people's assessments (if not now, then perhaps during future appeals). --Blablubbs (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, and my statement was not intended as criticism, although, in retrospect, I can see that it might have been perceived in that manner. Back to the substance, though, let's assume an LTA's case was reopened and it was alleged that namedaccount was a sock and a CU was requested. If the CU result was identical to yours above, I would block. I realize this is not a perfect analogy to the circumstances here, but I'm still relucant to unblock a sock who probably evaded their block and failed to disclose it. Again, if nothing else, we should challenge the user on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blablubbs, I understand what you're saying. Now, this user is suspected of using IPs only two months ago, and I think that when a user requests an unblock while saying "it's been 2 years since I last edited Wikipedia" should at least explain this (or deny it was them).<span id="Nythar:1669850058683:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 23:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support There seems to be doubt about whether or not the editor edited logged out so I'll break the ice and say we should still consider the request. If block evasion was a certainty, I'd say No but "possilikely" is still "possilikely". I think if the editor is unblocked we'll be able to tell right away whether unblocking was a bad decision. I'll admit that I'm a big believer in second chances but I've also seen when the unblock request was granted and it wasn't deserved, we could tell a mistake was made pretty much immediately. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 06:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ROPE. Reblocking is easy if this user goes off again; this account is fine if it is the one they want to use, as long as they restrict themselves to one account and agree to play nice, I'm fine with unblocking.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been open for a week and I believe there is a rough consensus supporting the unblock request. As I am INVOLVED I can't close the discussion or unblock Orange Mo. But I think any uninvolved admin can safely do so. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Very misanthropy, controversial and off the center to attack MGTOW ignorantly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way

I'm not from MGTWO but imagine when you read feminist page the begginning says "a group of misanthropy women intended to manipulate men at no cost"

I would rather agree. I'll save that article for future prove that Wikipedia, and I need the username of those persons.

because we can't live in a corrupted world especially from people who didn't made the effort to read what MGTOW is in the first place.

They even mixed Pick up artist, and used words of hate and other imaginary ones like incel which clearly doesn't exist, (very dorky to think that there are people out there who don't talk to others)

By any psychological means you should NEVER put names to people, especially to put names for some possible mental illness or social problem into ANYONE. Just because some ignorant very confused confused an old movement from the 90s of some people including women and men who rejected sex that doesn't mean by any chance manosphere is there.

There are a series of misanthropic words being abused here constanly for no reason.

There are the wrong context that PUAs(pickup artist) like MGTOW which never happened historically.

PUAs even reject any type of MGTOW. Tyler from RSD. RSD itself. Todd Valentine. Andrew Tate. Those are major PUAs to include.

You rather change this or I rather will use this as evidence for short of depicable of unprovable lies. This proves hate of speech is allowed in our society, missinformation, the lack of liberty for others, groups especially, to freely speak with total dignity what one believes.

Those types of hate towards men should be at NO PLACE in the internet at all costs. Corruption/missinformation should be heavily punished. PERIOD. Gbr000 (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation audio files
Over the last few days on my watchlist I have noticed a number of editors, majority brand new, adding IPA audio files to articles, particularly those involving African BLPs - see 1, 2, 3, 4.

Is this another one of those ill-thought out and only vaguely official competitions/campaigns that we see every so often with photos? GiantSnowman 18:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see any problem with this. These seem to be Nigerian editors fluent in Nigerian languages recording pronunciations of Nigerian names. Why do you think that it is ill-thought out? Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that these good-faith contributions are "ill-thought out"? What administrative action do you think is required? Have you told the editors concerned that you are discussing their work here? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not say this is ill thought out. GiantSnowman 09:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you chose to insinuate it on an administrative noticeboard. Such conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. I ask again: Have you told the editors concerned that you are discussing their work here? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the pronunciations incorrect? If they're not, then this instant jump to AN seems like assuming bad faith and WP:BITEy. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 19:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Three of the four editors have been active for several months. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea - do you? Like Trey Maturin says below, how do we verify this? GiantSnowman 09:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Verify what exactly? These audios were recorded and uploaded by the users who added them to articles here. Did you bother to ask any of these users before hopping to ANI to fill a report? Or at least ask any of the dozens of active Nigerian editors here? Shoerack (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether the pronunciation is correct or not. This is not ANI. I was asking the community, rather than being seen to be BITEy by targeting individual editors. Why have a number of editors all decided to suddenly start recording and uploading these audio files? GiantSnowman 10:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's AN or ANI is not relevant. The tone of your report does not indicate that of someone who is simply asking a question. It was worded in a manner that suggested that they were causing problems (which was not the case). Shoerack (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it did not - I asked if it was a campaign (it is, nobody knew), I did not say there were issues, and I have not challenged or reverted. Stop being so defensive. GiantSnowman 11:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to speak for GiantSnowman, but we are all aware that these types of files are unsourced (or if they are sourced, there's no easy way I can find to find out the source from the article itself: I assume I can go into the history, find the editor who added it, see if they were the one who uploaded it, visit their contributions page, find the upload, see what they wrote on the upload page that might be on a different project... and no reasonable reader is going to do that)? That's a vector of abuse that would worry me, regardless of the likely good faith of the contributors. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">Trey Maturin has spoken 20:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The basic principle is that we should Assume good faith unless we have evidence to the contrary. The three national languages of Nigeria are Hausa language, Yoruba language and Igbo language, each with tens of millions of speakers. And we have plenty of Nigerian editors. Has anyone knowledgeable complained about the quality of these pronunciations? Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody seems to have noticed. GiantSnowman 09:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Noticed what? Please AGF. Shoerack (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * These pronunciations are correct. If there is anything that is "ill-thought out", it is this nonsensical false alarm or report. Shoerack (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Who says they are correct? Who says it is ill-thought out? GiantSnowman 10:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording of your report suggested that, and I am not the only one on this thread who interpreted the wording that way. Shoerack (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you read the whole question. The first part said "Who says they are correct?" - and I don't see where you answered that? I have no opinion on how "well thought-out" it might have been, but if the answer to "Who says they are correct?" is "some wikipedia user called Shoerack" then that's perhaps not the level of reliable sourcing we'd usually like to see... Can you, please, provide something more reliable and authoritative than "because I said so"? Thanks. Begoon 14:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This one linked above by GS was uploaded to Commons by User:Frankincense Diala and according to their userpage, they are from Imo State, a state in Nigeria where the native language is Igbo and the official language is English. "Onuachu" in Paul Onuachu is an Igbo name. It is strange to think that a native speaker of a language would not be able to pronounce their native name. It's like saying a native speaker of English in the U.S or UK cannot correctly prounounce "Paul". Perhaps you are looking for a verifiable published source? Shoerack (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The grant page (linked below) says: The audio will be inspected to ensure it is of good quality and accurate pronunciation after which it will be linked to its corresponding article on Wikipedia.
 * While I don't particularly doubt that this entry is accurate how would I go about confirming that? Is there a record of this "inspection" being done before the file was linked?
 * It should, in general, be possible to confirm the accuracy of information in wikipedia articles, so yes, a "verifiable published source" would be ideal, but failing that some way to look at the "audit trail" might help.
 * The grant mentions that "mispronunciation is often considered a micr[o]agression" so it would seem useful to have more to go on than: "user says on user page that they come from a place where this language is spoken", in my humble opinion... Begoon 22:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * While verifying the pronunciations is a laudable aim and something mentioned in the grant, I don’t think there’s any local policy or guideline they requires it, or any sourcing requirements (which is not to say there shouldn't be, though I wonder how practical that would be). For example, there's nothing that I can see in WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Pronunciation task force that mentions any verification or sourcing requirement. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  23:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears these users are using the c:commons:Spell4Wiki app after receiving training funded via m:Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Say-It-Right:Wikipedia as a tool for preventing mispronunciation of names (ID: 21930417). I don't think this is the correct venue to discuss whether the grant itself or its aims are "ill-thought out"; and absent any particularized belief that the edits themselves are problematic, this thread should be closed. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC) Fix erroneous ping.
 * Pinging Sorry for the mistaken ping to  and  . –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  16:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Xeno for the ping. Unfortunately, if @GiantSnowman had messaged any of the editors directly ab initio, they would've gotten adequate information and there wouldn't have been need for this post.
 * I believe all discussants can now refer to the project grant documentation for all other information.
 * Many thanks to you also @Shoerack, i and my team appreciate. OtuNwachinemere (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Of particular relevace is this section of the grant application:

"Deliberate names mispronunciation is often considered a micr[o]agression.


 * https://pavementpieces.com/african-students-says-mispronouncing-their-names-is-a-form-of-racism/
 * https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/05/the-mispronunciation-of-african-names-can-cause-lasting-damage-13999360/
 * https://standard.asl.org/18485/features/name-pronunciations-leave-lasting-impact-on-individuals/"

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it relevant? I'm not seeing anything unsual about it? Deliberately mispronouncing someone's name is pretty rude. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * When we have a question about an editor's edits, the best move is to first ask the editor rather than first asking other editors. It's not "bitey" to ask, it's "bitey" to not ask and instead start discussing it in public with others (without even notifying the editors involved). It was a bad idea to post at AN before asking any of the editors involved, especially with a loaded question like "Is this another one of those ill-thought out and only vaguely official competitions/campaigns that we see every so often with photos?" We should treat new editors with respect not suspicion. Respect means talking to them directly, not talking about them with fellow admins. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, in my opinion there is already a problem with people adding unsourced IPA pronunciations in articles. It's impossible for anyone to judge whether such information is correct, whether it has been vandalized, what dialect or accent it reflects, etc. (I am less bothered by the audio files, which are more clearly just some person saying the word.) --100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible to judge whether an IPA is correct. All you need is a WP:RS that has audio, like BBC Radio. Anyone can verify a pronunciation, so it complies with WP:V. (And that's true in any language.) Levivich (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, not everyone. :) Although I have a PhD in Linguistics, I am not fluent in IPA, and my hearing has deteriorated quite a bit. There is also the problem of which pronunciation to use. See Talk:Miami/Archive 1 (from 2007), for example. I have since stayed away from discussions about pronunciation. Donald Albury 17:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Accepting “All you need is a WP:RS that has audio” arguendo, I doubt very much that most IPA pronunciations on WP are supported by any source at all, let alone this particular kind. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In my immediate family of 5 we have 2/3 different ways of pronouncing most words... GiantSnowman 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Twsabin unblocked
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, is unblocked. Twsabin is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed. Izno (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Stephen arbitration case closed
The Stephen arbitration case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:


 * The administrative permissions of Stephen are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Re RFC that is malformed and misleading
User:Surtsicna has opened a malformed and misleading rfc to clarify their position on the right to continue their edits on the same type of subject in the same vein. This is a blatant attempt to gain authority to push their agenda, by quashing any opposition from other editors by referring to the rfc as such authority. Further they have used canvassing techniques to at least two favourable users. The rfc omits that the user is deleting supplemental information that is not in the main table, claiming it is a duplicate or available in the main table, this is not the case in the most part at all, the user does not or refuses to recognise this. Usually in the subsequent, secondary or supplemental table and accompanying effective prose, within a section named "Listing of the Living xxx", includes some items including DOB, age, first to die in office, last to die in office, sometime more, sometimes less, whereas the main tables rarely (I have found none) include any of this information. This I believe goes against the grain and purpose of wiki, to build the base of knowledge and by inference information. Their excuse does not stand up, their reasoning on the initial deletion, on the many reverts as editors revert the user deletes and re-reverts amount to, it is available on the main table when it is demonstrable not. While I am not saying the user is in breach of the 3RR, I believe they are sailing close to the wind on this and are certainly in breach of the spirit of the 3RR if not technically. Having a small section that details who the oldest living ex-PM is, who first dies in office, none of which is usually available in the main table is good for the new or average reader, this user saying well place the DOB and age in the main table to some of his many, many critics that attempt to undo this poor approach is insufficient and onerous on other users and in the case of very long table, hardly fair. This mass deletion has been ongoing for sometime and they obviously do not review the exact details, their poor excuses, to a poorly thought out, illogical approach, that belittles other user efforts, negates other users work, totally goes against many of the pillars of wiki and the purpose of wiki and detracts from all. I can back up all of the above, in detail, with further information and revision histories (including the 2 canvassed users) and provide example of the near edit-wars, the table and prose deleted etc. etc. and will gladly do so on any request, from any admin. I propose a solution, that is: 2404:4408:638C:5E00:E41C:B4B2:FB86:9A61 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. This editor stops these actions immediately and refrains from any of a similar nature going forward, including any reverts, re-reverts on these type of articles and matters etc.
 * 2. This editor attempt to undo their edits of this nature over the next 28 days.
 * 3. This editor withdraws the malformed and misleading RFC, and by inference to one above, does not reformat and try to gain such authority again via an new RFC or any other means.
 * 4. This editor is given a dispensation for these matters only and alone, over the next 28 days, from the 3RR to correct their poorly thought out and removal of this highly useful supplementary information not available anywhere else on wiki without comparing and contrasting many different articles.


 * The audacity to lay so many accusations without even attempting to provide evidence for anything is impressive. Otherwise, this made me cringe more than anything in my 14 years on this project. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just so you're aware 2404:4408:638C::/32, it's not reasonable to expect your fellow contributors to dedicate the time to conduct their own full-investigation when filing noticeboard reports; you need to provide diffs that support your allegations. From glancing this one over all I see is an (exceedingly minor, and quite routine) issue with WP:RFCNEUTRAL that's not worth bothering over. The notifications appear to be WP:APPNOTEs, and RFCs are the appropriate way to gain consensus (authority) for content changes. Without additional evidence of behavioral issues supported by diffs this isn't going anywhere. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RFC. IMHO, the mobile editor is attempting to stop it, because it's not going their way. Side-note: I'm concerned about the mobile editor's apparent knowledge of Wikipedia, even though they only joined a mere day or two, ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no way to tell how long someone has been editing Wikipedia based on their IP's contributions. A brand-new user could edit from an IP that someone else has used going back 20 years. An unregistered user with multiple FAs could edit from a new connection and appear to have never edited before. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Having been an IP editor previously I was going to say the same. But someone who had an account [until earlier this year], and created something so massively pointy as this draft, before just happening to come to that RFC is straining credulity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not expressing any opinion on the overall issue here. I just get sick of the "new IP" line that seems to come up about once a week at AN(I). There's no such thing as a "new IP user" (at least, not that can be inferred by looking at contribs). --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * odd from looking this over I drew almost the opposite conclusion, the content of their post suggests a user who is both unfamiliar with the cultural norms of the noticeboards specifically, and lacks a firm grasp of the nuances of many internal protocols more generally. Moreover, a true noticeboard pedant would've posted this at ANI instead of AN. That aside, I see no reason to doubt their claim of being around since 2014, many casual or purely exopedian editors can go years without so much as a single projectspace contribution. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW - The title of this report is malformed. It's "RFC", not "RC". GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Break
I apologies for my genuine mistake over canvassing, I was never shamelessly lying as the subject of this matter asserts. For those above doubting anything about what I said and as an example spirit of 3RR violations include this for Alaska [] and just about every other position, state, region and country, this user to me seemed to be bordering on and almost edit warring with multiple others who all disagree with the user and the users approach. The user also accused me of hostility when none was shown, the user seemed to take it as a personal affront that anyone could disagree with them, and many have via the multiple reverts, to which the user sometimes also gets quite short with. I did not expect fellow contributors to dedicate the time to conduct their own full-investigation, I anticipated admins would have some extraction tools to quickly review the bulk of these edit and contributions and or ask me to provide such details that I had as per my original post. To ActivelyDisinterested, I was attempting to review Russian trolls, creating disharmony, subtly removing or editing articles to suit pro-Putin views and I created that draft as a counter to what I viewed as misleading Nazi Canadian and US article that were, at that time, as biased, or more so, than my draft, I then followed some of the users involved and came across these bulk deletes. And lastly I still believe this is a complete waste of resources to delete information that is not available on most of the main tables, and a waste of the other editors time to revert, and a waste of the user that was the subject of this matters time both in the first place and to then to re-revert and to defend such actions, when much better things could be being achieved by all parties. I thank those that added anything constructive.21:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:638C:5E00:E41C:B4B2:FB86:9A61 (talk)
 * " I did not expect fellow contributors to dedicate the time to conduct their own full-investigation, I anticipated admins would have some extraction tools" As admins are fellow contributors and no, we don't have magic tools that can figure out what you're talking about, so yes, you were expecting fellow contributors to put in the time and effort that you weren't willing to. We shouldn't have to ask for details from an accuser. They should be offered willingly, otherwise the accusation is completely empty. --Golbez (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ↑ this
 * 2404:4408:638C::/32 you still have yet to supply a single diff, though the link to the page history is a slight improvement. There's no special extraction tools available to sysops or anyone so you must explain the issue in a clear and concise way supported by evidence (usually in the form of diffs). No one should have to read a WP:WALLOFTEXT and subsequently investigate the edit histories of everyone involved on their own, it's just not reasonable.

Brief overview of the circumstances (What is the urgent incident or chronic intractable behavioral problem involving that needs to be addressed?) They've ignored all warnings and requests to stop so I'm bringing this here. ~~~~
 * ,, , edit-wars against multiple users
 * ,, , engages in personal attacks
 * ,, , and disruptive POV pushing

more diffs is better to a point but don't overdo it


 * Do not insinuate that editors you're in conflict with are Russian trolls without evidence in the form of diffs; see WP:ASPERSIONS. Continuing to do so will eventually result in sanctions, and I suggest you strike the offending phrase with, (see Talk page guidelines). 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ima just take this moment to point out that this editor is demanding we give them good faith (why else mention that they used to have an account, and have never had a ban, without telling us who they were) without offering the same for others (for example, I was not canvassed, I am an actual participant in this topic and have been for fifteen years). They may be apologizing but that just means that they have demanded good faith, squandered it, and offered nothing in return; we have no reason to believe this apology is genuine, and I have no reason to believe that anything will come of this. They have provided no diffs, no reason beyond "i want it," and have been rude and accusatory. I have no interest in continuing to interact with this person. --Golbez (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This IP user has declined to participate in a level-headed fashion and has been WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. If they hadn't made this ANI thread, one likely would have been made about them by myself or someone else. I believe WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate here, and this user should be advised to stop engaging until they've familiarized themselves with the RfC procedure and etiquette guidelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I apologised for the canvassing, end.
 * I did not insinuate anything about any of the users here or on the rfc, I explained my draft and how I got to the the rfc, I will not strike anything out, if you want to misread what I wrote to a specific poster that is up to you.
 * I provide one edit history to show what I was talking about, and to answer critics and insinuation that I deliberately, carelessly and shamelessly lied for any ulterior motive, not as evidence to continue this, so no further example, guide or coaching was or is needed.
 * None of the additions, since my close offered anything constructive or applied any good faith, which I did not by insinuation or otherwise demand, it is however wiki policy, so no demand or other should be necessary.
 * Hence when I effectively closed this and thanked the user that gave any due care and consideration, i.e. those that did not start throwing accusation and threats around, I thought this was at an end.
 * Re WP:BLUDGEON I made OP and one close, bring it on.
 * Re ANI or AN as this is on the latter, bring on either, regarding the rest of your comments, advice and threats please review my 2nd close below.
 * So to close again, any of the subsequent posts and posters that threatened, that rehashed closed items, that place words into my mouth, that demeaned me, and offered other slanted and pointed advice please look at your own actions and words with regard to all of these matters, some assumed I was a banned user, some assumed I was new or fake, some stalked and your specific threats, actions, behavior and lack of good faith during this and post the close and ask yourself is this how you would want to be addressed and treated, I have replied at all times politely and in a very restrained way, no threatening, no assertions, no implying anthing or any other bad-faith actions, as I feel I have been subject to balatantly. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:F1B8:4D:6290:8EE7 (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Close
Recommend this report be closed, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please pause any close for now, I may have one other item to add in the next day or so, thank you. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:ED45:2BCA:48B2:EEFD (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I came here because my name was mentioned. I notice that the thread does not begin by mentioning what the RfC is, what is wrong with it or provide a link. The thread has now become hopelessly long and should therefore be closed without prejudice, i.e., allowing the IP editor to come back with a concised complaint.
 * The purpose of this noticeboard is to alert administrators that an administrative action is required, in this case presumably an administrative close of the RfC. But non-administrators also participate. TFD (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI
Original heading: "RFC that is malformed and misleading" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I reference my badly formed original post here []. I now provide this post and move to the correct noticeboard, this evidence of this users chronic, intractable behavior and disregard for other users thoughts on these matter as an example of such behavior and actions. Regarding a discussion that evolved into several discussions on the Mass removal of Prime Ministers, Governors etc. all during Aug 2021 which were held on this matter at [] which was moved to [] which was moved to [] the same three individuals voted for removal on all three discussions, namely User:Surtsicna, User:GoodDay, User:Golbez While Surtsicna acknowledged direct redundancy was a good guide to judge use of delete and Golbez added a caveat for the US POTUS only, Golbez otherwise noted oh my god i am so happy right now'.

Those that objected in some manner to this approach, either Totally or as a on a Case-by-case or on a Direct redundancy basis including User:Skyring, User:Reywas92, User:Newyorkbrad, User:NebY and Surtsicna (before changed approach)

While User:JackofOz left a pertinent comment, but did not clarify his end position. While User:The Four Deuces left a comment I have no idea about []

Although none of these were structured in an effective and clean RFC they provide some guidance in that: 6 users including myself believe at the barest minimum a case-by-case approach and a direct redundancy must be established. 1 user wants to nuke everything and does not know or read Australian history and still attempted to forcefully express his opinion anyway. 1 user believes it should only count for the US, otherwise fine to remove all and so happy. 2 users for now abstain. I note one user (Surtsicna) has now changed their approach and is now not checking for any direct redundancy and overriding objections and other editors. If this mock RFC ended at this point and the discussion was not rehashed and Surtsicna actions in this manner ceased there would be no issues.

However, this core group of User:Surtsicna, User:GoodDay, User:Golbez can be met on various user and article talk pages, project pages and the RFC in question, each supporting each other views in almost 100% of matters, similarly to supporting the delete discussions above, however, I found one curious example of cross-editing, I place little relevance on this. I think the above and the timing of the first edit on the RFC in question by GoodDay places Surtsicna defence [] of not canvassing, into a questionable frame or it could be termed coordination or other less favourable terms.

With regard to 3RR violation this [] is shocking and this [] is probably as bad, to not take anything to the talk page to seek consensus to again try to dictate to all other users and by inference all of wiki it must be my way cannot be acceptable and again explanations in edit summaries are misleading at best. Engaged in support mode, GoodDay joins in here [] with the edit summary including i'll join in and nuke this, when there's an rfc we can calm, although probably a bit late to save the violation of the 3RR in this instance.

So if we add all users, whom were the reverter's, IP or registered user, of the Surtsicna and GoodDay deletes, 1st, 2nd or 3rd or more reverts, and many many other not detailed here from this same coordinated group and include, even a very, very small percentage of these, into the numbers above (in this new section only) the values change and I think we would have an overwhelming consensus to ensure at the barest minimum a case-by-case approach and direct redundancy must be established.

I cannot for the life of me think of any good reason to structure the RFC so badly by such an experienced user, omitting mentioning all of the lack of direct redundancy items, other than an attempt to gain such authority. I cannot for the life of me think of any good reason why do any of this in the first place, there is so much more that can be done, that actually adds something, anything to wiki. I would like the user to explain for what purpose and reason they have, that overrides actually improving any part of wiki, although they are not obliged to.

To close this OP out, I do not want to draw attention to the the lack of good faith, the threats and other poor behaviours exhibited in the first instance of this matter on the AN, however, it needs be mentioned and not repeated here and we can leave all aspersions and allegations aside and try to deal with this constructively for the good of the project, if you do not agree, that is your call.2404:4408:638C:5E00:ED45:2BCA:48B2:EEFD (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the RFC & I never was canvassed. TBH, I've little clue as to what is (figuratively) ailing the mobile editor. Will be happy, if folks smarter then me, can clarify all of this. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This has stopped being funny. Your walls of lies and delusion are now disturbing as well as disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Surtsicna, that's not really an appropriate thing to say about another editor on-wiki, irregardless of their conduct. casualdejekyll  23:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * nah I'll back 'em up on this. This sealion has been harping on how they deserve good faith when they have failed to give it to others, consistently. Nothing Surtsicna just said is out of line. A little irked that after the half-page screed slyly accusing long-standing editors of sockpuppeting and misrepresenting everything we say, but what really grinds your gears is a mild insult. --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read through the latest post above, time I will not get back, and I am not able to work out what the problem is, or what the OP is asking us to do about it. This needs some serious condensing. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Girth Summit this type of action [] and how it affects other users is the problem. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:ED45:2BCA:48B2:EEFD (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am none the wiser as to what the problem is, or how you want us to deal with it. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  00:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I propose OP be WP:BOOMERANGed (might need a rangeblock to be effective) as they are seemingly WP:NOTHERE, as they are seemingly incapable of communicating via talk while editwarring (ironically something they themselves accuse others of doing) yet are capable of making walls of text that go absolutely nowhere on AN and ANI, in addition to their seemingly constant disregard of WP:AGF.  Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 22:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course you are entitled to your opinion, however, everything I have done is in good faith, I sincerely believe this user has disrupted wiki, removed information and upset multiple users for no good purpose. Further, none of the other items you suggest are valid, I am trying to stop this destructive editing and edit warring and seek to use all of these wasted energies and time in building wiki. I apologised for a mistake, which I now retract, as per my referenced items in the first post on ANI. I was not aware of the forum shopping rule and when I uncovered the their aged knowledge of each other and thier 100% agreement between these parties I placed on ANI as this is serious ongoing and chronic issue affecting large amount of editors and pages. No lies, no delusions, the evidence items above prove this is ongoing and consistent and upsetting multiple other users. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:ED45:2BCA:48B2:EEFD (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * lol --Golbez (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

User Cardboardboxhd is continuously inserting content sourced to an unreliable source
Isi96 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Protection of AfD
Can Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation be semi-ed? Musk tweeted about the AfD and you can imagine the result. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that this is also at WP:RFPP, I'm not currently convinced a semi is warranted. There's a lot of bad !votes but most aren't vandalism or such. I'm more inclined to clerk it a bit and move the off-topic comments to their own subheading or to talk. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support an admin saving everyone's time and speedy keeping as the original rationale no longer makes sense. Alternatively, definitely needs some clerking by someone(s) uninvolved in the discussion, rather than scarlet lettering of SPAs and apparently semi-SPAs (who knew being active was a requirement to have a say) by those involved including tagging of those who have made policy compliant arguments. Slywriter (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since a significant number of the "Keep" nominations make no reference to any policy, or are simply nonsense ("certainly a noteworthy and real event. Deleting would show Wikipedia's true bias", "minus the left-wing biased media, this is relevant and important information", "To keep Wikipedia a free speech platform") they can be effectively discarded so there is certainly no speedy keep here (even if there could be per WP:SK, which there can't). Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it takes one policy compliant keep rationale to determine that an article should be kept. If an article is policy compliant, no amount of delete votes can change it.
 * Regardless, I have hope Tamzin will keep it under control and in a week some poor soul will read an epic novel to only say keep or no consensus while we watch Wikipedia get attacked further on the outside and the bonds fray further on the inside as editors with bias wiki-lawyer policy to try and say that an article with seven sources does not meet GNG and V. There's a rich history of AfD and policy discussions to look at that foretell the ending and it would be virtually unprecedented for such an article not to survive. Slywriter (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually lol. --JBL (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you put that evil on me.  I just saw this pop up in a bunch of places at once and thought I'd do my part to find a solution short of excluding IP/non-AC voices from a high-profile AfD. But I am not this AfD's keeper.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha. Yes, I do hope the collective of admins and veterans help (but truly appreciate you stepping in). Though watching the chaos less chefs would do, too many opinions of what is good content and too little trust that a closer has the capacity to tell the difference. Slywriter (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I get that. I felt like setting up anything more formal than I did would stray into unilaterally making policy. If we do want something stricter (like changing "uninvolved editor" to "uninvolved admin" and saying admins must discuss before restoring a moved !vote), it would probably be best imposed as an AMPOL DS remedy. But I'd just as soon not be the one to do that. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Slywriter, you state that "Actually, it takes one policy compliant keep rationale to determine that an article should be kept. If an article is policy compliant, no amount of delete votes can change it." There is no policy which forces us to keep any article for any reason. It is impossible to give a keep reason which trumps all delete reasons by default. Even if you demonstrate in your "keep" that the reason the nom gave for deletion is false, there still may be other reasons why an article should be deleted (or redirected or merged or...). Obviously, for many articles no good policy reason to wholesale delete it could ever be found, so I'm not arguing that we can never have speedy keeps, far from it. But not because one editor found a policy which somehow forces us to keep the article. Such a thing doesn't exist. Fram (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Did an initial round of clerking, moving off-topic comments to an archivebox on talk. Would appreciate any help going forward (and reäppraisals of the ones I left; many are borderline, and I erred on the side of not removing). Still don't think semi-protection is needed. It would be the convenient thing to do, but I don't think it would be in keeping with the protection policy. Bad !votes aren't on their own grounds for protection. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * While I understand the decision and won't protect because there is active moderation, I do have to point out that WP:SEMI does explicitly allow the use of temporary semi-protection in cases of disruption caused by media attention, which is a pretty fine summary of what is happening there. "If blocking individual users is not a feasible option", that is, but that's also arguably the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless the discussion degenerates into attacks, doxxing, etc., leave unprotected. Seems to be headed towards a keep, anyway, but regardless, any editor may clerk an AfD by tagging new accounts with canvassed or spa. Canvassed users may still have their say, their preferences will simply not be given as much weight. Because while an open forum, this is still a private website, not a government one. A private website where rules concerning account tenure are a thing. Just like $8 is (was?) a thing for others privately-owned twebsites. Note: that I procedurally declined the protection request for this, deferring to this more substantive discussion, instead. El_C 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could an admin close to point users to Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation? Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: closed the AFD here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

AIV Backlog
A backlog is forming over at WP:AIV. I recently posted about a person and saw the backlog notice.SniperReverter (Talk to me and | what I've done) 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Cleared  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lovely. SniperReverter (Talk to me and | what I've done) 17:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy (again)
There has been quite a bit of unrest at the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article since the closure of this RfC about using the word "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop and the subsequent close review that took place here about a month ago ending in a lukewarm "no consensus here to overturn the RFC close". In addition to slow edit wars involving multiple users, there are currently 10 threads on the article's talk page discussing the issue, including a messy new RfC that will almost certainly be closed as malformed, and a thread at the BLP noticeboard. I think the situation needs some intervention.

I think some of the problem stems from 2 issues I see with the original RfC closure:
 * 1) People don't respect the close because of how it was made. I think, despite having good intentions, essentially made a poor "supervote" close through a combination of not writing a thorough closing statement and lacking the social status/currency to make a supervote stick. The explicit lack of endorsement in our close review didn't help.
 * 2) In a less conspicuous addendum to the close, Compassionate727 made the mistake of answering a question the RfC didn't ask and took a position that there was not obvious consensus for. The RfC only asked if Biden's ownership of the laptop should be described as "alleged". Yet C727 sated, "the consensus is against qualifying the belonging in any way, unless a new RfC determines otherwise." (emphasis added)  This shut the door on a lot of potential avenues of compromise.

Rather than just letting things continue spiraling, I suggest two possible courses of action:
 * 1) Overwrite the original close with a new close by a volunteer admin (or admins). It doesn't matter if the close has the same result, you just need to write a nuanced close that gives fair consideration to both sides of the argument.
 * 2) Investigate and possibly overturn the problematic addendum to the close, as that is being used to enforce a specific wording and reject potential compromises that don't explicitly say things like "...laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden."

I don't want this to turn into anything like the last close review where people waste time restating their arguments for the nth time. If after 24 hours this seems to be "no consensus" territory I would ask any passing admin to consider this request withdrawn and close it if I haven't done so first. ~Awilley (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Please no more than one top-level comment
 * If the closed RFC ends up being over-turned, ignored, re-interpret, etc. We might end up setting a bad precedent. GoodDay (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with GoodDay. The close was appealed, and there was not a consensus to overturn. A new RfC can be held, once sufficient time has passed, but until then the consensus must stand. BilledMammal (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse Awilley. The non-admin closer overstepped by ruling on a question never presented at RFC, prematurely forestalling most potential resolutions. Feoffer (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this not a mere re-litigation of the RFC close review? The consensus is clear and admins should be willing to use AP2 and/or BLP discretionary sanctions to enforce it. Also, there's a new RFC and consensus there could easily supersede the previous consensus. Iffy★Chat -- 12:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per BilledMammal, given that an appeal did not have a clear consensus to overturn already, I don't see any reason to keep relitigating this at the time being. While consensus can change, this is starting to feel like forum shopping.  I would prefer if people gave this some time to cool down, and waited until the news stopped covering this so we can reach a stable version at some point in the future.  Being in the midst of competing narratives out in the real world creates chaos at Wikipedia, and it's best if we didn't add to that chaos.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really want any further part in this dispute. FWIW, I think the current drama shows that there is a de facto consensus that my closure did not correctly reflect the community's sentiments, even if didn't feel like he could find as much. I believe a new RfC to clarify the community's exact sentiments would be helpful. I also believe some editors on both sides of this dispute have been disruptively wikilawyering and bludgeoning and that sanctions are merited. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the current drama shows that there is a de facto consensus that my closure did not correctly reflect the community's sentiments I wouldn't go that far, Compassionate727. The latest discussion was ignited by one new editor, and has been largely participated in by editors from the old discussion. I believe your close was a fine summation of the opinions expressed by the community at that time, a belief shared by many others the AN Close review discussion. "The Community" here, in general and in any smaller subsection, is not a monolith, and is subject to change - which is what it seems to have done in this case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the humility/introspection here, but I also think you might be taking it too far. I'm not convinced that you arrived at the wrong conclusion. My best guess is just that the path things took to get where we are makes it difficult for half the community to accept. And despite my criticisms, I do appreciate your willingness to step into the line of fire to close something that many people wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. I've been there, and weathering the criticism can be exhausting. ~Awilley (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, please don't take any of these concerns personally. The emphasis on your personal beliefs made by some was especially wrong!  Your work here is truly appreciated.  Feoffer (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For any other admin who may be reviewing this request, here's a link to the previous AN discussion.


 * A couple of salient points here: Awilley was one of 4 admins who voted/opined in that discussion, and their opinion at the time was that, while they had concerns about the quality of the close, they did not vote to Overturn, noting "I suspect a new close could very well come to a similar conclusion." The opinions of the other 3 admins were "endorse" (Masem), "overturn" (Black Kite), and "dunno" (slakr). I'll also note that part of the reasoning for Black Kite's vote was considered very controversial, and was singled out by many other editors and admins in a long side-discussion as being inappropriate. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize so few admins had commented in that discussion. (I think I either mistook several people for admins who weren't or my mind conflated it with the JohnPackLambert appeal that happened around the same time.) ~Awilley (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is just relitigating the RFC, and I disagree strongly that C727 was "lacking the social status/currency to make a supervote stick". It wasn't a supervote and tbis has nothing to do with social status or currency. The problem is a very small group of editors refusing to accept the RfC result. Less than 5 editors I think. That's the only problem, it's a extremely common problem we call IDHT/tendentious editing, it's designed to win by outlasting everyone else, and the solution is to deal with the individual editors, not throw out the RfC and appeal because a few people won't accept it. To do otherwise would set a poor precedent as GoodDay points out above. Levivich (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is a very small group of editors refusing to accept the RfC result. Less than 5 editors I think. That's the only problem  It's really not.   Having never edited the article or participated in any of the RFCs and knowing almost-nothing about the subject, I came to the article as a reader.  The article began by saying the laptop belonged to Biden, only to insist a few sentences later that it could only be a copy, not a device that belonged to Biden.  You don't have to have any strong feelings or prior knowledge about the topic to recognize that a seemingly-self-contradictory lede is a problem.  Feoffer (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are still bound by the global consensus of the RFC. Your OP at BLP started with: That's something. Aside from the fact that you're flat incorrect about it being unsourced (the lead sentence is sourced in the body as usual), you're also admitting there are lots of sources that call it his laptop but then saying there isn't any source that says it belongs to him. That's contradictory. The sources were examined in depth at the RfC; they don't contradict each other; they all say it was his laptop, some say nobody disputes this, and none say it was anyone else's or we don't know whose it was. Unless you have some new sources for us to consider, your posts at BLPN and the talk page about this is just rehashing the RfC. I disagree with Awilley that "People don't respect the close because of how it was made." A few people--5 or fewer I think--don't respect the close because of its outcome, not because of how it was made. There is no problem here larger than the edit warring of a few editors. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The original close was problematic. Two big issues: a clear misreading of the extent to which arguments were supported by sources, and a major overreach in the post-close clarification (both per what I wrote when the review came up). The review suffered from early sidetracking, with wrongheaded emphasis on the personal beliefs of the closer, which made it easy for lots of people to push back on the challenge without providing any real justification for the closure itself. The actual issues (representation of consensus, sourcing, and the post-closure extension) should've been the focus. But here we are. One thing the post-close extension helped to make clear is the RfC perhaps should've been more specific with regard to what was being asked. Regardless of who closes it, there's going to be some misery in sorting out interpretations and wordings and we may wind up with a new RfC anyway. My suggestion, which is also miserable, is to run a new RfC, and to require people who disagree with one another to collaborate on the framing of the question and options for wording, if applicable. Don't leave it up to one person to come up with the framing. Let's actually put this to bed. Since a large part of the debate will likely be unpleasant rehashing of familiar arguments, maybe we can even run an RfC with a shorter timeframe (say, two weeks) in order to minimize disruption. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The question the RfC asked was to chose between the two disputed versions of the wording. What would you have asked? TFD (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * chose between the two disputed versions - No it doesn't. It asks Should the article use the term "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop computer?. That's not about any specific sentence/version -- just a question about a word. And as we saw from the follow-up to the RfC and discussions since, there's been some difference of opinion as to how well other wording (widely believed, purported, claimed, etc.) and framing (using different language for the emails vs. laptop, distinguishing between how the sources treated ownership early on vs. later, etc.) may fit the situation. I'm giving examples not to be exhaustive or because I actually want to debate any of them here, but to highlight that there are ways to make the question tighter. If I were to throw something out, I'd probably ask if reliable sources support claims and/or implications of ownership in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution (avoiding wording debates altogether). If yes, then that's that, but if not there could be a set of concrete language choices to choose from... &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 03:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be appreciative if you would answer how you would have phrased the question. I had not expected that when it was agreed the term alleged should not be used, some users then supported "purported" and when that was rejected they would come up with "involves a laptop computer, its contents, and the question of its ownership."
 * This is a clear example of tendentious editing. These editors are unwilling to accept that the article say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden and will use whatever arguments they can no matter how the RfC is worded. Don't blame me for not coming up with iron clad wording to prevent them from doing this, because it wouldn't have worked. TFD (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be appreciative if you would answer how you would have phrased the question I just did. The "set of concrete language choices" would require some workshopping. Don't blame me It's not about you. It's about making it as watertight as possible. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rhododendrites, I think you're right and the "miserable" new RfC is probably the path forward at this point. Thanks for the input. ~Awilley (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was involved in the discussion, the close review, and the new discussions. I mostly agree with Rhododendrites on this, including agreeing that this isn't a great solution either. I think it's natural that since this topic is current and evolving, people are reopening closed topics and engaging on the topics even though they were seen as settled only a short time ago. WP:CCC, and the community has to determine what is the reasonable limit of how often. I think if the users that opposed this current round of reopening had gone to AE or another place to have the consensus of the RFC enforced, it well could have been. I'm not sure if a re-close of the close or close review would help because this is going to be contentious regardless. On the other hand, if the community continues to be roughly split on issues, what's the point of having a new RFC just to lead to another no consensus result. Except - the previous result was not no consensus, despite some feeling that it might have been, and so, if we move to a no consensus result, that is different from the ostensible status quo ante. So this is a good example of why a close that was borderline-overturned but upheld, is kind of like a wave baby: it's a vulnerable swing state incumbent if you will. 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%);">🚐 00:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There should be more room for overturning non-admin closures in general. An admin's number one purpose is to find and enforce consensus, so having non-admins do that work can introduce errors (though obviously if the non-admin makes a good close then none of that applies.) casualdejekyll  13:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The current procedure which is followed by the community is that non-admins may close RFCs. Non-admin closures may in many cases be considered inappropriate (WP:BADNAC), but even in those cases, the close shouldn't be undone simply because the closer was a non-admin (WP:NACRFC).
 * If you think policy should be updated, that's what the Village pump is for. But we have a framework to work with here already. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Non-admin closures should never be considered less valid than admin closures except in cases where the admin would have to actually use their tools to enforce the results of the closure. Any experienced editor should be able to close any discussion in good faith and assess consensus without being under any special scrutiny for doing so if they are not an admin.  More to the point: it doesn't matter if the closer is an admin or not, except in cases where enacting the consensus of the discussion strictly requires admin tools.  The instructions at WP:BADNAC, things like "lack of impartiality" and the like, apply equally to admins.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason that WP:NAC is an essay is because it doesn't represent consensus. "An admin's number one purpose is to find and enforce consensus" -- no way, that's not consensus either. Anyone can close an RFC. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Levivich NO WAY is an admin's purpose to find and enforce consensus. Admins have no special power to "enforce consensus".  Admins have additional access to a small suite of tools that normal users don't, and that allows admins to stop disruptive editing.  That's it.  Consensus is determined by the community and any sufficiently experienced editor can close and summarize a discussion.  Admins are by definition sufficiently experienced, but it is their experience at Wikipedia, and not their access to the admin toolset that gives them that authority.  Other equally experienced editors without the admin tool set have the exact same authority.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please remove rights from globally banned/locked users
Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:INDEFRIGHTS. Did either of these users engage in any sort of deception to get these rights? For Planespotter, at least, my understanding is the answer is "no"; she got autopatrolled fair and square, and only started socking after her initial indef. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 13:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Tamzin, I have a genuine question. Why do we need to keep advanced rights for indefed users. There must be some good reason why a person with advanced rights already will be indefed, and if such person ever returns, they can just reapply. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We will often clean these up in batches, as the users end up being locally inactive. As far as that specific question: "global" sanctions are reversible (and sometimes in opposition with the desires of the local community), so unless there was also a local issue that actually needed dealing with we don't usually need to spend time on it. — xaosflux  Talk 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I went right away to a maintenance category and with assistance from "mark user rights", and "strike blocked user" scripts, I found User:A1Cafel for example, who was CU blocked back in October 2019, and is still a file mover, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker. There are several more of them, this was just the first such result in Category:Wikipedia page movers. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd actually be fine with removing all rights from sitebanned users. But the community reäffirmed its objection to doing so as recently as 2019. As Xaos says, some rights nonetheless get pulled for inactivity; and others get pulled at time of indef if the blocking admin feels that they were gained deceptively or that the user lacks the required level of trust. Perhaps there should just be a universal 5-year inactivity cutoff for all rights except confirmed and extendedconfirmed (as a backstop to shorter cutoffs already in place for most)? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 14:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If we have consensus to delete stale drafts in just 6 months in order to cleanup Wikipedia, it is beyond me why we do not have consensus to remove permissions from users who are never coming back for just the same reason. If I were a new user searching for page movers, for example, I would not want to bump into an indefed user who left 3+ years ago. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is in the other direction: If a user is indeffed; there is no point in removing rights they have no chance to use while indeffed. What's the point?  If you believe they aren't coming back, then it is pointless paper-pushing to flip some switch for a right they can't even use while blocked.  If you want the right removed as a condition of unblocking for a specific case, then we can have that discussion when we as a community deal with their being unblocked.  But pre-emptively removing user rights from accounts is a pointless exercise in bureaucracy.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The only exception to this I think is  and edit filter manager/helper, which I believe are currently the only three groups where a user can use some subset of their advanced groups (although the edit filter manager/helper think might actually already be fixed; can't find the phab task this second) --  Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  07:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's true, but in a practical sense, if a blocked admin started using their admin tools while blocked, within a very short time period, ArbCom would institute an emergency desysop. It's a rare enough event that it doesn't require a formal process to enshrine at Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the few things a blocked admin can still do is view private edit filters Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 [//phabricator.wikimedia.org/T320678]. I AGF you're correct that there is a log of such views, but are you certain anyone is paying enough attention to notice? I don't think it's logged anywhere that anyone just checking out what the blocked admin is up to is likely to notice so it would have to be someone viewing the private edit filter view log who happens to notice that one of the viewers is a blocked admin. Remembering that until and unless the WMF fix the bug, this could be up to 5 years later or whatever the inactivity standards are when people may barely remember the case (depending on how high profile it and the admin was). Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I don't think there's need for a formal process. Where I differ is the reasons. There isn't a need because thankfully arbcom does recognise this isn't an area we should be reactive in. I see no realistic chance an admin will keep their tools for 5 years while blocked all that time. If arbcom really did allow such an untenable situation to continue then, yes we will need a formal process. This is simply an area where it's unacceptable to be long term reactive, and if administrators aren't willing to accept that then sorry not sorry. Even if the WMF fix that edit filter bug, considering there's always a risk of future bugs, editors should not be allowed to keep such high level permissions long term when they have completely lost the trust of the community in general. I'd add that block editors may be less likely to maintain their account security properly. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the few things a blocked admin can still do is view private edit filters based on my reading of the phab ticket that should have been fixed already, so it should no longer be an issue. This leaves of course the fact that a blocked admin can still block whoever blocked them, so its probably still the only userright we should pull -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  18:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've pulled autopatrolled from because the original reason for the block was pushing a genocide denialist POV, so in the unlikely even that she's ever unblocked, her creations definitely need to be reviewed. That was her only advanced right. Courtesy ping  who originally granted it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A user changing season order on year-by-year United States network television schedule articles


A user name Nostalgia Zone has been replacing seasonal order on year-by-year United States network television schedule articles without seeking consensus, such as 1995-96 United States network television schedule (as seen in this diff), 2006-07 United States network television schedule (as seen in this diff), 2011-12 United States network television schedule (as seen in this diff) and 2022-23 United States network television schedule (as seen in this diff). More on this issue with that user in the userlinks.

BattleshipMan (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Where exactly was this issue discussed, prior to raising it here? What adminstartive action do you think is called for? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I call upon for a resolution to this if it should be "Mid-October" and "Late October" or as "Winter" and "Spring". BattleshipMan (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you object to the changes for some substantive reason, you could revert them (per WP:BRD), or you could begin a discussion with the user on their talk-page or on one of the article talk-pages or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. If you do not have any substantive objection, this seems pointless.  And the administrator noticeboard is not going to settle a content question. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the page for that; as noted at the top of the page: "This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators". Again: Where exactly was this issue discussed, prior to raising it here?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Andy, surely it's obvious that it hasn't been discussed anywhere. I've already made suggestions of where it should be discussed; if there's something wrong with my suggestions, you could make a better one, but repeating the question rhetorically is not constructive. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP stated "More on this issue with that user in the userlinks." As that is hopelessly vague, I asked "Where exactly was this issue discussed..?". As for unconstructive comments, please get the beam out of your own eye. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just simply trying to make the dates for changes in the TV schedules more specific. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. End of story. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
is a sockpuppet of. This user has edited under both names here and at en.wq. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this a violation of WP:BADSOCK though?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , you seem to have blocked someone for changing their account name on Wikiquote without using the mandatory renaming process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I posted on that user's talk page. If he wants to change names per the process at Meta, he can, but this appears to be someone just breaking the rules. If en.wp admins think this is a mistake and not some sneaky evasion, then I'm happy to learn more. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no message on the blocked account's talk page. If there is an actual problem with policy violations such as edit warring, I guess that should be the block reason, and both accounts should be blocked. Anyway, I don't think there's currently something for us to do here. If this changes, I think WP:SPI would be the best place for a new report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We get these reports from time to time at SPI; I think of them as "poor man's renames". If en.wikiquote has a rule against such things, that's their prerogative, but it breaks no policy here unless there's evasion of scrutiny. (Even in cases where there's possible evasion but it's minor (e.g. a level-1 warning on the old account), we usually just instruct them to disclose, or in less AGF-y cases softblock the old account and leave the new one uw-sock.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Writing "Hey don't so this anymore" is a valid response. I am leaving up to admins here to figure out the best course of action, but I also agree that this is not an obviously critical matter. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a message: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Franciswhicker1996 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(Regarding "Yes, there is a message": No, that's not the blocked account's talk page.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)