Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive353

Help cleaning up bot-mangled citations
This came up last month, but there hasn't been much movement on it since, and I'm not sure where else I can raise a signal about it. Use of the ReferenceExpander bot without manually checking its output has led to references being contracted instead. For example, the bot sometimes follows a link that now redirects to a new, uninformative place, but since the link technically "works" the auto-generated citation omits the archive-URL and creates a footnote that is nicely templated but completely useless. It also removes all sorts of ancillary information included in manually-formatted citations, like quotations. If multiple citations were gathered into the same footnote, it creates a replacement based on only the first of them. It can see a citation to a chapter in an edited collection and replace the authors' names with the editors of the volume. It can see a URL for a news story and create a cite web footnote that omits the byline which had been manually included. A list of potentially affected pages is available here.

It's frankly a slog to deal with, and there doesn't seem to be any other option than manually looking at each item.

(Per the big orange box, I have notified the editor whose actions prompted all this, but they are both retired and indeffed.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @XOR'easter sorry. I was going to try working through at least a few of these a bit at a time, but I've been busy with a lot of other stuff. Is anyone here interested in gathering together a crew to tackle some of these as a group? It feels pretty daunting for just a few people. –jacobolus (t) 02:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can help. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I started reviewing the list, and fyi, in the 1853 or so citations affected here, I noticed https urls were occasionally converted to http. Beccaynr (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, I hadn't even thought to check for that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you asked the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help? They are also having a copy-editing drive this month, and maybe something like this could be added to that project. Beccaynr (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did ask, as it happens; apparently it's not in their wheelhouse. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WikiFaerie are not as well-organized, so I am not sure how to conduct outreach, but I will try to work through the list you have developed when possible. Thank you for calling attention to this. Beccaynr (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @XOR'easter: Perhaps WP:WikiProject Citation cleanup? Not the most active of projects, I think, though. AddWitty  NameHere  21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion; I've commented over there. What gets me is that these are not all obscure pages. DNA, for example, is a Featured Article with almost 2,000 watchers, and yet nobody seems to have noticed when citations were modified to have a last name "Bank", first name "RCSB Protein Data". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are so many bots and bot-like gnomes running around making so many hundreds of thousands of minor cleanups to citations on articles, 99% of which are fine, that it makes it very tiresome to consistently check all edits appearing on one's watchlist and notice the thousands of edits that fall into the 1% of cases where the software totally screws up the citation. And yet, these supposed cleanups happen so often and so repetitively to the same articles that it seems that, eventually, all citations will be garbaged by bots. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been very slowly working my way through one of the more severely damaged articles, Falun Gong (a CTOP I've never edited before). Out of the numerous affected references, I have yet to see the ReferenceExpander script suggest a correct citation. Even ignoring the information lost from the manually formatted references that are not converted into the cite templates, I'm seeing the tool assign incorrect titles and incorrect dates, leave out authors when a byline is clearly evident at the top of the article, confuse archives with live urls, and associated basic errors.At this point I'm extremely suspect of any edits performed using this script, since its parsing both of the existing reference and of retrieved webpages is, in the general case, objectively inadequate. It might be faster to batch undo as many of these edits as is technically feasible, and I'm sadly wondering if we should formally encourage the maintainer to disable the script pending improvement. Courtesy ping User:BrandonXLF. Folly Mox (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I found that the ReferenceExpander script also removed Template:pd-notice from every article it had touched in Category:Human trafficking by country, which all incorporate text in the public domain in the US. Not sure how big a problem regarding copyright and attribution that is, but it's definitely an unwanted behaviour. The query  and them ran back in April returned over 2600 rows. It's dog's work fixing these, but if people could just scroll around a bit and find a couple articles that interest them, we could repair the damage a lot quicklier. The bottom tables, where the script has added in byte size, seem to be pretty low hanging fruit, since action is not always needed. Folly Mox (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding this: it's very much at the stage where having a bunch of people click on five random links and fix or mark as ok the obvious easy ones would be a huge help. --JBL (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've come across ReferenceExpander in a few of the articles I watch and similarly find it to have an extraordinarily low rate of success. If it's to remain available its users must not only check the output very carefully indeed but also actually understand how our citation templates work. XAM2175  (T) 16:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I finally found one that wasn't a problem! This edit to Penguin looks fine. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Both citations had archive URLs that were deleted by the script leaving only a dead URL in the new cite, and in the first one the script also commits the grossly stupid error of cramming two different corporate publishers into a single set of first and last fields. XAM2175  (T) 15:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow. OK, back to 0% success in those I've examined, then. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I started checking History of Wikipedia and just had to give up. Lost content restored up through line 108, but I need to lie down now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair. I've definitely had two or three repairs that took me multiple hours of work and required a break or a night's sleep. For a single diff. Smh. Folly Mox (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It has to get easier after Zionism, right? Right? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've mostly been backing out of the articles where the size has been reduced by multiple kilobytes unless I have a whole day available to devote to reference repair, and I appreciate that you've been tackling the top of the list while I've been scrolling arbitrarily and repairing whatever.
 * Perhaps the most egregious behaviour I saw yesterday was at Mead, where ReferenceExpander took a properly formatted book citation, already in a template, and discarded the page= parameter. I cannot pretend to understand why this functionality would be programmed in. Folly Mox (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Having been on Sub-Saharan Africa for the past few days, I can safely say: Prolly not. ~Judy  (job requests) 15:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am having to take Left-libertarianism in tiny morsels. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I discovered while workin' on Hilaree Nelson (which XOR'easter beat me to fixin' with their rollback powers, haha) that this script's also a real problem when an article has a web page title and a news headline that don't match up, and given its propensity for getting rid of author names, it can really bungle a citation to where it takes a few second looks to make sure you've got it right when handling them manually. ~Judy  (job requests) 20:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I checked several diffs; will try to check more later. The edit to Toki Pona seems to have been good, as far as how it formatted the reference, although the entire reference was subsequently removed for being a random youtube video. -sche (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's an odd one: as far as I can tell, everything here was fine except that it dropped a space which was present between two of the words in the title, smooshing them together. (Am I missing any other issues?) I'm surprised a script that causes as many problems as have been discussed here, and as many different kinds of problems, doesn't seem(?) to have been disabled yet. -sche (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it be improper (or even possible) to propose that it be disabled by community consensus? XAM2175  (T) 22:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a bot? is indefinitely blocked. Is any other user running User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander in a problematic way? If ReferenceExpander is thought to have problems,  can be asked for a fix but there would need to be a list of, say, five examples of a problem with a brief explanation. If the script produces more problems than it solves, it could easily be disabled. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are definitely other users running it, but not on anywhere near the same scale. Their edits typically have the same kinds of issues, but they are more likely to self-censor the most egregious ones. In my opinion the script creates a lot of big problems and doesn't really solve anything at all. YMMV. –jacobolus (t) 04:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The script seems to run as intended if the source is the New York Times or if it has a doi number. I've also seen it take a bare url reference and create a citation that was pretty good except for one field filled out naively but not incorrectly. For online news sources, it tends not to make things worse, although it sometimes does.Edits from users other than Philoserf are consistently less worse, because they look at the proposed output and choose not to apply the obviously incorrect updates, but the script has so many problems (way more than five) and gets so many different things wrong and discards so much information present in existing citations that I would never feel comfortable not double checking an edit made using it.Having looked briefly at the code, I think the bugs might actually be upstream in dependency libraries, but disabling the interface is probably the safest move. BrandonXLF has added a warning that editors are responsible for edits made using the script, but has otherwise been silent on the issue. I suppose we could take it to MfD. Folly Mox (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and nominated it. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 20:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * More than 450 edits have been checked, reverted, or repaired; that's still less than 20% of the total. Let me again suggest to people who like gnoming that a lot of this is pretty straightforward (one or two references per edit to check to make sure no information was lost) and that's just a matter of hands on deck.  --JBL (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * People will want to click through to the target page to ensure the script hasn't – for example – credited editors as authors or put the name of the author or website into the title= parameter. I usually go in with the goal of making the citation reasonably complete, since I'm checking it anyway, which often involves adding parameters like author and publication date, but the tactic of making sure the reference is not worse than before the script touched it is also viable. It is indeed reasonably straightforward, and one hardly ever needs to assess source quality, relevance, or whether it supports the prose. It's easy enough that it's what I've been doing when my brain is done for the day. There's just a lot. Folly Mox (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to retain the other 1800+ edits while they're being checked? I'm not familiar with this tool at all, but it sounds as if the bot's edits are detrimental, and the project would be better off if we just reverted en masse.  Is that correct, or is it better to check before reverting the bot?  Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a technically apt editor and I haven't done as much repairing as some others so I might not be the best person to answer this question, but I'll share my two cents here anyway. It's impossible to revert many of the edits using Undo, Twinkle, etc. because most were several months ago, and multiple edits to many of the pages have occurred since then. A minority of the citations, particularly to the New York Times, were actually improved by ReferenceExpander. Some of them aren't too bad, and only require something straightforward like adding,  , and   to the citation templates or correcting the author paramaters. Some of them are in pretty bad shape, but were already poorly formatted before ReferenceExpander and require quite a bit more work. Most of them can be manually reverted by copying and pasting the wikitext of the citations from the pre-ReferenceExpander revision, although creating a new citation template from scratch is often an improvement over the old revision. There are enough weird behaviors and edge cases that simply reverting them all with a bot or script probably wouldn't be a good option IMO, but others may disagree with me on that point. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 04:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Nyttend, when I come across edits that are the most recent revision during the cleanup, typically I'll straight revert them (sometimes I'll improve them; it depends on how sleepy and grumpy I'm feeling), and I see other editors contributing to this task doing the same, but usually there are intervening edits. If we had a query of all the ReferenceExpander edits where they were the most recent revision, I feel it would be safe to bulk revert the lot and then go back and unrevert any that were genuine improvements, which do occur.Based on my experience with the cleanup, possibly between 10 and 20 per cent of ReferenceExpander edits are net-zero or net-positive, to give a very rough estimate. We've been prioritising the more damaged articles, but the edits which increase the byte size are usually much less worse. The issue, for my brain anyway, is that they're still mostly incomplete and naive, so if I'm in there anyway I'll try to leave it better than ReferenceExpander found it. Folly Mox (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Also it might be good to run the same query for older edits. I think the ReferenceExpander script has been around for a while and I would expect it probably had roughly similar behavior through its life. There are probably at least some older ones that should be checked/fixed (though hopefully not nearly so many). –jacobolus (t) 04:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. If we do that, I think we should also run a query if the script is deleted or disabled after the MFD is closed. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 18:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is probably safest to check every edit ever committed using this tool. Something that worries me is that the entire core functionality seems to hinge on a function in mediawiki's own Citoid.js library, and I happened upon some citations earlier today or yesterday, not created by ReferenceExpander, that had publication dates in the author-first= field. I'm not sure how many scripts will take anything other than a bare URL as input before creating a citation, which is by far the biggest problem with the ReferenceExpander edits, but once this cleanup is a bit more buttoned up it might be wise to find out which team is responsible for maintaining Citoid.js and see if we can't get them to implement some improvements and add warning messages to editors that the output may not be correct and double checking should be performed. Folly Mox (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

For those keeping score at home, we recently passed 25% completion (by number of edits): about 650 out of 2500 have been checked or corrected. The most recent one I fixed was a real doozie. --JBL (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've seen that same failure mode before. I can't put my finger on where exactly it was, but it definitely did show up in one of the other articles I've fixed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was in Ballistic movement . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And it's the same replacement chosen for the two (otherwise unrelated) references! So bizarre.  --JBL (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of the references prior to Philoserf's ReferenceExpander edits contained a URL, so it might have something to do with their device's behaviour when it's asked to fetch a URL but only given numeric input data. Just a hunch.I repaired one which I cannot for the life of me track down, where the author fields had been populated, which is client-side behaviour when redirecting to an unencrypted address on a certain browser, so the "leave SMS voice" thing may have the same tenor as an error message. Folly Mox (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was Huldar saga. And it was . And it was the source that says "unpublished" "do not cite". Good times. Folly Mox (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And it was my saltiest edit summary ever. Not super proud of that. Oops. Anyway we're almost to 800 matches for Template:y on the cleanup page. Folly Mox (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like we crossed 1000 some time today. One thing this is bringing home for me is that there are a lot of poor citations in this encyclopedia.  But honestly the people who drop a bare url that points somewhere relevant inside ref tags are doing a lot more good than the people who formatted obviously ridiculous references using this tool (even when the formatting was not itself bad). --JBL (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Half-way done. JBL (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what happened on Michael Faraday; usually it screws up because an old URL redirects to a useless place, like a "search this site" page, but the given URL still works in this case. And Gilded Age provides an example of how even when the bot script infernal contraption makes the article bigger, it can lead to lost information. The article cited different pages from the same book, ReferenceExpander converted those manual footnotes to (badly formatted) templates, and then reFill blindly merged them because ReferenceExpander had omitted the page numbers. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The more I learn about the whole infrastructure in play here the more concerned I become. The actual Zotero hooks, which will convert DOIs and PMIDs etc into perfectly formatted citations via Citoid, are extremely reliable. I'm not sure where in the stack the "google books" processor is, but it consistently throws out page numbers, never identifies editors, and discards chapter contributions. I hope it's somewhere in a mediawiki library so it can be improved instead of rewritten from scratch to avoid the current serious bugs.I contacted one of the maintainers of ReFill about some improvements that could be made downstream of Citoid, but they've got too much going on to invest more deeply in maintaining other people's code. Someone commented at the MfD that they could likely improve on ReferenceExpander's code, and as much as I've enjoyed the silly bursts of absurdity during this long cleanup effort, it can't feel good for BrandonXLF when most of the errors we're describing – outside of the fundamental design flaw of overwriting existing references – are not even his fault, except insofar as he trusted Citoid to parse pages intelligently, which does happen in some cases.I think my eventual point is that although we're dealing with the fallout of an overlap of some serious mistrusts, script-assisted referencing is not going to become less popular because of one tool, and we really need to commit to the followthrough of improving its reliability as far up the stack as we have access to, so this dark portent can be averted. Folly Mox (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to handle DOIs, news websites, books, etc., all in the same script is biting off an awful lot, maybe more than any single script can actually chew. I think the balance might tip back to the positive if the scope of the tool were less ambitious. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the main thing is that any script author should before releasing their script gather a wide variety of test cases and make sure that they aren't making disimprovements to any of them, and when told about bugs should add additional test cases. For something that is going to run across thousands of pages, the standard has to be very high. Even 1% mistakes is not good enough. But in this case, we are talking about a script that is making something like 75% mistakes, 25% cosmetic changes without significant benefit, and 0% substantial improvements. That should never get past the testing phase. –jacobolus (t) 05:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At detailed logarithmic timeline, it replaced a template that someone had done correctly with a different template that it populated incorrectly, replacing the author's name (Christopher Kemp) with  . There are currently 26 examples of   in articles; I wonder how many this program is responsible for. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, heat pump is not on the list of ReferenceExpander-affected pages, and the errant  was apparently inserted in this edit. So, in this case, it looks like some routine which is upstream from ReferenceExpander and which the citation tool in the Visual Editor also relies upon failed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I'm trying to say: apart from URLs garbled by escaping special characters, and apart from overwriting existing references with worse ones, every error – filling author fields with "Contact Us", parsing the root of a usurped domain, not finding authors with a byline at the top of the page, identifying editors as authors – everything, is attributable to Citoid and whatever is upstream of it. The visual editor's automated references and ReFill at least rely on the exact same library. I don't see Citation bot making the same mistakes, but there's a lot that does depend and will continue to depend on Citoid, which is turning out to be not particularly reliable in many cases.I said in the MfD that the way forward for not wrecking citations is to start out by calling getCitoidRef on the input, but it doesn't have a hook for arbitrary text, so it's a pretty big step to get to a script that never disimproves existing references.Throwing up warnings all over the place to instill a culture of double-checking when it comes to script-assisted referencing is a step we can take, but people have a tendency to trust code. Someone said somewhere there's a general issue of ownership with Citoid, which is a pretty big problem since there's so much work that apparently needs to be done with it. Folly Mox (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's Reflinks (an predecessor to ReFill) filling an author field with "Comments have been closed on this article." Worse still, the IP editor who accepted that garbage is the one who put the bare URL into the article in the first place.I'm beginning to feel that all forms of script-assisted referencing should be restricted to trusted users only, if not dumped entirely, on the grounds that bare URLs that might one day be expanded correctly are preferable to bare URLs being "filled" badly today. XAM2175  (T) 01:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On The Language Myth, something took the name and date from the top post in a comment section and made it the author name for a citation . I'm so tired. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Making URL-based script-assisted referencing an approval-based permission is something I would support as an intermediate step. I'm not sure how that could be implemented technically, and there's a reasonable plurality of people who will argue that increasing any barriers to referencing will result in fewer references, but I believe the current state of the field is that a fair amount of the time a bare URL is better than whatever the tools turn it into, because at least it's not wrong. Folly Mox (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Another option could be to whitelist domains where the URL parser understands how to retrieve most of the information correctly, and have the tools throw an error like Sorry, we don't understand links from that domain yet for websites not on the list. Folly Mox (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to do a more-or-less okay job with large academic publisher websites where there's some kind of machine-readable structured metadata available. –jacobolus (t) 04:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Funnily, I have a pending task to fix mangled cites from Singapore-based sources. – robertsky (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Category: There has been some commentary at the MfD that the reference filling scripts used to be even more inaccurate, so it's probably safe to assume that for every ReferenceExpander– / Philoserf-related citation mangle, there are a half dozen more lying around undiscovered.String parsing for citation parameters across the set of all web pages with arbitrary formatting is never going to yield perfect results, so the culture of trusting the code output without double-checking really has to go away. Folly Mox (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They're everywhere. I was as Help talk:Citation Style 1 yesterday asking about whether they would be able to make the citation templates throw errors for things like numeric strings or full sentences in last1= fields, and even the most obvious clear error category still listed as maintenance rather than error, Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list‎, has a population, at time of this edit, like this:
 * Huh I guess the function that displays category populations doesn't respond intuitively to subst. When I made the above post the category I mentioned contained 1688 pages. Now it's increased to 1691. The points remain valid, I think. Folly Mox (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Next steps
I've opened a discussion at mw:Talk:Citoid, hoping to get some clarity on how up to date the Zotero translators Citoid uses are, and Citoid's behaviour when a translator for a particular domain is unavailable.For those unfamiliar with how automated referencing is handled by all tools reliant upon Citoid, including ReferenceExpander, ReFill, and the visual editor, what I've been able to determine is that Citoid relies upon code snippets from the Zotero community called "translators", that scrape metadata from individual domains, which it then converts into cite templates. When the Zotero translators work accurately – like for large academic publishers or the New York Times – we get great citations. When an appropriate translator cannot be found (whether it doesn't exist or isn't in the suite of translators Citoid uses), Citoid has its own default fallback functionality, which seldom produces accurate references, according to everyone's experience in this cleanup project. The tools relying on Citoid then insert the reference somewhere in the article being edited, without examining Citoid's output. Certain values in certain parameters will cause an article to be placed in one or more applicable maintenance categories, which I think is done at the time of edit by the modules that handle the citation templates.I want to apologise personally to User:BrandonXLF for the assumption I and others made that the errors in ReferenceExpander's output were of his own design. Overwriting existing references was a major design flaw, but apart from that serious issue, the script honestly isn't that bad, and I shouldn't have blamed its silly output on him.Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander is nearing completion, with a closure having been requested. As I type this, we've repaired, reverted, or checked (in order of frequency) about 1340 of the c. 2400 diffs that comprise this phase of the cleanup. Labour hours are in the hundreds. Next steps include finding ReferenceExpander diffs outside the window of the original database query. There are about a thousand from the second half of 2022, before Philoserf started to go hard, and I don't think these have been included in the cleanup hub. There are probably more from even earlier, and possibly some since April. I proposed at Citoid's talkpage having it generate a warning if it has to resort to its own fallback scraper, and having it add a hidden comment to the references so generated, but those are both dev issues. We might ask script maintainers to have their scripts generate hidden comments in their citations if the Citoid devs are not receptive, or have their scripts add articles they touch to a hidden maintenance category like Category:Articles with unchecked automated references or something, to facilitate further cleanup.For the next phases of cleanup, it's clear AN is not the correct venue for the discussion, but I wanted to leave these thoughts here before this thread is archived. Folly Mox (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to note for the record, particularly for those here who have taken issue with the Foundation's responsiveness in the past, that I have already received two replies from a WMF contractor, on a Sunday, at mw:Talk:Citoid. Folly Mox (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Something in the citation infrastructure chokes on The Hollywood Reporter, generating corrupted bylines. For example, a story by Kimberly Nordyke and Mike Barnes got credited to. And a story by Gregg Kilday and Duane Byrge is credited to. This has probably affected articles about showbiz that are not on the current cleanup list. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * While well-meaning, I think it is time to stop using the Administrator's Noticeboard to discuss issues with Citoid such as how it handles citations from a particular website. There's no administrator action required here. Time to close this thread and move conversation elsewhere. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's a better place for all this, I'm fine with the discussion moving there; the thread only started here because of the earlier two and the lack of an obvious better option. (It's about sourcing but not the reliability of any individual source, so it doesn't seem to belong at RSN. It's a slog like a CCI, but it isn't a CCI. And of course, we were less in the technical weeds at the time.) If anyone opens a new thread, please include it with the others in the handy list at the cleanup worksheet. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Dispute on Khmer-related articles
Hello, I've been informed of some inappropriate edits by a new user I have been assigned to mentor,. informed of of this, the diffs in question were placed on Cerie's talk page by Turaids. I've come to the conclusion that my IRL duties have made it implausible to mentor for now, with this being an example, but I wanted to alert you to this. It does look like the two users are collaborating now (per Turaids talk page), but wanted to report this just in case. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Account reads as blocked on contributions but is still editing
See Special:Contributions/Jack4576 - really not sure what is going on here. Beyond my ken. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the account is only blocked from Wikipedia-namespace and Wikipedia-talk; so edits in article space are still possible; for more info if needed. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. That's why it pays to read the fine print. Hadn't realized such meta-blocks existed. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See Partial blocks; it's a very convenient tool, much more precise than a site-wide block. Lectonar (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To other admins who might be a bit tentative about using it, as I was, I can attest it is a very useful tool. I waited a while before using it, but I finally saw the perfect opportunity and found that, once I did, it was a much more helpful tool than I realized. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a good way to stop edit wars between multiple parties without having to shut down the entire page or put the discussion on hold while those involved are fully-blocked. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Except if you fully block someone for a shorter period of time then they partial block the partial block is cancelled and has to be manually restored after the sitewide block expires, Doug Weller  talk 20:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * For an easy way to tell the difference, I highly recommend checking "strike usernames when blocked" in the gadget section of your preferences. Users who are fully blocked are struck through and users who are partially blocked are underlined with dots instead. The nav popup gadget will also say a partially blocked user "has blocks" instead of just saying that they're blocked.  Pinguinn     🐧   03:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to review a close
This is a request to review the close at Talk:Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I tried to discuss it but the closer has not responded. I think that the closure has been wrong since the moratorium does not affect this site. (It is also the opinion of Mike Cline that has set the moratorium.) I also do not find it as an attempt to bypass the moratorium since one country can use multiple names in titles. Martin Tauchman (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * May be we need a restriction similar to Russia-Ukraine prohibited non-extended-confirmed users to decide on such matters. The RM was opened by an IP, with a good chance to be a sock, and perfectly repeats disruption in Ukrainian topics when a few socks were able to drive everyone crazy. Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But a serious discussion was led by other users. I do not see it as a problem there. Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Good close IMO. As was pointed out by one of the contributors, it was clearly an attempt to get around the failed move of the country article. It's illogical to have the country at one article title and sub-articles using the country's name at others, so I agree that it makes sense for the moratorium to apply more widely than the main article. Number   5  7  17:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But it is not stated in the moratorium's text that it would apply on more articles. We also do have such cases when the name differs across articles (United Kingdom vs. Great Britain in the article about men's national team). Therefore I find it wrong. Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Belongs at WP:MR, but I'd endorse it. Good close.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sock puppet for a permanently banned user: militaryfactchecker equals CptJohnMiller
Earlier this month @Militaryfactchecker, who frequently edited the British Army Training Unit Kenya wiki, received a permanent ban from wikipedia. He committed many sins, including edit warring, soapboxing, plagiarism, and harassment (posting the lyrics to violent racist ethno-nationalist songs on my talk page).


 * 1) He would start edit wars with me to remove information he deemed was damaging to the reputation of the British military.
 * 2) He would cite almost exclusively from Ministry of Defence blogs and social media accounts with little attempt to use secondary sources.
 * 3) He was most active on List of equipment of the British Army.
 * 4) He was banned on the 2nd June by admin @Arado Ar 196.

The day after militaryfactchecker was banned, a user called @CptJohnMiller makes his first edit.


 * 1) He edits the same pages as militaryfactchecker. His first edit was militaryfactchecker's favourite page, List of equipment of the British Army.
 * 2) He first began editing the very next day after militaryfactchecker was banned.
 * 3) He is also fond of removing from the leads of articles information potentially embarrassing for the British military on the British Army Training Unit Kenya wiki, just like militaryfactchecker used to frequently do.
 * 4) Just like militaryfactchecker, he cites almost exclusively from Ministry of Defence Blogs and social media accounts with little attempt to use secondary sources

I believe militaryfactchecker and @CptJohnMiller are the same person, and that this is an alternative account used to evade a permanent ban. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry everybody, another editor just notified me that about the existence of WP:SPI. I have instead made a report there. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Militaryfactchecker. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Three days ago, added a slew of railway/transportation templates requesting indefinite semi-protection to be "consistent" with another template. No admin, including me, has been brave (knowledgeable?) enough to either grant or decline the requests. Meanwhile, that board remains backlogged/cluttered so that at least when I patrol it (not that often compared to some admins), I automatically scroll down to the first request past the template requests. I thought bringing it here might spur someone to dispose of the requests. To be clear, this is not a complaint about Fork99's conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Declined, all but 1 archived. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Choo choo. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I’ve only done this because there is a sentence that does say templates that are high risk can be semi-protected (see the table at WP:PPLIST, it states “Some highly visible templates and modules.”) I do understand that it is up to the particular admin’s discretion, and that some of the templates have been protected. From my point of view, these templates are possibly subject to subtle vandalism (just the nature of the topic can bring people who like to complain about a particular transport system or whatever), without anyone able to revert them as the editors who created or have been substantially involved are all retired, and there’s not many people watching these templates. I am one of the people who do watch them, but I’m not always on Wikipedia, nor can I be 24/7. Thanks for your concern. @Daniel Case and @Courcelles did accept some of my requests. Fork99 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I also was looking at the requests, and decided in the end that i also don't know enough to be able to process the requests; especially the argument about consistency kind of caught me on the wrong foot. Lectonar (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As a general comment on protecting things that are transcluded (templates and modules), unless there is fairly active disruption (or strong potential for such e.g. adding a new template to the main page), it is usually safe to decline. MusikBot has a task that protects transcluded things, escalating protection kind based on transclusion count.
 * There is no real valid argument for consistent treatment then as a motive to protect transcluded pages. IznoPublic (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

User: Seventh Ward Dragon and their user pages
I'm probably INVOLVED with Seventh Ward Dragon, so bringing this here for wider attention. They've done some CSS magic to their user page which makes the page title invisible. I posted a request to their talk page asking them to undo that, at which point I discovered they've also done some magic to their talk page which makes messages invisible. If it wasn't for their history, I'd AGF that this was just some nerdy exploration of odd corners of wiki-markup, but given their trollish history, AGF is in short supply. See also Sockpuppet investigations/WhichUserAmI, the SPI filed under their previous username. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The user talk page looks like an honest mistake (HTML comment started but not closed, I have fixed this). The user name is very clearly shown on the user page, so I don't care too much that it is hidden. I have fixed the near-unreadable template they use on the talk page. —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the title-hiding CSS that was transcluded from their "/userpage" subpage, with WP:SMI in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the fact that messages were not appearing, and I'm unsure as to why that would be. I do know that I hid the title of the article on my userpage, but A: I was not aware of that being an issue, and B: I did not intend to have it affect the messages posted to my talk page. I had no idea that was happening, I apologize for any inconvenience.  Seventh Ward   Dragon  18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To comment out something in wikitext, enclose it like this: . On your user talk page, you had  . Because it wasn't closed correctly, everything beneath it was inadvertently hidden as well. DanCherek (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm happy this got sorted out, but if I may make a friendly suggestion, maybe spend more time writing articles and less time writing CSS? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Username Yae4 engaging in persistent disruptive editing of the Libreboot article
Dear WikiPedia admins,

I write to you to inform you of persistent, disruptive editing of the "Libreboot" article (English version) by username Yae4. I'm requesting that the admins of Wikipedia review the discussion, and ban this individual from editing said article.

My rationale is explained on the talk page of said article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libreboot&oldid=1160297412#Persistent_vandalism,_or_otherwise_disruptive,_non-neutral_editing_with_clear_conflict_of_interest_for_those_involved

I link here to a specific revision because, as is common for the user in question, the user has attempted to hide such criticisms; in the actual latest version of the page, Yae4 collapsed the most critical element of my complaint there, in the following diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALibreboot&diff=1160298043&oldid=1160297412

Essentially, in a nutshell, the article is being edited in violation of Wikipedia's regulations regarding Conflict of Interest, Neutral Point of View and, though cleverly concealed, the edits by Yae4 are in fact disruptive, intended to pervert the text of the article to promote a particular point of view.

The article in question is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libreboot

And assuming that Yae4 doesn't outright delete the complaint (in the article's talk page), here is the non-revisioned, most current version of the discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libreboot#Persistent_vandalism,_or_otherwise_disruptive,_non-neutral_editing_with_clear_conflict_of_interest_for_those_involved

(as I post this, the collapsed text is still there, but you have to click Show to show it, because it's collapsed - Yae4 asserts that the text is an "editor attack", but it consists of valid criticisms that I think are of interest to Wikipedia admins.

Thank you in advance for any and all consideration.

PS: I have a connection to the article in question, so I don't edit the article text itself, instead I submitted the above complaints on that talk page. Such a connection is also declared, by me, in said section of that talk page. Libreleah (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll translate: There are two versions of the libreboot software project, and three editors are at each other's throats fighting over which one gets to be the legitimate one. I've told them to stop it and given some advice on the content dispute at Talk:Libreboot. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yae4 is now throwing out frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry against anyone who doesn't agree with them: Sockpuppet investigations/Libreleah. Could an admin please intervene? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, Maddy, you're not an admin yet? Hmm... DFlhb (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Exaggerate much? A bunch of IPs got blocked. Soon after, a long-inactive account re-activated. Then a few more editors converged on a previously inactive article, mostly supporting the positions of the re-activated account, who also has a close, personal connection (business and financial gain) to the article subject. It could be mere coincidence. It could be something else. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really look at ANEW much, but "Both blocked" would probably reduce the quantity significantly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Response by Yae4:


My edits at Libreboot speak for themselves. I've added summaries of cited sources, as neutrally as I can, and followed where they go. I've removed cites of libreboot.org in other articles, because I concluded it is not a WP:RS. I now know there is a call for help at libreboot.AT: "Another way to help this project and take a stand for fully free software is to change URLs across the web from  to <libreboot.at>, and to let people know that no other version of Libreboot is reliably free software." Believe it or not, I did not know that when I took interest in editing Libreboot in late May 2023 (aside from a cite removal in 2019), or until a few days ago when I started considering using libreboot.AT as a source. I had seen Denis Carikli's LibrePlanet 2023 presentation online, as stated at Talk:Libreboot.

I have no conflict of interest or close connection with the subject or any entities involved.

This, from Talk:Libreboot summarizes where the article was when I started editing, and what, whose edits there puzzle me, had done to stubify Libreboot over a couple years: In September 2021 after PhotographyEdits edits, the article was left with sources from libreboot-ORG, notabug, coreboot, GNU, lists.gnu.org, Hackaday (2), and some better cites, but the article was a stub, billboard. In March 2023 about the same, but a linux-magazin.de cite (with passing mention) was removed. On 2 May 2023, about the same, on 3 May 2023 Hackaday cites increased to 3, a TechCrunch (WP:TECHCRUNCH) was added, and a section with "Supported hardware". On 19 May 2023 about the same. The persistent appearance is a stub, billboard, and no progress towards WP:GA.

Based on editor behavior and statements at Talk:Libreboot‎‎, I observe the recent block of IPs at Libreboot was soon followed by re-activating the Libreleah account, which has similar, disruptive behavior, continuing at length at Talk:Libreboot. I don't know if that wiki-technically constitutes block evasion or puppetry, but I previously saw "revert sock" edit summary, and asked for advice. Whether to waste spend time at SPI is TBD for me. I'll note repeated removals of Collapse and SPA tags - until today, that account had nearly no edits at Wikipedia. Putting notification for this atop my User Talk is just one more minor example of disruption. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Putting the notification of your entry on this page, onto your talk page, is required as per Wikipedia policy.
 * You assert that I'm someone else that you or someone else recently blocked, but this is false. News of libreboot.org's erasure (or the attempt to erase it), on the article, was raised with me via IRC about a week ago when someone noticed what you were doing, so I've been keeping a close eye on it. I didn't think much of it until I saw the more aggressive edits, which are the subject of my complaint.
 * If you'll read more carefully, you'll note in my complaint on the talk page (and linked on this entry on the admin noticeboard), that I did think your initial changes to the article, adding more sources, was a genuine improvement. It's when you used the momentum later on to *remove* libreboot.org that I started taking issue. Indeed, the cited sources for the article are all talking about libreboot.org - not libreboot.at.
 * Even if you have no conflict of interest, which OK, let's take that at face value, your edits are still not neutral. As I've stated in my complaint, mentioning both libreboot.org and libreboot.at is OK. Removing libreboot.org from the article, or keeping it but placing libreboot.at at higher prominence, is what I take issue with, since the .org domain is still the most notable one for the purposes of the article.
 * So if you're going to continue editing the article, I ask that you do so with neutrality. As I've said, I won't edit it myself because I'm the founder of the project, so I'm not capable of acting with neutrality in that regard. Libreleah (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit of yours summarizes why you are here: "hence my suggestion that both domains be promoted", which is contrary to WP:ADS. I lost count of how many times you used "promote" or "promoted" at Talk:Libreboot. It's difficult because IP editors also said the same. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no. I've edited more than just the Libreboot talk page.
 * More discussion has occurred there since I initially made this complaint, and your edits have somehow magically all but stopped?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_hijack - I actually think your edits removing libreboot.org constituted article hijacking, since libreboot.at technically isn't the same subject. The reasons why are listed by myself and others in that talk page, but I'll summarise here the point made there:
 * The point made was that, since the cites there talk about libreboot.org, you'd have to remove all such cites since they'd not relate to libreboot.at at all, and then if you did that, the article would no longer pass notability guidelines. However, if the article is about libreboot.org, with the current cites, then it does pass such guidelines.
 * The fact that the two domain names are similar does not mean anything. Indeed, someone there raised the point by asking: what if someone made wikipedia.top and claimed that to be the real wikipedia? We all know the answer, and the same answer applies to the debate on the Libreboot talk page. Libreleah (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * admins of wikipedia, yae4 has now proposed a *2nd* AfD within the same short period of only... about a week i think?
 * look at the talk page of libreboot, and you'll find a plethora of other editors who vehemently disagree with Yae4's reasonings.
 * the 2nd AfD is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libreboot_(2nd_nomination)
 * attempt to delete, on shaky grounds, bold assertions made by Yae4 about what the article even is (in defiance of other editors), then the article is improved, some discussion takes place where editors happen to disagree with Yae4... and now a 2nd AfD by Yae4. read between the lines, and take a close look at the history of that page.
 * if all this doesn't all but prove my assertion, that Yae4 is engaging with a biased point of view, then i don't know what "neutral" means anymore. I once again re-assert that Yae4 should be banned from editing the Libreboot article, on wikipedia. he clearly shows a lack of good faith, as evidenced by how he interacts with other editors on that page. Libreleah (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Admin needed to add template
Hi! Apparently an admin is needed to add the cban template to User:Roxy the dog, two non-admins have tried but have been reverted on the grounds that its either WP:GRAVEDANCING or that it can only be done by an admin. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that a third non-admin editor has intervened and the template is currently on the page. Some clarification about whether this is kosher or not still appears to be needed though. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The tag shouldn't have been placed. It shouldn't have been removed. It shouldn't have been restored. It shouldn't have been re-removed... etc. Who cares? Roxy is banned either way. There are more useful ways to spend our time. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This matter is also being discussed at AN/I. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ...I don't think there was consensus to make this change to the banning policy. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:Banning policy has been amended accordingly:. (And the tag on the user page has been self-reverted by the last editor to add it, so I hope we can just leave it at that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Tag now placed by an uninvolved admin. So I hope we can leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Ban notice on User:Roxy the dog
An edit war has erupted on User:Roxy the dog over whether there should be a ban notice on their userpage. I procedurally added the ban notice since I had noticed that they were banned by ANI (I did not participate in the revert war afterwards, or express any opinions regarding Roxy). So that spurs me to ask, is there a threshold where a (non-invisible) ban notice should not be placed on a userpage? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is also discussed at, just above. And following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, a consensus quickly emerged that editors should not simply go around adding such tags, but instead, leave it to admins or other persons who are familiar with the reasons for the ban. In this case, an uninvolved admin has decided to use the tag. There is new policy language at Banning policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Give me a break.  I'll fully protect the page for a couple days so people find some other flashpoint for their drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Note from blocking admin
As the blocking admin who closed the discussion and imposed the CBAN, I purposefully did not add the tag, because I didn't feel it was needed. Though, when I do tag, it's usually to the user talk rather than the user page (unless an LTA/Sock). I was away during this incident, or I'd have attended to it myself, with it likely not being added. Ultimately, I don't think it's really that important, but if (←ping) feels strongly about it, I'd be inclined to do remove it. Generally, I usually had been using my own discretion for CBAN tags, but I ordinarily default to not adding them. El_C 12:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ...Why? There is nothing in the banning policy that indicates that discretion is allowed. This seems like a bad idea. The ban notice should always be on all CBANned user pages; and if we're going to change this, then there needs to be an RFC. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Conversely, nothing has been pointed out to me that it is disallowed and it has never come up until now for me to even consider. But to answer: because when there's even a moderate chance of redemption, such a tag or tags serving as a badge of shame might detract from that. And, I mean, sure, you could simply state declaratively that The ban notice should always be on all CBANned user pages without explaining what the benefit is, but I find that WP:BURO proceduralism for its own sakes to be generally unconvincing. El_C 16:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think that it serves as a badge of shame, what do you think about making the tag invisible like ARBCOM bans already do? I feel like that's a better option than not tagging banned users at all. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  17:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it can serve as that, depending on the particulars of a given user/case. But the whole issue of ban tags always seemed unimportant to me, regardless. Which is why I never gave it a great deal of thought, and likely would not have had it not been prompted here. And the reason for that is that a banned user is always indef blocked so usually the last section/s on their talk page feature the ban message by the enforcing admin for all to see. A notice—announcing the ban to the user, linking to the ban discussion, etc.—that is required. In that sense, it follows a more universal maxim that a plain text message often suffices even when pertinent templates exist. But it's really all the same to me. Still, that's been my thinking, I suppose, that once (plain text ban notice) often suffices, whereas twice (user talk or user page) and even three times (user talk + user page) might be discouraging for no tangible gain. Again, though, depending on the particulars. Sometimes, an added discouragement may actually be called for. El_C 18:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Where to report shared accounts?
I was looking over noticeboards, WP:SPI, usernames board, but none seem the right place to report shared accounts. The account which triggered this is User:Collectif9juillet, which explicitly describes itself as a shared account and has instructions for contributors using that account. They have already caused minor issues (one mainspace article deleted, one moved to userspace) as well. Fram (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account as a "compromised" account (by definition it is since the password has been shared). I did explain on their talk page however that the individual users are more than welcome to create their own separate accounts and discuss together what drafts they want to create, etc. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Should that be a softblock, then? Currently they're autoblocked with account creation blocked. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops! Change it then if that's the case. I'm away for the next few days so I won't really be able to take care of it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Related question: the User: page of the account displays a message about a permanent block with a link to WP:NOSHARED, however WP:NOSHARED doesn't seem to exist. Can anybody fix the link (change e.g. to WP:NOSHARE)? Or should I create another redirect on that name? --CiaPan (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just add the redirect, it seems a common enough typo. —Kusma (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. --CiaPan (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me that we have shared logins across all Wikimedia projects, but do not have roughly compatible policies on account use. You can get your organisation's shared account officially verified at dewiki, and the moment you edit on enwiki, we will block you. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's a discussion to have at the Village Pump perhaps? Honestly that would make sense to look it, as we have unified logins across the board, but here it's a block of that login is shared. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The last time I have seen it discussed, there was no appetite for changing our rules here. —Kusma (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Requesting the full revision history + contents of the wikitext of a file
Hello, so while I was sorting through commons:Category:All media needing categories as of 2016, I came across this file: File:Old Courthouse- north face3.jpg. It has the tag on Commons, however, the comment on the original upload log says "I took this.  ".

There appears to be no edits by any humans on Commons, and the Commons version always had the tag, so either there was a corruption in MTC! which imported the file, or an edit was made on the English Wikipedia of this file. Therefore I'm requesting the full revision history of this now-deleted file on the English Wikipedia, along with the wikitext contents of all revisions of this now-deleted file on the English Wikipedia, so that I can determine the true licence status.

Note: The file name is File:Old Courthouse- north face3.jpg on the English Wikipedia and the user who uploaded was User:JCarriker. —Matr1x-101$$^{Ping-me}_{when-replying}$$ { user page (@ commons) - talk }  16:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted the file for you. When you're finished with your work, if you'd like it deleted again, just tag it under F8. Katietalk 17:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've finished correcting the description page on Commons, please delete the file on enwiki under F8. Thanks! —Matr1x-101$$^{Ping-me}_{when-replying}$$ { user page (@ commons) - talk }  13:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * `Done. Happy to be of service. :-) Katietalk 14:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

ELeftherios Papadimitriou
The user McMatter, keeps editing this page and makes vague accusations that the content is not neutral.

Also he deletes, footnotes in English even IMAGES I have placed on the article for no apparent reason.

He edit the text WITHOUT READING THE REFERENCES mentioned.

I simply state the FACTS plain and simple without an analysis.

As an academic, I have created this article out of my love for History & Biographies. Every fact mentioned is (Greek Public knowledge) and supported by hard evidence in English & Greek (check sources). Therefore, I request that my edits be reviewed and considered based on merit rather than vague and unfounded assumptions.

Pls, read the talk page.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Puresymphony (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I came upon this as a draft which was originally translated directly from https://vouliwatch.gr/mp/papadimitriou-eleutherios. I declined it as it was still in need of formatting and clean-up. Then did some work on cleaning it up and making it align with our standards. The conflict of interest was made clear with this edit . Puresymphony has continually called what every source calls an attack, an assassination attempted, and has continually stood their ground on their own interpretation of the attack. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * After some further investigation, I do see that the Greek word for murder and assassination are the same. However many of the sources still refer to it as an attack vs attempted murder or assassination. Either way the hostility and and drag to AN is extreme for a content dispute. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Am not hostile - Again thats your assumption - SO "After some further investigation, I do see that the Greek word for murder and assassination" i will let you change the TITLE "attack" Puresymphony (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * many sources? which ones? Puresymphony (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Again unfounded claims. Puresymphony (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverse the agrument - User MacMatter keeps changing the title "assassination attempt" to "attack" -
 * As I have said - I simply mention the Facts - Also the person in the article was an elected representatitve of the people - The US states also that 17N is a terrorist group. Puresymphony (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point I believe we are running into a WP:CIR issue as Puresymphony has attempted to take ownership now of 2 articles where they continue to poorly source and violate the WP:NPOV policy. They continue to disregard all and any policy like WP:COPYRIGHT and tell me I am missing the point when I mark them for deletion and remove them from the article. Yelling at others in edit summaries,  and undoing any and every edit they don't agree with on the articles they have taken ownership of. Puresymphony I would suggest you take a step back and learn more about the operations of Wikipedia, it's collaborative method, read through the guidelines and policies. I do think you could be a very productive editor if you would just take some time and learn the ropes. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your opinion - You delete footnotes & references - Puresymphony (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You DELETE again TEXT - REFERENCES without propable cause - Based on your own bias.
 * Your opinion is singular and WITHOUT significance -
 * Baseless and vague claims as always - Are you really an academic as I am? Puresymphony (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * also caps are widely used to underline the meaning - In your case, you state that I was yelling - To whom?
 * Quite funny argument - At least when u DELETE any text do it from your account user - Puresymphony (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Post also your comment on my page that you admit wrongdoing! Puresymphony (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also IP 100.36.106.199 vandalises the article. This IP has the audacity to post threats on my page. Puresymphony (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest you dial back the incivility and address the issue calmly. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Incivility? meaning? I dont have the right to answer? Puresymphony (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Incivility = rudeness. You have the right to answer, but do it in a reasonable manner. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How was I rude? Puresymphony (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also how do you know my state of mind? Telepathy? I was born cool. Puresymphony (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I have just partial blocked from Eleftherios Papadimitriou. I was not aware of this thread when I did this and did so in order to reduce disruptive editing at the article in question. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Isabelle Belato
 * Read user's McMatter comments on his talk about me -
 * He is writing and I quote "Some WP:ROPE was just given". This is a cruel and uncivil comment against me. Puresymphony (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Isabelle Belato
 * Also user Mcmatter now - he keeps editing the article in question as he pleases. His now edit does not make sense (meaning and grammar problems).

Will someone do anything about my latter comment?
 * Read my appeal in my page. Puresymphony (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * While there have been discussions about changing the name/redirect of that essay due to possible sensitivity issues, in Wikipedia parlance, giving someone WP:ROPE is not an uncivil statement. Also,, and any other user, can edit the article while this discussion is ongoing. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Isabelle Belato
 * Definition - of WP:Rope = As the old saying goes "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll likely hang themselves."
 * So to make a long argument short - You punish me and you reward Mcmatter - Also IP vandalism as I have reported is not worth mentioning?
 * Furthermore, you reward user Mcmatter to edit the text, as he pleases - (read the post in professional carreer the new version and the old version - It does not make sense.
 * How come he has such a right and I dont? Puresymphony (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously - Does anyone read what the footnotes on the article are talking about? Puresymphony (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy FYI
My computer has decided it doesn't want to play anymore. As a consequence I will be unavailable for a few days while some nice people try to persuade it to do its job. During this period messages and pings are unlikely to receive a timely response. (For security reasons I do not use my phone for anything Wiki related.) I apologize for any inconvenience. (Currently logged in at the library.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Face-smile.svg I think that's the most beautiful description of a (hopefully temporarily) broken computer I have seen so far. I guess you'll read this while waiting for writing access, so: good luck! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Close challenge, Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely
Hello, this is a formal close challenge on Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely. On the basis of the new indictment and changing situation. And as it seems unrepresentative of the arguments made and consensus.

Hopefully this encompasses the relevant parties:

@Dumuzid@TheXuitts@Xan747@WWGB@72.14.126.22@Elli@WikiVirusC@PriusGod@Nemov@ScottishFinnishRadish --LoomCreek (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the specific objections are, and I left a fairly detailed close. I think all there is to say at this point is that if you want consensus in an RFC about contentious BLP material you better have mighty strong policy based arguments to overcome a ~12/10 split in responses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "~12/10 split" looks to me like 'no consensus' territory. WWGB (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good on me that I closed it as no consensus then. Challenged BLP material requires consensus to include, however. The burden is on those who wish to include it to get consensus, which didn't happen in that discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Policy argument for inclusion of name:
 * Neely's assailant fits the definition of a high-profile figure by seeking media attention, and self-promotion:
 * On May 20 he gave a scheduled on-camera interview with the New York Post that went beyond mere defense of his actions during the incident. Included in the piece were biographical details dating to his childhood, information about his siblings, parents, grandparents and great-grandparents and their ancestry, details of his foreign travels as an adult including photos, and details of his military service, also including a photo.
 * On June 11 his legal team released a video interview they had themselves produced in which he defends his actions.
 * Shortly after the incident, his legal team started a GiveSendGo campaign using his real name on his behalf, which to date has raised nearly three-million dollars.
 * These are not the actions of a person reluctant to have their name, likeness, or details of their life publicized, but rather someone who willingly embraces the opportunity to tell his side of the story apparently believing that so-doing will improve public opinion of his actions. As such the Wikipedia article about the incident warrants the inclusion of his name.
 * Argument that the close was premature:
 * Neely's assailant was formally indicted on the charge of second degree manslaughter on the same day as the RfC was closed. The community may have benefited from the opportunity to reevaluate the question in light of that significant event.
 * Xan747 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are the other relevant discussions: Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely/Archive_1 Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely/Archive_2 as well as the discussion that inspired this close challenge: Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely. I would invite participants here to examine the previous discussions, paying close attention to the dates and rationales presented, as some of the positions in older !votes and arguments were based on what was happening at the time.
 * Additionally, swaths of support for the "oppose" position were quite thoroughly bludgeoned into place essentially taking the position that WP:BLPCRIME unambiguously prohibits editors from including any information about anybody who could possibly be accused of any crime with any context until the date of their conviction. I am concerned about this representation of the policy and invite participants here to examine the arguments as such in that lens, and interpret them and their strength accordingly. PriusGod (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping other previously involved editors: @Comp.arch, @OhNoitsJamie, @Festucalex, @.Raven, @CJ-Moki, @Masem, @Salvabl, @Ekpyros, @Caeciliusinhorto, @Combefere, @Nemov, @Skynxnex, @A. B., @Jerome Frank Disciple, @Davey2010, @Sangdeboeuf, @HAL333, @A. Randomdude0000, @KiharaNoukan -- Xan747 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I supported including the name, but ScottishFinnishRadish's close was well reasoned and in line with WP:BLPCRIME. This objection is a huge waste of time. Nemov (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the challenge to the closing decision. The close took too long (not the fault of the closer) during which time the assailant was charged, and also actively sought public attention through the release of legal statements. Much of the commentary and !voting during the early part of the six-week discussion is now redundant. Penny is now very much a public figure. If the current decision is to stand, then a fresh RfC should be started, canvassing only contemporary information. WWGB (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed - LoomCreek (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In the interests of full disclosure, I argued for exclusion of the name, though I hope that I did so neither vehemently nor tendentiously. That said, "no consensus" strikes me as the right outcome here, and even if one disagrees with that, an outcome well within the range of reasonable discretion for a closer.  As I have repeatedly said, I have definite sympathy for the argument that the accused in this case has availed himself of publicity and in doing so, become a public figure.  But it is not quite enough to persuade me to the inclusionist camp.  WP:BLPCRIME says, in so many words, that we should lean towards exclusion until a conviction.  The wording of that policy could certainly be clarified or outright changed, but for the moment, it is what it is (with apologies to both Popeye and the God of the Book of Exodus).  I feel that if we were to adopt a "subsequent public figure" rationale, the rule of the policy would largely be swallowed by the exception.  After all, for a crime to merit coverage on Wikipedia, there must be a fair amount of coverage to begin with.  But now I am getting too wordy, so I will merely say that I hope everyone has a nice weekend.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said there, "Being charged is not proof of guilt. Many people who were charged were later acquitted." Asserting his own innocence surely is not proof of guilt, either. BLP requires conviction, not press mentions. Was the subject notable for something else? –  . Raven  .talk 05:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "BLP requires conviction" is not correct. Rather, WP:BLPCRIME requires that "editors must seriously consider not including material ... that suggests the person ... is accused of having committed a crime unless a conviction has been secured." The key word here is "consider", not "require". Consensus may determine that the name of the accused may be published. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support challenge and inclusion per . 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  05:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved opinion - the close was reasonable based on the arguments given at the time, but in light of new events, a new RFC should be able to be started without punishment.  starship .paint  (exalt) 10:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Uninvolved - like Starship.paint I think the original close was reasonable.  The argument that facts have subsequently superceded the close doesn't make it invalid.  Instead that is justification to open a new RfC based on the new facts. If nothing else, those who answered before the person was charged may wish to change their !votes while others might change their oppose arguments in light of the new information.  Springee (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Side note, arguments for or against inclusion shouldn't be made here. The only arguments that should be given weight here are ones that address if there was an issue with the process.  This shouldn't be a second !vote for or against the question posed by the RfC. Springee (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, can @LoomCreek simply withdraw this close challenge and open a new RfC? Otherwise it seems we're just wasting our and especially SFR's time. Xan747 (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If that would allow for this to be discussed in light of the new information, id be perfectly fine with that. @ScottishFinnishRadish was the one who suggested the close challenge which was why I opened it, to reassess the information. -- LoomCreek (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I referred you to close challenge when you said Let's deal with problem at hand, which is that the closing made a decision, in good faith, that isn't representative of the arguments made or consensus. You reverted to your preferred version after the RFC based on a small discussion of editors who mostly supported including the name. That is not nearly enough to ignore the results of an RFC closed the day before. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay I made a close challenge when you suggested it. Although again I made that edit in good faith under a false assumption on how this operates. As an admin, given the powers you have, you shouldn't be taking things personally. I still think you made the wrong decision, claiming consensus when there wasn't, and ignoring the well reasoned arguments for inclusion. That's not to say im calling for any sort of retributive or administrative action I'm not. The issue of the closing, such as through a new RFC, simply needs to be resolved. -- LoomCreek (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see where SFC took anything personally. Also, no one has claimed there is consensus, quite the opposite. When it comes to BLPs contested materials stays out when there is no consensus. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, perhaps I'm reading to much into it. But I do think the argument for inclusion is much stronger then exclusion. Support, For several reasons.
 * 1. Most of the article is descriptive, not an accusations of criminality. It is a fact Jordan Neely was killed by Penny. It's a simply medically true. Whether that is illegal remains up to the court.
 * 2. For the remaining sections, Daniel Penny is a public figure, he is cited in numerous reliable sources and has the platform to argue for himself through his lawyers. Whether they are notable for this event or not is irrelevant, they're a public figure and have used that themselves.
 * 3. We lose context when we exclude his name, he is a significant part of this event. And to exclude his name gives the impression to an average reader he didn't perform the chokehold when he did (again not a matter of criminality). It effectively warps the article and the ability to actually accurately cover the topic.
 * 4.BLPCrime isn't a hard rule anyways there are clear times when it is appropriate to make an exception, hence the phrase "seriously consider". The spirit of the rule is to prevent the smearing of someone's character (particularly keeping out someone putting every petty crime another person might be accused of). It's to prevent abuse of the system. Telling a well documented event is not that and is needed to tell the full story. But again he is already a public figure, which overrules BLPCrime so it doesn't matter as long as we're sticking to reliable sources and all the other policies in Wikipedia for accuracy.--LoomCreek (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose close challenge. Closing 12:10 as NC is reasonable. Idk why a certain 12-12 close as consensus on one side was considered reasonable, but I digress. A new RfC should typically be a few months after an old one. But in this case, that is mitigated by the indictment. I would still suggest waiting a few weeks. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Springee. The close is a reasonable summation of the discussion. If a new discussion is to be had, or what the merits of that discussion are, shouldn't be part of the challenge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a bit of a hybrid request. On the one hand, it seems like there's an argument that the close was wrongly decided—hence the "challenge". On the other hand, there seems to be an argument that events since (or at least on the day of) the close suggest a new result should be reached. So I'll address both points separately.In the last RFC, I supported inclusion of the name in the article. I know invoked the public-figure concept: That concept was likely borrowed from American law, which requires public-figure plaintiffs to establish actual malice for defamation. Why? Well, many reasons, but one commonly listed one, as alluded to by  and my !vote in the prior survey, is that public figures are thought to be capable of "fighting back" against defamatory comments given their access to the press. Because Penny had actively engaged the press by releasing a public statement and (later) granting an interview, I supported inclusion. But, even after the interview, on the spectrum of public figures—from people who are barely public figures to, say, Beyoncé—, Penny is admittedly towards the lower-end of the spectrum. From my perspective, WP:BLPCRIME endorses a default position of non inclusion. And I think it's reasonable that other editors weren't moved by Penny's public statement; I don't think it can reasonably be suggested that such positions were, from a policy perspective, invalid. As such, I think it would have probably been unreasonable for SFR to find a consensus, particularly given that at least a few of the include voices were, from a policy perspective, a bit weak (and didn't seem like they intended to be invoking IAR).Now, a few users have suggested that the interview (because it occurred late in the RFC process) and the indictment (which occurred the day of the close) should yield a new result. Given that the public statement was released relatively early on, I think it's a stretch to think that the interview would have pushed many (any?) of the "exclude" participants over the edge—after all, the very last two !votes were both exclude. And I think the indictment argument is particularly weak and problematic. BLPCRIME captures non-public-figures who are accused of crimes, instructing editors to "seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured" (italics added). An indictment is, obviously, not a "conviction". The fact that someone has been accused by the state doesn't change that they've still just been accused. So I don't think anything that happened since the close (or the day of the close) casts doubt on the close's appropriateness.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well reasoned as always. Kudos. Nemov (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, here we go again. This point of being guilty or innocent has been discussed numerous times throughout the various conversations on the article talk page. The fact stands that Penny killed Neely, or very immediately contributed to his death (this is on video, there are witnesses, and Penny himself has acknowledged that he choked Neely). Whether this was a criminal act or not remains to be determined by the courts.
 * It is, however, possible to word the facts in a neutral manner, without implication of guilt or innocence. And this is exactly what was done and debated about very early on in the article, striking a balance between detailing the facts without implying legal wrongdoing or criminality in relation to Penny. There is very little need to censor Penny's name from the article, as BLP conventions can and have been followed appropriately, with respect to detailing Penny's actions and the event overall in a NPOV way etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk)
 * Oppose per Springee and JFDs well-crafted respose. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Springee and JFDs well-crafted respose. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Roast goose
Roast goose was moved and its scope changed from its original form between 2006 and 2022 without discussion. now User:Daharon is preventing restoration of this article to its original scope and title. please stop the editwarring. i dont intend to keep reverting as it's obviously useless. RZuo (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute, but I have protected the article from being further moved for a month; it is now time to discuss this on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Both editors warned as well. GiantSnowman 18:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * RZuo, the article, as so many food-related articles, picked up information about preparations of goose not limited to dry heat. This is a more useful and reasonable scope for the article, unless we need separate articles for steamed fish and baked fish. Your corrections remove useful information and context about goose, as a food. Daharon (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

RZuo and Daharon, in your edit summaries, you each accuse the other of vandalism. Please read Vandalism to learn what is and is not vandalism.  M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Lisa Nakazono-Węgłowska
There's a bit of a dispute in the history, over an image. I cannot assess who's right and who's wrong--I hope one of you experts can have a look and decide. Involved editors are User:Tyranzion, User:Imaginatorium, User:Nesnad. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added my 2 cents to the discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Potentially involved block by AlisonW
Note: This matter is now being discussed at ARBCOM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just accepted an unblock request by Veverve, after AlisonW (not to be confused with ) blocked him for Disruptive editing: Regular massive deletions of content the editor feels are irrelevant over many articles. See my comments at for my reasoning in accepting the request. An unjustified block in itself would not merit an AN post—most admins make bad blocks from time to time—but there is a particular aspect that I think needs community review, specifically the question of WP:INVOLVED. (To be clear, I saw grounds to reverse the block, in line with the norms established at WP:RAAA, regardless of whether it qualified as involved.) The sequence of events here is: The INVOLVED line can be a bit blurry sometimes when dealing with content-based disruption (for instance, admins are allowed to revert users they've blocked for NPOV violations), but to me this seems to cross that line, and looks more like a case of an admin blocking someone for reverting them. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) 00:56, 19 January 2023: Veverve removes the "In popular culture" section from Metatron per WP:TRIVIA
 * 2) 16:40, 8 June 2023: AlisonW reverts with summary whole section removed without explanation. Content is relevant and encyclopaedic so reinstated. Discuss on talk page if you consider it necessary.
 * 3) 05:44, 9 June 2023: Veverve reverts with summary I have explained each and every removal. Read my edit summaries and do not act as if I did not explain myself
 * 4) 05:46, 9 June 2023: Veverve comments on AlisonW's talk that what is WP:TRIVIA is not encyclopedic.
 * 5) 14:31, 9 June 2023: AlisonW reverts with default rollback summary (misusing rollback)
 * 6) 14:33–41, 9 June 2023: AlisonW comments on Veverve's talk that I can see that you have strong views about religion, however removing an entire section, "in popular culture" is unacceptable and is far from the 'trivia' you suggested on my talk page. This is not a religious text, it is a place to discover information, as such the section is entirely appropriate (emphasis original). She also requests he take down his retired banner.
 * 7) 14:47–52, 9 June 2023: AlisonW reverts 3 more Veverve edits on other pages.
 * 8) 14:55, 9 June 2023: AlisonW blocks Veverve (without block notice)
 * 9) 14:57–59, 9 June 2023: 2 more reverts, one by rollback
 * This is an utterly appalling block. Indefensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not too surprising when considering the fact that, apart from Veverve's block, AlisonW has blocked only two users since 2012, both in 2021. The majority of their blocks have taken place between 2006–2009. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch. As a result of my questionable life choices, I like to try to examine others' actions in the most favorable possible light.  Even doing so here, every interpretation boils down to "this was wildly wrong."  Dumuzid (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Compare and contrast Veverve's and AlisonW's contribution history. It is simply absurd that an out-of-touch legacy admin should have the power to behave in such a peremptory manner. As for the disputed 'in popular culture' section in Metatron, the removal was entirely in accord with current practice, and I'd have done the same if I'd seen it. Much of it is trivial fancruft, with nothing remotely approaching the sort of independently sourced commentary necessary to justify inclusion. This might have ben acceptable in 2005, but Wikipedia has moved on since then, and an admin unwilling to accept that things have changed should not be permitted to continue in that position. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A legacy admin doesn't understand widely accepted standards for admin actions? Must be a day that ends in y. Given how much scrutiny new RfA candidates can go through, it's surprising there's never been a real effort to apply the same scrutiny to admins that were chosen when it was given out like candy before ~2005. Unless someone want to try and convince me that someone with less than 2,000 edits in the last 10 years (and only a few thousand at the height of their activity) would pass an RfA reconfirmation today. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Endorse Unblock I'm having a hard time seeing anything that could be described as reasonable justification for that block. This was a poor judgement call. An apology is in order along with a nice big seafood dinner served with the community's compliments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is more than a 'poor judgement call', it is an unequivocal abuse of admin tools. We can and do desysop for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This doesn't look malicious to me. It looks like an exceptionally poor judgement call. A formal caution and a trouting are probably called for. I'm not seeing a need for more unless a pattern of similar bad judgement calls can be found. All of which said, I'm not a fan of people hanging onto the tools who aren't planning to use them. But that's a topic for another discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-admin but peripherally involved comment Endorse unblock with prejudice: I've known Veverve for around two years on-project and I'm familiar with the justified blocks and sanctions against them. However, V has been a broadly good-faith contributor during this time with occasional bouts of excessive deletionism. A block executed with the purpose of defeating an arguably justified series of deletions is wholly unacceptable in of itself. This is accentuated by the legacy admin's irregular use of their tools over the course of the last decade. I think that a reconsideration of whether AlisonW can be trusted with the mop might be suitable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thinking further on this in light of what others have said, my current feeling is that this was probably not intentionally abusive, but shows a troubling disconnect with current norms. If AlisonW were under the (very mistaken) impression that removing "in popular culture" sections is widely considered disruptive, then she would have seen her actions as resolving a conduct issue, not a content dispute, same as the hypothetical admin who removes blatantly POV-pushing content and then blocks the account responsible. So to me the real issue is that her understanding of what constitutes disruptive editing is so far-flung from current norms, and what I would like to see is some acknowledgment that she needs to better familiarize herself with those norms before making future blocks. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to this best-light reading of AlisonW's actions but V linked WP:TRIVIA in an edit. A block subsequent to that premised solely on V being disruptive would require either a.) AW missing the content of that edit (which is hard to imagine) or b.) willful ignorance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I knew something tickled at my mind when I saw this. I was able to find what I recalled, an instance when AlisonW threatened to block another editor for removing a template she was adding to a bunch of articles regarding Wikia. That template (Wikia is not Wikipedia) was later deleted at TfD, but the discussion and block threat, originally from the template talk thread, were archived at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5. It looks like I warned AlisonW not to make the block, so that's probably why I recalled the incident. Now, to be sure, that was in 2008, and that may as well be antiquity in Wikipedia time, but just to clarify that this is not AlisonW's first time around with questionable admin decisions while involved. (For the sake of clarity, the block was completely inappropriate and AlisonW was clearly much too involved to make it, and I support Tamzin's reversal of it.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * AlisonW reverted/rollbacked me on 7 pages, not 4. Here are all of the reverts/rollbacks:
 * Document on Human Fraternity
 * Seven deadly sins
 * Metatron
 * Do-it-yourself biology
 * Vocationist Fathers
 * Contemporary Catholic liturgical music
 * General Congregation of the Anatolian Turkish Orthodox
 * I consider all but one (the TRIVIA one) of those reverts/rollbacks to have been motivated not by editorial concerns, but as an automatism (4 out of 7 have a summary along the lines of "reverting removal" without any clear justification of why the revert/rollback was ever needed, and one has no edit summary at all). I also would like to point out that that AlisonW clearly violated WP:BURDEN on many cases. Veverve (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a suspicion that the Vocationist Fathers article is a copyright violation: compare early versions with this: And while it isn't reasonable to expect admins (or any other contributor) to check ever revert for such violations, I'd have hoped that anyone with an ounce of sense would look askance at phraseology like this:
 * By the reality of their vocation-oriented charism, a “Vocationist”, a name given to them by their founder, Fr. Giustino Russolillo, and coined from the word “Vocation”, is one who has an exceptional love for vocation, one who is a specialist in caring for vocations, one who dedicates his life to vocations, and one who is committed to working and praying for vocations. According to Fr. Giustino, other religious institutes wait for vocations and welcome them, while the Vocationists, personally and purposely, go out searching for them, especially through their catechetical schools and other apostolates. In other words, their activities are highly riveted on matters of vocation and in all, their immediate objective, though not their goal, is to see people being guided to properly discern their vocations and being helped to realize them by responding appropriately to God's call in their lives. Their ultimate goal is to help all attain Divine Union with the Blessed Trinity by means of universal sanctification of all souls.
 * That doesn't need a citation. It needs a complete rewrite for neutral encyclopaedic phrasing. No admin should be restoring that, with nothing beyond a 'citation needed' tag. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of that section at Metatron being an "In Popular Culture" one, it was a pile of crap anyway, as you can see most of the sections were either unsourced or sources to non-RS such as IMDB or forums.  I note this quote from User:AlisonW; ...editing the content in order to increase that record of knowledge is and will always be far more important than getting hung up on 'process' and 'policy'. The only policy that matters is to *add useful stuff*....  Given that and the terrible INVOLVED block which Alison used to enforce her ideas of what Wikipedia should be like, I suggest that she seriously considers handing in her bit to save everyone the timesink that is an ArbCom case. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a diff for that quote? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind. It's on their user page.  Dooh! -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting past the easy stuff first, there's no problem with 's unblock. As for, I don't think we're in desysop territory yet, but it's clear that if they're going to continue to use the tools, they need to make a serious effort to get up to speed on how things have changed on enwiki since they were last active.  I don't mind that they're an inclusionist, but they need to understand that policies (and culture) have evolved.  It's not enough to "add useful stuff" anymore (and hasn't been for many years).  We've gotten tougher on WP:N and WP:V, insisting on more and better citations, and moving away from the whole "In popular culture" concept.  But deeper than that, the concept of WP:INVOLVED goes back to at least 2008, but I suspect it's much older than that.  So it's not like that's something that grew up after they had put their mop in hibernation.AlisonW, you need to take a step back, acknowledge your error, and make a commitment to review recent (by which I mean the past decade or so) policy changes.  If you're not sure about a admin action you're planning to perform and you'd prefer to ask off-wiki, I'm sure any of the admins who have responded to this thread (including myself) would be happy to offer advice by email.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a page for returning admins that updates them on changes? Could swear it exists but can't remember the name. I halfway wonder if there should be a big box at the top of that page saying "Notability and inclusion standards have become significantly more strict since the project's early years", since that seems to be the top recurring issue. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 15:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators? DanCherek (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading through the Guideline and policy news sections of Administrators' newsletter/Archive would also be useful. It only goes back to 2017, but it's a start. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that trouting is most appropriate, in the hope that it doesn't happen again. Regarding WP:INVOLVED, it's been an understood thing as long as I can remember. It was stated as a principle in Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo in 2005. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree, but I would like to see at least an acknowledgement that they have seen this thread, taken the message onboard, and will make an effort to avoid issues in the future. Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, and I should have mentioned that. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ADMINACCT, admins are required to communicate, and may face sanctions or desysopping for failure to "address concerns of the community". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. AlisonW hasn't edited since the block. She appears to edit rather infrequently, which means both that this isn't necessarily deliberate and that they shouldn't be blocking. I don't think a desysopping is warranted absent a pattern of tool misuse. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So how do you suggest the community prevents an admin who clearly doesn't understand current practice and/or doesn't care about it from returning from a long (and possibly convenient) absence from misusing their tools again? Not sanctioning someone because they don't comply with accountability requirements is simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What I've suggested above is the functional equivalent of a yellow card. Call it a warning, call it a reprimand, the point is that you communicate that someone's behavior was below expectations and that if it happens again there are likely to be far more serious consequences (desysopping in the case of an admin). A feedback loop that goes from zero to desysopped, or zero to banned, isn't helpful when working with a good-faith editor who made a mistake. Absent a demonstrable pattern (pace the IP below, that pattern was adduced with Scottywong), I think that's a viable approach. I made a similar suggestion a few weeks ago regarding ErnestKrause and the GAN process: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1128. This does depend on AlisonW engaging with this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s wild how so many people were out for ScottyWong’s scalp over the “Mr Squiggles” remark but here we have people willing to give a slap on the wrist to admin who violated the brightline INOLVED policy. 2601:196:4600:5BF0:A44C:D931:2B68:E6CE (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Who cares what IPs with one edit think. Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not only one edit: see Special:contributions/2601:196:4600:5BF0:0:0:0:0/64.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Impressive. Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They're not wrong though, are they? Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh--there's a big difference between an admin making a bad block and an admin using (what was generally perceived to be) racist language, and in the other case there was, or was alleged to be, a pattern. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think someone would need to put the work in to explain how they're right. An INVOLVED block is an error in judgment, and no one's suggested that this is part of a pattern. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence suggests that the situations aren't really comparable. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We could discuss whether the cases are similar and whether people are the same (I can not recollect myself saying anything about the Scottywong case for example) but I guess it is best left to users in good standing to open such discussions, and it should be probably separate from the current case. Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought WP:NPA applied to IPs too. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 05:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Note AlisonW has now started editing again. She must be aware of this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. That edit was with the Android app. In theory, yes, she should have. But in practice, I wouldn't be so sure. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * She appears to have email enabled. Has anyone tried that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just did that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone with the tools really needs to have notifications enabled. No one is expected to live on here. But admins must be able to respond in a timely manner to concerns that are raised by editors or the broader community. AlisonW's failure to respond to or address this little dumpster fire is not a good look. If they had stepped up right away and acknowledged their mistake, apologized, and promised to be more careful going forward, I think it likely this conversation would have wrapped up by now. Yet, here we are. Still... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Roy, you say you tried email but I've not received anything via WP mail. How did you send it? --AlisonW (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @AlisonW I clicked the "Email this user" link on your user page, which takes you to Special:EmailUser/AlisonW. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * [/me goes to check ... ah ... correction made to tld concerned. Many thanks. --AlisonW (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)]
 * For what it's worth, I've been using the app regularly for over a year and I always receive notifications (whether I'm pinged or when someone messages me on my talk page) I'm aware that there are some pre-existing mobile communication bugs and differences between whether you use iOS/android (I can see my watchlist because I have the latter)... but my point is that AlisonW could have been made aware of this discussion through the app given my own experiences. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If AlisonW does not respond to this post, it could presumably mean that she does not consider this to be a tool misuse issue -- opening the chance for this happening in the future. In the face of non-acknowledgement and possibility of disruption continuing in the future, I would suggest we take the stronger path and allow the community to decide on whether this becomes a blockable offence (to prevent further disruption). Of course, if she responds and apologises, that's about it. Lourdes  09:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Outside of emergency blocks for ongoing abuse (not applicable here), I don't think it makes sense to block admins as a way of restricting admin tool use. If AlisonW continues to edit without responding, I think the appropriate next step would be ArbCom. But I'm still hoping we can avoid it coming to that. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 10:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, having responded originally at [diff] I'm happy to restate that opinion here. I noted on recent edits the massive deletion of content (one person's irrelevancy is another person's desired search result) on the 'Metatron' page (sidebar: The first I'd ever heard of this belief subject was in the movie 'Dogma', which reference was part of that deletion). I didn't *edit*, per se, the page at all, just rv the deletion, primarily because of the volume of information and links deleted. Veverve responded "I have explained each and every removal" which I disagree with (despite stating "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia" on User:Veverve they have made over 100 edits in the last two days; it is impossible to find such details without spending hours.) Because of that I took a look at their recent edit history and noted other examples of mass content deletion (some of which just needed references, writing "not notable people" for a redlink is a reason to _create_ an article, not delete content imho) and, taking on board the frequent comments on their talk page regarding substantial other content deletions it was clear that there are problems with that user imposing their personal beliefs on WP content. As an example I quote "you are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this? Elizium23 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)". That they have had repeated blocks I concluded another was necessary, and did so. Sadly, yes, I failed to make the proper notification on their page, for which I apologise. I stand by my decision though, formed of many years involvement at all levels with Wikipedia in all its forms. I wasn't 'involved' in the content of the articles at any point - this was purely acting in the best interests of retaining encyclopaedic information. If I may also make a couple of asides, (a) I don't live here, anything substantial needs me to be on a 'proper' machine so that I can properly see diffs and references, hence replying now not at the weekend. I have never _stopped_ editing. (b) raw edit counts are meaningless - anyone can game the system by doing each small change separately. I choose to edit in the browser with extensive use of preview. ymmv. (c) Yes, I saw this discussion start but didn't jump straight in because the comments and views of others are more important initially. How people choose to view that is up to them. I would additionally comment that "out-of-touch legacy admin" is an interesting attack. Those of us who have been around a long time are, very definitely, 'not' out of touch, indeed I'd argue that we have shown by our longevity that we have the best interests of this project at heart. Obviously, ymmv applies but 'new' isn't automatically 'better'. --AlisonW (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "acting in the best interests of retaining encyclopaedic information" **is** being involved in content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then guilty as charged as that is the purpose of Wikipedia! Check Prime objective --AlisonW (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * With this edit summary, you were clearly and unambiguously involved. Inviting someone to engage in talk-page discussions over disputed content is involvement, by any sensible definition whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Andy, when I wrote "Discuss on talk page if you consider it necessary" I was referring to the action I was taking at that moment and adding a comment to the rollback; my concern was not with the 'content of the content' but with the deletion of the content and, accordingly, I asked them to talk to me before taking they took any further action. They chose not to. --AlisonW (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that simply makes no sense. Talk pages are there to discuss content. You invited discussion on the talk page, after editing the article (and yes, restoring deleted content is editing, as Wikipedia policy defines it, despite your earlier suggestion to the contrary). By any sensible reading, the purpose of the discussion was to determine whether the content should appear in the article. If that wasn't the purpose of inviting discussion there, what exactly were you expecting to discuss? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @AlisonW This was a classic content dispute and you used the tools to enforce your side of it. That you don't seem to understand how wrong that was, is frankly very disturbing. This despite a wall of comments above from a wide range of experienced editors, including other admins, panning your block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked them to talk to me before taking any further action. They chose not to. Ergo they got blocked? I'd see that as a pretty egregious misuse of power, but perhaps that's just me... (Non-admin comment) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw what I believed to be a pattern of vandalism - large deletions of content with little evidence of consideration - and took appropriate action. It wasn't about the 'content' and I take no view on whether the content of that range of articles is good or bad. I'd refer you to Edit_warring on that point. --AlisonW (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:PRIME (notwithstanding that it is at any rate an essay, and cannot possibly overrule WP:INVOLVED which is part of the WP:ADMIN policy) says that retaining information is inherently desirable. It explicitly says that Wikipedia should be a summary of and gateway to all of the world's knowledge, which by definition requires that there must be some selection and exclusion.  It's all very well trying to smuggle in the assumption that the content in question was "encyclopaedic", but that's begging the question: Veverve had clearly articulated that they did  believe that it was encyclopedic, and the way to resolve a content dispute on Wikipedia is to discuss on the talkpage, not to abuse the block button.  Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) I found the "not involved" rationale to be astounding. In essence that if they were actively editing/reverting in the contested area but in their opinion it was "acting in the best interests of retaining encyclopaedic information." that that makes it not count as involvement. That's exactly what involvement is. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: "Then guilty as charged as that is the purpose of Wikipedia!"... You're missing the point, which is that admins who involve themselves in content should not take admin action over that content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been in the situation of being the old-timer who curses the Eternal September of the community and sees the new ways as morally degenerate. I don't think that position is the correct one here. Wikipedia has changed in many ways over the years, and the changes to policy and culture relevant here have been changes for the better. (non-admin commment) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond the INVOLVED issue, I will note the admin seems to be aware of violating WP:BURDEN by restoring unsourced content without providing a source to support it (noted other examples of mass content deletion (some of which just needed references [...])), and does not seem to care.
 * Quoting Elizium23 who is now permanently blocked, and thus cannot provide further information and details, is quite unfair to Elizium23. Veverve (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It is fantastically ironic that AlisonW says they blocked the user because it was clear that there are problems with that user imposing their personal beliefs on WP content but are completely unable to see that they blocked them because their actions conflicted with their personal beliefs on WP content. Seriously, you couldn't make it up. Since AlisonW still does not seem to understand why their block was completely wrong (indeed, she does not appear to understand WP:INVOLVED, so that's hardly surprising), I really don't think a slap on the wrist is going to be the answer here. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the comment was bad. After this comment from AlisonW, I don’t see anything less than a referral to Arbcom as suitable. Courcelles (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @ I have stated that I don't think your actions were malicious, and that remains my view. But your recent comments have raised serious questions in my mind regarding your general understanding of very fundamental policy and guidelines, in particular INVOLVED. So much so that I think it touches on WP:CIR. At this point, I think you should review the comments in this discussion from numerous experienced editors and consider voluntarily surrendering the tools. Absent which I have to ask if you are open to WP:ADMINRECALL, and if so, under what conditions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)AlisonW
 * It's an area where you are not active anyway and which requires an extremely strong current knowledge of policy including admin policy and related mechanisms. In this case having / not having the role/tools is simply based on whether or not that is the case and not a reflection on you as an editor or thankfulness for your work. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that AlisonW has made just three blocks in the past decade I view any referral to the Arbitration Committee as a grossly premature response to one-off behavior. Nobody's ever referred to the Committee after their first incident of incivility. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't an 'incident of incivility'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did you get incident of incivility from, wbm? This is, at best, a misuse of tools, and, at worst, a gross misuse of tools followed by a complete failure to understand why this was a gross misuse of tools. I can't see where incivility comes into it. I'm clearly missing something very major: can you supply diffs for this, please? — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguably this misuse of tools is a form of incivility, albeit low-level incivility. She blocked in lieu of engaging in a civil bold–revert–discuss process. My point is that if more blatant incivility doesn't merit an Arbcom case, then this certainly doesn't. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The blocked editor was blocked for a full month as recently as three months ago (contribution history) so this block shouldn't be viewed as grossly out-of-bounds.
 * I don't see that this admin is particularly "INVOLVED" in religion topics, per her most-edited pages. Whereas religion topics are the blocked editor's main focus. So this is not an "INVOLVED" content dispute, just more concern for inclusion vs. exclusion of marginal content added by other editors. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems the exact opposite of how the community and ArbCom have interpreted involvement. We generally don't say that admins are involved with respect to an entire topic area, even topic areas they spend most of their time in; but we do say admins are involved if they get into an edit war and then escalate by blocking, regardless of broader circumstance. I think Alison's comments have born out my appraisal that she didn't think she was doing the latter, but it's still what she did. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. She didn't block "in lieu of engaging in" BRD, she reverted (and invited discussion in her edit summary) and reverted again before blocking.  She was clearly involved in a content dispute, whether or not she had any former engagement with the topic.  And there's nothing in WP:INVOLVED which says "it doesn't count if you are violating WP:INVOLVED to win an edit war against someone if they have recently been blocked", so Veverve's history has no bearing at all on whether this was an involved action.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned that an admin who has been here for 12 years has as little understanding of WP:INVOLVED as AlisonW clearly does. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (outsiders perspective) Is it possible that only in the past few years that it's become a policy that is adhered to? While the policy may have existed for a decade+ it's also reasonable to say that not everyone may have closely adhered to it (and only particularly egregious violations of it were prosecuted). Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've been editing WP for almost nineteen and a half years, including for the WMF office and OTRS. --AlisonW (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * AlisonW, I am just a non-admin nobody, but I'd like to ask a clarifying question if you feel like answering. Given the benefit of hindsight, is there anything you would do differently with this situation?  Relatedly, is there anything you might handle differently in the future?  You are of course under no obligation to answer.  I hope everyone has a good week.  Dumuzid (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. Um, simply put 'not kicked the hornet's nest'! I've never seen a plain revert or rollback as being 'involved' with an article as, for me, that means you are editing the _content_ not the existence, however it has become exceedingly clear that more recently (years=??) others consider that so. Ditto 'edit war' imho requires editing the content. Given the user's past blocking I felt I took an appropriate action but, as always, others are able to agree or disagree as they will (eg why this page and individual talk pages for users and articles exist and are in regular use.). --AlisonW (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the answer. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't consider that response to be adequate. Your views on being involved are not in line with current practice, and I would like you to confirm that you would not block again in similar circumstances.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not in the slightest adequate. Unless you are rolling back obvious vandalism (which you weren't, regardless of your Wikipedia worldview), any change to an article makes you INVOLVED. This has been the case for at least 14 years.  Also, blocking someone on the basis of their previous block record makes it even worse because it suggests you are judging their edits on the basis of their block log rather than their edits.  I think it's time for ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On the particular point of "blocking someone on the basis of their previous block record" no I did not. That record did suggest to me that if one week and two week blocks in the past had not worked then maybe a month would. YMMV obviously (which it apparently does) and if I'd not read their current talk page it would have only been a single week. --AlisonW (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that the editor hadn't done anything wrong, so they didn't need to be blocked at all. It appears that you're still saying that you still don't understand that your block was utterly incorrect.  And yet you still claim that you're not a legacy admin that's out of touch with community norms.  That's clearly not the case. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the fundamental issue here. Even if it were true that Veverve should have been blocked (I don't think they should have been in any case, mind, but hypothetically speaking), the inappropriate thing is specifically that you, in the midst of a content dispute with them, were the one to do it. If you felt administrative intervention was necessary, you should have brought the matter to a venue like ANI and allowed uninvolved admins to decide what, if any, action needed to be taken. That's the expectation for any involved admin. Even if this were a good block, it would have still been wrong for you to be the one to make it. Does that help to make things clearer? The exact reason for the "INVOLVED" rule is that being in the midst of a situation can cloud our judgment, so we should let someone who isn't make the call. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I note Administrators: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.". This is absolutely the case with my actions, which I believed to be vandalism by their nature. --AlisonW (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alison, what do you believe constitutes vandalism? Because I cannot see how any of the edits in question possibly fit the definition in WP:VANDALISM.
 * Policy says (emphasis original): . The edits in question were made by an editor of 5 years and 50,000 edits experience, and though they have some blocks for editwarring, they were in good standing at the time of your block. They explained the reasons for their edits in their edit summaries. Do you genuinely believe that this was a bad-faith attempt to harm Wikipedia? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do hope you take what says above to heart — as someone who got this wrong themselves, it's painfully easy to double-down and argue the toss, but if this many people are telling you it looks involved, then its "apparent involvement" and the rest is mostly moot.. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I very much take your point, but if others want to keep on about 'involved' and policy then actually reading what it said on the subject is important. Also it should be noted that I did not engage in wheelwarring, any further action was something for others to review, not me. --AlisonW (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then, I have to add to those who have urged you to resign the tools voluntarily. That certainly doesn't mean you'd have to leave entirely; no one's asking for a site ban, and plenty of excellent editors are non-admins or former admins. I very much hope you would stay around in that capacity. But given that you have essentially doubled down on saying you did nothing wrong, I think you have substantially lost the community's trust as an administrator, and even were you to reverse course now, I think many would see that as "too little, too late". At this point, the only ends I see to this are the easy way, and the hard way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alison: the way out of this mess is to plainly and sincerely apologise to the editor you wrongly blocked, then to promise here to never do anything similar again.
 * Your attempts to make this go away by citing technicalities, especially when everybody here is trying to tell you that you have made a mistake, is wikilawyering.
 * You probably have a few hours where you can walk this back and thus maintain your admin bit. By tomorrow morning, your only way out will be to resign. By this time tomorrow, you will be in front of ArbCom.
 * Please listen to what people are saying here. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 20:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add to Seraphimblade that you can always give up your tools and then go through the nomination process again when you're ready. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As Tamzin noted at the top of this page, the involved block is not the only issue here. Alongside blocking Veverve, AlisonW also went on to make a series of reverts, apparently in retribution. In my opinion several of these were not only unjustified, but actively harmful. As I noted above, ignoring a possible copyright issue (which I wouldn't consider it fair to expect investigation of) the material Veverve had removed from the Vocationist Fathers article was entirely inappropriate, promotional and unencyclopedic. The material AlisonW restored to Do-it-yourself biology includes at least one unsourced assertion regarding a living person, uncited since 2015, and thus arguably a WP:BLP violation, alongside a long poorly-sourced list of 'Groups and organizations' not otherwise discussed in the article. Given legitimate questions as to whether WP:MEDRS should apply to the article, and as to whether Wikipedia should be linking to apparently non-notable websites encouraging 'DIY biology' and other questionable practices with serious medical implications, a wholesale revert here seems entirely unjustified. One might perhaps argue that Veverve went too far, but that is a question best answered through policy-based discussion and if necessary dispute resolution, not wholesale reverting by an admin apparently engaging in knee-jerk mass rollback. And look at AlisonW 's revert to Contemporary Catholic liturgical music, with an edit summary stating that "Redlinks are NOT a reason for deletion, they are reason to create an article". I have no idea whether this was ever actually Wikipedia policy, but it isn't now. Not for redlinks to putative biographical articles, which per WP:REDLINKBIO should only be created for people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Did AlisonW investigate these names before restoring them to a list of 'Popular composers'? I very much doubt it, but in any case, such wholesale restoration of content in this context is unjustifiable. I haven't looked into all the other reverts, and there may be further matters of concern, but meanwhile I'd like to ask AlisonW whether she thinks it is appropriate to engage in wholesale restoration of content without apparently confirming whether it is compliant with Wikipedia policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any record of AlisonW ever going through the RfA process. There is a note on her user page that says Until 2006 I used a different account which also had 'admin powers', but I also can't find a record of that account. I'm not sure any of this really matters, but if AlisonW has never gone through a consensus-based RfA process (e.g. adminship was granted ex officio and never removed) that seems like it would be relevant. – bradv  00:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well this seems a little weird. Per, Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning. If you want to start over, please follow the directions at Clean start instead of (not in addition to) this page. If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Her old account is documented at Former administrators/reason/renamed Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Based upon the info on that page, then, there's this. - jc37 01:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's wild seeing a successful RfA with just 25 participants for an account that was around 3-4 months old with 1600 edits.
 * Nearly 20 years later, a successful RfA has ten times that number of participants, and an account being around for at least a year or two with tens of thousands of edits is basically a minimum. How far this project has come! 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8836:50DB:CF58:3BA9 (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * along with similar behavioral concerns. Unsurprisingly. Star   Mississippi  01:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a recurring theme: AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, just please stop. It's one thing to talk about current edits, it's another to go back years and try to dig up past things long resolved. If you can draw an ongoing line throughout an editor's editing history to show ongoing issues, that's one thing, but cherry picking from the past is just inappropriate. Let's please stick to the topic at hand. - jc37 02:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No digging involved. It's in the immediate history of their alt account. Star   Mississippi  02:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) If there was much in the way of 'current edits' - or more to the point, current admin actions - to discuss, you might have a point. Since there isn't, and since AlisonW suggests that her long-standing presence on Wikipedia justifies her remaining an admin, we are fully entitled to look at that presence. Which seems to indicate ongoing issues, going back a long way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There's enough here, IMO, for the arbs to handle this via motion. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Originally I was inclined to view this as just a really bad lapse in judgement and would have been satisfied with an acknowledgment of the mistake, an apology, and a promise to be more careful going fwd. Unfortunately, I think that ship has now sailed. Based on their comments above, I no longer have confidence that they possess the requisite judgement and command of policy and guidelines for someone to be trusted with the tools. As far as I can tell they are not open to recall and have not responded to the various calls to stand down voluntarily. Regrettably, this needs to be referred to ARBCOM. I will close with a caveat. This is solely about their abillity to be trusted with the tools. It is not a reflection on their character or long history of contributions as an editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree. When asked "Given the benefit of hindsight, is there anything you would do differently with this situation? Relatedly, is there anything you might handle differently in the future?", she responded "simply put 'not kicked the hornet's nest'!" I trust her not to use the block button in this manner for, at least the next ten years. This seems like another "storm in a teacup" to me. Does AlisonW have a history of behavior unbecoming of an administrator? Some old behavior could be investigated, but it's mostly a decade or more old. wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Preferably AlisonW comes to the realization that they don't meet the current admin standards and voluntarily puts their tools and badge on the desk so to speak. are you open to that or do you feel that there are compelling reasons that you remain an admin? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbcom

 * I have opened a request for arbitration. Interested editors are invited to comment at the linked discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How many more such cases does it take for people to realise that we need to have a better way of removing the admin tools than referring every case to Arbcom? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a major problem with the current system. The need to remove the bit from admins is not altogether common. We have a situation here where a longstanding sysop has acted in a manner that is clearly inconsistent with community expectations and the broadly accepted interpretation of some fairly important policy/guidelines. The matter was discussed here with a broad consensus to that effect, and they chose not to stand down. So the matter has now been handed off to ARBCOM. I'm not seeing a big deal. AlisonW does not appear to be actively using the tools for good or ill. What's the rush? Desysopping should not be something done casually or quickly absent something very urgent like a compromised account or ongoing blatant abuse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I do see flaws with the current system, but I just don't think this is a situation that particularly highlights them. There should be a community desysop for at least two reasons:
 * 1) There's no particular reason (other than perhaps the slightly more anarchic state of the early project) that this process should have been sequestered, in the first place, as a top-down tool invoked only by laborious appeal to an elite body with limited resources and time. Admins get their mandate from an expression of common community support (for that matter, so does ArbCom).  It is frankly perplexing to me that there has been such a history of bureaucratic stonewalling to clear community will to create a straight-forward, structured, and fair process by which the community may take back those elevated tools which they have invested in an individual in trust in the first place, where that trust has been broken.  Rank-and-file community members are subject to complete banishment from the project in the form of a CBAN at a demonstration of community will, so why on earth the protracted hand-wringing over the relatively much lighter censure of the removal of advanced tools for a sysop, who should be viewed to have placed themselves, if anything, under a greater burden of community scrutiny?  It just makes no rational sense to me, and I doubt it ever will until we finally enshrine that process.


 * And 2) the community needs those tools to address cases of major disruption, which I agree are relatively--but hardly exceedingly--rare. In the case of a clear showing of repeated violation of the tools in cases of self-interest, propensity towards impulsive, incorrect use, a failure to understand relevant (and current) policy, intractability to community perspective/concerns about potential misuse, and so forth, there's no good reason the community should not address the abuse directly.


 * And this goes beyond the principled ("constitutional" as we sometimes frame it) question of whether the community is inherently entitled to this ability, as the ultimate source of all rule-making and ability to censure individual community member conduct, as it clearly is. There is also a pragmatic element here, as well as issues of the health of our self-regulation ecology, for lack of a better term. Such discussions can (and should) be setting the line on what is and is not appropriate administrative action, beyond passingly rare adjustments to the handful of restraining policies. Let me preface this by saying that I cannot imagine that a community desysop would be any more common than those which currently occur at ArbCom.  Indeed, I would expect them to be harder to pass, based on the history of ANI and the high threshold necessary to censure (sometimes plainly out of control) users, and the strong differences of opinion that almost invariably invokes when it comes to stiffer penalties for established community members--with the burden undoubtedly increased even further by the level of respect your typical admin usually holds within the community.


 * But the act of doing so in those edge cases when it is strictly necessary could help to clarify the standards, establish clearer community support for where the line that should not be crossed that Tamzin alludes to in her first post here actually lays, and create visible reminders that admins are servants of the community trust who follow its will, rather than having an elevated role in shaping it. It won't always be pretty, but in the long run, I think it will certainly be better for the health of the community, the transparency of our expectations, and the reliability of the administrative corps.


 * All that said, this isn't one of those particularly protracted or high-concern cases. Don't get me wrong, I join with the consensus above that this was an unambiguous case of bright-line violations of WP:INVOLVED, misconception of the purpose of the ban function, and a hair-trigger on that function.  And it's possible there have been other mistakes or abuse by this admin.  But there hasn't been a showing of that and there does not seem to be widespread disruption needing immediate community action.  In short, this is the kind of nuanced case that ArbCom should be handling, even hopefully after the development of the community desysop process.  <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Handling the content side
Veverve asked me when this started what would happen with the reverts, and I replied that he should wait for this thread to resolve. Since things are moving in the direction of ArbCom now, and ArbCom can't decide content, seems we should resolve that. To me, the most equitable solution would be to revert AlisonW's 7 reverts (i.e. re-remove the content), without prejudice against the content in question being restored as part of the normal editorial process if appropriate. Same as we would do if an editor e.g. incorrectly massrollbacked something as vandalism. CC AndyTheGrump. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * (NAC) This seems fair and pretty drama-free. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I already performed some of these re-reverts on the grounds that the discussion was heading that way, anyhow. I'm willing to standby the content of those changes (back to V's version) independent of the discussion, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. If the disputed content is policy-compliant and appropriate (some at least isn't, in my opinion) it can be restored by consensus, after discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

New special page to fight spam
Hello, We are replacing most of the functionalities of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist with a new special page called Special:BlockedExternalDomains. In this special page, admins can simply add a domain and notes on the block (usually reasoning and/or link to a discussion) and the added domain would automatically be blocked to be linked in Wikis anymore (including its subdomains). Content of this list is stored in MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json. You can see w:fa:Special:BlockedExternalDomains as an example. Check the phabricator ticket for more information.

This would make fighting spam easier and safer without needing to know regex or accidentally breaking wikis while also addressing the need to have some notes next to each domain on why it’s blocked. It would also make the list of blocked domains searchable and would make editing Wikis in general faster by optimizing matching links added against the blocked list in every edit (see T337431 for some measurements).

If you want to migrate your entries in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, there is a python script in P49299 that would produce contents of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json for you automatically migrating off simple regex cases.

Note that this new feature doesn’t support regex (for complex cases) nor URL paths matching. Also it doesn’t support bypass by spam whitelist. For those, please either keep using MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or switch to an abuse filter if possible. And adding a link to the list might take up to five minutes to be fully in effect (due to server-side caching, this is already the case with the old system) and admins and bots automatically bypass the blocked list.

Let me know if you have any questions or encounter any issues. Happy editing. Amir (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Amir: This looks sensational, thanks to all involved. Re "admins and bots automatically bypass the blocked list": I seem to recall discussions about whether admins should be exempt from the current system and I suspect the result was no. One point being that if an admin can (presumably unknowingly) add a blocked URL, non-admins cannot edit the page if the link remains present. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq According to Special:ListGroupRights indeed admins don't have the sboverride right (while bots do). So it should be possible to take away the new right from addmins too. That being said, spam blacklist or the new system don't block further edits if it contains a blocked domain. It used to do that but not anymore, now it only blocks edits that add a blocked domain. Ladsgroupoverleg 10:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's even better. Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What if I want to block 20 domains at a time? This is a far too frequent use case. MER-C 15:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @MER-C You would be able to edit the json directly, someone could write a gadget to make it easier if that's a common usecase. Ladsgroupoverleg 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

StoreDot company page
I've noticed that an active editor of the StoreDot page HueSurname treats it as their own, consistently promoting their personal viewpoint. Consequently, the page is full of phrases like: "CEO said", "CEO promised", "CEO hopes", "CEO reported", company was planning; company stated; company announced in 2018 to do something in 2019,,, and so on. I do believe, that Wikipedia is not built on what a CEO, or company, or other individuals express in their interviews or blogs (even cited in reliable sources). Rather, an encyclopedic page should be grounded on objective facts - what occurred, what was launched, etc. The pledges made by marketing experts or upper management are not particularly crucial to be included in Wikipedia.

However, I find the page heavily unbalanced; it seems more like a tribune for the CEO of StoreDot than a page about the company. I hope someone will streamline the page and remove the vague, unnecessary details, as it is currently overly complex and brimming with the personal remarks of the company's CEO. Ben0.1Hur (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ben0.1Hur: This is more appropriate for WP:COI/N than here. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

paid editing
Please pay attention at this paid editing page Doug Bania and its author @MMJ2023 172.126.175.124 (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

New RfC opened 3 days after close
A few days ago there was a challenge of the close of the Killing of Jordan Neely RfC that was quickly withdrawn after feedback. A new RfC was created immediately and features most of the same editors who commented on the previous RfC. This article is based on recent story. Shouldn't their be a pause on this question for a period? 3 days isn't enough time to restart a RfC. I initially supported inclusion on the first RfC, but I endorsed the close as no consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I see that the first RfC, the RfC close review, and the second RfC were all opened by . As this is about their conduct, I've left them an AN notice so they're notified of this discussion. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not at all, otherwise I would have left them a notice. I'm just curious what the SOP to reopen a RfC that are recently closed? As someone who has monitored RfCs the past few months I'm not familiar with a situation like this one where a close occured, was challenged, the challenge was DOA, and then a new RfC is opened immediately. Nemov (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the AN Notice @Thebiguglyalien. As I've argued in Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely I was within rights to open the Rfc given the support for it by other editors, alongside uninvolved administrators in Administrators' noticeboard. Such as @Starship.paint, @Springee, @WWGB, @Festucalexand @Xan747 at the time.
 * And while not involved in the original discussion I'm fairly certain @Combefere, @Sangdeboeuf, @72.14.126.22 who been involved in the process would support my decision among others. I can explain myself further, but I'll mostly be repeating what I said there at the time. - LoomCreek (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you created the 2nd RfC in good faith. There's no need to drag everyone in who is participating in the ongoing discussion. This was a question for uninvolved admins. I should have been clearer, my apologies. I'd welcome any feedback they could give because that could change my position from procedural close. Nemov (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CCC: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. This is an ongoing, high-profile case, and the previous RfC close specifically found no consensus, so I don't see opening a new RfC so soon as disruptive, especially since LoomCreek made explicit reference to "recent developments of the case". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. --JBL (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I disagreed with LoomCreek in the initial RfC, and I believe that the original close was correct (though SFR cited my comments approvingly in their close, so I would say that!), but given the no-consensus close, and the developing nature of the case and particularly the fact that LoomCreek cites recent developments which were not discussed in the initial RfC, I can't see this as disruptive. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll just throw in that I was unaware of the initial close challenge when it was active (for less than 24 hours), but would have supported it on grounds of both procedure (the closing editor significantly miscounted the !votes) and content. It seems the editors involved in that discussion were unsure whether a close challenge was more appropriate than a new RfC, given the ever changing nature of the story. In the end, LoomCreek cancelled the close-challenge, and opted for a new RfC, which seems like the correct decision to me.
 * I do not find this disruptive, nor even out of the ordinary. On the contrary, I think it was necessary. Close challenges exist for a reason. Combefere  ★  Talk  23:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Phanuruch855
This account vandalized own talk page, by making unconstructive edits and removing warnings. Probably the ability to edit the talk page needs to be disabled. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Company attempts at Influence over TECO Energy
Hello, I wasn't sure where to put in this request, but it seemed important and likely to involve administrators.

There is a potential conflict with Teco Energy the company. Who had an employee on their behalf attempt to get the article (TECO Energy) deleted on the basis of it's unfavorable coverage. The conflict of interest was disclosed. However, this could be a potentially continuing issue and think it would be best to have more eyes on the page. Given also that the deletion request was unmerited and I had to remove some sections as they seemed to be promotional material.

I'm unsure what would be the best next step would be, but advice would be appreciated. - LoomCreek (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI for future posts: we have a noticeboard for problems with COI that may be helpful. WP:COIN. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (Ah okay, thanks I'll make sure to keep in mind for the future.) LoomCreek (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * After examining the page, its seem like this might be recurring, with a disruptive edit to unfavorable information through an ip in 2016 (just fixed) - LoomCreek (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

edits by user HM2021
this user has already been brought up here before, they are very active on articles about movies and make some productive edits, such as adding posters and other non-free material to film-related articles. However, they have also been blocked multiple times from editing for making disruptive edits (see talk page), almost all of their recent contributions have been rolled back and marked as vandalism (compare my edit on 1917 (2019 film), they seem to have been adding a number of similar statement to other movie articles recently.) As noted in the old noticeboard entry, they seem to be entirely unresponsive regarding all of this, and as mentioned have received multiple 24 hour bans with no apparent change in behavior. I'm not sure what the correct procedure is here, but this seems disruptive and persistent enough to bring up here. --jonas (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * They ignore warnings constantly and repeat the same type of edits after being warned. WP:NOTHERE  Mike  Allen   14:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Digidwar
I'm requesting to disable the ability to edit own talk page of this account for making unconstructive edits on own talk page. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * All they did was blank their talk page, which they are allowed to do. DanCherek (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason for being allowed to blank own talk page. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing a block notice, even while blocked, is simply not prohibited by policy. See . DanCherek (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But is it needed to archive warnings removed from the talk page. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Where did you get that idea from? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because original discussions are being archived, I thought that removed warnings from the talk page also should be archived. I have already read more info on Mark of Cain. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 178, the essay Mark of Cain might be helpful to you here. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 21:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See the essay Mark of Cain. CastJared (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please also see WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. The block reason itself is more of an indication for the reason of the block than a block messages which may have been modified by the blocked user or a third party. If an admin, or anyone else, really wants to see the message, it's available in the page history. Anyone who can't use the history to find this version of the page certainly doesn't know the site well enough to be an admin. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 09:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

CastJared's comments at various AFD discussions
Jared has been told multiple times that their comments are not acceptable and that they need to adjust their behavior or cease commenting. They have even slammed the door on this discussion, though they have since reverted this and made a simple though IMO meaningless response. Some of their comments on AFD discussions include "I don't care", and "this is the second nomination". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen this user's comments on various discussions (not just AfD) in the past. They tend to be unhelpful and more often than not, utterly incomprehensible. Some examples from a few minutes of scanning their contribs:
 * In response to a block for adding unsourced content: I have certain reasons why I suppose to find a reliable source, but there is too many citations nearby.
 * At AfD: Keep: per Eastmain decision. Not sure it's there are many sources to get.
 * An AfD vote that was clearly copied and pasted from the one above it with minor changes.
 * At AfD: Keep: Seems run-of-the-mill.
 * The issues with their frequent and low-quality AfD votes were brought up here, where they received another incomprehensible reply. Their talk page archives are a litany of warnings for various issues including edit warring, inappropriate usage of warning templates, careless automated edits, improper closures of discussions, etc. I'm wondering whether this user has the necessary competence to edit Wikipedia (or at least the English-language version of it). Spicy (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting to note that CastJared's recent comment at this AfD copies the user above in incorrectly claiming that a guideline is depreceated, then follows it up with "No citation impact of SIGCOV". Luckily, another user identifies the mistake. Nonetheless, it demonstrates the potential negative impact of these poor quality !votes. CastJared's unwillingness to slow down is somewhat worrying. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a language problem perhaps? In any case, I agree that comments like here or here are not helpful at all, and it seems that they just tend to agree with the latest comment, without actually doing any work to determine if an article should be kept or deleted, e.g. here or rather extreme here, where they copy part of the previous post without seemingly having actually understood it at all. I have now spotchecked about 20 of their last 100 AfD votes, and not a single one helped in any way. Giving them an AfD topic ban would be a clear net gain for everyone involved. Fram (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm now deciding to quit on XFD votings. CastJared (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that the issues with this user go further than just AFD, there seems to be general WP:CIR problems at play here. Some examples from the last few weeks:
 * Showing up at the talk page of another user to leave a bizarre and useless comment.
 * An IP trims an excessive number of citations CastJared reverts and warns the IP for disruptive editing  and requests the page be protected . Another editor tags the article for excessive citation cleanup, so CastJared removes 2 citations . The IP trims it down to 1 citation referencing WP:Citation Overkill in the edit summary  CastJared reverts, and warns the editor again . The IP was correct here, "john doe had a walk on cameo" does not require 4 or 6 citations, 1 is sufficient, and the second edit did not justify another disruptive editing warning.
 * Giving out a warning for introducing factual errors in response to an IP doing some (admittedly poor) copy editing that did not change any information or introduce any errors.
 * They also do this weird thing where they look for edits that have been reverted by other people and go to hand out warnings to people for edits made multiple days ago, e.g. these two warnings  were both related to edits from 2-3 days before the warnings were give out.
 * Their talk page archive is worth reading, similar issues across wide swathes of the project have been going on for months. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is fine. There are some problems as did with The Idol. It is currently semi-protected until 17:42, 28 June 2023. CastJared (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is not fine. And that is not for you to judge. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As a result, I'm about to retire. CastJared (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that CastJared can't reply here, but could someone explain why someone who has retired needs to appeal a block? These actions appear to support the impression of incompetence. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Phil Bridger ANI flu often leads to "retirement". Star   Mississippi  18:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I support an XfD topic ban, and have broad concerns with CastJared's editing beyond AfD participation in line the ones that that @163.1.15.238 notes above. They have an apparent tendency to willfully not hear what people are saying to them, and it takes a lot of effort to convince them that their behavior needs correction. For instance:
 * Issues with their comments at AfD have been brought to their attention many times; the open conversation on their talk page was started on May 24. They never responded, despite other users adding similar experiences on to it, until this ANB discussion was opened. Even before that issues were coming up in individual AfDs. They tend to double down on the idea that what they're saying makes sense and stop responding if someone requests clarification; I'd personally learned to just ignore their comments if I saw them on an AfD.
 * CastJared has been asked to not issue editing warnings multiple times, as they are often doing so in an incorrect or disruptive manner . Despite these discussions, CastJared continued to inappropriately issue vandalism warnings to users; e.g. on May 1 CastJared issued two warnings in a row and an AIV report for "vandalism beyond final warning" to an IP editor when there had been no editing activity from that IP since April 29 (warnings:, ; AIV report: ; IP contribs: ).
 * A large percentage of their mainspace editing is using IABot to archive sources . That in and of itself is probably fine, if unusual; however it appears in some cases this has been disruptive . The former discussion was closed and archived with their only comment being Uh, yeah, I'm using IABot to rescue citations. The latter message was entirely ignored by CastJared. In neither case did the discussion seem to prompt a change in behavior.
 * I had a conversation with CastJared a month and a half ago about some odd AfD behavior where they had relisted AfDs that should not have been relisted, with confusing or irrelevant summaries similar to the ones others have outlined here (see User talk:CastJared/Archive_1 and the conversation immediately following it, which was opened because the first was archived and closed). Ultimately they did agree not to continue relisting AfDs, but in that process they claimed to "accidentally" have installed XFDCloser, and it seemed more difficult than I'd have expected to get across that relisting wasn't a productive way for them to contribute.
 * Their responses to criticism or concerns is often a short sentence that states some irrelevant facts or policies while ignoring the actual content of the message. As an example of this, see immediately above, where they replied to 163.1.15.238's comment stating that it's all fine because one of the pages that they'd been edit warring on is semi-protected.
 * CastJared's tendency to ignore other editors who raise issues combined with the somewhat authoritative language they use to discuss policy in project space concerns me a lot. I haven't seen them acknowledge that they don't know what they're doing, which is a necessary step towards learning what they're doing. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the same for Jack4576 and MrsSnoozyTurtle. They're failing of getting the point. CastJared (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna regret biting here, but why even bring up those users? Neither of them had come up at all in this discussion, unless I'm missing something. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 00:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're missing anything. That comment seems to follow the pattern of non sequiturs from this editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support XfD topic ban and any further measures to limit disruption in other spaces. I don't think this user has the competence to contribute meaningfully. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I should end up dropping the stick and back slowly away from XFD voting and nominating articles. I am now facing multiple controversies. CastJared (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support XfD topic ban. The user has been warned multiple times in good faith; however, the user ignores the warnings and continues to make low-quality !votes, showing no signs of improvement. Timothytyy (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and pulled the trigger to block them. The responses in this thread, as well as this comment in another AN discussion are a loud and clear sign that they have insufficient comprehension of what's going on to be able to edit constructively, and that they are actively, continually attempting to feign understanding that they do not have in a way that can only be destructive to the project (and as much as I'm personally dying to know what their reply to Dylnuge's query above would be, the odds of it being unnecessarily inflammatory with respect to the other two unrelated and uninvolved editors are high enough that I think preventing the reply was prudent). If editors think this was the wrong call, please let it be known below. signed,Rosguill talk 00:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have declined an unblock request on this user's talk page, which did not adequately address the reason for the block. One could argue, as an aside, that the unblock rationale put forward actually supports the block, as it showed a lack of competence. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight edit-conflicted and also declined with the standard form response. CastJared has moved to immediately reappeal. signed,Rosguill talk 02:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Declined unblock I nearly filed this last night for !votes such as Keep: It has multiple citations, also it need multiple reliable citations for this article., *Delete: Doesn't pass WP:NCORP, no need to say WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX. (weren't raised in the discussion) and other utterly incomprehensible input. They do not have the competence (it doesn't read as language skills, personally) to edit here, and a topic ban from AfD won't be helpful since the disruption is already also at MfD. Star   Mississippi  02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I look over every AFD almost every day and never thought about bringing an editor to AN or ANI for posting nonsensical or repetitive, useless "votes". Is this considered a blockable offense? It sure isn't helping the discussions and often seems like a cut and paste job across multiple AFDs. Just curious about opinions on this subject. I understand that behavior at AFDs was only one of the reasons for this block but as I see other incidents of this in AFD land, I'm wondering about how admins feel about usually newish editors acting authoritatively (and often incorrectly) in deletion discussions. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The AfD votes themselves are in my opinion the least concerning evidence of misconduct here, although they do match perfectly to the rest of the picture of an editor who is not able to adequately communicate with others and cannot be trusted to know when they are out of their depth, or even understand direct instructions. signed,Rosguill talk 03:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Suggestion (Stance above) How about we unblock the user to let them prove that they understand the guidelines, especially when the user wasn't sufficiently warned about his disruption outside AfD? The user also makes useful contributions using IA Bot, so unblocking the user allows us to observe whether the user really understands the guidelines and figures out that the edits are disruptive. @ Timothytyy (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the opinion of lifting the block getting a lot of support today. The block was only imposed a few hours ago. If it is changed in any way, it could be moved from an indefinite block to one that is time-limited, like two weeks or a month. Or it could be a partial block from Project space. But it sounds like there were a number of different areas of concern. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Would really suggest reviewing the talk page history prior to considering any block lifting. The same issues keep arising, with the user "closing" the discussion.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  14:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to an alternative remedy here but I do think they've been sufficiently (and broadly) warned. They've had two short blocks in January and February for edit warring and persistently re-adding unsourced content . In a discussion in April about issuing inappropriate warnings to users, Lee Vilenski wrote Consider this a final warning and that you might be blocked for CIR next time out . Despite this, they continue to inappropriately issue warnings to users. IMHO, CastJared should have stopped issuing any vandalism warnings as appropriate remedy to that discussion, but issuing two warnings—including a final warning—and then immediately filing an AIV report for an IP that hadn't edited in several days is clearly the exact behavior they were told to quit. There are also lots of times users asked them to stop a behavior without explicitly noting the possibility of a block—they've been hit with templates, trouted, and told their editing behavior is disruptive multiple times, by a wide swath of editors (including several admins).
 * It seems to me like they have a tendency to "pause" editing in an area they get warned about. They stop issuing edit warnings for a few weeks, then go back to it when no one is "looking" anymore. They get asked about their voting behavior at AfD and move over to MfD. That doesn't strike me as the behavior of someone who is genuinely trying to understand what other editors are concerned about, just someone hoping that they can dodge further scrutiny. Personally I'd support unblocking them if someone was willing to sponsor them and mentor them, but I somewhat doubt anyone wants to take that on given their communication patterns, which read less like a language barrier to me and more like a human version of a stochastic parrot, randomly repeating policies and arguments they've seen others mention. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: stochastic parrot, thanks for that term @Dylnuge
 * at Chatbot? where they voted Strong Delete: Notable didn't work on this article. It can't reach under WP:SIGCOV. I can find no other explanation for such gibberish than a tool run amok since they have shown the ability to construct an English language sentence. Star   Mississippi  17:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a tangent to the core CIR issue, but from what I've seen I'd still bet on there being an English-fluency issue here, with the parroting being an attempt to surmount a lack of conventional proficiency. Sentences like I'm now deciding to quit on XFD votings higher up in this thread exhibit pretty common non-native speaker errors. Now, if CJ's talk page engagement was limited to somewhat broken but comprehensible English, or parroting only very specific Wikipedia terms of art with clear comprehension of their meaning, there wouldn't be a CIR issue (the latter is arguably necessary when learning Wikipedia in a new language, even when you have a high level of fluency in the language itself). The problem is when the parroting is coupled with apparently faulty understanding of what they're saying and an inability or unwillingness to communicate their level of understanding/confidence in a way that would allow other editors to collaborate with them constructively. Put all of that together with a penchant for WP-space and quality-control activity where they, unintentionally or not, speak with authority to inexperienced editors and we've got a rolling disaster waiting to happen. signed,Rosguill talk 17:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

RevDel requested
Hi, can I get a revdel of this slur used as an edit summary ? It's been there since March 17.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this was in response to my message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity about said vandalism. As an admin I didn't think to do the revdel myself but I have no objection to it being done. Also see Revision deletion; the admins' noticeboard isn't always the best place for requests like these. Graham 87 16:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was unaware that there was such a place, thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nalanidil 3X-Banned
Per Banning policy, this is a procedural notification that is considered sitebanned due to repeated CU-confirmed block evasion as documented at Sockpuppet investigations/Nalanidil. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Information about erratic behaviour of user @Psychologist Guy
Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to inform about a Wikipedia user @Psychologist Guy. This person is not allowing to add factual information and is reverting even minor edits. When approached humbly for a discussion, he abused on personal chat @ user: talk, and refused any discussion out rightly. I request you to please investigate this and guide me, in case I am wrong and reprimand this user, so that he is not able to deny addition of simple statements of facts. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Not all 'factual information' belongs in articles. Whether specific material merits inclusion in an article will depend on the weight attached to it in sources discussing the article subject matter, and assessing that requires good-faith discussions amongst contributors, taking into account relevant Wikipedia policy. Given your comments at Talk:Indian independence movement, I'd advise you to find out how Wikipedia actually works, and to take note of what other contributors are saying, before your behaviour rebounds on you. We don't settle content disputes by accusing others of 'abuse'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @AndyTheGrump for your message. I am new to Wikipedia and intended to contribute factual information. Weight of a particular thing is of course, a subjective thing and anyways, I had referred to relevant references for these. You may have noted these as well. Anyways, I understand that since it is Wikipedia, I should pay more attention to its content. But as one user had commented that a Wiki article is no one’s personal property. In case for behaviour, you are referring to my latest message, then I must clarify that I was disappointed by the personal chat with the said user, and I assure you that I had not left humility at any time before I had to answer in some definite terms. At the last, I take your advice of looking at how Wiki works, but would have always encouraged healthy discussion for a topic, irrespective of the specifics of editing. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bharatavarsh.1947 has not been making minor edits. I would also suggest looking at this edit they have made accusing other users of having "limited knowledge" and making other accusations including knowing other users "reality". This user has disrupted the Namdhari article with some of the worst edits I have seen on this website, for example adding bolded unsourced text all over the place more than once which does look like vandalism because it is not a one off event. The user was reverted by me and other users but kept restoring the same unsourced and unreliable content. Similar is happening at Indian independence movement in regard to undue weight. They are adding amazon links and undue weight content about their personal interest Ram Singh Kuka to multiple articles. The user was told why that content is undue and off-topic but they kept re-adding it. It looks like undue promotion to me. So far every edit they have made has been reverted in mainspace.
 * The user is promoting a conspiracy theory in multiple places that several users including myself are not allowing them to add factual information to articles but this is not the case. If they added properly sourced reliable content that is on topic then they would not be reverted. I have not seen them make any sensible edits. There is probably a WP:COMPETENCE issue here if you look at the discussion on the talk-page of Indian independence movement. I have worthwhile things to be doing on this website so will not respond to this user again. They have caused disruption. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with my limited knowledge of Wikipedia editing. Anyways. You have reverted back the details. Please refer to my humble request to you on your personal chat for a discussion on issues unrelated to editing.
 * I will also not be engaging in any further debate on this. I am having a very fruitful discussion with @Abecedare on this. Still I apologise if I hurt you. But you should have been mindful of your behaviour also. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been a writer and editor since 1985. The first thing I do before contributing content to any publication is familiarise myself with all of its editorial and style guidelines. English Wikipedia has a style manual and many other editorial policies. I would never consider editing a publication of whose policies I had “limited knowledge”.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  03:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Julietdeltalima for your message. I am just a history enthusiast, neither a writer nor an editor. I was not sure about the high standards of writings in Wikipedia, thought it as a common platform. Though I have read a number of Wikipedia articles, I didn't notice the style, as I only read for content. I will look at it more clearly. As one user had suggested me, we are now discussing in 'Talk' and reaching a consensus before making any edits (This is a great way to go ahead). The discussion went a lot into editing, although I had issue with acceptance of the content and a discussion for that. Nevertheless, for the 'Talk' that is referred here, I have fortunately got a like-minded user, who is guiding me and conversing in a positive manner. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

User keeps undoing my edits
User:30MarB continues to undo my edits on Tariq Malik and restores them back to their version. They've been on Wikipedia for almost 8 years now and that is the only page they have ever edited. Possible Conflict of interest? SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Neither one of you has used the talk page yet. That's a good place to start. Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pblocked from the page for now. They’re acting like they own the article and are not “allowing” anyone else to edit. Courcelles (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the article is a pile of crap. Your version is clearly better than theirs, but neither is actually good.  This needs some major, major pruning. Courcelles (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

User:The History Wizard of Cambridge
This user is currently reverting my well sourced edits, engaging in edit warring, as well as WP:PA personally attacking me and accusing me of "you are cherrypicking sources because you want to use her alleged and unconfirmed sex work to justify her murder" These are extremely offensive accusations with no basis. This user is also WP:OWN acting as the owner of the article. They have broken the 3 revert rule with no excuse and I feel this users aggressive behaviour would discourage new editors. at Murder of Agnes Wanjiru. Thanks 109.157.92.138 (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Quick procedural note. To break WP:3RR, you'd actually need 4 reverts in 24 hours, because the policy says more than 3. I only see 3 here. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My mistake. But I still feel they may do it again. 109.157.92.138 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your sources are high quality but unfortunately they are also contradicted by equally great sources. In the article of the Murder of Agnes Wanjiru you insist on describing the murder victim primarily as a "prostitute" in the lead, which many of the sources from places such as the BBC do back up. However, this is contradicted by more recent articles from articles by The Guardian here and here, who cite people who were close to the victim who cast doubt on her alleged job as a sex worker. There also appears to be far more evidence that her fulltime career was as a hair stylist, yet you didn't put that in the lead and hyper focused on the allegations that she was a prostitute. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * She was both a prostitute and a hair stylist. 109.157.92.138 (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic of Agnes Wanjiru and wrongdoings by the British military in Kenya (specifically the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment and British Army Training Unit Kenya) have been the target of many sock puppets and no username accounts by editors who wish to edit articles to show the British military in a more favourable light. Earlier this month the topic of Agnes Wanjiru and the British military in Kenya became the target of vitriol by a far right ethno-nationalist and fan of the British army who has used multiple sock accounts to target wiki pages related to the British military.
 * I hope that fellow editors can understand my suspicion when I see an IP which only began editing yesterday, who exclusively edits on pages relating to the British military, began hyper focusing on editing an extremely obscure yet controversial wiki page on a subject that a few days ago was the target of an extremely malicious editor. How this IP even knows so much about wiki's guidelines and bureaucracy despite only editing for a day is suspicious to me. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are personally attacking me again. 109.157.92.138 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have edited to include both of her professions. I wasn't hyperfocusing on that she was a prostitute, it is just so much more prominent in every article about the murder. 109.157.92.138 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my recent edit. How do you feel about this compromise? It includes all the information that you wanted to edit while also acknowledging the contradictions in the sources we both use. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am not happy with that. The allegations of her being a prostitute are as well founded and contradicted/disputed just as much as the actual murder of her allegedly by British soldiers. 109.157.92.138 (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you happy with my recent edit? I am willing to compromise with that 109.157.92.138 (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 109.157.92.138, in the future, when you are reverted, you should follow WP:BRD, and then discuss the proposed changes on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Murder of Agnes Wanjiru. Then you should WAIT to include your changes until other editors support them on the talk page. When in doubt, the old article text should be the default while you are discussing the proposed new text, and a consensus must be achieved to include the new article text. Again, 109.157.92.138, the burden is on you to get other editors to agree to these disputed changes before you try to edit them into the article. At this point you should switch to drafting your proposed changes on the talk page Talk:Murder of Agnes Wanjiru instead of editing them into the article. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain 109.157.92.138 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment - None of the sources referenced by 109.157.92.138 use the word "prostitute". 109.157.92.138 made a personal attack calling the editor "toxic" on an unrelated page. 109.157.92.138 broke 3RR:. They are still edit warring the word “prostitute” - not directly supported by reliable sources - into the first sentence. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 09:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10931549/British-soldier-accused-fatally-stabbing-Kenyan-prostitute-Agnes-Wanjiru-21-England.html ,
 * https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/brit-soldier-x-living-freely-27274122
 * https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/agnes-wanjiru-wanjiku-murder-two-british-1397754 109.157.92.138 (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sex worker is another word for prostitute. 109.157.92.138 (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DAILYSTAR are extremely unreliable tabloid sources and should not be used. Since this is a content dispute, please try to start relocating this discussion of content to Talk:Murder of Agnes Wanjiru. Don't forget to get consensus for your changes before making further edits to the article, 109.157.92.138. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not know that these sources should not be used, thanks for letting me know, and I will do. 109.157.92.138 (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Poor editing is continuing, and the article's watchers are close to 3RR and may not be able to deal with it, so I've chosen to issue a warning to 109.157.92.138, and am considering a WP:PBLOCK if disruption continues. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This IP's editing behavior is weird. Their very first edit was made to the article Murder of Agnes Wanjiru, which was created by The History Wizard of Cambridge recently (a user who has been harassed by and their socks). This IP is also editing the page List of British Army installations, which was recently edited by both Militaryfactchecker and their sock CptJohnMiller. Militaryfactchecker had a habit of adding slashes in their edit summaries (e.g., brunei units / nepal / worsley barracks / etc), as did CptJohnMiller (e.g., Corps cannot have Regimental HQs as they arent a regiment / updated names / references / added units). This IP also has this exact same habit: Structure now unknown / 5 regt became 3 regt / now active regiment again / catterick. Total WP:DUCK just from a preliminary analysis.  Nythar  (💬-🍀) 10:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add these two edit summaries: CptJohnMiller "not a british army installation. Somalian Army / UN installation where a few british army troops visit to train somalian military", 109.157.92.138 "Not a British Army installation, a Royal Navy/US Navy joint operating base. No British Army personnel stationed there, just a small number of Royal Navy/Royal Marines." Someone please block this troll; they've wasted enough time already. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 10:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nythar why are you coping? 109.157.92.138 (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Novem Linguae. Please read my above comments. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that analysis. They edited the Murder of Agnes Wanjiru article again so I pblocked them for a week. I am a pretty new admin so let me double check the sock block and block length before I do an indefinite a longer block for socking. Or any other admin should feel free to do it. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's always good to take precautions, especially as a new admin. (Just a note here, the IP is now disruptively reverting my unrelated edits across multiple pages.) Nythar  (💬-🍀) 10:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Now blocked for 3 months for the hounding / revenge reverting. Sorry for the trouble. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae, what about semi-protecting the article? a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arado Ar 196. I think for disruption to an article by one user, we are only supposed to block. Protection is usually for disruption by multiple users. So I can't protect at this time. Although if multiple users disrupt the article, feel free to request it at WP:RFPP in the future. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Outdated MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-terms-url
Hi,

the URL in that page in this wiki is outdated (and probably in all other wikis too, I just checked the Spanish one, it's also outdated). Please update the URLs; I already asked on Meta-Wiki, but they said I have to ask locally. CyberOne25 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @CyberOne25 please open an edit request with exactly what you would like changed. — xaosflux  Talk 20:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just realised that that page has to be deleted. Please delete MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-terms-url, as it is outdated and has been replaced by MediaWiki:Wikimedia-mobile-frontend-terms-url/en (which is also managed by translatewiki). Please spread the word on other wikis to do the same, as the outdated page takes precedence over the new one, which is why the link at the bottom of the mobile page is the outdated one, as long as the old page is not deleted. Thanks. CyberOne25 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

IP Block exemption request
Hello all, I will like to request for IPBE for the following users. Users with no account on this wiki can be created. Since they do have an account on other wikis.



Please do update me incase of any situations on circumstances related to any of the accounts in the list. JDQ  Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to explain why you are requesting IPBE for these accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They are currently community members within the Sub saharan region looking forward to contribute to the Africa Day Campaign. This is the reason why I am requesting for IPBE for the following users.  JDQ   Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong venue for this request. This needs a checkuser and should be requested through the methods listed at IP block exemption. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And I'll note that some of these editors don't appear to be net positives and some of them appear to be creating articles of dubious notability, some of them promotional. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the last time the OP made a similar request, the admin who received the request brought it to AN (courtesy ping @Mjroots, @Zzuuzz, @Graham87). –FlyingAce✈hello 19:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I should add that I advised the OP to take it to AN. I thought about the methods prescribed by policy, but it seemed that they were designed mostly for a user who wanted IPBE for themself, not for a group, as here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Mmm, fair point, but it'll still need a CU. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that this request is duplicated on zzuuzz's talk page, who have attended to several such requests recently. Perhaps (and/or other CUs) can advice us about the best venue for future mass-IPBE requests and IP block exemption can be updated accordingly. WP:AN, UTRS and an individual CU's talkpage, all seem to be non-ideal options. Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As it is on mine, ... I couldn't deal with it due to the timing (and didn't really want to deal with it due to the scale) so I ping-ponged it here, because of the last AN discussion linked above. I didn't check any of the contributions of the editors concerned and thank Black Kite for doing so. While I'm sympathetic about the plight of these editors' block situations that are no fault of their own, I've expressed grave concerns privately to the OP and another editor in an email thread about sudden influxes of editors like this whose command of the English register we require here (let alone our policies and guidelines) is shaky at best. Graham 87  06:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I left Sadammuhammad11234 a final warning, which would've been a block if they'd edited more recently. I did a cursory check of the other editors and indeed found some promotional edits but also quite a few that seemed fairly reasonable on a quick check. the comment here by Fram seems remarkably apt here. I'm not a checkuser but I for one have generally taken these requests (on a smaller scale) in good faith because these users are vetted by the OP and presumably other Wikimedia community members. We absolutely do need a better way to handle this sort of thing though ... and also in terms of editors, quality is much more important than quantity! Graham 87 07:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you all very much for the kind feedback. Currently there is an upcoming pilot program which i hope this program will resolve such problematic contributions from this region.I have also shared the unblock ticket request with some the communities within this region. Which I do hope most of the users will continue to use them and a receive rapid feedback or response in less time in other to avoid bulk messages in my DMs.
 * Thank you all very much once again.  JDQ   Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Multiple accounts apparently operated by the same person
Around three weeks ago, I nominated Fa21526's article HirenJS Code Editor for speedy deletion. This user claimed at the userpage (before it was deleted, perhaps in an edit summary, I've forgotten) that they were "Hiren", and since they seemed to be writing an article about something they created, and since it was very poorly sourced, I decided to nominate it as an A7 & G11. Today I noticed Fa21526 created the page Requests for adminship/fa21526 on 12 July 2022‎, and the account that created the talk page of that adminship request is interestingly named Hiren512, which leads me to conclude that both Fa21526 and Hiren512 are possibly operated by the same person (or by two people working closely together, e.g. here). The problem is, I don't think this person actually understands that drafts like Draft:SafeJS aren't appropriate as articles, or that Merchant Engineering College, which previously looked like this, was too promotional. In addition, their English in, say, Requests for adminship/fa21526, isn't nearly as good as their Enlgish in an article like Merchant Engineering College, which causes me to believe that it's likely they are not writing these articles themselves; perhaps their articles are some sort of copyvio or they're written using a chatbot. After that article was tagged for having multiple issues, they simply removed the tags. Someone else then added other tags, which were again removed. The article was again tagged for multiple issues. Fa21526 later claimed they had "Added More Citation from Reliable Sources", which is not true since the source they added was a link to the College's website. Hiren512 proceeded to remove the tags again. I'm not sure if this is all a competency issue or if they simply don't understand policy, but I figured someone else should probably take a look at this. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t think you’ve missed anything, Nythar. I’d agree that MEAT, SOCK, or PAID fits somewhere in all of this. And what do they all have in common? WP:NOTHERE! Honestly, WP:LLM can’t come soon enough, with all these ‘possible ChatGPT’ users… MM (Give me info.)  <sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)  11:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Both accounts blocked as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

My username change
Given my rename from "NotReallySoroka" to "Silcox", please change the WP:CHECKPAGE anc WP:RAL pages to reflect my new username. Silcox (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for acting on this request. However, for WP:RAL, you simply moved my username to where "Silcox" would be, without changing the underlying username. Please fix it, Silcox (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit war
Please take action with User: Ürfan1917 who adds his name to the Source Section and engages in an edit war in folowing files: [1] and [2] Yousiphh (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like this is occurring on Commons, which is a different website. You may want to post this at c:COM:ANI. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sabine deities / User:NebY (edit-war, potential vandalism)
is repeatedly removing sourced statements from Saturn (mythology), Minerva (mythology) and Ops. These deities were part of Sabine religion way before being adopted into Roman religion, and ancient Roman sources confirm that. I don't understand if that's intentional vandalism and I don't know how to stop him, but this edit-war is useless and only damages the encyclopedia. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This really shouldn't be here.
 * Today, has inserted text into the opening sentence of Saturn (mythology), Minerva (mythology) and Ops, changing them eg from Saturn was a god in ancient Roman religion ... to Saturn was a god in Sabine and ancient Roman religion... (insertion underlined, pronunciation omitted). They marked these edits as minor and did not initially source them, and the edits are not supported by the article bodies. They reinstated their edits when reverted by myself and, sometimes adding a reference to a primary source, still marking as minor. They did not open discussions on any article or talk page. I have said all of this on their talk page, pointing them to Help:Minor edit, WP:LEAD (with regard to summarising the body and due weight) and WP:BRD, and when they'd reverted twice on a single article, added a precautionary warning about that. None of this is vandalism, on their part, Michael's or mine. NebY (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The minor edit marking was not intentional, and you're totally right about that. WP:LEAD is correct, but there's a huge difference between saying "Please, expand this sourced info in the body of the article" and repeatedly removing the sourced info. I would be very happy to expand the concept with more details, but an edit-war over sourced statements is not the way to start. If we have them described as Roman in the lead, we should also state that they were actually Sabin way before. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant to say "discussions on any article or project talk page" - made similar insertions into about 15 to 20 articles. NebY (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can find them all at Category:Sabine deities. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There isn't a trace of vandalism (intentional or otherwise) in NebY's good reverts. The OP was reverted by two editors (NebY and ) and asked to refrain from adding content to the lead (per WP:LEAD) and to discuss the issue (per WP:BRD). They ignored both and started an edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like you misses something: only reverted one time, while  reverted multiple times on all three pages. That's very different. I didn't ignore him at all, since I answered him with the source multiple times both in the edit summaries and on my talk page (source that he ignored). Varro is the greatest scholar of ancient Rome, not a random kid, and his statement his also shared in Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.50.3 and other ancient sources. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't missed anything. Michael Aurel reverted your edits twice (on two different articles: Saturn (mythology) and Ops). You ignored what they said about WP:LEAD. You've been around for a while, so you ought to know that consensus (that at present stands squarely against your changes) is not achieved through edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reaching a consensual solution is why I'm here, but what's the point of wanting consensus deleting sources? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You won't reach anything of the sort in a venue where editors' behaviour is analysed. I suggest you retract the accusations and self-revert your last edits (to show your willingness to reach a consensus through discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Since this topic involves multiple users and potentially all Sabine deities, I think that this is the best place to establish an overall solution. The single talk page for Ops or any other deity wouldn't suffice for a global and definitive consensus on this topic. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ANI is not the place for content dispute resolution. It's for reporting other editor's behaviour. I would say be very careful at this point. Refusal to discuss, or to heed WP:BRD means you're the one more at fault and are therefore running the risk of WP:BOOMERANG by coming here. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the place for content dispute resolution then? I'm genuinely asking. I intentionally avoided Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and Administrator intervention against vandalism because – as I stated in the lead comment – I was not sure he had bad intentions, nor did I know how to stop this disruptive edit-war; that's the very first comment I wrote here. I'm here to discuss, but since you both say this is the wrong place, point me the right place and I'll discuss it there. Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * AFAIK it's Dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN) 10mmsocket (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * However, that should really only be a last resolution following efforts to settle your differences on the article(s) talk page(s) or appropriate wikiproject talk page. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My advice would be to withdraw this report immediately and go to talk pages to discuss further. If you reach impasse - and you'll need to give it time - then and only then go to WP:DRN. You're way off that point though at the moment. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, so: to be clear, since it's a serious topic, do you suggest me to open another thread on Dispute resolution noticeboard or to wait for a solution here? I don't think it would be right to leave those pages missing such an important info; that would be like omitting that Apollo was first of all Greek god, only stating he was a Roman god just because the Romans adopted him. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting you close this report here on WP:ANI.
 * I'm suggesting you choose the appropriate article or Wikiproject to initiate a discussion (per WP:BRD) in an attempt to reach resolution.
 * I'm suggesting that if that fails to reach consensus after a reasonable period of time, then, and only then, should you look at going to WP:DRN. Go there too soon and you'll be shot down and bounced back to the relevant talk pages to talk more.
 * Wikipedia has a number of very precious resources - it's volunteer editors and admins - and you don't want to waste their time with issues until it's absolutely necessary. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As for "I don't think it would be right to leave those pages missing such an important info", there's no hurry, time is not precious, Wikipedia will still be here ready and waiting once consensus on the way forward is achieved. You don't have to and you wont' solve this today. Don't worry about that. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop talking about vandalism. You were warned at ANI against inappropriately calling edits "vandalism" back in 2021, when you first arrived from it.wiki. NebY (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Lmao, did you really just go back to my very first steps on this wiki? I clearly stated thay I didn't known if it was intentional vandalism, and to be more clear I defined it potential. IMHO, deleting uncontroversially proven truths is potential vandalism. I got to understand you did not have bad intentions, but now this is getting ridiculous: instead of looking for my first edits on a foreign language wiki, propose a shareable solution to the problem. How would you integrate the essential info about them being Sabine gods way before being adopted by Romans too? I would genuinely like to know. As I told you before, I would also like to expand that sourced statement in the body of the articles. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What you told me before was "I will revert every vandalism of yours, no discussion needed. Go cry elsewhere." Then you launched this WP:AN section. NebY (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought you were intentionally vandalizing those pages, at first. I expressely referred to vandalisms (disruptive edits), not any kind of edit. Then I thought you might be in good faith and came here stating since the beginning that I was not sure about your bad intentions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * as far as I can see you haven't posted to a single talk page of any of these articles. That's where this should be resolved. Read WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Est. 2021 when I posted the above I assumed you were a new user. But now I see your've been here 2.5 years with 7.6k edits. I'm astonished. You must know your behaviour is completely unacceptable. I can't believe this hasn't got you blocked. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * nor did I know how to stop this disruptive edit-war Step 1: stop hitting the "undo" button. Step 2: read WP:BRD.  --JBL (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the place for content dispute resolution then? Article talk pages. WP:BRD is a pretty good formula to follow. The D Discuss part takes place on article talk pages. I would avoid WP:DRN, that's not a good first stop for disputes. Please see Dispute resolution for more info. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You are the one who is in the wrong here. You should apologize to NebY and withdraw this report. Paul August &#9742; 17:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I already did. In fact, I had archived this discussion and moved to his talkpage. You're the ones who opened it again here. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban removed


I would like my topic ban removed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#Barbara_(WVS)'s_editing_of_medical_and_anatomy_articles This ban includes all medical and anatomy articles. Also, I was banned from sexuality articles. I believe that I can do a good job to help the encyclopedia to grow. I intend to continue to create content in Project Medicine. Other things I like to do is to find references for unsourced content. I intend to continue to expand on topics and articles having to do with the health of older women. This ban has been in place for five years.
 * Best Regards. Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  17:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No We have no way of knowing whether Barbara could work without the topic ban, because Barbara has hardly edited since 2019. And some of the behaviour that led to the topic ban was particularly problematic, which she has not addressed at all in the appeal. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Question I did a brief check into the original thread and the issues of copyvio, sourcing, and introducing factual errors are pretty severe. I also recall a big incident with Flyer22 and I see that Barbara was (is?) subject to an Iban as well, but I have no interest in opening that particular can of worms right now. Given all of that, I'm pretty strongly leaning towards no. But in the interest of fairness, can you name any specific edits you would like to make if the topic ban was to be repealed? It would help your case if you could give more details. Since you're only banned from "medical articles" and not medical content outside of article space, it would be helpful if you did something like making a userspace draft of a section or article that you want to make substantive contributions to. From there it might give us a better perspective on whether the issues leading to the ban are no longer a problem, since there isn't much recent content work. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concerns that you have about allowing me to edit again. I have created a few articles after my topic ban: Mariniflexile, List of Christian women of the patristic age, Susan Montgomery Williams (2019), Marinactinospora. If you would like to see the listing of the articles I have created look here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Barbara_(WVS) . I have been busy writing articles for the Simple English Wikipedia. You can see my article creations here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/simple.wikipedia.org/Barbara%20%28WVS%29 . So it might not be accurate to say that I have hardly edited since 2019. In addition, I have had some serious family issues going on during this time. I have not had any problematic behavior with other editors since my topic ban. I don't intend to engage in problematic behavior in the future. There were no issues of copy violations. There won't be any issues of an Iban since Flyer does not edit any more. I can't remember any edits I would like to make. I intend to review the articles I have created and make any edits that are necessary. I would also like to update the references on the articles. I have drafts of articles that I worked on in my userspace that any editor can review. I am also banned from articles that contain medical content. The ban was 'broadly construed'. Thank you for your input
 * Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  19:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The primary issue of the ANI discussion was concerns with serious content issues in medical articles, rather than "problematic behavior with other editors". It looked like had offered to mentor Barbara's work in that area; perhaps, if Anthonyhcole is willing, there could be a period of probation during which all of Barbara's proposed edits to topics within the scope of the ban go through her mentor for approval first?  Schazjmd   (talk)  20:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Barbara's most recent edit on simple.wiki as I write is this one. I do not know simple's rules, but on en.wiki I would consider that unacceptably close paraphrasing of the source.
 * Compare:
 * "If the women does not get treated, the infection can get worse. Then many things will happen. If it diagnosed and treated early, the complications of PID can be prevented. Some of the complications of PID are formation of scar tissue, blocked fallopian tubes.  The women could have a pregnancy outside the womb. There could be much pain in the belly."
 * To the source:
 * "What happens if I don’t get treated?
 * If diagnosed and treated early, the complications of PID can be prevented. Some of the complications of PID are
 * Formation of scar tissue both outside and inside the fallopian tubes that can lead to tubal blockage;
 * Ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy outside the womb);
 * Infertility (inability to get pregnant);
 * Long-term pelvic/abdominal pain."
 * If source use and copyright were previously problems in Barbara's editing, the fact that this is literally the first edit of hers I looked at does not give me confidence. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The content that you mention can be found on the CDC website and it is in the public domain. Content from the CDC is considered a good source on health topics. Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  22:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Copying directly from a public domain source is not a WP:COPYVIO, but it is WP:PLAGIARISM: "even though there is no copyright issue, public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The content was referenced and acknowledged in the citation. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  01:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how else we can phrase this. Please read the policy pages that have been linked to you; if you actually had, you wouldn't be confused. Paraphrasing a source that closely is not remotely acceptable. This is really basic stuff. If you are unable or unwilling to phrase things in your own words, while keeping to the original meaning, then this appeal is a non-starter. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello all. Barbara and I didn't finnish our mentorship because I ran into some health issues and rudely dumped her. I'm in a better place now so, Barbara, if you'd like to pick up where we left off, I'm up for it. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea. I hope that is acceptable. Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  13:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll email you. Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So, Barbara and I have been talking. We've decided to pick up the mentorship where we left off and get back here when I'm confident about her accuracy and policy understanding. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Reporting user
I noticed User:Atif ahmad8 undid my edit on Asim Munir (general) without explaining why. Upon further inspection, looking at the revision history of their old User Page, they stated that they work for the Pakistan Armys media wing. Possible WP:Paid situation? SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Just FYI for next time, we do have a noticeboard for UPE and COI issues: WP:COIN. Also, you can try templating them with Uw-coi and maybe also Uw-editsummary. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Lots of reports at WP:AIV
Just wanted to bring this to the attention of the good admins here at WP:AN, that there have been many reports of vandalism on WP:AIV that may require attention. Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it was 7 reports at the time of your post. Doesn't seem super high, but I guess posting here doesn't hurt either. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. It was at 12 just before I posted, lol. It's usually at 3 or 4. I guess my post doesn't really matter any more. Ah, well. Have a nice day. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 12 is slightly more than normal but usually it doesn't stay for that long. Usually a post here about backlogs is more worthwhile if you're getting more into the 25+ range? A few years ago I used to start threads here about backlogs and was told that it was mostly unnessecary. When I did, I usually would start a thread about extenstive RFPP backlogs because it's not included in Template:Admin tasks. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In some ways it's more "how old is the oldest report" rather than "how many reports". There's no clearcut answer in when to notify on that metric, but it helps filter out short-lived deluges. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a good rule of thumb for that sort of time frame, then? I'm guessing it's somewhat variable depending on certain factors? Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The Wise Woman says "block everyone in the whole woooooorld!" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

false accusations and discrimination by user LuckyLouie


I received the following warning: " Please stop your disruptive editing. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims, you may be blocked from editing. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest with comments such as this and this, but those kind of insinuations could be interpreted as discrimination. Please read WP:NPA and quit the personal attacks and general Talk page disruption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my response:

Firstly I didnt edit anything. I was just discussing something in TALK page. second, discriminating based on what grounds exactly?! alleging someone is favoring another is not discriminating. Unless you're confused about what discrimination means. Also I'm sure you've given the same Warnings to the other parties involved for their personal attacks and ridiculing. otherwise you're the one discriminating against me as a middle eastern. Regardless, do yourself a favor and remove your BS warning from my page. stop your contacts with me or I'll report you for harrassment and discrimination. H3sam91 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] H3sam91 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * For reference, both "here"s in the copypasta above from his talk page include links to specific diffs, specifically this sarcastic aspersions-casting and this insulting insinuation that someone is making an argument simply to court another editor. Both of these are indeed unacceptable. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 17:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @H3sam91 - You should read WP:BOOMERANG. You are not the victim here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Too late, blocked one week for casting aspersions and bludgeoning talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Pepperbeast and Relationship between religion and science
I undid the selective removal of a picture and quotation of Richard Dawkins from the Science and Religion article by Kuon.Haku. I actually did reply to Kuon.Haku's questions on my talk page. I suggested that the removal of the picture was veering towards WP:CENSOR in response to Kuon.Haku's comment that the photo "...may also break WP:BALANCE for it may make people more focus on incompatibility opinion", which is absurd, and the fact that they were only attempting to remove the image of Prof. Dawkins and not the other "decorative" (K.H's word, not mine) photos in the article. Pepper Beast   (talk)  20:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) undo constructive edition(s) like 1162035731 without any explanation.
 * 2) He/She/Ze declined to communicate with others regarding the edition of Relationship between religion and science. Undo without explanation and decline to reply my questions in his talk page.
 * 3) Accusing me of breaking WP:CENSOR without any evidence which violates WP:AGF. --<font color= "#003472">クオン · 翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 19:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to say your accusation is flippant and off-topic. You neither replied my concerns (like the major point - which information did that photo provide?) nor correctly reflected the fact. Indeed a minor point of mine is that Dawkins is a people in favor of incompatibility opinion, but the photo was not in the "incompatibility" subsection but at the top of the whole section. I think this is misleading. But this is a minor point. User:Pepperbeast did not reply the main point at all but attack a minor point (and I think it is a perfect straw man fallacy). He/she/ze always accuse me "censorship", "absurd", and he/she/ze said "they were only attempting to remove..." (why using they? based on WP:AGF I do not want to overinterpret this but I think User:pepperbeast must give me a explanation or apology) And why "only"? all similar photos in this article were removed, but he/she/ze only focused on Dawkins's photo. I think this could not be justified and he broken several rules including WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --<font color= "#003472">クオン · 翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 21:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Need a sock block
Can someone block Qaayush529?

He is already confirmed as block evader per this SPI, but I am asking for block here because this sock is doing too much damage to Wikipedia. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please review unblock request

 * User_talk:Saucysalsa30

So, while I was asking the user for some clarification, "real life" called me away from Wikipedia. And so, at this point, I don't know if I feel comfortable asking the user for more and more detail to clarify.

So I think it's maybe best if I step back from this one.

Just decided to drop a note here out of a personal sense of fairness to the blocked editor. - jc37 10:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * In have been watching this discussion since quite some while and my suggestion to the eventual unblocking admin would be that they'd consider a talk page restriction of 100 words per discussion due to the bludgeon concerns and a clear PA restriction for let's say 6 months? One word too much, one PA and that's it. But to be fair I must admit that they seem to know quite a lot of what happened in Iraq at a certain time, just the team sprint was missing so far. If they were readmitted without restrictions I strongly assume they land at the Noticeboards quite soon, which would be no solution to the problem. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Decline Second, I will preface by acknowledging I did wrong. Everything below is not to be interpreted as making excuses or validating anything I did, but proceeds to explain why it's everyone else's fault. 's account here is still concerning, and I still see Saucy treating articles as a battleground. Star   Mississippi  13:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Call for participants in Cornell study involving talk page discussions and noticeboards
Hello AN, over the last month or so I've been assisting Cristian and Jonathan at CornellNLP with a user study involving an AI tool called ConvoWizard, which aims to warn of increasing tensions in project discussions and detail how a response would affect the discussion. There's been previous consultation on the matter at the Village Pump, and a Meta page with more details exists at meta:Research:ConvoWizard: Understanding the Effects of Providing Interlocutors with Information about the Trajectory of their Ongoing Conversations. There's a call for some more participants in the study, and a signup sheet can be found here. On a personal note, I think use of this tool can do some real good for discussion on the internet as a whole, and I encourage people who are regulars in contentious topic areas and noticeboards to participate. If there are any questions, please feel free to ask me or Cristan and Jonathan. Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I tried to sign up but was denied and I do not really understand why. I was or am editing in a contentious topic area and take part in discussions in that areas. I use a rather popular browser, comment at the rate of the maximum choice... And the answer to question number three lets me believe the "university students" don't really know what they are researching about as I can't always use the reply tool even if I have it installed. I must switch as in some discussions the reply tool doesn't work and some times I also prefer not to use the reply tool when I do not reply to an editor of the discussion, but just add a comment. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Paradise Chronicle Could you maybe email me with more information about how you were "denied"? As for question three about which form of replying you typically use, there's the choice "I switch between both options", as it's known that using the reply tool isn't always practical. Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do asap. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Moneytrees you've got mail. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Request Uninvolved Admin to close RFC
Talk:Boris Johnson

No further comments since 16 June, request uninvolved admin to close. WCM email 14:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I know we get to the point of it being a broken record, but WP:ANRFC is thataway. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Reporting Sid95Q for false judgement of articles.

 * This moderator is again and again warning me for so called "vandalism" infact he is again and again deleting my corrections. My all info is sourced from cast and crew of India's Got Talent,and I am being threatened to be blocked.
 * This moderator is again and again warning me for so called "vandalism" infact he is again and again deleting my corrections. My all info is sourced from cast and crew of India's Got Talent,and I am being threatened to be blocked.

Harshvardhan 1427 (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Many edits were not according to MOS:TV and Template:Infobox television. I have explained the reasons in edit summary and on user's talk. User is also adding unsourced information by writing lines like one they wrote above, "My all info is sourced from cast and crew of India's Got Talent." Sid95Q (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sid95Q is not committing vandalism, as I don't believe their edits give any indication of wilfully damaging the encyclopedia. So those specific warnings are incorrect.
 * Unfortunately @Harshvardhan 1427, while I did go and review all the edits involved, I didn't need to. Your own post includes My all info is sourced from cast and crew of India's Got Talent - which is about as clear-cut an admission that you are flagrantly breaching our sourcing rules as possible. Sid has tried to explain the need to use reliable secondary sources, and sourcing from cast/crew falls down on multiple aspects of that. Both parties appear to be fighting a partial edit war alongside the discussions, which is also not ideal. MOS non-compliance doesn't authorise an edit war.
 * The upshot of which, is that I'd advise we dismiss the accusation here, with a warning to Sid to make sure to use the right warning notice(s). Harshvardhan - YOU need to go to Help:Intro and read the "referencing" tabs (either the wikitext or visual editor, depending on which you edit with). You need to urgently improve your sourcing (which yes, can come with the knowledge that some things you might "know to be true" can't be added to the article). Finally, both parties need to get better about talking on the article's talk page where they disagree, including remembering that edit war exceptions do not include MOS-violations. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * However, vandalism is a wrong word to be used. He has 0 knowledge of the show, and is claiming that my edits are wrong.
 * I accept I need to cote the sources but my point is also valid. Harshvardhan 1427 (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I will be more careful with user warning notice(s) next time as I just realised that "If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia." as per Vandalism. Will use the article's talk page in future for disagreements. Thank you  for the advice.
 * Sid95Q (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sid95Q (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we talk about the article of Chenoa, IL?
I don't know if it's just me, but I personally find it weird that there's a (possibly) article-worthy mention on a person named "Chad Green," who lives in Chenoa, Illinois. If you need a link to it, you can find it here: Chenoa, Illinois, in the Notable People section -- it's the largest one. Even skimming it, it seems very opinionated on "Chad", and there are no sources on the article (example: "born and raised in a small town in the United States", "an all-around good guy"). Furthermore, checking the edit history shows that IP 154.47.25.108 is responsible for these changes. I am wondering if this is legitimate, and if not, is there anything that can be done? Thank you for reading (and sorry about the kinda ranty style, I just typed this impromptu), I hope to hear back! :) Obamadaledingel (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's something that can be done: I've reverted the IP's edits to the article. It's general practice to not include people without articles in these "Notable people" sections, especially if there's no reliable sources saying that they were from the town in question. Not to mention the WP:UNDUE issues here as well. SkyWarrior  03:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, I was wondering if there was anything that could be done. Have a nice day :) Obamadaledingel (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Obamadaledingel For future reference, if you see something in an article that looks wrong, feel free to be bold and make the change yourself. Anyone can edit most Wikipedia articles, so there's no need to report to administrators. Happy editing! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated but regarding the same article
I'm unsure whether WP:Copyright problems is the right place to report this - I noticed that the city's website has the same text as part of the history section. I have not been able to determine which site wrote it first, though I have not found any evidence that the city's website had that page prior to June 2010. ~ UN6892  tc 04:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A quick look suggests that the history section was added to the city's website in 2014. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article was updated with that text in 2010, four years prior. Of course, I wouldn't be upset if someone proves me wrong, but as far as I can tell, it's not a copyvio, and that the city's website took the text from Wikipedia and not the other way around. SkyWarrior  05:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2014 date appears to be the first time the Wayback machine made a copy of the page. The copywrite notice at the bottom of the page says 2008. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 06:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that... I also note that the website looked completely different in 2008, and I was unable to find that page in 2008, so it's possible that the copyright year at the bottom isn't accurate (perhaps they used a template that used that 2008 year and forgot to change it to the (then-)current year?)
 * I'm gonna send them a quick email, since if they did take the info from Wikipedia they would probably know about it. SkyWarrior  14:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you get a good reply to your email, but I wouldn't hold my breadth waiting for it. Getting it depends firstly on someone there bothering about a Wikipedia editor, and then on the email finding someone there who was around nine years ago and both remembers that they copied Wikipedia and is willing to own up to it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Going through the wayback captures of Chenoail.org, the history of the town portion of the website was not added until 2014. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sabine deities / User:NebY (edit-war, potential vandalism)
is repeatedly removing sourced statements from Saturn (mythology), Minerva (mythology) and Ops. These deities were part of Sabine religion way before being adopted into Roman religion, and ancient Roman sources confirm that. I don't understand if that's intentional vandalism and I don't know how to stop him, but this edit-war is useless and only damages the encyclopedia. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This really shouldn't be here.
 * Today, has inserted text into the opening sentence of Saturn (mythology), Minerva (mythology) and Ops, changing them eg from Saturn was a god in ancient Roman religion ... to Saturn was a god in Sabine and ancient Roman religion... (insertion underlined, pronunciation omitted). They marked these edits as minor and did not initially source them, and the edits are not supported by the article bodies. They reinstated their edits when reverted by myself and, sometimes adding a reference to a primary source, still marking as minor. They did not open discussions on any article or talk page. I have said all of this on their talk page, pointing them to Help:Minor edit, WP:LEAD (with regard to summarising the body and due weight) and WP:BRD, and when they'd reverted twice on a single article, added a precautionary warning about that. None of this is vandalism, on their part, Michael's or mine. NebY (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The minor edit marking was not intentional, and you're totally right about that. WP:LEAD is correct, but there's a huge difference between saying "Please, expand this sourced info in the body of the article" and repeatedly removing the sourced info. I would be very happy to expand the concept with more details, but an edit-war over sourced statements is not the way to start. If we have them described as Roman in the lead, we should also state that they were actually Sabin way before. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant to say "discussions on any article or project talk page" - made similar insertions into about 15 to 20 articles. NebY (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can find them all at Category:Sabine deities. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There isn't a trace of vandalism (intentional or otherwise) in NebY's good reverts. The OP was reverted by two editors (NebY and ) and asked to refrain from adding content to the lead (per WP:LEAD) and to discuss the issue (per WP:BRD). They ignored both and started an edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like you misses something: only reverted one time, while  reverted multiple times on all three pages. That's very different. I didn't ignore him at all, since I answered him with the source multiple times both in the edit summaries and on my talk page (source that he ignored). Varro is the greatest scholar of ancient Rome, not a random kid, and his statement his also shared in Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.50.3 and other ancient sources. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't missed anything. Michael Aurel reverted your edits twice (on two different articles: Saturn (mythology) and Ops). You ignored what they said about WP:LEAD. You've been around for a while, so you ought to know that consensus (that at present stands squarely against your changes) is not achieved through edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reaching a consensual solution is why I'm here, but what's the point of wanting consensus deleting sources? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You won't reach anything of the sort in a venue where editors' behaviour is analysed. I suggest you retract the accusations and self-revert your last edits (to show your willingness to reach a consensus through discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Since this topic involves multiple users and potentially all Sabine deities, I think that this is the best place to establish an overall solution. The single talk page for Ops or any other deity wouldn't suffice for a global and definitive consensus on this topic. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ANI is not the place for content dispute resolution. It's for reporting other editor's behaviour. I would say be very careful at this point. Refusal to discuss, or to heed WP:BRD means you're the one more at fault and are therefore running the risk of WP:BOOMERANG by coming here. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the place for content dispute resolution then? I'm genuinely asking. I intentionally avoided Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and Administrator intervention against vandalism because – as I stated in the lead comment – I was not sure he had bad intentions, nor did I know how to stop this disruptive edit-war; that's the very first comment I wrote here. I'm here to discuss, but since you both say this is the wrong place, point me the right place and I'll discuss it there. Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * AFAIK it's Dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN) 10mmsocket (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * However, that should really only be a last resolution following efforts to settle your differences on the article(s) talk page(s) or appropriate wikiproject talk page. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My advice would be to withdraw this report immediately and go to talk pages to discuss further. If you reach impasse - and you'll need to give it time - then and only then go to WP:DRN. You're way off that point though at the moment. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, so: to be clear, since it's a serious topic, do you suggest me to open another thread on Dispute resolution noticeboard or to wait for a solution here? I don't think it would be right to leave those pages missing such an important info; that would be like omitting that Apollo was first of all Greek god, only stating he was a Roman god just because the Romans adopted him. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting you close this report here on WP:ANI.
 * I'm suggesting you choose the appropriate article or Wikiproject to initiate a discussion (per WP:BRD) in an attempt to reach resolution.
 * I'm suggesting that if that fails to reach consensus after a reasonable period of time, then, and only then, should you look at going to WP:DRN. Go there too soon and you'll be shot down and bounced back to the relevant talk pages to talk more.
 * Wikipedia has a number of very precious resources - it's volunteer editors and admins - and you don't want to waste their time with issues until it's absolutely necessary. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As for "I don't think it would be right to leave those pages missing such an important info", there's no hurry, time is not precious, Wikipedia will still be here ready and waiting once consensus on the way forward is achieved. You don't have to and you wont' solve this today. Don't worry about that. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop talking about vandalism. You were warned at ANI against inappropriately calling edits "vandalism" back in 2021, when you first arrived from it.wiki. NebY (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Lmao, did you really just go back to my very first steps on this wiki? I clearly stated thay I didn't known if it was intentional vandalism, and to be more clear I defined it potential. IMHO, deleting uncontroversially proven truths is potential vandalism. I got to understand you did not have bad intentions, but now this is getting ridiculous: instead of looking for my first edits on a foreign language wiki, propose a shareable solution to the problem. How would you integrate the essential info about them being Sabine gods way before being adopted by Romans too? I would genuinely like to know. As I told you before, I would also like to expand that sourced statement in the body of the articles. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What you told me before was "I will revert every vandalism of yours, no discussion needed. Go cry elsewhere." Then you launched this WP:AN section. NebY (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought you were intentionally vandalizing those pages, at first. I expressely referred to vandalisms (disruptive edits), not any kind of edit. Then I thought you might be in good faith and came here stating since the beginning that I was not sure about your bad intentions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * as far as I can see you haven't posted to a single talk page of any of these articles. That's where this should be resolved. Read WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Est. 2021 when I posted the above I assumed you were a new user. But now I see your've been here 2.5 years with 7.6k edits. I'm astonished. You must know your behaviour is completely unacceptable. I can't believe this hasn't got you blocked. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * nor did I know how to stop this disruptive edit-war Step 1: stop hitting the "undo" button. Step 2: read WP:BRD.  --JBL (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the place for content dispute resolution then? Article talk pages. WP:BRD is a pretty good formula to follow. The D Discuss part takes place on article talk pages. I would avoid WP:DRN, that's not a good first stop for disputes. Please see Dispute resolution for more info. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

and as NebY wrote: "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology is virtually moribund" so he suggested me Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, that's where I'll move this topic, when it will be closed here. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC) I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. This complaint and 's behaviour in it has exasperated and wasted the time of too many editors. It's over two years since they came here after being blocked and sock-blocked at it.wiki and they spend a lot of their time here working alone on userboxes and other templates. If they're going to work in main-space here, I hope they soon learn how to do it collaboratively. NebY (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is in the wrong here. You should apologize to NebY and withdraw this report. Paul August &#9742; 17:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I already did. In fact, I had archived this discussion and moved to his talkpage. You're the ones who opened it again here . Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. You should be taking this to the article talk pages, Not NebY's. This is why you are at fault. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I already wrote why I didn't use article talk pages: "Since this topic involves multiple users and potentially all Sabine deities, I think that [...] the single talk page for Ops or any other deity wouldn't suffice for a global and definitive consensus on this topic."
 * Yes, I suggested discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome but with links from the talk pages of the 15–20 articles; if the consensus here is that it be discussed on an article talk page with links from others and WT:CGR, that's fine too. has not yet done either (or apologised), instead saying on my talk page "before that I would like to know your personal idea on how to include that info" with further questions. At first they quoted me more fully above (an editor's talk page is not the place to establish WP:CONSENSUS among all editors interested in the matter) but deleted that part. I'll tell them again that my talk page is the wrong place. NebY (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, with links to it on the involved talk pages, will both attract the most interested editors and appropriately centralize the discussion. Paul August &#9742; 11:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop talking about things you don't know anything about. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

undeletion
International Chodiev Foundation seems to be undeleted without request, check please Anntinomy (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Anntinomy, what do you mean? The article was deleted in 2021 (promotional, copyvio). A new article at that title was created in March (possibly translating from the French wikipedia article, according to the creation edit summary). Schazjmd   (talk)  21:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Extensive copyright violation
Administrators may want to keep an eye on this page. I was alarmed to discover that it had a months-long history of under-the-radar copyright violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Silent_Hill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Return_to_Silent_Hill#Darkknight2149_claiming_of_copyright_violation

 Dark knight  2149  18:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you certain it's a copyright violation that needs to be deleted? This talk page reply makes a good argument that Fandom has an acceptable license for copy/pasting text into Wikipedia, as long as proper attribution is provided. In this case I think the fix may be to give the proper attribution then talk to the editor to make sure they attribute in the future. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already resolved. I forgot to close this earlier.  Dark knight  2149  15:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Re-review of several pages indefinitely edit-protected by an inactive user
This issue may be of interest to, , , , among others.

A request I made at WP:RFPU got declined. List below is the continuation from my request which got archived.


 * (pending protected by another user who also lost admin privileges due to the same reason)
 * (The user semi-protected the page while it is still pending protected up until now. Seriously, which type of protection should be removed?!!)
 * (The user set two types of protections; semi and pending.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (The user semi-protected the page while it is still pending protected up until now. Seriously, which type of protection should be removed?!!)
 * (The user set two types of protections; semi and pending.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (The user semi-protected the page while it is still pending protected up until now. Seriously, which type of protection should be removed?!!)
 * (The user set two types of protections; semi and pending.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (The user semi-protected the page while it is still pending protected up until now. Seriously, which type of protection should be removed?!!)
 * (The user set two types of protections; semi and pending.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (Both, semi-protected and pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)
 * (User semi-protected the article but is still pending protected.)

There are multiple reasons for modifying (almost) all the above pages' edit protection status which I will post afterwards.197.2.174.118 (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a few dozen articles there that should probably stay semi-protected (collapsed list below). There are also a lot of templates that are used in a lot of places and should also stay protected. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Add that, and all the articles that are under ongoing arb enforcement. I am all for unprotection, and some of these could maybe survive unprotection, but come on, we cannot reasonably unprotect Time, or Mao Zedong, among others. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Monica Lewinsky
 * Fellatio
 * Everton F.C.
 * Beaver
 * Cougar
 * Cuckold
 * Sunderland A.F.C.
 * Rolf Harris
 * Racism in Israel
 * Palestinians
 * Palestine (region)
 * Yoda
 * Pig (disambiguation)
 * Aston Villa F.C.
 * Faggot (unit)
 * Kylie Jenner
 * Khloé Kardashian
 * Anal sex
 * Anal
 * 69 (sex position)
 * West Ham United F.C.
 * Rick Astley
 * Kosovo
 * Bomb
 * Vaccine
 * Hentai

This is a ridiculous request. Why on earth would we want to mass reverse all an administrator's actions just because they went inactive - shall we unblock all the vandal accounts they blocked and restore all the spam they deleted while we're at it? How is "the protecting administrator stopped editing" evidence that the protection is wrong and needs removing? How does this request have any basis in policy? Why would we want to unprotect high risk modules and templates used on tens of thousands of pages or obvious troll/disruption magnets like pages about sex and communism? I suggest this is speedy closed as a ill founded WP:TRAINWRECK, and that the merits of protection for these pages be considered on a case by case basis. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although there are some pages that need a PC reset, since the semi-protection has rendered it useless (as the IP notes above). 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There may be individual pages in that list that merit unprotection, but they're not there because this is a well thought out unprotection request, they're there by random chance - you could get the same thing by just posting a few pages of Special:ProtectedPages. As I said, the merits of protection should be considered on a case by case basis (which can be handled one at a time through WP:RFP).
 * Honestly "pages with redundant pending changes protection" seems like the kind of thing that should be a database report. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @192.76.8.82, I clearly stated pages (including WP:REDIRECTs) which R edit-protected, not move-protected. Also, I made no request to unblock accounts blocked by the inactive user.197.2.174.118 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 197, please do not refactor other users comments, even if you meant well and were trying to fix the grammar of others. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is this even supposed to mean? It's incoherent. Between this and the edit summaries I get the impression we're being trolled. Where did anyone mention anything related to move protection? Where did anyone mention anything related to redirects?
 * You still haven't answered the question - why should we mass unprotect pages just because the administrator who protected them went inactive? What is it about their inactivity that implies their administrative actions were wrong? What basis does this request have in policy? How does this request even make sense? 192.76.8.82 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this makes any sense, so this discussion should be closed. 197.2.174.118, if you think that a particular article has the wrong protection level then ask at WP:RFPP for it to be changed, but presenting people with a long list, only a few of which might possibly need to be changed, is offloading the work of identifying particular articles to someone else. Don't do that. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good rejection at RFP. I agree with Phil, if there are individual pages for which it may make sense to unprotect or lower the level, post them individually. The protecting admin going inactive as the sole reason is insufficient. IznoPublic (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Novem Linguae
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deckiller · Electionworld · MBisanz · Penwhale · Raul654 · Roadrunner · Viridae · Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg MBisanz

Guideline and policy news
 * Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news
 * Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration
 * Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

again...
I'm not sure how this user continues with his tendentious edition on Bulgars article. I opened one thread in 2022, another in 2023, in which he got sanctioned for two weeks. Now trying to do the same with his current edits. Beshogur (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this user's edits are systematically dubious, destructive and tendentious and do nothing to improve Wikipedia. Jingiby (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maintaining wrong information in Wikipedia is destructive and tendentious and do nothing to improve Wikipedia. I am adding reliable relevant information and sources. MiltenR (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The page Bulgars is full of misleading and unsourced information. Correction are needed. MiltenR (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are reverted, you are required to take any concerns to the talk page and get consensus. You have edited on Wikipedia for nearly 5 years and have 7000+ edits, therefore you already know the proper way to interact with other editors. IF you are unable or unwilling to use the proper method for consensus then perhaps a block is in order. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

non-admin edit filter manager access application
Hello all, there is an EFM application open for a non-admin. For information or to participate in the discussion, please see the '''edit filter noticeboard. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 19:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Help
I messed up, did a mass rollback on an IP, but was on my 'tribs page, don't know how to reverse the edit. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think all are fixed. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The time of #WPWP has come again - some filter questions
The Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest has started for 2023. In the past this contest has caused issues with new accounts making rapid-fire image additions of questionable quality (see prior discussion from 2021, another one from 2021, one from 2022, and one I started, also from 2022).

In the first 2021 discussion, a decision was taken to throttle "entries" to 25 per user, per day. This was implemented in filter 1158; 1158 was reactivated in 2022 as no mention was made at the initial discussion of limiting the restriction to one year only.

The contest organisers for 2023 have - quite sensibly in my opinion - restricted participation on the English Wikipedia this year to extended-confirmed users only (see contest FAQ). One of the contest organisers posted at EFN to request that filter 1158 be changed to (a) restrict entries to XC users only, and (b) raise the daily throttle to 100.

I'm not sure it's technically possible to have "throttle if in group, block entirely if not" logic within one filter, so have implemented and enabled the XC restriction in a separate filter - coincidentally numbered 1258.

I have not yet enabled 1158 as I think this deserves some discussion. Personally, I think we could leave 1258 in place without 1158 and see what happens. If we don't get unmanageable levels of disruption - great, problem solved! If we do, I think we should turn 1158 on with its current settings. Most of the issues in past years were from accounts new to enwiki rapidly adding images - restricting to XC should cut this down massively. However, if I am wrong and we still get floods of useless pickle images then the original solution is clearly still needed.

All "contest entry" type edits - including WPWP - are tracked in filter 1073.

Thoughts? firefly ( t · c ) 10:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think 1258 should probably be sufficient on its own. We may get the odd editor causing issues, in which case we can either deal with them individually, or just turn 1158 back on. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support re-enabling the filter. Looking at previous years I don't believe limiting this to extended-confirmed editors will make a significant difference in the level of disruption seen.
 * In 2021, with the filter only being enabled on the 7th of August, 377 editors made 27,258 edits tagged with #WPWP. Of those, 22,039 were made by 175 extended confirmed editors compared to 5,219 by 202 non-extended confirmed editors.
 * In 2022, with the filter being enabled a month earlier on the 7th of July, 105 editors participated with 3,843 edits; 57 extended-confirmed editors made 3,125 edits, while 58 non-extended-confirmed editors made 718. BilledMammal (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:XC users are expected to have gained sufficient familiarity with project policies. Hence, they're allowed to edit most contentious articles of the project. So if they've such sufficient experience to make edits that comply with policies and community norms, there should be no limit to how many edits one can do per day, as there's no policy that prescribe that.


 * I believe whether extended-confirmed users make 3,000 edits or 10,000, that means little in this context, as Wikipedia technically or by policy does not throttle users barring manifest malicious intent. What matters is the percentage of edits among that which is considered problematic. Over years, data showed this parcentage is largely proportionate to the number of participants that have fewer and fewer edits (mostly < 200); thus lacking understanding of the project policies and even basic wikitext skills.


 * Restriction to extended-confirmed means now participants are editors who actually have crossed a certain threshold, which the community itself considered sufficient to edit many controversial pages, and so are unlikely to make the problematic edits. And without disruptive editing, there's no limit to how many number of edits a person can do on this project. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinions on whether we turn 1158 back on, and will happily implement whatever is decided here. I feel it worth flagging that the contest offers no monetary prizes this year as far as I can tell (in the past, dollar-value gift cards were on offer), which I think will go a way toward mitigating issues. In the past I think we saw lots of people who just wanted the cash, while this year, the prizes are just souvenirs and certificates. firefly  ( t · c ) 17:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What fantastic filter numbers. Hopefully 1158 is not needed, and if that proves a vain hope I would support the filter being available for activation if anyone finds a significant issue without the need for further discussion. CMD (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries
I'm not naming any names here, but it has caught my eye that there is a lot of IP activity and a fair amount of SPA/very new editor activity popping up on this particular talk page. Reasons are easy to surmise. Just flagging this for community attention going forward. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

CTOP 0RR appeal by Marcelus
I would like to make a request for the 0RR restriction to be lifted or at least reduced. I was given the right to make an appeal after 3 months, which passed on 7 June, and I originally made it at HJ Mitchell talk page (link, but since 11 June HJM has been inactive on Wikipedia, so I am filing the appeal here. I hope I'm not breaking any procedures in the process. I'd just like to add that I don't want the restriction lifted just to immediately engage in edit warring, but to have more freedom in editing. It's just very uncomfortable if you have to wonder if every edit can be interpreted as a revert or not. I have generally learned over this period not to use "undo" button, and instead to engage in discussions about edits with their authors. Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * More background: User talk:Marcelus and Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive316 – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In the general course of things a shift to at least 1RR would be fairly normal. There's this thread which anyone reviewing should look over - I've not yet had the time to check the actual underlying edits to see if the (now temp-blocked) user had any valid concerns or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting that there have been no blocks for violating the 0RR, I can see reducing the sanction to a 1RR, which should reduce the Sword of Damocles feelings expressed in the appeal. Courcelles (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read over Marcelus' talk page and it seems like they understand the disruption they caused and thus a reduction to 1RR would be OK with me. However, they should still take care to revert constructively and carefully, mostly to remove unambiguous vandalism, spam and copyvio. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * : I have rescued this thread from the archive and given it a title that might be slightly more eyecatching (previously was just "0RR appeal"). There are no objections above, and if this were an unblock request I might be inclined to take that as rough consensus to unblock, but WP:CTOP mandates that clear consensus be established prior to reversing a sanction, so I've unarchived in hopes we can reach a consensus. My involvement here is procedural; I take no position. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support to 1RR per Prodraxis. 0RR is extremely restrictive, and reducing to 1RR should be enough to prevent disruption. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support reduction to 1RR given time elapsed and productive edits during that time. DanCherek (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support reduction to 1RR per above. Three months and several hundred edits without a sanction or warning for violating the restriction that I can see; 1RR gives Marcellus the opportunity to show that they can be trusted with the revert button. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm feeling hurt and unmotivated to edit


I'm not sure where to go to talk about this but I've been accused of "disruptive editing" by all because I've been editing arena Wikipedia pages "without source". I think (in my honest opinion) that if a event has a linked Wikipedia page (e.g. Michael Jackson's Bad Tour) then it should count as a source right? I'll add in some of the diffs that I was talking about.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G (by the way I worked hard on this one)

I would love to have someone have a opinion on this as I feel like that being called a "disruptive editor" really hurt my feelings. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thomasthedarkenguine, I'm not sure I'm understanding...are you asking whether you can use Wikipedia as a source? Valereee (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not exactly but I was thinking if you can use the linked pages as technically a source, you can go to the page and find the source there as well. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Apart from WP:CIRCULAR, that's not good practice. What happens if the source is removed or challenged on the original page? Anyway, if there's a proper WP:RS on the orignal page what's the problem copying it to the new article? Why make a fuss over doing that? DeCausa (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I want to make this clear: I never intend to pick fights with users.Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, so, I'm not seeing 'disruptive editing' in any of those edit summaries?
 * It looks like the problem is that you're using concert announcements at consequence.net to source statements about what happened at the concert? Yeah, you can't do that. As Magnolia is pointing out, those announcements happened before the concert happened. They may be a source for what was planned, but that can't be a source for what happened. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Allow me to share where he accused me of "disruptive editing"
 * Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That appears to be from a template generated by a tool used to make life easier for editors. It can indeed feel a bit impersonal, and I'm sorry for that. Valereee (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe the template should be re-worded, I feel disrespected whenever I see "disruptive editing" when really I'm trying my tail off to make good edits. Also I find it a little hypocritical that on a lot of arena pages there are numerous shows listed that aren't sourced but when I make one show added on without a source, that automatically makes me a menace to society. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can certainly go to the template's talk and suggest that. It's probably Twinkle, so the talk is at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. I don't think anyone is suggesting you're a menace to society, just that you should stop supporting edits with sources that don't support those edits. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually no, suggesting changes on the template's talkpage would be a wild-goose chase. The text Thomasthedarkenguine complains about isn't in the template, which says only "Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing." The bolded text, "Your sources do not support your edits. Please stop your disruptive editing" was added by hand by Magnolia. Reasonably so, in my opinion. Sources published four months before the concert cannot support what, if anything, happened at the concert. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC).
 * Thanks, my bad. Valereee (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've been now working my butt off to find sources and if Magnolia677 is still not satisfied then I'm going to be upset. Would Getty Images also be a good source? Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Getty Images, the stock photos source? Kind of off-topic here at AN, but what exactly is it you're trying to add that could be sourced to Getty Images? Valereee (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thirty minutes after coming here to report me, you made this edit at List of entertainment events at the Little Caesars Arena, adding that there were 11,607 in attendance, and $789,403 in revenue. Perhaps I missed it, but where in the source cited does it say this? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The KOD Tour Wikipedia page says so Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You have made just 3,162, yet you have been cautioned over and over not to add unsourced content:


 * Wikipedia does not accept original research. Moreover, copying unsourced content from one article to another does not improve the reliability of Wikipedia to its readers. I realize that you find it "insulting" when other editors revert your unsourced edits, but by continuing to add unsourced content you undermine the hard work of other editors, and make Wikipedia less reliable for its many readers. Please stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:CIRCULAR. You cannot use one Wikipedia article as a reference on another Wikipedia article. It simply isn't permitted. But you may be able to find an acceptable reference in the "References" section of the first article. Editing will be less frustrating for you once you thoroughly understand the core content policy Verifiability and how to identify and cite reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to add that some of these examples that you put I re-added them WITH sources and like it or not there may be some times when someone doesn't have a source and it's most likely going to be something that everyone knows so sources aren't "needed" for example the fact that Billy Mays was the face of OxiClean for many years, 98% of the world already knows that so would putting it unsourced be worth being agitated about? Also do you even bother looking at the sourced before judging? I noticed you removed the shows for Bill Graham Civic Auditorium (again) when I actually sourced it that time. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the source you added didn't support any of your edits. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have heard of neither Billy Mays nor OxiClean before. I'm sure that more than 2% of the world shares my predicament. Maybe it's because I'm one of the 96% (give or take a percentage point) of the world who doesn't live in the United States. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thomasthedarkenguine, see WP:BLUE for what sorts of statements are allowed without citation. Your Billy Mays example would certainly require a citation, and specific event dates, attendance, and ticket sales (the kinds of edits you show being reverted in your exhibits above) are basically the exact opposite of edits that don't require a citation.[L]ike it or not there may be some times when someone doesn't have a source. That's not how it works. Don't have a source, don't make the edit. Folly Mox (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflicts) If that number is sourced in the KOD Tour page (and its up to you to check) then copy the source to List of entertainment events at the Little Caesars Arena. If it's not sourced then either find a source or don't add the content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The connection between Billy Mays and OxiClean is well-referenced in both articles. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The comment you replied to was about the number of people at a concert. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think (please do correct me if I am wrong) the point was that the connection between Billy Mays and OxiClean is not sky-is-blue obvious, as evidenced by the fact that our articles on those topics go to the trouble of providing citations. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thomasthedarkenguine, could it be that you don't know how to copy references from one article to another in the visual editor, which you appear to be exclusively using? On a desktop browser, if you right click on a reference (as opposed to ordinary text) there may not be a copy action in the context menu, but you can still copy it by pressing Ctrl+C, or by clicking on the copy action in the menu bar (edit -> copy, in every browser; press Ctrl+E to reveal it if it's hidden or click on a particular icon, depending on the browser if it's "behind" the icon). You can then paste it in the usual way into another article.—Alalch E. 21:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Despite this lengthy discussion and all the advice provided here and on your talk page, four hours later you made this edit to List of events at Freedom Hall, adding that Rod Stewart performed there on "April 27 1979". Your edit was unsourced, and the article was already tagged "This article needs additional citations for verification." What was your source to support this edit? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours for continuing the same type of edits, and reverting you without adding the sources that have been requested. From Draft:New Horizon School, Renton, appears to possibly be a younger edit so hopefully there's a path for getting back on the right course. Star   Mississippi  17:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Eyes on AfD, please?
We've recently had an editor nominate a large number of articles for deletion such that per WT:Articles for deletion, we have too many entries for it to be transcluded. I've asked one prolific nominator to withdraw without prejudice some of the entries such that they can be deliberated at a later time. I did so before I became aware that the volume was actually breaking our system. If any admin feels like helping the nominator out and thinning down today's nominations--that is, removing them without prejudice to speedy renomination as an administrative fix--so they can go through at a more appropriate pace, I'd sure appreciate it. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, and to give some perspective here, note the Oracle for Deletion table for June (User:JPxG/Oracle/2023-06). More or less every day of the month has seen somewhere around 40 to 60 nominations (which has been the stable daily average for some years), except for the 26th, 27th, 29th and 30th of this month, all of which have more than one hundred nominations. No day in the entirety of 2023 has had more than a hundred so far, and four of them in a row -- this is not sustainable. jp×g 04:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that this bolus of AfD nominations is occurring such that the discussions will run over a major U.S. holiday is going to further impair appropriate participation. Whether that's intentional or happenstance, it will degrade discussion quality. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding this: is there any sort of restriction on nomination rates? This shows one person making 66 noms in three days, which seems extremely undue to me (22 nominations is on its own about half of a normal day's backlog). jp×g 04:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering that some editors create 100's of articles each day (for example, on the 27th created 203 articles) 22 nominations in a day doesn't seem unreasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Until there is a limit on the rate that articles can be created I don't think it is reasonable to object to the rate at which articles are nominated for deletion, assuming that the nominations are otherwise reasonable - otherwise we end up with WP:FAIT problems. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If the articles being nominated were the ones that were being mass created, I would agree. Unfortunately, what you're seeing (in horrible generalities, of course) is low-effort nominations on high-effort articles, which is not the same as a low-effort article creation. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused here. Is this one nominator, a group, or a systematic problem? mentions  but he only nominated 9 articles yesterday, which is fine. 's 66 is more extraordinary – but still not enough to account for having 40–60 more nominations than average over 5 days.  Any chance you have statistics on nominations per day by nominator?
 * In both of the cases mentioned so far it looks like we could have avoided this if the nominators knew that bundled nominations are a thing, so if we can identify who else is doing the nominating we can probably nip this in the bud. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I specifically did NOT mention any editor by name, nor did I claim to have a systematic view of the problem. I watch a few DELSORT lists, and that is where I saw one part of a problem. Sure, 9 articles a day is fine... but not 9 a day, every day, such that a particular topic area has to field 63ish discussions in a week. BUT, an overall discussion on throttling AfDs is best handled elsewhere, and so again, I mentioned a problem without any intent to attribute it to one person. While technically this might count as an "incident" I specifically posted to AN vs. ANI to avoid the perception that I believed any bad acting was happening. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm trying to say I don't think we (admins) can do anything about that problem without identifying the users responsible. Removing things from the AfD log to get it down to a transcludable number would be a pretty big invocation of WP:IAR, and hardly a long-term solution. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Bundling doesn't work; editors reject it solely on the grounds that they are bundled. For example, the Nielsen's, which I later had to nominate individually - all bar one where deleted when nominated individually. The same with the unnamed Olympians, which I also had to nominate individually at a later date.
 * Before we can encourage bundling to be used we first need to reform the process. BilledMammal (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I share the misgivings on bundling nominations, though I'm not sure of anything else we can do to improve things. Are there any specific topics that are more affected than others? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've mainly seen it for sports, but I think that is because most AfD's I am involved in relate to sports - I suspect it is a much broader problem.
 * To improve it I think we need stronger rules on how to oppose bundled nominations; only permit editors to oppose the entire group if there is a sufficient percentage of the nominated articles that there are reasonable and specific objections to. If editors can't produce these specific objections then their general objections should be dismissed by the closer, and if they can only produce specific objections about a couple of the nominations then the closer should unbundle those specific nominations and dismiss the general objections. BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you objected to me hatting this, I'll just suggest that if you want to open a discussion on the effectiveness of bundling you do so at the village pump. It's not going to lead anywhere here, and it makes it harder for the rest of us to focus on the problem at hand. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Bundling isn't as common as I think it should be, so I'm not certain whether bundling happens more at sports discussions or done broadly. SWinxy (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope I don't get in trouble for replying here, but I would like to make myself clear.
 * I do not do AfDs every day; I only do so when I feel like it is absolutely necessary. If I recall correctly, my last nomination was a few months ago. It was not until yesterday that I spotted several articles that needed to be deleted. I wanted to make a bundled nomination, but I was worried that a WP:TRAINWRECK might happen, so I did them separately. I cannot speak for everyone involved, however. Spinixster   (chat!)  09:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, . As I said above I don't think nominating 9 articles in a day is particularly problematic, especially if it's a one-time thing. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also reply to this, seeing as I'm specifically mentioned, and I nominated significantly more than Spinixster. I'm a bit new to AfDing, and thus I didn't actually realize bundled nominations were a thing (It looks very confusing, albeit not impossible to figure out) so I just nominated a whole bunch at once. The articles I nominated were, as a majority, articles with little to no sourcing and had very little notability. Granted, it was not the greatest idea to nominate so many within such a short span of time. I know now for the future to space them out if I ever do single noms again. I've withdrawn some of the nominations, though I'll probably put them up again at a later date so as to not make a greater mess of things right now. But for the time being, the AfDs should hopefully be a bit less clogged. I acted highly irresponsibly by putting so many at once, so I'm really sorry for the inconvenience I've caused with all of this. I seek not to make a repeat of this in the future should I ever try a mass AfD like this again. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments @Pokelego999. Can I ask what your process was before deciding to nominate an article for deletion? You mention no sourcing and little notability. How did you come to those conclusions and did you examine evidence of notability and sourcing beyond what was in the articles themselves? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I always double checked for sources before putting anything up. I didn't want to purge every DW related article, but I wanted to hit up those who had basically no chance for potential improvement. I used some personal judgement to decide some of the articles to look at, but I only nominated it if it had the following criteria:
 * Little to no sourcing. Primary sources were basically the only thing used for a large majority of the article, if the article had any at all, because many were unsourced. I also checked for if the article had a decent reception section, as if it did, it typically would be more contested than something like Edward Travers.
 * A Google Search for sources in multiple categories yielded little to no results. I mainly used "News" and "Books" as that tended to be where a large amount of coverage on fictional elements was. Typically if there was enough potential coverage in those categories, I thought the article had potential for future improved sourcing and ignored it. If it didn't have any or very few potential sources in either of those sections, I figured it likely would not have any significant coverage beyond that and thus nominated the article for deletion. Very few articles I considered for nomination met the former.
 * Adding to 2, I tended to consider it non notable if all the sources found were primary. So for instance, if the Books search yielded things only from official Doctor Who related books, or the News search yielded results from primarily listicles or passing mentions.
 * Some articles I put up were generally notable in the series itself, but I only nominated a select few, as for the most part, I didn't want to target too many potentially "major" articles with this. Some DW related articles are in a dire sourcing state, but I felt that there were enough potential sources lying about that its sourcing state could be improved. I really wanted to deal with a lot of the articles that were just plot summary and lacked any notability before attempting to improve some of the bigger articles.
 * For the "bigger" articles I nominated (Namely articles such as Polly and Turlough) I looked at their current sourcing state and then did the same search as before. They had surprisingly little potential sources pop up, hence why I nominated them. The reason I selected articles such as them was due to the fact that they had very few appearances within the series itself, and thus were least likely to have significant coverage. I looked at a few other articles potentially along those lines, but a quick search yielded some potential results that I intend on going through at a later date to see if improvement of those articles' sourcing states is possible.
 * So, in short, I selected articles based off of lack of notability, abysmal sourcing state, and the potential for an article to be improved to Wikipedia standards. If it met the first two and lacked any potential as of now for improvement, then I put it up for nomination. Apologies for the long and drawn-out explanation, but as you asked for my rationale, I wanted to explain it in full so there wouldn't be any confusion. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * With this context I'm not ready to criticize Pokelego999 but do think their using some discretion in how they go about nominating in the future is appreciated. I was wondering, given the closeness in time, what kind of WP:BEFORE had been done. The explanation above, especially given that the articles nominated were related, strikes me as a reasonable effort at complying with that expectation (which because of the vagaries of wiki history is not technically policy or guideline but still is absolutely an expectation).The community doesn't like mass article creations or mass nominations for deletions but has also disliked creating policies or guidelines about these things even more. So we are going to run into these kinds of situations and if there's not behavioral issues with the person doing the creation/nominations (as I contend there is not in this situation) I think we just need to figure out how to make things work. This thread is a reasonable outcome for that. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Appeal: Topic ban from closing AfDs
Last February, I was banned from closing deletion discussions. And unfortunately, I wasn't able to break my silence in the said discussion by the time a consensus was made. So, I'll say what I was supposed to say in that discussion.

Someone asked in my talk page if I unilaterally decided that singular !votes for redirect should always override majority consensus for deletion, despite this not being policy-backed and such discussions being inherently inappropriate for NAC and I told him that it's based on my experiences when I usually casted votes in various discussions before. Take example of these discussions:


 * Articles for deletion/Christmas Day in the_Morning (Tabernacle Choir album)
 * Articles for deletion/Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se (Song)
 * Articles for deletion/Another Sleepless Night (album)
 * Articles for deletion/Dissection (album)
 * Articles for deletion/What Are We Waiting For
 * Articles for deletion/Bridge over Troubled Dreams
 * Articles for deletion/Tu Jaane Na
 * Articles for deletion/All the Rage (EP)
 * Articles for deletion/Surface (Aero Chord song)

Of 1 or more "delete" votes in those discussions, I was the only one who voted for a "redirect". And all were closed as "redirect", with some of the closers mentioning WP:ATD. Same case for this discussion, where only one voted for a "redirect". That said, those discussions indicated serve as my guide when it comes to closing various AfDs.

Moving On
I believe this is the right time for me to officially get out of my "retirement" from deletion discussions. I admit that I've taken freedom too far. Whenever anyone takes any of my closures to the DelRev, I thought that it's their problem and not mine. I didn't expect that this kind of mindset would create a negative impact on my contributions. I realized that I'm also part of the problem as such.

That said, I'm appealing for my topic ban from closing AfDs to be lifted. From hereon, I'll be careful in closing deletion discussions. Whenever anyone challenges any of my closures, I'll revert it immediately and leave it for other editors to relist or close it. I may not close as many discussions like before, but I promise to be careful in closing them. That way, I won't get myself into trouble like before.

Proposal: Lifting Superastig's topic-ban from closing AfDs
ASTIG 😎🙃 07:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose A lackadaisical approach, combined with an inability to accurately read the Afd correctly leading to inaccurate and often wide of the mark close rationales, doesn't give me confidence that the editor is going to be better now than he was in the past. For some reason the selection is the simplistic Afd's not the long complex ones he did that were a disaster.   scope_creep Talk  08:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you pick out 3 to 5 AfDs that are at or nearing close, and say how you would close them and why? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 08:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll second this request please. And preferably non-unanimous ones. You can put the analyses on a userpage sub-page and link to it, if you would like. - jc37 08:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Courtship (animals)
 * Redirect to courtship display: While all of the editors believed that it definitely fails WP:NOR, two of them voted to redirect to courtship display because they believe it's a valid search term. None of the "redirect" votes are contested.
 * Articles for deletion/Li Xianzhou
 * Keep: The first two of the editors indicated sources that prove that the article meets WP:GNG, the rest agreed with the two, with the third one citing its Chinese Wikipedia page. None of the "keep" votes are contested.
 * Articles for deletion/Physics Essays
 * Keep: The first three editors indicated strong proof that the article meets WP:NJOURNALS and therefore are strong enough. None of those are contested. The fourth only indicated that WP:NTEMP, the fifth only agreed with the first three, and the rest are spedy keeps, in which all of these are somewhat weak.
 * Articles for deletion/Celeste Maloy
 * Redirect to 2023 Utah's 2nd congressional district special election: Of all the six editors, four voted to redirect the article to 2023 Utah's 2nd congressional district special election as they indicated strong proof that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The only "keep" vote is from the article creator, which was refuted.
 * ASTIG 😎🙃 10:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, you are asking for your topic ban on closing to be lifted, and in response to the request for closure examples to help show that you are ready to close discussions, you chose those. Do you think that those 4 discussions are good illustrators for anyone commenting here to see your ability as a closer? If you were looking at lifting someone else's topic ban, would you support lifting that topic ban based off of what you just provided? - jc37 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that the 4 discussions I chose and analyzed are good enough for others to see my ability as a closer. Based on the analyses, I would do the same if ever I'm looking at lifting someone else's topic ban. ASTIG 😎🙃 14:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * [ec] Oppose. Except for saying that he will be more careful, which doesn't say much, appellant has not explained how he has learned to do good non-admin closures. He has only said that he will self-revert when challenged, and that he will close fewer AfD, so as not to get "into trouble like before". Having to deal with fewer Superastig's bad closures and not having to run DRV on them would be better than the state of things at the time of his topic ban, but it would still not be better than Superastig not closing any AfDs.But, yes Superastig should answer Tamzin's question.—Alalch E. 08:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - having read his user page, I am convinced the topic ban should remain in effect. PhilKnight (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I broadly agree with your interpretation of WP:ATD, (there are caveats etc. that we needn't go in to here), but it looks like it was, at most, a sidenote in the discussion that led to your topic ban. The reasons given for the ban there were: a) you were closing discussions that were not suitable for a non-admin close; b) too many of your closes have been overturned at DRV; c) the problems continued despite multiple editors asking you to change course; d) you were hostile to people discussing your closes with you and actively chose not to participate in the AN thread about them. Do you have anything to say to those points? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * you were hostile to people discussing your closes with you: I already removed the reminder a couple of years ago after I was told that it and I realized I was too harsh with that. I have moved on from that long time ago.
 * and actively chose not to participate in the AN thread about them.: I've said what I said in the first two paragraphs of this discussion after I was convinced to participate. ASTIG 😎🙃 12:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Should we perhaps also talk about the fact that Superastig's user page currently contains a blatant personal attack, apparently in response to this topic ban? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. It's pointless to discuss that. I just stated how bad I felt after being banned from closing discussions at that time. That changes over time after editors in my talk page told me some pointers. Unfortunately, I forgot to change it because I was busy with other stuff being away from AfDs (and it's true I was really busy). ASTIG 😎🙃 12:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'll reiterate that someone who used to be in the habit of finishing all their AfD comments with My vote stands. I won't reply any further. (e.g., ) has barely any business participating in AfD discussions, let alone closing them. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * After looking at Superastig's user page, their last few edits (which cite Facebook as a source), and trying to puzzle out what this editor is saying ("And unfortunately, I wasn't able to break my silence in the said discussion"... what?), I think this editor needs more restrictions, not fewer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no shortage of people capable of closing non-obvious AFDs, and I don't see any advantage to the project in having someone closing them who has demonstrated that they have neither the aptitude nor the temperament for it. There are many other ways to help the project. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An additional thought, having read comments from others: I suspect part of the problem is that Superastig's English is perhaps not up to the job, and they use words and phrases in uncommon ways (and sometimes misunderstand too). They say they speak English as a native language, and I'm sure that's true. But it's Filipino English (one of the two official languages of the Philippines), and that can be quite different to US or UK English (I've been there, and it can be tricky for a Brit to understand what people mean.) To do admin-like things, and evaluate discussions that will probably contain subtleties, I think an editor needs to be fully conversant with idiomatic US (and perhaps to a lesser extent UK) English. That's not to say those varieties are superior, they're just the native varieties of the great majority of contributors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for many reasons, but the personal attack and the bizarre rant on their userpage is reason enough. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose exhaustion timesink with a side of this. Star   Mississippi  17:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Either Superastig is unaware that wino ≠ whiner, or else this is the most bizarre personal attack I’ve seen since the time someone “accused” me of working at Google. signed,Rosguill talk 21:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've noticed some other word choices that indicates, contrary to userbox, that English may not be their first language so I'd let wino/whiner go (as a word choice, not excusing the PA). Star   Mississippi  22:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Their literal response of "Don't bother. It's pointless to discuss that" in response to concerns about posting a personal attack on their user page isn't good. Nor is their decision to leave that attack up on their user page, despite having their attention drawn to it. Apparently they are too "busy" to fix the problem, but not too busy to make excuses about it. That's...just not the right sort of follow-through for someone who wants to carry out tasks requiring judgement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose lifting topic ban and support full topic ban from AfD. Another discussion involving Superastig showed up on my watchlist a few weeks ago. In this conversation (which occurred after they had been topic banned from closing AfDs) another editor said to Superastig: There are a few stations and TV channels that are up for deletion here. [...] I hope you could spare some time to save any of them from deletion. Superastig proceeded to vote keep on several of these articles. After being informed that this was canvassing, Superastig replied as follows:
 * In other words, you're telling me that it's a mortal sin for me to participate in deletion discussions after getting pulled out from my "break". I've stayed away from deletion discussions for a few months and never cared about a single article listed for deletion until @SBKSPP pinged me. I only picked a handful that I believe are worth being kept. It shouldn't be a big deal at all. It is never a mortal sin to be concerned about the articles listed for deletion, for God's sake.
 * You can hate, whine, cry, complain, throw hissy fits, say this, say that. But, my votes in the recent deletion discussions have (will have and still have) merit no matter what.
 * This behaviour speaks for itself IMO. Later, explained to them at length that this is in fact canvassing, and they still refused to get the message, stating Therefore, I believe what they did is not canvassing. I'll still stand by my views no matter what. Between the canvassing issues, the PA mentioned above, their past conduct at AfD and this unconvincing request, I believe that this editor is unable or unwilling to conduct themselves appropriately in this area and should be topic banned from AfD as a whole. Spicy (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Spicy's proposal; I am both concerned by the canvassing aspect and the issue that Elmidae raised; while it may be appropriate to make such a comment after a little discussion, it is not appropriate to make such a comment before any discussion has taken place. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongest oppose possible Just look at their User page; that alone demonstrates a lack of understanding of their past disruption in AfDs and shows a very strong WP:NOTTHEM mentality. I also support impsosing a full AfD TBAN as Spicy said above. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 04:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't tell if user is confused or engaged in sneaky vandalism
has some useful edits, but also some that are just completely off and do not match sources. He's been warned about unconstructive edits before and I don't know what the appropriate response is now. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Racist user
User:SunDawn supports "legal immigration". That's a famous white supremacist slogan. Ricciardo Best (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Legal immigration" is nothing of the sort. White supremacist slogans are far removed from plain, clinical, even dry statements like that. Play nice, assume good faith, and be wary of accusing users of politics they may not have
 * doktorb wordsdeeds 08:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Supporting legal immigration does not make one racist and I can only assume this is a troll report. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 08:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You've also failed to notify SunDawn of this discussion, which is mandatory. I've done that for you now. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 08:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! If you are opposed to my draftify actions you can contact me instead of accusing me as a white supremacist. My political views are my own and if it didn't interfere with my editing it shouldn't be the concern of other editors. Have a good day. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   08:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Green Line (CTA) infobox break
The last edit seems to have caused a hidden character break in the infobox. I don't see anything that is causing the break and am not sure if the edit is vandalism.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've purged the article, which appears to have solved the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that means, but it seems to have solved whatever the hidden issue was.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Next time you have similar issues you can't figure out, WP:VPT is the best place, not here. It's usually not the case that admin help is needed, and even if it is there are probably enough admins there to handle it. And of the problem is with a fully- or template-protected transcluded page (the most likely scenario needing admin help) and no one at VPT can help you, an edit request on the talk page is the next step. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 08:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Guys, Tony can post here and we will respond to him... He knows his way around. Thanks, Lourdes  09:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Block of 2600:1017:B400:0:0:0:0:0/40
, why did you block a wide mobile range for one IP from the range vandalizing Cool Hand Luke? A look at the history reveals mostly constructive editing. Shim119 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * From "Instructions - Initiating a review" above: I don't see where you did that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's best if we don't make the sysop who performed the disputed action into a gatekeeper for the review.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a direct quote from the instructions, which were developed thru consensus. And, if you read it again, it is clearly not making the admin a "gatekeeper" for the review. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but. To you or me, talking to the sysop who performed the action seems like the normal and courteous thing to do, and particularly when it's a sysop as kindly, approachable and helpful as Daniel is.  But to an inexperienced editor, the sysop will seem like a hostile authority figure who's performed actions they see as arbitrary and capricious.  A requirement to talk to the sysop might well seem onerous and offputting.  I see those instructions as a best practice recommendation for experienced editors, not an AN/I style mandatory thou shalt do this.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want the policy changed, it would require an RFC, not an ad hoc discussion in one case. This only serves to muddy the waters on THIS case, which should follow existing policy. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I'm afraid that nothing on this page is policy. It's a new process where norms are still being established and we ought to be able to make reasoned changes after reasoned discussion without the need for a formal 30 day process.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * First, the history shows that that range had already been blocked three times before, for lengthy periods of time, in the years before. Second, many of the edits on the day I blocked it just over a year ago had been reverted—I am guessing someone had reported the range to AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but 6 months to a year -- not 3! Anyhow I think you need to fix the block summary.  The link is missing a right bracket and putting a rangeblock should make it more understandable with instructions.  To be honest, I'm more inclined to AGF if this issue persisted over the past few days or months but often these guys disappear after six of them as shown in the length of time that passed between the first two in the log.  Shim119 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the block log, prior to Daniel's block the previous block was 2 years long, starting in March of 2020, as a CU block. Daniel's extension to 3 years makes sense as it was the same behavior on the range that led to the previous block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

the previous 2 year block was due to vandalism from logged in accounts, this cites vandalism to the Cool Hand Luke article. Shim119 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) I moved it. I initially posted this on WP:XRV so this wouldn't crowd up DC's talkpage. Shim119 (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This should be addressed on the admin talk page, and then if there is still a problem, taken to AN where more people with experience in these matters watch the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Shim119 Could you explain why you're digging into this block from over a year ago? You've just opened a very ill-advised RFC at WP:Checkuser which is hard to believe is unrelated. You began digging at this after returning from your disruption block by Explicit approximately a month ago. To me, it seems the only reason someone would be chasing these particular topics together is because while blocked, they logged out and found they couldn't edit anonymously or create a new account. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ferret It isn't the first time they've done this either. 3 months ago they took zzuuzz to arbcom over a range block . This is now the second time they've massively overreacted to a range block and opened time consuming community review processes for no good reason and with no attempt to discuss with the blocking administrator. Their entire contribution history in project space looks to be disruption and massively overacting to minor issues, apart from the two IP block intendents there was a mess about a file being deleted (which is related to their previous block). Looking at the sum total of their editing I think a WP:CIR or WP:DE block wouldn't be unreasonable. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * since when is disputing an image deletion disruption. i just feel block a long term rangeblock to vandalism is an overreaction.  now why is everyone annoyed when i ask questions about policy?  Shim119 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for repeatedly uploading an image that had been deleted by consensus. That's very much disruption. And you're being disruptive by accusing admins of abuse because they have rightfully blocked IPs and ranges with long and very obvious histories of disruption. The only reason you know these IPs are blocked is because you log out to evade scrutiny and find out that way. It's unfortunately that you happen to be on these IP ranges, but they don't impact you unless you log out. Stay logged into your account. Problem solved. -- ferret (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Disputing an image deletion isn't disruptive, your actions around the image deletion was disruptive.
 * The images were correctly deleted following a "Files for discussion" discussion on the basis that they could not be used under the non-free content policy, the links to the relevant policies were provided in that discussion. You didn't like the result, so you went to requests for undeletion and requested the deletion be reversed, with a non free rationalle that did not fix the issues identified in the discussion . That was closed as an innapropriate undeletion request, so you went to deletion review, where the deletion was unanimously endorsed. You didn't like that so you went to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and claimed that the deletion review was wrong . Once that failed you resorted to repeatedly reuploading the same files over and over again , with them being repeatedly speedy deleted, you also did the same thing on commons . You then ended up blocked for disruptive editing . Finally you turned around and insulted the admin who blocked you for being "immature" . You wasted a colossal amount of time running pointless review processes WP:FORUMSHOPPING for someone to tell you what you wanted to hear, and when that didn't work you resorted to edit warring and disruption to try to upload the files.
 * You aren't "asking questions about policy" you are starting time consuming processes over trivial stuff despite already having been told not to. You immediately escalated this to administrative action review, despite already having been told to ask administrators about their actions on their talk page after the arbcom fiasco. When someone at XRV told you "you should ask on their talk page then escalate to AN is necessary" you skipped the entire first part and went straight here. You immediately started a RFC to rewrite checkuser policy over nothing.
 * Your timewasting in project space combined with deliberate disruption and the low quality of many of your edits to articles    makes it seriously questionable whether you should continue to be allowed to edit here. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed Shim119. See block log for a laundry list of some of their issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good block. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Courcelles (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And getting gooder by the edit... -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My sockysense is tingling. I don't think this is their first rodeo. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of suspect name
Can the name of the suspect shown here be permanently removed? I have started a discussion about this on the talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the reference they pled guilty and were sentenced; they are no longer a suspect and so WP:SUSPECT does not seem to apply here. - Aoidh (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, if this is the case, would it be acceptable for me to make a move request with the name of the suspect in the proposed title? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. We don't, if we can help it, glorify the names of murderers. It's much better that the victims are the ones noted, not the perpetrators. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You could, but that would likely be a huge waste of time for all involved. It's vanishingly unlikely that a title using the name of the perpetrator would gain consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The convict's name can be a redirect, but nothing more (cf. Stephanie Lazarus). We have only given those convicted of crimes of violence against another their own articles if a) they are notable for something else besides that or b) they are serial offenders (usually killers) with multiple victims. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned by your actions over this article. It looks like (not is, merely looks like) you are first seeking to protect the convicted criminal involved, then seeking to promote them over their underage victim. It looks like (again, not is, merely looks like) like you're accidentally on the side of the criminal in question.

Can you explain your reasoning for your two requests? — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 *  Reply - If we are going to conceal the name of the perpetrator, then let's do so all over the place. If we are NOT going to conceal this name, then let's name the article something similar to other cases.  I think that many people who are seeking information about the case will seek information by the name of the convicted perpetrator.  Since we do not have the name of the victim, nor should we, then the name of the perpetrator seems to be the most likely search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You see the very poor optics of that false dichotomy, right? — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Then we will allow the move discussion to play out. I will likely accept whatever decision gets made. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Assume good faith. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What the hell is wrong with you, Jax? This    is very weird behaviour. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply - "If we are going to conceal the name of the perpetrator, then let's do so all over the place" / "If we are NOT going to conceal this name, then let's name the article something similar to other cases". Also, WP:CIVIL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weird indeed. Jax, I would respectfully suggest you do yourself a favor and step back from anything concerning this topic for a while.  Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Sounds like a plan to me. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look throughout the history of this article. Jax's actions therein are confusing, at best. Star   Mississippi  19:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Luther vandross
Incorrect picture of Luther Vandross is used. It is a picture of Master P! Very Disrespectful! 2601:40:C680:7C50:3918:AE6D:2C6E:34BF (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I assume you've come to the wrong place. You should discuss your issue on the talk page of the concerned article not here. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The picture included with this article is of Master P, a rapper/hip-hop artists from New Orleans, Louisiana 68.11.44.104 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the article for Luther Vandross. A picture of Master P was used instead of Luther Van dross. 68.11.44.104 (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You came to the Wrong Notice board, i recommend that you discuss your issue on the talk page of the article itself and not on this noticeboard. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Although there has been a recent spate of vandalism on the article Luther Vandross, I don't think this has anything to do with Wikipedia point blank. It seems to be a typical case of Google doing some crazy stuff that did not originate from us and people are coming here to complain [//opoyi.com/entertainment/why-did-google-replace-luther-vandross-image-with-master-p/]. I assume the vandalism is coming from people visiting after the Google kerfuffle. Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

For the interested, Talk:Luther_Vandross. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

E-Mail thing...
Can I get someone to remove my E-Mail off my user space? Thanks. My device shows it publically for any and all spammers to play with. I can't get it off. Unfriendly Aliens (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you mean the email address at Special:Preferences, that should only be visible to you when logged in - anyone else looking at that page will see their own email address. If you have an email stored somewhere else, you'll need to tell us where you mean. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It is on my home page. 🥰 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfriendly Aliens (talk • contribs) 10:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not made any edits that have contained an email address. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No it isn't on your home (User) page, or on your User talk page. And you only just created those two pages *after* posting your question here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Boing! said Zebedee They're talking about the Newcomer homepage added as part of the GrowthExperiments extension. It's the place that all these new editors get told to make edits adding links and copyediting. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, well spotted - I've never seen any of that stuff. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Unfriendly Aliens The homepage you are looking at is private, the only person who can see it is you. Your email is private (though other editors can send you emails via wikipedia) and only you will be able to see it. If you still want to remove it go to Special:Preferences, go to the "Email options" tab and delete it. Note that if you do not have an email set you will not be able to reset your password if you forget it. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've requested that Special:Homepage clarify this at T341195. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 10:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin That sounds like a excellent idea. I can't for the life of me find the discussions, but I remember seeing similar questions at either the teahouse or the help desk in the past. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

🥰🥰🥰🥰 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfriendly Aliens (talk • contribs) 11:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Article : Pen
This one has protect notice on it. Was going to place matter on it about two unusual pens. One is that there are ink pens that have a LED light, used mainly by police on night duties w/o blowing their night vision. I've bought and used them, the other is a pen that has 10 colors of ink in one pen, and I've bought that one at Wal Mart, bought the light pen at a few Truck Stops. How can this be placed in the pen article? Thanks for the help on this and a earlier matter. These are unusual pens🥰😘🥰😘 Unfriendly Aliens (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @unfriendly aliens: please don't. all information on wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources and must be shown to deserve due weight in an article, and i doubt two pens you have are proper for the article about pens. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the help. 🥰😘🥰😘 Unfriendly Aliens (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Unfriendly Aliens FYI, it would be better to ask questions like this at the WP:Teahouse in the future, the teahouse is a help page specifically for new users. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Range block not working?
Hi, I spotted and reverted some vandalism from an anonymous user that they'd done earlier today, but when I looked at their contributions page it says they're blocked as part of a 2-year range block that started 2 days ago - see Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:D543:1400:E039:3E75:2DEC:9D50 - so shouldn't have been able to make those edits today. Am I missing something? <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The block appears to been a partial one for 2 pages, rather than site wide. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah of course. I forgot that was a thing! Thanks <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_23
Can this be closed as no-consensus already? Discussion has been going on for over two weeks now. This is wasting valuable time from us at WP:WPWIR. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * A note that Headbomb is one of the more vociferous commenters in the discussion he would like to have closed as no consensus. IznoPublic (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Abuse by user 'A socialist trans Girl'
When adding recomendations on the page 'Woman' a person with handle 'A socialist trans girl' attacked me, putting words in my mouth I never spoke, trying to demonise me. She added irrelevant topics like my IP address and that I was coming from a mobile edit etc which not only is incorrect - it has absolutely no relevance to the topir.

I like to remind you that WikiPedia is a tool from everyone for everyone; It should in no way be a tool for personal vendettas when people have different views. When you get attacked because you cite sources others don't like, the contributions will end and Wikipedia will end up with single-sided bias.

The abuse was rather moderate yet inappropriate. I hope you will deal with it appropriately. Kind regards Harv RealHarveySpecter (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You are meant to notify people when you complain about them. You didn't. I have notified A socialist trans Girl. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually said on the 'Woman' page I would report it. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On their talk page. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok my bad then. Sorry for that. Can we now please stop wasting time with these silly games and move on? Thank you. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * (This occurred here)
 * There, I stated a few reasons for me being suspicious of a potential sockpuppet, saying that the reasons are quite suspicious, but that there's no definitive proof.
 * Also @UserRealHarveySpecter what words did I put in your mouth that you never spoke? A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume he is referring to the post by an ip editor that you attributed to him. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You claimed I made accusations that 'you did not belong on this page'. I never said anything of that sort. Also I fail to see why you started to attack me with this IP/mobile device nonsense which totally has no truth nor relevance. We should all try to stay on topic and make the page as truthful as possible. When people attack others hoping this will empower their own narrative I feel you are at the wrong place. Wikipedia is a community. Not a solo slim site. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look at this and to my, non-admin, eyes it looks more like a boomerang case than anything else. The only thing I can see A socialist trans Girl getting wrong here is in feeding the troll a little bit too much, a mistake which almost everybody makes at some point. Rather than engage with such unedifying and WP:NOTFORUM discourse the best thing would have been to roll it all up per NOTFORUM and WP:DENY. So what of RealHarveySpecter? He looks like an SPA. His is a recently registered account which started straight off by leaping into an existing argument on a Talk page, which always strikes me as a little suspicious. He got warned for incivility and this report seems like it might be retaliation. He has zero edits in article space and already he is causing drama on the noticeboards. Is it too early to say WP:NOTHERE? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say calling a WP:NOTHERE is justified. And I've responded to it as I wasn't sure if was trolling, and I wanted to respond to all the points to be civil and so it didn't look like I was conceding, but they just said cisgender is a slur so they are definitely trolling. I'd say do a CheckUser and do the appropriate action for a WP:NOTHERE. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So far all edits fall into the WP:SOAPBOX category. Add to that the incivility and it looks like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I added 2 sources for my statement. 1) Elon Musk recently posted that cis is considered a slur. I also posted another article confirming that most non-trans people feel offended by it. Instead of commenting on the content you decided to attack me by dragging totally off-topic things like IP address and the false claim I was on a mobile device.
 * I propose to end these juvenile games and move on. I fail to see why you attack me. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow. So you call me a troll? How about not attacking people? Why don't you comment on the things I said? You seem unable to do so and instead attack the person. Again; Wikipedia is a community. It does not belong to you personally. You should comment on the content; Not on the messenger. No it is not a retalliation at all. Are you saying the attacks on me are invented? I have been called a troll, I have been called 'suspicious'. You are talking more about me than about the original topic. Seems you are trying to deflect a little, no? What does the amount of edits have to do with it? THe question should be: are the things I said and the sources I added relevant. You decide not to discuss those. Instead you decide to attack me personally which I believe is a violation of your rules. I again remind you Wikipedia is not the playgarden for political or personal gain. It is a community that should write about subjects in a neutral and scientifically and factually correct way. Instead of trying to help with that, all you do is attack those who's sources you don't like. Be better! RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For avoidance of any doubt, I am happy to clarify that by "suspicious" I did indeed mean "possibly indicative of sockpuppetry". Based on what I have seen so far, I wouldn’t go further than "possibly indicative" but a checkuser seems like a good idea. Anyway, we do not need to decide whether the above argumentation is advanced in good faith or intentional trolling. When an editor defines their own prejudices as "neutral and scientifically and factually correct" then that argues for a WP:CIR block. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep! A Socialist Trans Girl  13:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow. So you removed anything I said. That is astonishing; I added several sources yet you simply blocked me? Wow! RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added several links. I am not the one who puts personal ideas as facts. Others are. It is very clear you do not want to consider the views you may personally not like. You have not refuted any of the links I posted. I will contact administrators about this abuse of power; I have done nothing that warrants a block. I find it quite an abuse of power on your end to just play God here. You should be ashamed or yourself mate. This is a community. Not your personal vendetta site. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have refuted them. Refutation: they are opinion pieces. A Socialist Trans Girl  13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First up, I am not an administrator. I don't get to block anybody. I make my case, as we all do, and the administrators decide.
 * Second up, I did not remove any of your logged in comments. All I did was roll up some unproductive sections of discussion. The only comments I actually removed where two abusive comments made anonymously. (diff here) RealHarveySpecter, are you admitting to making those comments? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have it your way people. I came here with good intentions. I am absolutely shocked by how undemocratic and hateful some of you are. I offered several links which you rarely discussed; Instead you spent more time arguing about my IP and blocking me because you clearly have nothing to bring into my arguments. It has become clear to me this is more about your personal views and self promotion than about being neutral and fair. Next you block me and accuse me of the things you do yourself. Fine. Have a nice day all and be proud of yourself for hijacking a nice community for your personal gains. I am done here. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDEMOCRACY A Socialist Trans Girl  13:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well they are gone so... I don't understand why we are having such a heated silly debate honestly. We should be talking about the information, don't you agree? RealHarveySpecter (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * According to this edit summary, there is currently an influx of readers from The Daily Wire. They appear to have strong opinions on what the articles Woman and Girl should say, but aren't otherwise terribly interested in helping us to write an encyclopedia. – bradv  13:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't for the fact that this isn't even the right noticeboard for the discussion of incidents I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG for this silliness. As things stand perhaps an admin can just close this? Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. THis makes no sense whatsoever. We should be talking about how to make the page the best we possibly can and have normal healthy respectful discussion. Instead of attacking people. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mate I don't even know what or who the daily wire is. I am located in Belgium and never heard of that. In other words, you seemed to let your prejudice get in the way of things. Second, even if people were from daily wire, does that mean their views are by default wrong? I repeatedly asked: let's stay on topic. Let's discuss how we can best define the information. None of you wanted to do so. Instead you decided to throw in whatabouttism about money and fish etc, stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with what a woman is. In all honesty I feel you should have a neutral look at what I said. Oh wait, you can't. You deleted it. Good job folks. Please reflect on your behavior. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It does mean that. A Socialist Trans Girl  13:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly if somebody went to WP:AN/I and suggested that was WP:NOTHERE I would be inclined to support. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course you would. I don't care mate. Save yourself the trouble. I will close my account - if that's even possible - and leave. I do not want to be associated with a group of undemocratic people with a God complex. I have done nothing wrong. YOU have been attacking me. Not the other way around. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll save everyone some time. NOTHERE. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not according to his TP. He's officially retired. (sorry, could not resist). Kleuske (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even though RHS may be at fault, I think it's likely that A socialist trans Girl is some kind of LTA sleeper/nothere. They have made a series of bizarre edits, including nonsense uploads to commons, as well as extremely large additions to their sandbox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What does that even mean, ? The prior account name that they were uploading things from is directly page-moved to their current name (apparently because they didn't want Russia in their name after the war started). And I'm going to make a guess, since they have 6 userboxes on their page, that the 6 image uploads back in November was them trying to upload their userboxes or something? Clearly not relevant to Commons, hence why the uploads were deleted, but I don't see how that makes someone a "LTA sleeper/nothere" account in any fashion. Could you please elaborate on what you're talking about? Silver  seren C 02:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 6 of the image uploads were making a recursive image of my user page which which I put on my user page labelled "This page", which was fair enough deleted, and another was an election map for a hypothetical 2024 US election which I used on my sandbox. A Socialist   Trans Girl  07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors with long periods of inactivity who then dive headfirst into very contentious topic areas and discussions is imo very suspicious. It's not a smoking gun, but it means that their activities should be closely monitored. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the period of inactivity was just due to me being busy with my transition and just generally doing other stuff, which after I returned the specific contentious topics I dived into are ones related to trans topics, so I feel as that's self explanatory. A Socialist   Trans Girl  07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am completely satisfied with these explanations. Not that I found the behavior particularly suspicious in the first place. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the uploads to commons had nonsense names, but since they are deleted we can only speculate about the content and purpose, although they were deleted as nonsense. The large sandbox additions seem to be intended to work on articles. Can you link to some of the edits you consider bizarre? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Look at this sandbox diff, it's incredibly large despite the small amount of visible text, which is complete nonsense. If you try to edit it, it breaks the editor. It appears to have some really large invisible special characters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is... weird. Even when I open the editor I can't find invisible characters, yet it's +2,097,152 — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 23:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to consist of extremely long lines (in one case 250,000+ characters) of "." and "e". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why can't I see this when I open the editor on this diff? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 23:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just copied the source to a text file to look at it in a normal text editor. Since it isn't displayed as that I'm assuming that the software behind Wikipedia can't handle it. Maybe your browser has issues with it, too? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. That's definitely weird. Although it was only up for a day. So there may be an innocent explanation, like testing something. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The file size is due to it primarily being of 0 width space, which is why it's not rendered. I just did it because I wanted to test the max page size out of curiosity, nothing else. A Socialist   Trans Girl  07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, that was at the beginning of their usage of their sandbox. Is there any editing from this year that you find problematic, ? Silver  seren C 23:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not anything about their editing in the transgender topic area per se, it's just the combination of long periods of inactivity and username change+contentious topic area+weird sandbox edits. Each of these is easily dismissable on their own as circumstantial and not really indicative of anything, but collectively it makes me suspicious. Is this suspicion warranted? I don't know. There's obviously no hard proof of anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Graham87 and Davide Lo Surdo
Hello everyone, i need you to see the AFD about Davide Lo Surdo because the user Graham87 looks like having personal matters with Lo Surdo because he's threatening to take the page down at all costs. He claims that Rolling Stone brazil is not notable enough and that their sources (RS Brazil) are dubious when as you know RS is the most notable music magazine. Lo Surdo appears to have significant coverage and he has received an award by Sanremo Music Awards which is very notable.  The User Graham87 said on the AFD a few hours ago: “I have my own ideas about what to do with this article if this AFD doesn't result in a deletion, but I'll keep them to myself until (or unless) that eventuates.”

This shows having personal matters with him because it sounds like a threat and he clearly said that he wants to take the page down at all costs.

Please have a look at it and take action because Lo surdo’s page now is fine and can be keeped on wikipedia Johnmarrys (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Per the instructions at the top of this page you're required to notify Graham87 about this discussion. I have done so for you. I see nothing unusual about Graham87's participation in the AfD discussion and he's not making a threat. You should focus on improving the article. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I worked for improve the article as today i also added a significant source for the verification of his Sanremo award.
 * so please, User:Mackensen, let us know your opinion on the AFD about the page. Thanks Johnmarrys (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt that Graham87 has any personal issues with Lo Surdo for the simple reason that (correct me if I'm wrong, User:Graham87) it is unlikely that he had even heard of him before reading the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t know but it’s very strange he said the phrase above. Looks like he wants to take the page down at all costs.
 * I have a very good reputan of Graham87 but it’s strange to read that phrase. Johnmarrys (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I meant mostly text changes to reduce promotionalism and perhaps semi-protection to stop drive-by spamming of his achievements. The article's a little better now but The state I found it in was an utter embarrassment to Wikipedia. Graham 87 01:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly how I read G87's comment@Johnmarrys. I've multiple times !voted Delete in an AfD, and when it ended Keep/No consensus, went in and fixed problems because if it was going to stay, I wanted it at least to be a reasonable article. Valereee (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for Topic-Ban Reversal
I am writing to request an appeal of the topic-ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed, that has been imposed on me following this ANI thread. I believe I understand the reasons for which I was sanctioned, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Engaging in personal attacks.

2. Misrepresenting sources.

3. Engaging in tendentious editing.

I would like to assure the Wikipedia community that I now fully acknowledge my mistakes. Over the past two months, I have reflected on them and actively contributed constructively in other areas. Regarding the topic ban, I have made every effort to adhere to it, but I must admit that there have been instances, after this discussion, where I violated the sanction.

For example:

- In this case, I couldn't resist the urge to revert vandalism that occurred there.

- In another instance, I added the Almoravid empire as a place of birth.

User:DanCherek has pointed out that I also violated the topic ban here and here, although I'm not entirely convinced, but it could be true. Regardless, I apologize for all of these infractions.

Dancherek suggested i wait at least 6 months before appealing this topic-ban, however I would like to mention that I currently have free time during this summer, which I intend to utilize for constructive contributions in the area that interests me the most. This opportunity won't be available to me later, so I hope you will take this into consideration. That was pretty much all what i have to say for the moment.

Regards, SimoooIX (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose it has barely been a month since the OP was reminded of their numerous tban violations. They made a handful of reverts after that (in June) and spent the last 5 days reverting some edits. M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The honesty displayed in this appeal is good, but I would want to see at least 6 months since the last tban violation before voting to repeal. signed,Rosguill talk 20:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Rosguill, As I mentioned earlier, I am eager to utilize the free time I currently have during this summer for constructive contributions in my area of interest. It is important to note that I won't have this opportunity later on. So i can't wait for another 4 months. (The t-ban was imposed on me almost 2 months ago). Also the most recent violation occurred on May 15th.SimoooIX (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like this summer would be a good opportunity to build up a track record of solid edits outside of north Africa to serve as the basis for a future unblock request. Wikipedia will be here next summer as well, mashallah. signed,Rosguill talk 21:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (e/c) That's a good reason for you to want the topic ban removed now; it isn't a good reason for others to want to remove it now. Do you see what I mean? Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is to have any chance of success (which, full disclosure, I don't foresee), I would suggest approaching this as an opportunity to convince people that there is some reason for them to expect that you'll behave just about opposite the way you behaved before the topic ban. What are you going to do differently? (hint: "I will not make personal attacks, misrepresent sources, or engage in tendentious editing" is not going to cut it) How will you interact with M.Bitton in the future? What will you do if M.Bitton (or anyone else) reverts one of your edits?  What if someone reverts pretty much all of your edits? Do you acknowledge that it is quite possible for other people to be right and you to be wrong?  So far, this kind of proforma "I was topic banned for the following reasons.  I acknowledge they were mistakes.  Please remove the topic ban" request is definitely not persuasive. In general, we aren't interested in allowing you to edit what you want this summer.  We're interested in being confident we aren't going to have to put up with that again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Floquenbeam, thank you for your questions.
 * Certainly, I have learned from my past mistakes. If given the chance for the topic ban to be lifted, my editing behavior will undoubtedly change in my interactions with other editors. I will make every effort to avoid the types of interactions that have been seen as problematic by the community. Additionally, I will refrain from reviving any content disputes that I was previously engaged in before the topic ban. In other words, I am willing to put the past behind us and start fresh. However, it is important for other editors to also refrain from edit warring, personal attacks, and false accusations.
 * Regarding your question about acknowledging the possibility of being wrong, yes, I do. I have already acknowledged my mistakes even prior to the topic ban.
 * Furthermore, if the topic ban were to be lifted, I have plans to expand and create articles, which I believe would be highly constructive work.
 * Thank you for considering my responses.
 * Regards, SimoooIX (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I want to emphasize that if there is a possibility of the topic ban being lifted, I will avoid unnecessary interactions with M.Bitton and take greater care with my words to prevent engaging in personal attacks. Moreover, I am willing to forgive and let go of all the false accusations and personal attacks directed at me by M.Bitton, even in the absence of an apology from them. In regards to handling sources, I pledge to be more diligent in ensuring their accurate representation and to avoid any misrepresentation. SimoooIX (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , here is my recommendation to you: Spend at least six months making productive edits outside the Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topic area, entirely avoiding edits in that area. Then, ask for your topic ban to be lifted. Productive editing elsewhere and waiting the full six months since the last infraction are both very important elements to a successful appeal of a topic ban. You can also work on drafting articles about Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics off Wikipedia that you can move here once your topic ban is lifted. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors considering this appeal are encouraged to evaluate SimoooIX's comments on my talk page since the appeal was opened. signed,Rosguill talk 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading that interchange on 's talk page, I want to make it unambiguously clear that I Oppose lifting this topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Cullen328. If there was any doubt about whether the ban should be lifted (which there wasn't really) then reading the thread on Rosgill's talk page dispels that. Among other things it gives what they really think about the TBAN, contradicting what they said in the opening post of this thread: the reason for it was "the non-impartial nature of the ANI thread you [Rosguill] initiated" and the scope of the TBAN was "completely unfair". DeCausa (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I'm being contradictory in my statements. I think it was quite clear. While I acknowledge my mistakes, I don't agree that I deserve such a severe sanction. I had asked Rosguill if they had an understanding of the vastness of the topics they suggested for my ban, but I haven't received a response yet. Regardless, I stand by what I have stated in this appeal. SimoooIX (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My observation is that at pretty much every turn, you have been shown significant lenience, and that every time you have received a lenient sanction, you have denounced it as a harsh injustice and demanded it be overturned. First you were p-blocked from an article by Valereee for edit warring that could have justified a full block; then you miraculously got a pass on using your 3rd edit on en.wiki to make an indefensible personal attack against M.Bitton because by the time it was brought to independent attention it was old news; then you were topic-banned from Morocco, Algeria and West Sahara topics (with unanimous support, a rare feat for topic-bans)--that could have easily been a topic-ban from North Africa or the Arab world writ large. You repeatedly break the terms of the topic-ban, and manage to get off with a warning rather than a block; you then proceed to file this request 2 months later when standard practice is to wait at least half a year, preferably more, before trying to come back from such errors. This attitude of demanding a mile every time you are given an inch is not going to end well for you, particularly given that your track record already includes a level of misbehavior that frequently results in a total loss of editing privileges, not just a topic ban. signed,Rosguill talk 17:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * SimoooIX, it looks like you've been editing ar.wiki for the past couple months. That's great, editing there or at other wikiprojects unproblematically really is the best way for you to persuade people here. I'd withdraw this if I were you. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal
Considering the community's evident support for the imposed TBAN, I would like to propose a specific request that I hope will garner support. My proposal is to have the TBAN lifted specifically from Almohad-related articles/pages. I am confident that I can demonstrate to the community my ability to make constructive edits and constructively engage in discussions within this area that greatly interests me. I want to emphasize that this topic comprises no more than 20 articles. If necessary, to avoid ambiguity I can provide a list of these articles. However for the moment i'm more interested in those two artciles : This and this one. I would appreciate hearing the community's thoughts on this matter. Thank you.SimoooIX (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No good rationale for amending the TBAN. Please demonstrate the ability to make constructive edits and engage in constructive discussions in areas outside of the TBAN for at least six months, as Cullen explained earlier in this discussion. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Given your attitude to the TBAN as set out on Rosguill's talk page and your infractions of it in such a short time since its inception (plus the other issues highlighted in Rosguill's summary of your track record in their latest post above), you're lucky that there isn't a proposal for further sanction rather than loosening of the existing one. I see from the original ANI thread that one of the issues highlighted was your linkage and misuse of 16th century sources to support your (modern) POV. I would be highly suspicious of your desire to edit other historical subjects of the region, such as the Almohads. DeCausa (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you are making unfounded accusations against me, and I find it frustrating that I cannot defend myself without violating the TBAN. SimoooIX (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * SimoooIX, go edit those articles on ar.wiki. Valereee (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Valereee. Of course I have no intention of ceasing my editing activities on the Arabic Wikipedia under any circumstances. SimoooIX (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Overdue AfDs
If someone has some free time today, Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs isn't a backlog per se but there are way more than normal, including a few that a number of us discussed at ANI & shouldn't close and/or in which we've already !voted. Thank you! Star  Mississippi  13:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've knocked out a few but I have to run for a while, hoping someone else can jump in. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mississippi_in_United_States.svg I handled all the remaining June ones. If anyone thinks I closed with the wrong result feel free to correct it.  NYC Guru (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@ if I'm not sure I'll usually extend it. The Fishtank article was a delete but I wanted to draftify so it can be reviewed and you could just delete the redirect which I forget to speedy tag. NYC Guru (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Could an admin check whether the closure for Articles for deletion/Fishtank (series) is appropriate. It is closed as draftify by a NAC per above, despite it being clearly controversial and IMO requires an admin closure. Moreover, no one supported draftification in the AfD, so I'm very confused how that is a suitable conclusion to draw. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  22:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've re-opened the discussion (per WP:NACD) since it was clearly not straightforward enough for a non-admin closure., in future, please consider leaving "close calls and controversial decisions" for an administrator to close. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your re-opening of the AfD. I also think that Articles for deletion/Gege Gatt (2nd nomination) is another BADNAC, though that is more debatable.  VickKiang  (talk)  03:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC) A DRV was opened fourteen minutes after my comment, so this is now moot as DRV will judge.  VickKiang   (talk)  03:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @VickKiang, the plot just thickened. The article was moved to to Fishtank_(web_series) and AFD retagged.  While the consensus is indeed to delete can we just draftify it to keep the peace?  NYC Guru (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason is because that also thought that your close was not a good NAC, so reverted it per instructions here in an individual admin capacity. This is a standard procedure that requires basically reverting your draftification and your removal of the AfD tag as a procedural step. Afterwards, the AfD is temporarily reopened before  closed it again as redirect. Thanks.  VickKiang   (talk)  08:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, draftify as an alternative to deletion should only be considered if editors in the discussion are suggesting that as a solution. The sockpuppet presence, and a key question being an underarticulated divide over the need for deletion vs. redirect, further made this a bad discussion for an NAC. signed,Rosguill talk 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * mind meltingly humid. I've heard the same for you, so please stay safe. Thanks all on pitching in. I'd forgotten this all tied into Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive353 coming due. (courtesy ) Star   Mississippi  01:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Happy to pitch in. If it helps, up my way it's been just as humid with a periodic mix of wildfire smoke. I don't know how anyone lives further south than my native Connecticut (though I know the feeling is mutual, as a lifelong resident I love the wild temperature swings that make my area so notorious), more power to all of you who manage. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

An appeal for help
I came here to post a request about AFDs and since this is already open, I'll add it here rather than start a new section. About a month ago, I posted a plea on the Village Pump for editors and admins to return to AFD land if they once participated there because we really need more people to help out there. You can see by today's log, Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 7 that next Friday, we'll have 127 discussions to close. This high number of discussions is partly due to the fact that we have to relist so many discussions due to a low level of editor participation or discussions seem deadlocked. We need more editors discussing and evaluating articles and admins and experienced editors to close discussions.

The alternative that I see are to stop relisting discussions that have 0 or 1 participant and close them on the basis of the nomination alone. Personally, I dislike doing that because I think deletion should be determined by a consensus of participating editors but often it becomes a matter of WP:NOQUORUM. So, if you once were an AFD regular participant or closer but you got burned out, please consider returning even in a limited capacity. Your help will be appreciated! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been quite a few years since I've been active in closing AfDs, but when I was, I always treated those AfDs as soft-deletes (effectively PRODs or endorsed PRODs), is that not a thing that is done anymore? ansh. 666 18:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly did the same but have only closed a few AFDs recently and the poor participation in AFD doesn't help as I'd hate us to get to the point where nominations weren't subject to some form of checks and balances Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An AfD with only a nominator's statement is essentially the same thing as an uncontested PROD, and is subject to the same check: the judgement of the closing admin. If the nominator's rationale is sound and you think it's a valid candidate for deletion, go ahead and delete. It got a week on a noticeboard for people to object--which is probably more scrutiny than it would have gotten as a PROD.
 * If the nominator's rationale is dubious, you're not obliged to do anything. But you could comment on the nom, and leave it for another admin. Realistically, if we have large numbers of deletion nominations that aren't getting any participation, clogging the process with relistings isn't going to help. Punting the decision to the following week should probably be more strongly discouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that this is resolved? I'm late to the party, ain't I. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  愛  c ) 22:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * When I've looked a few of times over the last month I've only once found a backlog of the type that used to be endemic when I was doing lots of closures. Just what kind of backlogs are we getting concerned about? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive user Rift
user:Rift has been vandalizing Adom (artist) by taking down notable links regarding a federal judge ruling in court.Then adding a general notable tag and locking it. Preventing this page from showing references. Aslo took down links with billboard top 200 references. https://www.bostonherald.com/2013/08/21/judge-rejects-rockers-bid-to-ban-ex-bandmates-from-using-boston-name/ This user is a clear vandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rift Martytanaki (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Boston when Adom (Anthony Cosmo) was a member of the group and was on the Billbord top 200 https://www.billboard.com/artist/boston/ Martytanaki (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * For anyone interested, Cullen328 p-blocked Martytanaki from Adom (artist) on the 7th, and Daniel Case (not Rift) protected the article on the 8th. The issue would appear to be a content dispute, if Martytanaki hadn't left a legal threat on Rift's talk page Diff. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah… no. Blocked sitewide under NLT. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong closed
The arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong has now closed, and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Scottywong's administrative user rights are removed. Scottywong may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
 * and are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Problem in the page "Patriarchate of Peć (monastery)"
I accidentally started an edit war. Peć is historically a Serbian city in Kosovo. In the page of Patriarchate of Peć (monastery) there was often only the Albanian name of the city, so I added the Serbian name. But, someone still cancel, annull, set aside my edit. I wrote him in the talk page and the User talk page too, but she/he continue to delete my edit. Bruno Romanin (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Consider reporting the issue at the edit warring noticeboard. Struck per comment by IP below and per the reasons why user's edits were reverted - I have apparently forgot to check said user's contributions prior to publishing said comment. Sorry for any subsequent disruption caused. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 14:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Prodraxis This is very very poor advice. No one on that article has broken 3RR, the op has been reverted by multiple other editors, and there were completely valid reasons for their edits to be reverted, such as the fact they deleted large chunks of the infobox and multiple paragraphs of information without explanation.
 * When a 20 edit newbie starts an ill-founded administrative noticeboard thread because they don't understand how dispute resolution works telling them to escalate to other administrative venues is a terrible next step - at best the edit warring thread is going to be closed as no action, at worst they are going to end up getting into more trouble. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, I have forgot to check their contributions before publishing said comment. I reviewed their contributions and I now can see how they are disruptive and against WP:CONS. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 15:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bruno Romanin This is a content dispute, please discuss your edit on the article talk page. You should base the arguments for making the edit in Wikipedia policy (e.g. the article titling policy, WP:AT, relevant portions of the manual of style, WP:MOS) and reliable sources, not vague complaints that the article is "unfair" or nationalistic quotes from tennis players as you did here.
 * Looking at your edits there are a number of issues that would have merited reversion, primary among them you that deleted a load of the infobox and multiple paragraphs about the early history of the monastery from the article without explanation. I also do not think "I added the Serbian name" is an honest way of describing your edit - You completely replaced the Albanian name in many places, in others you made the Serbian name primary and relegated the Albanian name to brackets. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bruno Romanin Also, if you need help or advice with editing in the future you should use the WP:Teahouse or the WP:Help desk, the first of these is a help forum specifically for new users. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1st - I'm not a new user.
 * 2nd - I saw the "infobox" mistake and other similar mistakes, but this is only because I restored my version without seeing that there was new text added. I just wanted to improve the neutrality of the voice. I apologize for the mistakes I've made.
 * 3rd - I never completely replaced the Albanian name with the Serbian one
 * 4th - I put the Serbian name primary because it is the original name.
 * Bruno Romanin (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

move Cyanobacteria to Cyanobacteriota
Hi,

According to this, this is the new name of this phylum, having been changed only a few months ago. I didn't find how to make a page move request (no particular page for such requests), so I try here. Thank you 193.54.167.164 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to request a move. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did, but isn't there something better? I saw Requested_moves but it seems rather inefficient since most requests remain unanswered or simply unseen. 176.159.12.72 (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The closing instructions say that there is no minimum participation necessary. In fact, it says that If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. So if your request goes completely ignored, the move will probably be done. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 07:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IP has started a discussion at Talk:Cyanobacteria, which is the correct venue. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Spam sockfarm - filter / blacklist needed?
Hi all, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Rafybuma. Someone is creating throw-away accounts rapidly to add spam links to gambling sites. They are using proxies, and usually get a new IP for each account, which limits what I can do with CU/range blocks. The MO is to add a real-looking ref, and to sneak in a second link to the spam target as a second ref. Example diffs: here and here. Can someone clever see a way to prevent this with a filter, or by using the blacklist? Thanks Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - the spam sites change frequentyly - it's not always that hitclub site, they're spamming lots of sites (none of which I'm prepared to click on). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added all of the sites to the spam blacklist. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can take a crack at writing a filter that might catch this autogeneration style, but it's going to take some testing for specificity before it can be set to disallow. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we may need a tracker bot if we're to do this. There's not entirely a consistent pattern that I can think of that we could use as a preventative control (there's far too much randomness in the spam), but I do have an idea for a detective control. I'll send an email shortly. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

BBC presenter suspended
The BBC have suspended a male presenter suspended a male presenter over an allegation that he paid a teenager thousands of pounds for sexually explicit photographs. They have not named the presenter, but several names are being banded about on social media. Admins may want to keep a weather eye on our articles about those people to prevent BLP breaches. I note that at least one article affected has been recently semi-protected. This may be needed for other articles. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * May be worth keeping an idea on WP:BLPN, as we keep getting reports of these there. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting choice of source Mjroots... GiantSnowman 16:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just one of many. Plenty out there. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Including the BBC itself, which has included this in its news bulletins since it was announced today. I doubt that this will be out of reliable sources for long (I haven't looked for a few hours so it may already be there), so please let's just wait until then rather than announce the name in advance based on rumour. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, per BLP, "rumour" won't come anywhere near cutting it. Apparently, there's an injunction so unlikely that UK sources will report the name for the time being. Might come up via non-UK sources. DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just privacy law and defamation, according to BBC News at Ten tonight, is the reason for not naming the presenter. No mention of injunction. DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The BBC have an article which goes into the complexities surrounding naming the person etc [//www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66148321]. It notes that even The Sun have been somewhat limited in what details they have said about the allegations. The privacy case mentioned there appears to be this one [//www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/16/bloomberg-loses-uk-supreme-court-case-on-privacy]. Nil Einne (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now named by his wife as Huw Edwards Huw Edwards. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs a reliable source! Secretlondon (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To prevent confusion, it is well sourced, for example it's all over the BBC. Like others perhaps, I don't know what anyone's doing citing GB News. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was the citing of GB news. Secretlondon (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Now that he has been named by many outlets the important thing is for us not to publish anything about Edwards or his alleged victims unless it is very well sourced, which I think needs more than GB News to report it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mjroots, you've twice used GB News as a source about a living person in this discussion, despite it being listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources as "generally unreliable". WP:BLPRS applies to noticeboards too. Could you please respond to the concerns raised about this? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll stand behind this question as well. I don't know whether the use of that source at this noticeboard was an innocent mistake, or whether its use was intended to make a point, but I'm happy to AGF and assume the former. Let's be clear though: this is all covered by the BLP policy, and GB News is not an acceptable source in that ballpark. - please acknowledge that you have taken the point.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that GBNews wasn't considered reliable. As I said earlier, it was just one of many reporting the story. Point taken aboard. Mjroots (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious edits
seems to be making suspicious edits with a focus on China subjects.

1. This edit the user marked as minor, clearly not being a minor edit.

2. This stated "(redundant information and sections, copyright, no citation)" but contained very large edits to a number of sections. I reverted this edit as it looked strange, asking the user to make individual edits.

3. The user then made individual edits (as I had hoped) again making strange edit summaries and removing sources.

4. Here the editor oddly strikes another editor's comments. Wondering was the editor logged into the wrong account and this should be at WP:SPI? Someone might want to look at the IP addresses as well. After doing this AN post I see that Estnot was blocked as sockpupet by.

Looks like WP:SOAP at best. I havent engaged with the editor except posting a note on their talk page just now, then looking more closely got an odd feeling about this.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your message here. This above might actually be nothing as it seems okay. But still, a prudent step forward will be to enter into discussions with the editor concerned on their talk page. I know you have left warnings to the editor, but a templated warning is not seen in the same way as a proper opened section (whether on the user's talk page or on the relevant article's talk page) where you can invite the editor and discuss your issues with their edits. Thanks, Lourdes  06:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * indeed it might be nothing. I thought I would just ping the admins so they can have a look at logs. I think the user will also get the message here as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

User:lowercase sigmabot III is marking a lot of discussions as spams when archiving
See this diff, the bot has marked 27 discussions as “[t]his appears to be spam” while none appears to be spam. Since the bot makes a lot of edits, I can’t check if this happened to other archive pages as well. <span style="font-family:system-ui,Inter,-apple-system,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">NM 23:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Northern Moonlight, the bot doesn't mark discussions as spam. Instead, this appears to be an improperly used hat template that was used in a discussion the bot archived, as seen [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Mason_University&oldid=841423159#Karl_Rove here].


 * hat should be placed below the section heading. In this case, it was placed above it, so the bot considered it to be a part of the previous discussion thread. As such, when the previous discussion was archived, the bot copied the hat to the archive page, but not the hab which closed it. The hatted discussion wasn't signed and did not have a timestamp, so the bot did not archive it.


 * The end result is that an unclosed hat was copied over to the archive page, and thus collapsed every discussion beneath it.


 * In the future, this should be reported to User talk:Lowercase sigmabot III, not here. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 23:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the owner of the bot has no activity for well over a year, which is why I went straight here. What’s the right course of action here? Post on their talk page and wait? <span style="font-family:system-ui,Inter,-apple-system,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">NM 00:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are 328 page watchers on that talk page; I'm sure it'll be noticed. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 00:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I’ll do that next time. <span style="font-family:system-ui,Inter,-apple-system,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">NM 00:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * People can be both inactive and reachable at the same time :) Legoktm (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! This account is confirmed sockpuppet of. AlPaD (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @AlPaD, locally I can confirm as well User:Tech maniac92. Blocked locally. Courcelles (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed
The arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:


 * For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Backlog
Has anyone seen WP:RFPP ? - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It needs archiving, but the bot appears to not be working. The archive page is a bit too large for my computer to handle, though. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, missed that :P  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the malfunctioning bot makes it harder to easily see what still needs examining. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Any backlog should be cleared now. From the older requests, I haven't acted on the article XHDTV-TDT. I'd appreciate if someone with a good computer could archive all the resolved requests. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

User:basedpalestine
Request admin action against for WP:DISRUPTONLY and WP:WHYBLOCK. For example, see this edit. Longhornsg (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked Basedpalestine for overt threats of violence. Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

User Flowersjulie
Not sure what I have done to them but ... - take a look at their edits. not sure how to describe this? Gbawden (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They have been blocked as a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Gbawden (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowitz
This page has been on several noticeboards throughout the years, for COI, OR, SYNTH, PAID, etc. Here's an old discussion from ANI, Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive910. I don't know what else can be done but thought some more eyes on this would be appropriate. Right now the page reads as a hagiography. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Help needed at SPI
WP:SPI is chronically backlogged, and historically this is the time of the year when things are worst. This year is no exception; we've got some cases that were filed 3 months ago. So, if you're an admin looking for things to do, please consider coming over to WP:SPI and helping us work through the backlog as a patrolling admin. RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Summer vacations are hereby prohibited (, that includes you!). Lazing around in parks, either alone or with your family, will be reported to the authorities (, what were you thinking?). All holidays (in the American sense) are cancelled forthwith! Any admin who does not respond immediately to Roy's call, shall be included in the ArbCom case calling for removal of their permissions. This list of prohibitions, etc., is subject to expansion without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Watching the Tour, . Drmies (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take a stab at a few over the weekend. Hopefully others heed the call, too! --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In case anyone else besides me was wondering how they could help: Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions - jc37 13:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I remember doing some things to help out there in the past, but this is seeming more complicated than I remember. And reading that page, and a few sub-pages, I'm still not entirely comfortable that I understand what is wanted lol. Does someone have a "Simple Wikipedia" short version of how an admin can jump in the shallow end of the pool to get their feet wet first? : ) - jc37 13:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps go to Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Cases and look at the caes marked in green (CU completed). Those are typically cases where a checkuser did a technical investigation but couldn't make a determination on the technical data alone so they need somebody to dive into the behavioral side.
 * A relatively simple one might be AHTaxCrediter.  ran a check, found that the technical data doesn't indicate they're socks, but left the case open, presumably for somebody to take another look at the behavior.  So I'd start by diving into the edit histories of the three accounts and see what you can see.   left their own analysis, which you may or may not agree with. RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your first two sentences in particular helped a lot to help concretely focus things. Thank you. I'll go look again in a little bit. - jc37 14:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for stealing your thunder—I've gone ahead and closed out the Sockpuppet investigations/AHTaxCrediter case. I suppose I read RoySmith's comment a little too quickly, and for some reason I didn't glean that this was intended to be a sort of exercise for jc37. I personally enjoy doing the technical and behavioral evaluation at the same time, so I'm surprised that I decided to use the green "CU completed" category in this case—I must've been feeling a little indecisive at the time. In this particular case, I wouldn't have complained loudly if we applied blocks, but we are now in the middle of July, and the last edit from those accounts was June 1. Because we may unfortunately be past the point of WP:PREVENTATIVE, I closed the case without blocking the accounts. If I were to offer a suggestion, in my experience the "easiest" cases are the most recently filed ones in the beige-colored "Open" category (the table is sorted in chronological order by category, with the most recently filed cases appearing towards the bottom of the table). Before I became I checkuser, I remember that was where I was most likely to find straightforward cases. The green "CU completed" cases tend to be a bit more challenging, but that is definitely the category we need the most help with. Mz7 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries and thank you for the suggestions : ) - jc37 19:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the bottom line is to just jump in and ask questions when something doesn't make sense. If you're on IRC, #wikipedia-en-spi-clerks is a great resource. RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Tried to join just now. That IRC channel is invite only. It is not bundled into the default admin channels. Perhaps it should be if you intend it to be a help channel for new patrolling SPI admins. Up to y'all. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I plead complete ignorance of the inner working of IRC, but I'll see if I can get you an invite to the channel. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm told you should be good to go now. RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Uhoh. I've been recruited. Guess I have no choice but to help out now :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there should be an admin draft. Get a new mop and all the places that need admins get to bid on your services.  Kind of like a cross between the The Draft and The Match.  None of this floundering around and doing whatever interests you.  You go where we tell you. RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looked at a couple, although not sure how helpful the closes were as they seemed more stale than needing action. Happy to learn in this area. Star   Mississippi  00:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

, I tackled a few cases. I'm not sure I understand why "closed" cases are still on that list, though--will they disappear after someone presses a button? Drmies (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * After a clerk or CU archives them. People like me aren't allowed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to expand on that, there's a final review during the archiving process as a quality control process. RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added Administrative backlog just now, which will add that page to Category:Administrative backlog, which will hopefully get the attention of admins that patrol that category looking for backlogs to crush :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I did one, and looked at quite a few others. To say this can be a fair amount of work, depending on the situation, is an understatement. Everyone who helps out there, clearly deserves a kudos. - jc37 21:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed none of the requests are awaiting checkuser. 16 are in "CU requested" state and I offered a weak opinion on whether I think CU is justified. If people think I should just act on that, let me know. I strongly expect clerks to rule differently than me in some cases so I'd rather hear from them. 5 are "Awaiting clerk". 50 are "CU completed" and 31 are "Open". I may be mistaken but I don't think that backlog is waiting on checkusers. Please let me know if you think I'm missing categories where a CU could specifically help out, don't want to overstep. Barring that, I'll start digging in to the "Open" cases (as a regular admin) this week and try to make a dent in them. It is indeed a big list. --Yamla (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In theory, cases progress through "CU requested" -> "Endorsed" -> "Checked". In practice, we seem to have evolved away from that workflow.  I see very few endorsements.  When I do see that a clerk has endorsed a case, I tend to jump on it quickly, but otherwise I mostly peruse the "CU requested" and "Open" cases to see if there's any I'm already familiar with and work on those. RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really helpful context! --Yamla (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Requesting second pair of eyes at User:Movaigonel‎
I've handed a second escalating block to Movaigonel for repeated violation of WP:GS/AA Remedy A. I would appreciate further admin input here, particularly to a) assess whether an indefinite block or tban is needed and b) field further appeals by Movaigonel, as while I am fully uninvolved in editing any of the related pages except as administrative responses, Movaigonel is likely to interpret further enforcement of the general sanctions restriction as an attempt to suppress their political perspective and will likely respond better to other editors. With that in mind, I went with the most-lenient option of an escalating 2-week block, although I think normally in such situations I would seriously consider handing out a broader and/or indefinite sanction for jumping back into prohibited BATTLEGROUND behavior so soon after coming off of a prior block. signed,Rosguill talk 14:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have EC Protected Articles for deletion/Battle of Salyan per WP:GS/AA and dropped a note reiterating the points you already made, just so that they don't imagine that it's just "one person's opinion". Don't see any issues with your blocks etc, except for the small bureaucratic matter that  may not be the correct template to use for WP:GS/AA enforcement (I don't offhand know what would be the appropriate template). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe Template:Gs/sanction? Courcelles (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry, that's for an editing restriction. For a block it should be Template:Uw-csblock. Courcelles (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be the prefect fit. Although since the topic area is also covered by WP:ARBAA2, Rosguill issuing the block as an AE block is also justified. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, enforcing the overlapping sanctions (AA, as well as GSRUSUKR being a subset of ARBEE) makes figuring out where to log a coin-flip. As to the editor in question, I kind of think someone should have invoked the Arbcom version of the sanctions and just topic-banned them.  Given they are aware. Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do so as far as I am concerned, particularly following their more recent talk page responses that demonstrate an attitude of negligence towards reading up on our rules for editing A-A topics. I'm standing down because it feels like too many bites at the apple from me, and because while I could be justified in saving the community time by enacting a topic ban now, they are much more likely to challenge such a ban if I impose it, which would waste more community time whether or not the outcome is to uphold the ban. signed,Rosguill talk 17:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Question
Is the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org email still being watched? I submitted two cases a while ago (May 10 and June 9) but haven't gotten any response from either. Perhaps its another chronically backlogged queue? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If I recall, that email address is basically just an alias for 's email. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also experienced this. How else are non-admins supposed to report paid editing without violating our WP:OUTING policy? I submitted a report in March and have not yet heard back. It's frustrating. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies backlog
After this backlog report back in April, I've been working through the rather lengthy backlog at WikiProject on open proxies/Requests, with some reports going back January of this year. There's currently 8 cases that I've flagged for administrator assistance for blocks (mix of range and single IP blocks), and I'd appreciate it if someone with the mop could help out with those. I've already done most of the hard work, I just don't have the tools to actually press the shiny block button. There's also 7 cases where I've asked for a second opinion, and if you have experience in this area I'd appreciate if those could be given a look at. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Sound of Freedom" talk page is becoming a forum
Sorry to bother you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film) More than 40 edits wee done in less than 2 hours, most of them are atacks between editors. https://i.ibb.co/6rcMMpy/image.png Alcyon007 (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I had already taken the page off my watchlist because of the disruption occurring there, and I felt I was being baited into saying something actionable. We definitely need admins to weigh in on that page and wrangle it back. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added that page to my watchlist. I have no interest in the subject matter but am more than willing to keep an eye on it. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I archived some of the earlier discussions but the most sprawling discussion is the RFC. I do know there is a template for article talk pages that says not to use them as a forum but I don't know how to even search for it. Are any admins aware of this template and can provide a link or place it on the talk page themselves? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does not a forum fit the bill? NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 04:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Notaforum" template added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Doubt that would help anything, Krimuk2.0 seems to be there solely to troll other editors and templates dont work on trolls. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An IP whose personal attacks had to be deleted by someone else is accusing people of "trolling"? :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to agree. Krimuk is absolutely trying to goad others, parroting warnings back (even if it makes no sense to do so), and generally trying to get under other editor's skin. I left the Talk page because they're clearly trying to bait us into saying something actionable. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're back to taunting me at another page. Please do something constructive for a change. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aaaand there's a prime example. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk about mooning the jury. I'm blocking for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the block notice reads indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I fixed that. I have no idea what happened there, I definitely meant to set it to a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * With Blade's acquiescence, Courcelles has unblocked with conditions, including staying away from the page in question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to engage further, but I just want to pen down what I think about this situation.
 * As I understand it, an editor who has contributed to Wikipedia for over a decade, and having written dozens of featured content, can be termed disruptive simply for having a disagreement and resorting to sarcasm to deal with it?
 * As I pointed out, my last edit on the talk page was a day and a half before this block and I have only made two edits on the article itself: this and this, which was on 15th July! So, there were no active disagreements at the time of the block, which was done totally out of the blue without preamble or debate. Even the terms of the unblock (to stay away from the page) is something that I have followed a full day and a half before the block.
 * So why exactly was I blocked? Does an editor of long-standing on this website have so little value that sarcasm to deal with conflict gets them blocked? We have all had heated discussions in the past, and in the absence of personal attacks/edit-wars/socking, a block does not solve anything other than display domination over a weaker player. Why would we contribute here when all's required from us is obeisance and a refusal to see the human behind an editor who has given so much to the site? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sound of Freedom is a CTOP area and so it's especially important all editors should do the best to keep the ratio of heat to light low. I think we can forgive a little sarcasm when an editor unfortunately briefly loses their cool, but when it's turns into so many comments of it, many of them clearly unproductive and a lot of it just plain silly (especially the smiley stupidity); not so much. That said, a better solution might have just been a partial block from the article and talk page. Or maybe an alert if necessary and some sort of topic ban via CTOP. Still when an editor is behaving so unproductive, and comes to AN and repeats the same thing, they shouldn't be surprised if they end up blocked. If you manner of handling conflict and disagreement is to descend into continuous sarcasm to the point where your comments often become completely unproductive, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. And especially not in CTOP areas on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See, I stopped editing there entirely a day and a half before the block was imposed. So how did the block help anyone? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think a day and a half, after several days of continually largely unproductive editing, is an indication the behaviour is going to stop; your experience with Wikipedia sounds to be a lot less than you're making it out to be. In any case, it's a moot point, since even if you were going to stop that silliness on the Sound of Freedom page, you came to this very page to continue it. And this was after you'd had a day and a half to calm down and per your statement had put the conflict behind you so there was absolutely no excuse for you resorting to the same behaviour on this very page. Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "after several days of continually largely unproductive editing" -- i edited on the talk page for two days (and made just two edits on the article itself), which was a fraction of the edits I made at the same time building up other pages. Also, same behaviour here? I told someone to stop taunting me on this page, after the episode was behind us both, and to focus on other constructive endeavours as I was doing. That's it. How is that a disruption? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Unacceptable WP:NPA by User:Tony1
Telling me to go to hell because they got reverted when they changed my words in a Signpost piece.

This came out of nowhere, and I do not care for that sort of interaction or language. Block them. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the Signpost article is rather unique on Wikipedia as being by-lined, it seems like it shouldn't be open to direct community editing, as it is the signed work of a particular person. It would seem that suggestions on its talk page for changes would be a better approach. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to want to copy-edit it, I've merged many of their suggestions before they reverted that too (puzzingly restoring a prior version of mine). It's quite another to tell people to go to hell over it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time I've seen Tony1 completely over-react to something and go off the rails. He's a great copyeditor; why does he want to undo his reputation in ways like this? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Go to hell" is not a personal attack, any more that "Fuck off" is a personal attack. See WP:NPA: a personal attack is a derogatory/disparaging comment about another editor. To say "go to hell" or "fuck off" does not say anything about another editor. They are rude expressions, and Tony1 might have been more polite, but he did not personally attack anybody. As for the copyedits, yes, Tony is a great copyeditor, who excels particularly in changing fancy wording to plain, clear wording. For example, in this context he changed "Prior to 2008" to "Before 2008". I don't understand why you would revert such a change, ; for my money, it was an obvious improvement. I wouldn't have told somebody to go to hell over your reverts, but I do understand why Tony's justifiable pride in his prose skills was hurt. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC).
 * "Go to hell", combined with "ignorant writing", is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL and is certainly a personally attack. And whatever pride that was supposedly hurt is in no way more important than behaving like an adult.
 * As for why I would revert 'Before 2008' to 'Prior to 2008', it's because there is no substantive difference between either, and whichever you prefer is a matter of taste. And since it's my article, I get to pick which words are used to say what I want to say. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In a departure from usual practice, I'm going to have to disagree with Bishonen. Firstly, my opinion (emphasis, this is my personal view, others can disagree as much as they like etc etc) is that Signpost articles are personal essays or writing, and the guidelines are roughly analogous with talk page guidelines ie: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to copy edit others' posts. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." So while I don't think it's a problem with somebody stating the converse opinion ie: Signpost articles can and should be improved by other editors as and when required, I don't think either of those opinions is policy, so it's a judgement call.
 * On the civility front, I think I've definitely changed my views on this over the last few years since Eric Corbett was finally booted off the site. Firstly, arguing about 'x' is a personal attack is a complete and utter waste of time (for example, I find some of the things Jacob Rees-Mogg utters to be offensive and he never uses the f-word); the important thing is is the comment likely to help in resolving the dispute? In this case, no it probably isn't. It's not a blockable offence, but it does make me scratch my head and wonder what on earth Tony expected to achieve by saying that? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you said they're *roughly* analogous, but a major difference between the Signpost and talk page guidelines is that on the Signpost it's OK to fix other editors' typos/spelling errors, clearly unintentional slip-ups with word usage (e.g. extra/repeated words), etc., because the Signpost articles are being published in a sense (as part of the magazine). I've been doing those sorts of edits to Signpost articles for many years and no-one's ever had a problem with them, but if I did things like that to talk page comments people would rightly raise a fuss. There's also Tony's comments in his userspace at ... and your first comment here. Graham 87  13:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also at Wikipedia Signpost/About, it says: "We welcome post-publication edits such as grammatical and spelling corrections to articles, subject to review by the Signpost team; we value our readers' efforts to correct simple mistakes and provide needed clarifications." While looking into this a bit more, I noticed this dummy spit on the Signpost talk page by Tony. Graham 87 13:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I too welcome copy-editing and have made tweaks to published pieces. I don't, however, welcome changes in style or vocabulary just because someone prefer other words. Again, I took about half of Tony1's changes on board. The others were arbitrary, or just wrong. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ritchie, I too thought made a very good point about the byline. But the thing is, Headbomb didn't seem to agree with that point, since they replied "It's one thing to want to copy-edit it, I've merged many of their suggestions". That was why I didn't mention BMK's point. My view, then, is more specifically that if Headbomb didn't want to be copyedited, that should be respected — but they seemed to not object to it. And "Go to hell" still isn't a PA. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC).
 * Oh right, well in that case this looks like a plain ol' content dispute to me. So yeah, Tony shouldn't have over-reacted, Headbomb should have brushed it off (cf. WP:NPA "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact." and not coming running to ANI over it. Overall, this looks like a tempest in a teapot to me. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FUCKSCONTEXT, "fuck off" definitely can be sanctionable: "most of us agree that 'fuck off' is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions". Politrukki (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked
Contrary to some views expressed above, I think that telling a fellow editor to "go to hell" is incivil and a personal attack; it is unacceptable conduct under any circumstances. Considering that Tony1 has not replied to this thread, and has instead attempted to justify their conduct, I am blocking them to prevent the reoccurrence of such conduct. Considering that they have a long block log for similar conduct, and that the last block for personal attacks or harassment (in 2019) had a duration of 2 weeks, I have set the duration of the block to 2 weeks also. As far as I am concerned, administrators are free to act on an unblock request by Tony1 that contains a credible commitment not to repeat such conduct.  Sandstein  13:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sandstein, I believe this is the correct response. However I must say that if I was reverted (like ) then I would also be upset. Tony1's version was superior is most regards and he should have been thanked not reverted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I must stress that I took on about half the changes Tony1 made, changes that went well beyond fixing dashes, like the edit summary said. The other half were all arbitrary or just plain wrong. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Contrary to some views expressed above, I think that telling a fellow editor to "go to hell" is incivil and a personal attack" So you unilaterally blocked somebody when you knew there was no consensus to do so and multiple editors opposed it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you think we should tolerate editors telling people to go to hell? Because I don't. We are trying to develop a collegiate and collaborative atmosphere &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really, but equally the way to deal with the situation is to de-escalate it, which this doesn't do. cf. WP:NPA "However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project .... Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment: a block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given Tony's history particularly with Signpost, do you truly believe that this type of behavior will not continue? Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If telling someone to go to hell isn't a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, nothing is. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

With respect to 's concerns above regarding lack of consensus to block, I would like to point out two things: First, blocks (like unblocks) do not require consensus. Second, the conduct at issue does not only violate community conduct policies, but also the Foundation-level code of conduct, which is not subject to local community consensus. This UCoC prohibits harassment, defined as "any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome", notably insults, as in this case. All editors and administrators are required to observe this policy. According to the enforcement guidelines, "Consistent local decisions that conflict with the UCoC" and "Refusal to enforce the UCoC" may result in Foundation-level enforcement action. In my view, a failure by administrators to act on the report by Headbomb would constitute a refusal to enforce the UCoC. A block was therefore required irrespective of local consensus (or lack thereof).  Sandstein  14:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you equating "administrators not blocking in response to a report" with "a failure by administrators to act on the report " and hence "a refusal to enforce the UCoC"? That doesn't make sense to me unless one regards blocking as the only possible response to a report. Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I really dislike this interpretation of the interpretation of not blocking. I saw this thread posted as I was lying in bed last night, and decided to just turn off my tablet rather than posting or taking any action.  Even had I thought it deserved action (I didn't), all of us have been admins long enough to know not to do anything truly controversial before going away for hours.  Given how long it was posted, many other admins must have read it and decided to do nothing.  Doing nothing is always a possibility with admin tools, so to frame it as a "refusal to enforce the UcoC" and hint at WMF-enforcement action is overkill. Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Doing nothing is always a possibility, yes, if only because we are all volunteers here. But opposing appropriate action to protect colleagues from harassment is, in my view, a dereliction of duty.  Sandstein   17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of room between doing nothing and blocking! For example, I would have preferred de-escalotory actions. I wouldn't have spoken up if you had blocked and labelled it as justifiable. But your claim that it is "required" by UCoC or any other wikipedia policy is IMO simply wrong. I hope you'll think it over and scratch the last few sentences of your reasoning in your 14:54 post. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In the light of what I have read in the news today, I find it outrageous to refer to Tony's intemperate message as "harassment". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocks do not require consensus, but it's completely inappropriate to block when there's an admin consensus (i.e. at least two out of three; did not register an opinion) against it. Unblock, please, Sandstein. Why do you think your opinion outweighs Ritchie's plus mine? And your subsuming Tony's post under the WMF's definition of "harassment" is also pure unadulterated opinion, with which I, for one, disagree. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC).
 * FWIW I was surprised by the block (the idea never even crossed my mind) but I understand Sandstein's reasoning ... whether I entirely agree with it I'm not sure, given the other text in this section. However, I'd have to recuse from or strongly caveat a !vote of this nature due to my past history with Tony. So count me as still on the fence. Feel free to move my comment or something ... I can never figure out where to place comments like this. Graham 87 18:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I encountered this discussion shortly after it was posted, so I'd had a lot of time to think about it. I was going to stay out of the whole thing (as is my usual practice; I'm a perennial lurker) but it seems like clarification of the usual Signpost copyediting practices was necessary. I have no special position with the Signpost but I'm just a long-time reader and dabbler there. Graham 87 18:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there was or is a consensus against the block, notably including my own opinion. Regardless, WP:CIVIL and the UCoC are policies not subject to derogation by local consensus. Administrators have a duty to protect colleagues from harassment, even if other administrators - entirely irresponsibly in this case - disagree. We are all entitled to a safe, collegial working environment, if only because our cooperative project cannot succeed without it.  Sandstein   17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment This feels like a legal threat, albeit just waving the only notionally legally enforceable UCoC at us as a threat. I feel chilled. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add my voice to saying I think this block was excessive. Tony was snippy, sure.  He's been snippy in the past, as well, at least based off the block log.  I think it just stretches the definition of "harassment" too far to apply it to a single "go to hell" comment.  Tony was annoyed at Headbomb and expressed his annoyance in a way that's not at all good, but he wasn't harassing Headbomb, by a reasonable definition.  Nor did he cross the line into personal attacks.  I guess my rambling point is I can't say Tony was not at fault in making the comment, but that two weeks is too much, IMO. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the merits of this particular block, bringing in the UCoC feels like wikilawyering, especially because, as far as I am aware, there is no local consensus that admins actually have authority to enforce it. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Unblocked. According to Sandstein, admins who don't support his block are thereby being "irresponsible". OK, in view of the other admin comments here, and after Sandstein's attack on a fast-growing number of his colleagues, and his elevation of his own opinion to a higher plane, I feel completely justified in unblocking without any formality. In a minute, I will unblock Tony1. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC).
 * Good. The UCoC rationale wasn’t acceptable, one Admin’s opinion of it isn’t good enough to block. Perhaps we need an uninvolved Admin to close this. Doug Weller  talk 18:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's more than one admin supporting this block, and in what world do you live that telling people to go to hell over commas isn't a gross/egretious violation of WP:CIVIL and a blockable offense. Please restore it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless Bishonen self-reverts, any admin restoring the block now would be wheel warring and get dragged off to Arbcom and have their admin tools yanked from them. It's not going to happen. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Headbomb I'm not saying no block is justified, just arguing about the rationale invoking the UCoC. Doug Weller  talk 14:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha, did you stick out your tongue at the end as well? PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a good deal of merit in Ritchie333's comment about unproductive dialogue, and that's a useful lens with which to view Sandstein's block. On the most favorable view of the block itself and Sandstein's justification for it, the temperature was going to go up, not down. It might be best if everyone disengages. Folks say that Tony1 has a history of being "snippy." It would be better if he relegated that to the past. Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

For posterity, I absolutely do not believe that the UCOC requires an admin to block an editor for a personal attack. Blocks are just one tool in the toolbox, and to imply that there was really no choice but to block is either rhetorical gamesmanship, or a serious misunderstanding. I'm very confident I would not have blocked in this situation. I probably would have chickened out and not unblocked either, but that's out of a lack of stomach for arguing, not a disagreement with the unblock. There is much on both sides of the rest of this discussion that puzzles/bemuses me, but I'll leave that for others. But the mian point is, while we're apparently bound by the UCOC, it does not require a block as the only solution. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

... and back to the main issue
I went back and had a look at some of the previous threads discussing Tony1's conduct, in particular Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive73 which, looking at it with a fresh pair of eyes today, is just beyond the pale. I also noticed the related ANI thread where I went from thinking a block was excessive to being convinced it was justifiable - although I do note Tony subsequently backed down and was unblocked. I see parallels with that discussion from 2019 and the one today, in that Tony1 seemed to react completely disproportionately and shout abuse at editors for no justifiable reason. I think the principal difference from today, is that this wasn't as egregious as back then, and - importantly - Tony1 has not continued to be abusive; indeed, his last comment before the block today was perfectly civil and polite.

Nevertheless, I don't think this discussion is over as Tony1 hasn't logged on since before the block to give his views and react to it. I hope that he'll ignore it and do something else; however, my fear is that on past experience, that may not happen. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As a small history lesson from an old-timer who was there back in the day (2005, 2006, 2007), Tony was one of the people that set the current standards for FA, elevating it from what then known as WP:Brilliant Prose and comprising of articles which could today be charitably described as B-Class. It was a transitional phase for wiki; and his (almost singled handedly) asking for/(ok...demanding) clear and precise prose coincided with the then new requirement for inline citations...(getting out my pipe and slippers in remembrance) lead to a very deep, divisive and bitter bloodbaths on a number of fronts. Then Tony's eh..."direct" manner was a *huge* benefit to the project. Nowadays, whether newer nominators know it or not, the FAC writing style is mostly grounded in the series of style guides he laid down early on, eg Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing (which I devoured at the time).
 * Re the 2019 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive73 archive that Richie mentions above; I though that was a disgrace at the time: if people are going to nom at FAC, they need to expect to be judged by FAC standards. Does Tony need to tone down: yes. Since Richie brings up FAC: are skilled reviewers like Tony still needed? Yes. To quote the closing FAC co-ord on that spat - "A sensible takeaway would have been the message that Tony's reviews are valued but ample consensus that his tone and demeanor are sometimes unhelpful. Unfortunately much of what's been said here isn't sensible or helpful." (emp mine). Disclosure: I consider both Tony and Richie as wiki-friends. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A skilled reviewer also possess basic human interaction skills. I'd rather suffer a stray comma than a deluge of incivility and insults. And let's not forget that Tony1 is human. He too makes mistakes, and his opinions are not binding on the project.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but its where we disagree. I'm always grateful for a skilled copy edit which I tend not to blind revert and then rush to AN/I over a single talk page blowback. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again for the eleventy billionth time, this was not blindly reverted. I merged about half of Tony's copy edits, when he weirdly reverted me to remove them all. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You blind reverted....the edit summary was "This goes well beyond dash fixing, but i'll copy edit some". A person that was actually interested in working to improve wording would have engaged him after his first talk post (easy); somebody uninterested and defensive would have rushed to AN (hard, lead to a block and drama). Again, I disagree with that kind of approach. Dunno, might be an ability to work with other people thing. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think "but i'll copy edit some" means here? Followed by the merging of about 50% of the copy edits?
 * Additionally if someone tells you to go to hell of something as trivial as that, you cannot have reasonable discourse with them. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, you've always been somebody I respected, maybe even somebody have seen as *wise* over the years!:)!! but this seems like over-reaction tbh, that could have been resolved easily with either of ye engaging on a talk pg discussion. This is one of those I hate it when people I respect fight situations...so go figure. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To move this on, good unblock by Bishonen, with no prejudice to Headbomb. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: "Brilliant prose" was renamed in January 2004 but Tony's first edit was in July 2005. Graham 87 08:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. I understand from personal experience that it can be very unpleasant when someone shows up at your talkpage with a needlessly belligerent, combative attitude. And, whether or not Tony's comment constituted a literal personal attack on the semantic level, it was undeniably uncivil. If I had said those words to another editor, I would fully expect to be blocked even though, unlike Tony, I've never been sanctioned for personal attacks. So, while I have doubts about the manner in which the block was applied (the UCOC bit seems especially unhelpful), it's hard for me to see how that comment didn't warrant some kind of sanction. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

To move this to a conclusion...
...as Tony1 won't comment here.
 * Was Sandstein's block against consensus?: There is no consensus that consensus was required in a discussion seeking consensus for action against Tony.
 * Is "Go to hell" a pa?: Yes!
 * Is Tony1 saying "Go to hell" a pa?: No!
 * Uncivil?: Ok
 * Is being uncivil prohibited by policy and terms of use?: Yes!
 * Is Tony1's uncivil behaviour blockable?: No!
 * Is Tony1's uncivil behaviour sanctionable?: We'll let you know.
 * Is "Go fuck off" a pa?: Depends on which side you are facing when you are told so.
 * Can we all fuck off and close this discussion as whatever has happened has happened?: Please don't block me. Remember, context is important.

On a serious note, let's all move on from here. Tony1 is a great editor, but should learn that he can't simply say these statements repeatedly. It'll be sad to lose him as an editor due to a community sanction, if he continues like this. Thanks, Lourdes  08:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, during this thread and before I was aware of the further blowout at ArbCom, I issued a "thanks" (via the button) to Headbomb for his edit to the article Clinical trial. It was a good edit I coincidentally happened upon, and I thought it was a nice thing to do given how this has gone crazy-nuclear. I overreacted at the time we were both annoyed at each other, and it's a good feeling to calm the waters—even the smallest kindness is worth it. Needs to melt away so we can all get on with our tasks. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  13:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * what's wrong with Spintendo's edits here?  SN54129  13:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored the remaining text that must have been accidentally removed; some had been put back before me. Graham 87 13:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for restoring 's edits. You may be right that they were removed accidentally, but combined with the bizarre edit summary—Even the smallest personal kindness is worth it, which seems to obfuscate rather than clarify—I think some context can justifiably be requested.  SN54129  13:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear to me that the text removal was an accident. The phrase "the smallest kindness is worth it" appears in his post up above. Graham 87 13:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would have been nicer to just say sorry a while back, saving everyone ...what happened next. DeCausa (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * is right that it ought to now be safe for us to de-escalate, close this, and move on. The lessons seem to have been taken to heart; any further prolonging of this thread risks leading to another flare-up (from any party involved or uninvolved) which we do not need. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That ship may have sailed. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh good lord. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up: administrative action review
I have asked for a review of Bishonen's unblock at Administrative action review. Please leave any comments there.  Sandstein  10:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at WP:NOT
There was an RfC. It was closed. Those on one side of the debate didn't agree with the close and appear to be edit warring with the closer. It could probably use uninvolved attention.

Don't really care about the subject of the RfC myself (I didn't participate), but edit warring on a policy page by people involved in the dispute is a bad look. Perhaps someone would like to actually challenge the closure the proper way rather than play "whoever's most tenacious in reverting and most fluent in wikilegalese wins". &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * See also: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Please feel free to unify the 2 threads if wanted. - jc37 15:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note also that the closer opened an ANI discussion two minutes before this AN discussion was opened, here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. Feel free to hat/remove/whatever this one. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. I appreciate your comments. To quote Ferris Bueller: "Life moves fast..." : ) - jc37 15:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Challenge close Talk:COVID-19_pandemic
This post challenges RFC close relating to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic. History: Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. I ran RFC Talk:COVID-19_pandemic in which the RFC contained a specific proposal. A number of votes in the proposal ignored the specific proposal or complained about the procedure of running and RFC to unwind an earlier consensus that was formed through RFC. Essentially these votes either ignored the RFC specific proposal (arguing other procedural claims) or didnt agree that an RFC be used to change the consensus, making these votes largely off topic or nonsensical. Of course an RFC is used to unwind an earlier RFC. These votes should have been ignored as off topic. After those votes are ignored, then the clear consensus is obviously to remove the defacto ban that currently exists on the article. We dont use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to determine that an RFC is not the appropriate venue to remove the consensus of an earlier RFC. "There were substantial procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion" in that the closer admitted down-weighting a majority of votes and went with the editor's own interpretation.
 * 2. requested an experienced editor to close the RFC at  Closure_requests
 * 3. closed the RFC noting himself his vote counts (himself stating the votes were 11 vs 9. The user found so-called consensus by admitting he down-weighted the WP:NOTCENSORED votes. Therefore I "believe the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;"
 * 4. Two editors (the editor who requested the close Nemov) and myself both voiced our displeasure with the close at Wikipedia:Closure_requests with Nemov declining to seek review.


 * Comment for point #3 — I did not "count myself" in any way. I assume this is a misunderstanding. Jtbobwaysf had at one point stated that there were eight editors in opposition, and may have incorrectly assumed that my count of nine included myself; it did not. Editors I noted in opposition included: mfb, Ozzie10aaaa, Shobbolethink, XOR'easter, The void century, Paleo Neonate, AndrewRG10, Bon courage, and Mx. Granger. I am guessing that Jtbobwaysf failed to note Mx. Granger's opposition; this is ultimately moot because I discarded arguments made by Mx. Granger (and Paleo Neonate) when determining consensus. Combefere  ★  Talk  22:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment was based off your statement in which you said: "By my math it was 11 supporting and 9 against, but it's also not a vote." at Closure_requests. I didnt mean you counted yourself, but I do assert that by discarding the censorship votes you have allowed your view to be the most important. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You struck your comments leaving "count myself" in quotes. Are you quoting me? I think it would be more useful if you could explain how you went from a majority in favor to a majority against? It was simply through down-weighting votes that mentioned censorship? Is there a policy that supports this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I originally interpreted your quote "noting himself his vote counts" as a claim that I had "counted myself" or "counted my own vote" in the closing. Since you have confirmed that this was not your meaning, I struck the rest of the comment. I now understand your meaning of "his vote counts" as 'his accounting of the vote totals' and not 'he counted himself as a voter.'
 * I didn't intend to relitigate here, just to clarify that quote above. I believe my comments in the closing summary and at closure requests[note] sufficiently explain my finding of no consensus. Uninvolved editors will have enough information in those links to review the close. See also WP:NHC and WP:NOTVOTE for a better understanding of how closing editors determine consensus.
 * [note] the links above to the RfC and the discussion at WP:CR have become broken due to archiving
 * Combefere ★  Talk  06:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Links updated 16:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Downweighting NOTCENSORED arguments seems reasonable, as NOTCENSORED is a policy about why we don't remove content merely for being objectionable, not about why any particular content should be included. People make this argument all the time when something is excluded from an article, and it is always given little weight. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not censored says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so." and this RFC was to remove the mechanism that was employed to restrict objectionable content (in this case a theory on the origin of the virus). The primary scope of the RFC was not to propose new content, although some editors sought clarification of an example on what the new content might be. The idea that respondents pointing to a wikipedia policy on censorship, when the very RFC is about a specific de-facto policy supporting censorship, should be considered banal and not at all a reason to down-weight votes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A discussion concluded that COVID-19 pandemic should not mention the COVID-19 lab leak theory, and this WP:AN report concerns an RfC that proposed overturning that result. The RfC close was "no consensus" and correctly pointed out that those using WP:NOTCENSORED as a reason to include the lab leak theory misunderstand NOTCENSORED. Consider any disagreement about whether something should be mentioned in an article—NOTCENSORED cannot allow those wanting inclusion to always win. NOTCENSORED is saying that penis will include a picture of a penis regardless of whether some readers find the images objectionable or offensive as that would not be a reason to remove them. Arguments over whether content should be included have to be based on the merits of the content in question. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if someone says: and people response  The other side doesn't just get to say  and add a 100 image gallery. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you want to bring this closer to the original question let's imagine for some reason people kept asking on Talk:Penis to add a 100 image gallery and people got sick of that, established a clear consensus that we're not adding a 100 image gallery and to add this to FAQ. Then someone comes and started an RfC about removing this FAQ item, it's entirely reasonable to reject arguments who solely cite NOTCENSORED. BTB, it would also be entirely reasonable to reject arguments which said we should keep this FAQ item because frankly we shouldn't even have 1 picture of a penis in the article because it's offensive and makes the article unsuitable for children. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To use the penis example, it would be also difficult to revoke the penis ban if it became accepted to display photos of penis 3 years after the FAQ ban three years earlier on penis display. It seems the RFC was malformed in that the way the policy works presumes that the ban should continue, as in this case a majority of editors wanted the ban lifted, but their voices were nullified as the justification for ban removal was not considered to be valid. 'Hey penis' are cool now, let's lift the ban' would maybe also result in downweighting' in this OSE example (which was useful for me to understand it)...If i am reading this right, it seems the RFC was malformed and the only way to remove the ban would be a RFC that focused on a particular unoffensive penis to include on the article, and if editors approve that, then discuss how that fits with the ban? A few editors expressed that opinion during the RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're partly right that a specific proposal about including some text and where would have been a better suggestion and I'd note a number of commentators already made that suggestion. However any proposal be it a specific proposal to include some text or simply to remove the FAQ item, would still have to address the earlier express concerns about including such text, and explain why they're no longer valid or maybe that they were invalid in the first place. Since the arguments against inclusion last time were not based on us needing to censor something objectionable but other valid reasons in accordance without policies and guidelines especially the lack of coverage in MEDRS, arguments should be based on such considerations. Strikingly, despite that being a key consideration in the previous consensus you seem to have been the only one to even bring it up and that was half way through. While I would have liked opposer to mention it, I can understand they didn't feel the need given the RfC and nearly every commentator failed to address such issues or even establish a reason for the RfC. Again to be clear, whether arguing for inclusion of some text, or for removal of the FAQ item, arguments that we're not censored fail on their face since those are not the reasons we have a consensus against inclusion. IMO the wider problem is you're still confusing the FAQ item as a "ban". It's not a "ban". It's simply reflecting the fact there is or at least was at the time consensus that there is no merit in accordance with our policies and guidelines, to including a specific frequently proposed suggestion issue. (Which is after all the purpose for such FAQs, to stop people continually making suggestions which we've established are not happening.) Note that if a new RfC finds there is no consensus to exclude mention of the lab leak, IMO the FAQ item should be removed or at least re-worded to make it clear there is no current consensus on the issue. But it's impossible to read that from this RfC since it was so flawed. It is possible a specific RfC on amending or removing the FAQ item would pass. But I find this unlikely for many reasons including that it's a silly waste of time. Similar concerns would arise about proposing some text which you're sure will not get consensus for inclusion simply to try and establish the FAQ item no longer has consensus. Remember that the removal of the FAQ item because there is no consensus to exclude mention, doesn't mean there is carte blanche to keep proposing specific inclusions. If it becomes clear that although there is no consensus for inclusion, it's unlikely there will be any consensus for inclusion either, then it's likely to be disruptive to keep proposing different ways of including mention. In other words, there's absolutely no reason to worry so much about the FAQ item. The main concern should be, is it likely we can achieve consensus for including something about the lab leak? If we can't then WGAF about whether the FAQ item is technically accurate that we have current consensus against inclusion. Just leave it be and worry about something that actually matters. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First I disagree on the ban concept, it certainly is a defacto ban and other editors noted that. You mentioned I could have run an RFC, stating "It is possible a specific RfC on amending or removing the FAQ item would pass." This is what I ran and many editors said it was silly, so the RFC was amended to include a proposed text. Clearly running around in circles. It seems there is no procedure to remove an FAQ item. The MEDRS argument is silly, as we are referring to history (not biomedical information), see WP:NOTBMI. You seem to think the discussion is also silly saying "something actually matters." Different things matter to different editors, that is part of what makes wikipedia broad in coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED would be a viable argument to make if people objected to the content in question because it was offensive. I don't think anyone objected on those grounds, i.e., by appealing to politeness, good taste, or general social or religious norms. (The wording of WP:NOTCENSORED uses offensive, objectionable and inappropriate in generally overlapping ways. As it says, Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies; obviously, objectionable content doesn't mean "content to which one can raise a policy-based objection".) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If this gets reopened, I'd probably feel obliged to comment, and we all know that's going to be a waste of time because my comment would be way too long despite not having much to add. Let's not go there. (got attracted by the mention of deletion discussions) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Coaching, ICF, WP:COI
@MrOllie claim "Per WP:COI you shouldn't be editing this article at all" as an ICF accredited coach. I consider this discrimination against people based on their profession. Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coaching

Please help us resolve this. SirGazsi (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the Coaching article, read the first sentence, "Coaching is a form of development in which an experienced person, called a coach, supports a learner or client in achieving a specific personal or professional goal by providing training and guidance." and thought - huh. The article desperately needs rewriting as, at the moment, it looks like semi-incomprehensible gibberish. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weird, this is the old first sentence, now it starts as "Coaching is a collaborative partnership...". Do you still see an old version from your cache, perhaps? SirGazsi (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrOllie's reverts. Your edits have loaded the article up with promotional sounding text backed by primary sources to various coaching agencies. Massive quotes about how amazing coaching is, such as  belong in an advert, not an encyclopaedia. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: "Massive quotes about how amazing coaching" (sic!) is the definition itself. I feel you express general scepticism rather than any real argument. SirGazsi (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to add a definition of "coaching" to the article it should be sourced to something like a dictionary or a textbook, i.e. a secondary source that approaches the topic from an academic context. Copying big chunks of spammy, promotional text from biased, primary sources that exist to promote coaching is not appropriate. You need to listen to what people are saying, rather than dismissing criticism with handwaving and attacking people you disagree with. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Saying that an ICF accredited coach shouldn't edit the article on coaching at all is probably a bit strong. Certainly, however, piling up the article with quotes from and references to the ICF's website does look highly dubious. I agree with the IP above that some of the stuff you added looks more like marketing copy than encyclopedic writing; I agree with Ritchie that a rewrite is needed, but I do not believe that the changes you have made so far have been a net improvement. For example, I don't know why you think the lead ought to include the assertion "There are many definitions to coaching that are listed in the Definition section., and I am very doubtful that the source you cited - the ICF's website - supports the assertion. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "There are many definitions to coaching that are listed in the Definition section.", and I am very doubtful that the source you cited - the ICF's website "
 * Sorry, you're wrong. It's not the ICF website. Furthermore, in the Definition section I reference SirGazsi (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad - it's not the ICF website, it's the Institute of Coashing Studies' website. You're missing the point though. First of all, that assertion has no business being in the article's lead - we simply don't write like that, the lead is there to summarise the article, not to describe the article. Secondly, it's not clear to me why there is any source cited there at all. The purpose of a citation is to support the preceding assertion - so, if the reader wants to, they can check that the assertion is accurate. There is no way that a third part website can support an assertion about the content of our article. In other words, you've added an unnecessary sentence to the article, and for some reason you've cited the website of a commercial organisation which in no way supports the content of the unnecessary sentence. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but it's pretty clear that you don't yet know how we write articles here, and you would do well to take on board the advice you're being given be experienced editors, here and on the article's talk page. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * From WP:COI: COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. ... Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. While you are not prohibited from editing Coaching at this time, you have now been made aware of some views of your edits and how they are harmful. Again from WP:COI: If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts. I strongly suggest you request edits on the article's talk page using edit COI instead of updating the article directly. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're judgemental in your writing, swinging Wikipedia policies like a sword, but provide no arguments at all. I'm open to hear your valid reasoning.SirGazsi (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You created this discussion with a swing at stating that his statement of policy to you is discriminatory. I quoted the policy he pointed to, which states how a COI can interfere with an editor's judgement. I offered a way for you to step back from the fire so that you don't get burned. If you think that's judgemental, that's on you. Here you have multiple people telling you that you have a COI, and yet you continue to push along the same route, and you continue on below. I think there's a WP:boomerang around here. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There's definitely a difference between adding promotional content and not being allowed to edit an article because of professional standing. Coaches have a COI in respect to Coaching, but not so serious, I think, that it should generally prevent them from editing it. But if their edits are adding promotional material, which certainly seems to be the case here, that material should be removed, and perhaps the editor involved in adding the material should be partially blocked from editing the article, not because of a COI, but because of the promotional editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously call citing the definition of coaching a "promotional editing" ? SirGazsi (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much so. It's not the kind of definition that would be written by an uninvolved person, it's a definition written by someone (or someones) clearly infatuated with what they do and making it sound as important as possible. Here's a definition of coaching: "A process that aims to improve performance and focuses on the 'here and now' rather than on the distant past or future." Compare that to the extravagance of "..partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential. The process of coaching often unlocks previously untapped sources of imagination, productivity and leadership."  That's sheer promotionalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it's important that we give due recognition to the International Coach Federation (ICF), the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) and other major professional organizations in the field of coaching and their definition of coaching. ICF is the world's largest organization of professionally trained coaches and, as such, its viewpoints, standards, and definitions hold a significant degree of authority within the coaching profession. They set and enforce ethical guidelines, provide certification to coaches, and conduct research in the field of coaching. Their definition of coaching is based on the collective experience and expertise of its global membership. Discrediting ICF means ignoring, furthermore discriminating, the majority of professional coaches across the globe. SirGazsi (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitions should generally be broad, but you also appear to be following a highly primary-source route, rather than wikipedia's focus on reliable secondary sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While there are hundreds of programs claiming to certify and train coaches, some even providing accreditation, coaching is not a protected title—there is no academic qualification required to be a coach, and no governing body to regulate the profession. Thus, we must be especially vigilant in articles like Coaching, where there exists an overall grey area which, if left unobserved, can quickly fill up with dubious information. This directly impacts your question about coaches editing the coaching article. In other professions we would be pleased as punch to have this happen. We want and actively seek doctors editing doctor articles, because they provide valuable expertise. ( I would qualify this by saying doctors who edit doctor articles outside of their own specialty: a neurologist editing an article on gastroenterology, for example. Doctors who edit doctor articles on their own specialty is often very problematic. ) That happens for one reason: that profession has the added confidence of a regulatory dome over it. No such dome exists over the coaching profession, which explains all the extra caution you see on display here from other editors. Spintendo  10:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Restore and userfy pages created by The Train Master
If the pages that were deleted under G5 as created by socks of could be restored to my user space please? I'd like to work on and improve them, and I'll take responsibility for the original work of the banned user. I'm particularly interested in the articles about stations on the Lackawanna Cut-Off, since with those deletions that line is now fragmented in terms of coverage on Wikipedia where some stations are covered and some aren't, meaning it's impossible to "travel" the line in sequential/directional order by browsing WP articles. However if there are any other articles related to other train stations that would have a ghost of a chance of being improved to mainspace standards, I'll take a look at those too. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing of substance to restore. Seven of the articles were completely blank and the rest are just a sentence or two. Canal Station, for example, consists only of "Canal Station is a defunct train station on the former Pottsville Line". Given the lack of content, you would be better off just drafting the articles from scratch.-- Ponyo bons mots 15:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So even Cresco station, Gouldsboro station and Moscow station had no real content? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked those as well, as Ponyo said, you'd be better off writing them from scratch. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rotating IPv6 address
What is the process for when an editor states they have been here for a while and is on rotating IPv6 address. Everytime you chat to them its a new address, in that range? Surely that would copyright problems not being able to identify who is actually creating the text, new talk page as well.  scope_creep Talk  15:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If this was a problem, wouldn't it would be a problem for everyone editing from an IP, v6 or otherwise? I've edited from various different IPs over the years, and I know other folks besides me have edited using this IP. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure to be honest. I guess it just normal behaviour. Potentially they have 2^95 ip addresses in that range. Is it normal to change IP for every edit?   scope_creep Talk  16:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so (but I've never edited from one of those things). I suppose the question is whether they're doing it as a way of avoiding SCRUTINY and how disruptive their behavior is. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Their not disruptive in the least. They seem to be a good editor. I can leave it here. I just needed a second opinion and everything is fine.   scope_creep Talk  17:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to point out the painfully obvious: the solution to this -- and many other -- dilemmas would be to require everyone to create an account before editing. I believe at least one other language Wikipedia does this, so I cannot really fathom why we continue to allow IP editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure an(other) RfC will come along when IP masking is implemented - I think that's actually in the works for this year. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did ask the editor to create an account but nothing came of it. I don't think it policy to force a person to come off an IP and use an account, although I'm not sure.   scope_creep Talk  17:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but policies they are - or can be - a-changin'. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the use of editing as an IP editor has had its day, long ago, a decade ago. It should have been all accounts, but that is a dicussion for another day or RFC   scope_creep Talk  17:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you ever come across those websites that show you a bit of an article, then say that you have to register to continue reading? I just close the tab and spend time somewhere else. It's not so different. Anyway, I do just want to point out WP:IPHOPPER. Many IPv6 addresses are designed to 'rotate' at least daily (some more, some less), it's perfectly normal. If they're a regular then they'll probably know how to find other talk pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To address the copyright angle, I am not a lawyer, but under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license §3(a)(1)(A), the attribution requirement only applies to such information as the licensor supplies. If no name is supplied, there is no requirement to attribute to that name. Alternatively, the IP could be viewed as a pseudonym, given that users are told when they make an edit that it will be attributed to their IP. I'm not sure if WMF Legal takes one of those theories or both or something else. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Shhhh! IANAL, but the WMF's whole copyright scheme seems to me like a house of cards. I don't believe that it's ever been tested in a court of law, and I'm not sure it would survive if it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When I open an edit window in a private tab, there are several prominent disclaimers around it, like:
 * "You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a username, among other benefits."
 * "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources."
 * "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
 * I struggle to conceive of any situation in which somebody is concerned enough about having their edits attributed to them that they hire a lawyer to threaten legal action but somehow isn't concerned enough to take thirty seconds to make an account, or to take three seconds to read the huge-ass walls of text explaining very clearly that their edits will be credited to their IP address. jp×g 01:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An IP address is not a name of a copyright-holding entity. If someone adds content under a pseudonym, they can expect attribution to that pseudonym; if they add content without one, they chose to do so and can't complain about lack of attribution. Either way, their content had been irrevocably licensed under whichever license Wikipedia is using at the time (including the license upgrade clause, which is the reason Wikipedia can upgrade the license). Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 20:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Belteshazzar again
Would anybody please be so kind as to put the latest batch of Belteshazzar's IP socks out of our misery? Details at Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar. Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Courcelles already blocked the IP's. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 23:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Constant POV pushing
Article: Awan (tribe)

Problem: and

Comment: ''There is a constant POV pushing going on in this article, even though it is extended user protected, the info box contains wrong information (NOR) and recently unreliable sources are added in the article. These are very basic things which senior editors should take care. When I highlighted these issues, no one from senior editors who visit this article regularly replied to it.'' - Greentree0 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a content related issue, so don't expect the admins to intervene. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That being said, there are other noticeboards where you may be able to receive more assistance on this matter. From the sound of your initial comment, either the original research noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard might be a useful place to post. (I recommend posting to just one or the other, as posting to both will lead to confusion and duplicated work.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history, I would say that the ECP protection has actually stopped the problems; however as said above you may wish to post at one of those two noticeboards if you believe there are issues with the actual content. Black Kite (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Closure review - WP:NOT
This is a request to review the recent close at WP:NOTDIRECTORY to determine whether or not the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. This was discussed with the closer here and here. (There is also a behavioural discussion ongoing at ANI, but as several participants in that discussion have pointed out, the scope of that discussion does not include a review of the policy validity of the determination of consensus in the close.)

I myself did not participate in the RfC discussion nor am I involved in the underlying issues. However, multiple experienced editors have objected to the close (as shown in the linked discussions), on the grounds that the closer chose to implement proposals that were not included in the RfC as formulated. Indeed, the closer implemented a proposal that was explicitly considered in the RFCBEFORE discussion, but not included in the RfC itself. As the closer has opted not to file for review themselves, and given the importance of the policy page concerned (WP:NOT), an expedited review of the close seems to me like a good idea. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Involved comments

 * Overturn (involved, ofc). As I've said elsewhere, there's no plausible way this can be read as a consensus of the associated discussion; the proposal to remove the sentence entirely was barely discussed at all, but it is clearly if anything a more extreme version of the proposal that clearly failed to reach a consensus. Objections to the proposed change hinged on numerous people disagreeing with the removal of notable, eg. I don’t understand why we should be DABing eg non-notable players on football teams..., The current wording prevents the mass creation of hundreds of thousands of dab pages between non-notable individuals... Weakening to DABMENTION is too weak. We don't want or need inclusion on dabs for anyone namechecked in any article.  ... indicates that our guidance should not be weakened. Per reasons given by others and in general to not lower the bar.  All of these and more provided detailed policy-based arguments not to weaken the text in question by a more minor version of the much more drastic change that the closer nearly invented whole-cloth. And the closer made no attempt to argue that any of these objections were not policy-based or could otherwise be ignored, instead resting their close on the fact that no one had specifically objected to their own preferred solution by name (obviously not; it was not the focus of the RFC and was barely mentioned in it.) Their close, and their later arguments justifying it, disregard the fact that complete removal of the sentence in question unequivocally goes against the substance and rationale the opposes gave for toning it down, which is precisely the sort of thing a closer should be looking at most closely. A more typical WP:SUPERVOTE that implemented a proposed compromise that wasn't really adequately discussed in the RFC would already be bad enough; but this is a supervote whose supposed solution is a more extreme version of something the RFC plainly rejected (and which the closer, in the first half of their close, conceded there was no consensus for!) It is simply not plausible for a closer to find that there is no consensus on a minor alteration to tone down a sentence, and yet somehow find that there is a consensus to remove the sentence entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Overturn (involved). How can there be no consensus for changing the wording, and at the same time consensus for completely changing the wording by removing it. The removal of the text was something only a few participants discussed and isn't a compromise between those suggesting change and those opposing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between having no consensus for a specific proposed wording change, and a having a general consensus for simply removing it without those changes. They are not mutually exclusive. That is how both can be true. Huggums537 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Having no consensus for any change and having consensus for complete change is mutually exclusive. Those opposed where opposed to changing the text, removing the text is changing the text no matter how you phrase it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing text removal might be changing it, but I went back and read all the oppose votes, and none of them opposed a text removal as you claim. They only oppose the change that was proposed. There is a difference between saying the opposers didn't want the proposed changes to be made, and saying the opposers didn't want any changes to be made. The closer was right in determining that both supporters and opponents alike wanted to see changes made, but the proposal was not it. Huggums537 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They opposed changing the wording, removing the wording had already failed at an earlier RFC. This was about changing the words in the sentence, and removing all the words from the sentence is obviously and plainly changing it. Opposes saying some change to the wording of the sentence is drastically different from removing the sentence altogether, which again had already been rejected by an earlier RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-reading my comment again, as I appear incapable of not making minor mistakes, I remembered that you had in fact already answered this yourself. Per your comment the last RFC was about a complete removal of the contentious material rather than wording it in a more acceptable way like this one does. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out by jc37, the previos RfC was closed with no consensus for any text removal. Please note the first sentence of the closure on the previous RfC: There is no consensus to remove the text. Furthermore, even in the previous discussion it was determined that A common thread seen in comments on both sides is that the wording could be better tuned... so whatever opposes wanted in that discussion really doesn't matter, and would be irrelevant to this closure. Also, to be clear my comment was about the "contentious material" i.e., "just the notable ones" which as shown above had no consensus for removal, but it was clear editors on both sides were in favor of some kind of a change to text. Your inordinate amount of focus on what the opposition wanted seems unusual, and a bit odd. Huggums537 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, a close of "no consensus" doesn't mean "we reject this and so the consensus is that you can't do it" as you have made it out to be here. No consensus means a discussion was made, but no agreement could be made either way, and it leaves it open to future debate and determination especially when you consider the closer mentioned both sides agreed the wording could be better tuned. Using your own rhetoric, that means both sides agreed the wording could be changed. Huggums537 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You literally said the RFC was specifically about not removing the wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fun. You are seriously attempting to explain to me what the meaning was behind what I wrote? I'm glad you think you are the authority on me and what I say. It must be nice to be the king. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Struck on the suggestion that it might possibly be bordering uncivil territory. Huggums537 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You appear to be authority on the editors who opposed, as you've explained away their opposing as actually being support. But I guess I fall under so whatever opposes wanted in that discussion really doesn't matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess we have a difference of interpretation as to what is represented by the opposition with both us thinking we are the authority, and that should be perfectly fine for either one of us to think we know better what the general idea is, but that is different than someone thinking they can read the intentions of another person about a specific comment they made and be a better authority than the person who actually made it about what the interpretation should be. Huggums537 (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's start over. The older RFC did not say both sides agreed that the words should be changed, it was a common thread in the discussion. So some of the editors in the discussion thought the words should be changed, not both sides. Changes require affirmative support, if the change doesn't get that affirmation it is rejected. It is not up to those supporting the status quo to seek affirmation for the status quo. And again no matter the rhetoric used wanting to change the words is not equal to supporting the removal of the entire sentence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I'd rather not start any of this over again. You can have the last word on the matter. It is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned. Huggums537 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Newimpartial, for opening this. I believe this close should be partially overturned (involved); the close of the actual proposal was reasonable and within closer discretion (No consensus on initial proposal.), but the aspects that went beyond the scope of the proposal (There is a consensus to remove the sentence about DAB pages, but no consensus on what to replace it with (if anything).) are not.While sometimes RfC's can expand beyond their initial scope it must be clear to participants that they have done so in order to establish sufficient WP:CONLEVEL. This did not happen here. In this RfC a workshopping section was opened, and in that an editor proposed closing this discussion and opening a new one, saying We should scrap this proposal and start over with a proposal to remove the line about disambiguation pages from WP:NOT altogether.Editors reasonably interpreted this to not be a proposal under consideration in the current RfC and so failed to object to it. This lack of objection is actually behavior that I generally encourage; it is rarely useful for editors who outright oppose a proposal to contribute to workshops on the proposal, and I generally consider expressing such opposition to be disruptive to the workshopping process. This lack of clarity prevents WP:CONLEVEL from being reached; if editors do not know a proposal is under consideration we deny them the opportunity to contribute to it.Further, the sparsity of information about the close limits our ability to determine how the closer determined there was a consensus for this alternative possibility. My reading of the discussion is that there was roughly equal support for this proposal as there was opposition against it, when we consider implicit opposition through !votes for the first proposal being justified in a manner that results in them being incompatible with the second proposal.However, it appears the closer came to a consensus by down-weighting those !votes; for example, when asked whether they considered Aquillion's !vote as being applicable to this second proposal, they said The answer to that is yes, somewhat. They didn't clarify whether "somewhat" meant they down-weighted it, but my interpretation of that sentence is that they did.In the absence of any justification for such down-weighting - and failing to explicitly !vote on a proposal is not the basis for such justification, per WP:NOTVOTE - this down-weighting should not have occurred, and in its absence the result should be "no consensus", even if we do consider this to be a proper proposal under consideration. As such, I consider either relisting this RfC, with an clear statement that the second proposal is being considered in this RfC for consensus, or closing it as without any comment on the second proposal, to be reasonable options. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure. Closing is more than just a read of votes as was pointed out here and here. Huggums537 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Overturn to NC So this is no change for the part that is already NC and changing the other part to NC.   A "finding" on something that was really not a part of the RFC nor substantially discussed in the RFC. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse. While it is a messy and long discussion and the closing statement should have explained it better, it is the correct analysis of the discussion. The proposal would have aligned the guidance in NOT with that at DABMENTION. This is functionally very similar to just having the highest level guidance on this be at DABMENTION or outright removal, which many supporters explicitly endorsed. On the other hand, the opposes were more mixed. Some opposed because the wording was too confusing, other opposed because they did not believe that this level of detail should be in NOT and should only appear at DABMENTION, including some who also explicitly endorsed removing the guidance entirely. Some opposed under the mistaken belief that it would open the floodgates to bloated DABs. DABMENTION is how DAB pages have worked since basically the first guidelines were approved by the community in 2005. The addition of the guidance in 2017 to NOT, initially in the context of DABs of people's names. and the 2022 revision to have it apply to all DABs, both of which were undiscussed, did not result in any significant shift to how DAB pages actually work. It is simply wrong to argue that reverting to the 2016 version would suddenly result in DAB chaos. That being said, given the procedural issues, I would not be strongly opposed to an overturn to NC as long as there is no restriction on starting a new RFC except possibly requiring a workshop to figure out the RFC question beforehand. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Start a new RfC for the bit that is controversial. There's support for it, but it wasn't part of the original RfC, so we should talk it out. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved comments

 * It seems like every time a close challenge gets to AN it becomes an impenetrable mix of involved and uninvolved comments, so I'm going to be proactive here and divide into sections, as has been done successfully in some threads in the past. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Partial overturn Overturn to NC - I think the "No consensus" close might be read as fine, but the implementation of the close was not. Editors argued over what the change should be - Removing the sentence without replacement entirely is not, in my view, anywhere close to consensus. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IG an overturn to NC is more accurate here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Overturn to NC I don't really view it as a "partial overturn" because, well, it's a complete change in the outcome. But yeah, there was no consensus at all and certainly not for the outcome the closer got to. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Overturn to NC. There was no clear consensus to delete the sentence without a replacement for it. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Overturn to NC (speedily if possible). As BilledMammal points out, the enacted proposal wasn't formally presented for !vote at all, it was just suggested as a new proposal in a workshopping section at the bottom. To go from that to "there's consensus to enact this", when most participants didn't even consider it, is clearly not correct. Let's not drag this out too long - the correct solution is to reinstate the text, amend the close to "no consensus", and then open a new proposal if anyone wants to continue pursuing that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that matters. RFCs aren't supposed to be votes – not any kind of vote, including not the let's-pretend-it's-not-a-vote "!votes", either.  From the very top of Requests for comment:  "RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion... The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions."
 * Since RFCs follow the normal talk page guidelines, it really shouldn't matter whether a suggestion appeared late in the discussion or was presented as one of the original proposals. When editors find a good solution, they should adopt it.  If some editors commented early in the discussion, and want to consider further developments in the discussion, then they should be following the discussion (see that [subscribe] button at the top of each section?  You don't even have to watch the whole page any longer).  If they don't choose to do that, or if they see the discussion and don't think it's important to comment on it, then that shouldn't be interpreted as them missing out on an opportunity to "vote" again.
 * Editors might disagree about whether this particular approach is a good solution (I think it's not bad idea, and not an entirely unreasonable outcome from this discussion), but we really shouldn't even suggest that all the "ballot options" have to be posted a certain number of days in advance of the "vote counting" for a solution to be acceptable. That would not be following normal talk page guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Overturn to NC Pretty much agree with with the uninvolved comments so far. It's difficult to see any consensus reached in that discussion. Nemov (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Overturn An utterly daft reading of the discussion, where the closer just snips a portion of text outright even though that was not supported by the discussion. Zaathras (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously overturn per above and ask the closer to review WP:CLOSE—"A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." A two sentence, one line close for a 200kb+ discussion is simply not the expected standard. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding hundreds of words to an already long discussion is not necessarily helpful. Most of the time, the result of a discussion is patently obvious, and an explanation is pointless.  Also, we normally expect closers to explain how the decision was reached upon request, not pre-emptively. When nobody disagrees enough to ask, then none of us really need to read a bunch of verbiage about the closer's thought processes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If the outcome is clear, I agree. If you're doing something brave, you do need more words.  And this was brave. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree: It's not the length of the discussion that indicates a need for more discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Overturn The word daft was used above; that might be a little harsh, but I can understand its use. Closing in favour of something which was explicitly rejected before the RfC began is simply bizarre. Was the RFCBEFORE even read? If not, it's eyebrow-raising. In fact, combined with the fact that the closing admin literally edit-warred (,, , even down to using the same edit-summary -by-rote) in favour of his closure, it's actually concerning.  SN54129  15:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Serial Number 54129, how can any RFC outcome be "explicitly rejected" before the RFC discussion happens? Do some of us have veto power over consensus?  I can't imagine an editor starting an RFC by saying "There are four possible approaches here, but I (or a prior discussion) explicitly reject the fourth option, so the community is only allowed to pick one of the other three as the result from this new RFC".
 * An RFC has the power to overturn the result of any individual editor's decision, or any prior community decision. There can be no such thing as someone "explicitly rejecting" an option before an RFC even began. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Overturn to "no consensus". I simply don't see any consensus present in that discussion, and the closer's closing summary does not provide any sort of descriptive rationale explaining how the alleged consensus was obtained. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse as no consensus. That is: the discussion demonstrated that neither the current version of the text nor the proposed alternative have consensus.  Several editors described both versions as confusing, and several editors explicitly supported scrapping the line entirely towards the end of the discussion. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse - the discussion about deleting the DAB bit altogether was fairly late on but there definitely seems to be consensus there, with no dissenting voices between the last update to that section about a month ago, and the close just a couple of days ago. I see the closer has reopened that part of the discussion now but it was a good close at the time. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  14:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Closer comments
Just a note: I think at this point, I'm not going to address what I'm seeing above. Rather, to save everyone time, (and because, in hindsight, while it isn't "required", I probably should have more explained in the close, though it did seem self-evident to me at the time of closure), I have self-reverted the latter part of the close to allow for further discussion. You can continue to discuss here if you like, but I think this can probably be closed. Thank you very much to everyone who commented. - jc37 23:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: Follow-up discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. - jc37 18:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Pitarobertz
Cross-posting my comments from Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring: please refer to that page for context and further diffs.

User:Rodagonda is an obvious sockpuppet of. A few minutes after account creation, Rodagonda immediately started removing G4 speedy tags from Savitha Nambrath, as shown in those diffs above. And today, they're at it again:, , , minutes after Pitarobertz removed the salt template:. No response yet at User talk:Pitarobertz to my warning about sockpuppetry. Anon editors can't create an SPI, we can only add new reports to them, otherwise I'd have started one myself. 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A new third account, User:Peacehridhaan, has now taken over removing the speedy templates, and again 2 minutes after account creation:, . 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Article deleted, article salted, obvious socks blocked. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks, and what's to be done about the sockmaster Pitarobertz? 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Would need someone to start a WP:SPI for that, even though it's obvious; it could be meatpuppetry. Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * SPI report created at Sockpuppet investigations/Pitarobertz. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  23:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Grand Mufti of India under attack
The article, Grand Mufti of India, is under attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Mufti_of_India&diff=cur&oldid=1160360777 2409:40F3:1014:6FE7:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected the article for three days. The disruption is pretty minor at this stage. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour by
On 11 February 2023 I started the article Apulu, an Etruscan deity, and I expanded it during the following days. On 17 June and 20 June 2023 mistakenly changed his direct Roman equivalent from Soranus to Apollo. I reverted his edit and invited him to discuss the topic on the talk page, where I gave him a detailed explanation: Talk:Apulu. Instead of answering me on the talk page, on 4 July 2023 he ignored it and reverted the change using an anonymous IP, so I undid that edit. Now he came back using his account, still ignoring the talk page, to revert the edit once again and write me "will you fucking stop?" He needs to calm down, learn how to behave and reach consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * They^. I wasn't in a good mood, so I got out of hand. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * that's not a valid excuse, your behaviour is unacceptable. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Give me one source that says it's Soranus, not Apollo. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And that ip isn't me Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if that ip was me, I wouldn't even use it. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I already wrote you on the article talk page: Stop playing, I already gave you more than one. I added the sources to the page long time ago, way before your recent reverts. Instead of ignoring both the sources and this talk page, and writing vulgarities in the edit summary, learn how to behave. and Stop acting dumb. The sources have been on the main page for months, and you already tried to delete them several times. You came here writing vulgarities from your account. The fact you also used an anonymous IP (23.242.174.8) to circumvent this talk page and delete the sources is just a very serious addition, and the fact you're trying to deny it is even worse. I'm now officially requesting admins to check IP 23.242.174.8 since you use it to circumvent talk pages. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the content issue on the article talkpage (and left a pointer to that discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome where there is recent discussion on the general principle) but on the behavioural point frankly neither of you have behaved ideally. Yes, an edit summary saying "will you fucking stop?" isn't super civil, but frankly neither is you saying "stop acting dumb", nor you accusing them of "ignoring ... this talk page" when they are actively discussing on the talk page! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They were not. In fact, after my explanation on the article talk page, they didn't answer; they ignored it and reverted the page twice without any comment on the talk page, the second time with that uncivil edit summary. Then I reported them here and only then they started answering both here and on the talk page, just asking for sources that were already on the page and that they had deleted multiple times, and lies about the IP, to witch I factually answered to "not act dumb" followed by the additional comment about the IP they used to circumvent the talk page. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia page vandalism.
@Pied Hornbill is vandalising Wikipedia page of Seuna. When I edited origin of Seuna-Yadava with cited data, they reverted it back numerous times without giving any logical argument. not allowing any information which challenges Kannada origin of the dynasty now also threatening me with wiki block. misleading people by sharing biased data and not allowing anyone to edit it. I request Wikipedia Admin to protect the Wikipedia page of Seuna (Yadava) dynasty. Harshvardhan9011 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Harshvardhan9011 You did not notify Pied Hornbill of the discussion; I have done so for you. Do not personally attack other users, as you did at User:Pied Hornbill. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 01:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Harshvardhan9011 has been deleting cited data taken from the above article sourced from various authors and scholars without any discussion and has been replacing it with what appears to be just one source. The article under discussion has been steady for many years because of the good sources it was based on. They are a new user and perhaps does not understand that whenever you want to add new information, you have to call for a discussion, discuss the changes before actually making it. Also the views of one author can't overrule the views of other authors just because it suits one users palate but rather can add to the article as additional information.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Enough I have partial blocked Harshvardhan9011 from the article only for 3 months. There's only so much wasting of other editor's time that we can tolerate. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Close bad-faith redirect deletion discussion?
Hi. Can someone please close Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 21 as invalid? If you read some of the comments from jc37, it's clear that he's not operating in good faith. I think as a result the discussion should be closed as invalid. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm very much operating in good faith.
 * I understand you want the redirects kept. I welcome civil discussion - which is what I have presented. - jc37 21:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging everyone in the RfD to your condescending rant is not what I'd call civil discussion. –– Formal Dude   (talk)  22:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (speaking as someone who agrees with MZM on keeping the redirect, and as a target of Jc37's insults) I'm not sure an early closing is needed; there were one or two actual good-faith editors who endorsed deletion, and they didn't do anything wrong. More productive would be if some admin that Jc37 respects could have a word with them, and explain to them how, for example, "" might come off as dickish? And maybe suggest that Jc37 not comment there anymore? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * MZMcBride, it's not "clear" to me having read that thread (on which I'm neutral). Can you explicitly set out (a) why it's an invalid RfD (b) in what way Jc37 is not operating in good faith. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi DeCausa. For redirect deletion discussions, my understanding is that we typically notify the redirect creator as a courtesy. That didn't happen here. If the redirect has been previously nominated for deletion and kept, particularly recently, as is the case here, the new discussion should acknowledge the previous discussion and present new arguments or explain what has changed in the time since the last deletion attempt. Neither of these things happened. When I asked jc37 why, he replied: '"Good practice" is not equal to "required". Anyway, you're here now - welcome to the discussion.'
 * I think this hints at him deliberately choosing not to notify me, but more to the point, he didn't answer any of the questions I asked and instead condescendingly welcomed me to the deletion discussion. He's a very long-time user here, he should know better than to reply to anyone like this. I'm not too fussed whether the deletion discussion continues as it seems likely in this case that it's going to fail, but I don't consider the tactics being taken here to be appropriate. Given some of his replies, I personally don't think this deletion discussion is valid and I think there's concrete value in making it clear that this type of behavior&mdash;not notifying the creators and not referencing past deletion discussions&mdash;is unacceptable. People nominating pages for deletion have an obligation to do some basic legwork, including reviewing the page history, talk page history, reviewing and addressing previous deletion discussions, and at least pinging the people who might be interested in the discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No one was avoiding talking to you. I've talked with you in discussions in the past, so I'm not sure that this is not just you attempting an ad hominem tactic? (Attack the person rather than discuss the topic...)
 * Notification of a page creator is not required and has never been required. We place notices on nominated pages to notify everyone, which is what I did.
 * Also, 6 months is plenty of time (and it's been longer than 6 months), and another similar redirect was recently nominated - WP:POPCORN by User:'zin is short for Tamzin (User:Tamzin). - jc37 00:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think 'zin is short for Tamzin is a fine example to cite. She notified the redirect creator on his user talk page and she specifically read and referenced the previous deletion discussion when nominating that redirect for discussion. Those were my two objections to your actions, jc37. If community consensus determines that this stupid redirect from 2009 needs to be deleted, then so be it, but that doesn't absolve anyone from following our standard practices or from extending basic courtesy to a fellow Wikipedia editor.
 * Even more to the point and funny enough, Tamzin was asked about this exact redirect in that discussion and she said it "seem[s] like commentary on AN/I's failings, so I don't see an issue [...]."
 * By all means, be more like Tamzin here!! --MZMcBride (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * MZMcBride, while some of Jc37's posts are sub-optimal especially for an admin, calling the RfD "invalid" and that they are acting in bad faith is way over the top. Notifying the creator is a courtesy which should be followed but it doesn't invalidate the RfD, especially as you are there. DeCausa (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We can let the discussion continue as normal, without early close. jc37 has been around for a long time and is experienced in formal Wikipedia discussions. Therefore notification of people and prior discussions is expected from jc37. In this case I think an administrative warning to jc37 will do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Jc37 is technically correct that notification isn't required, and I've always seen WP:OWN issues with that recommendation. For proposals like these that will be heavily scrutinized, and thus will see arguments in opposition to the proposal from editors other than the creator, I don't consider it to be necessary.
 * I do think the comment raised by Floquenbeam does come off as a little rough - unless your intent is to make it clear to an editor that while you are going to continue assuming good faith for now you are starting to see it as implausible that they are acting in good faith, it isn't productive to say I'm going to WP:AGF or similar; it is better to just silently assume it and avoid inadvertently giving the wrong impression. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The intent was to try to make clear that - even though I was about to talk about bullying, and to try to get across concerns about the use of disparaging language - I didn't think any of the commenters in the discussion would intentionally bully someone. Because, even in light of this discussion, I honestly don't believe any of them would. Hence, I was assuming good faith. But I felt I needed to make that clear, because I didn't want any sort of misunderstanding. It's odd to me to see quoting AGF to be suggested as some sort of a sideways "insult". So as I recently said to Floquenbeam, I'm sorry if anyone interpreted it that way, for that was not the intent whatsoever. - jc37 00:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this was suboptimal, especially from an admin, and I'm not surprised at the replies it got. And yes, you should have informed MZM given that the last XfD was only October 2022.  In fact, I think I'd have pinged everyone who commented at that XfD.  No, it's not "required", but it's the right thing to doBlack Kite (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the comment out of nowhere, but I would love it if the "tradition" (mentioned above) of notifying the creator of articles, categories, and redirects when the article or whatever is being considered for deletion would no longer be a tradition. Those things can change form half a dozen times or more, from a stub article, to a disambiguation page, to a redirect, and then back to an article. I do not care about my articles, categories and redirects being deleted. If they were meant to be on Wikipedia they will be kept, and if they were not meant for Wikipedia, they will be deleted. Besides, I get a ton of stuff from when I was working on articles that needed a lot of love or when indexes of subjects from other encyclopedias and such were listed as links to make sure that Wikipedia had an article for each subject or at least a list of specialized terms in a field that each highly specialized term from astronomy, geology, or sociology, would lead to its own article if significant enough and redirect to a list of such terms for less notable terms. Thanks, Kjkolb (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Grand Mufti of India is under attack again
Better version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Mufti_of_India&oldid=1160360777

2409:40F3:1A:2D2D:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrator User:Muboshgu keep replacing the contents on the wikipedia page of Sabina Matos with his personal opinion.
In the wikipedia page of Sabina Matos, A source says she is facing multiple criminal investigations into forged signatures on her nomination papers :https://www.wpri.com/target-12/matos-signature-scandal-spreads-across-ri-ag-now-taking-the-lead-on-investigation/ But User:Muboshgu Just keep deleting it and replace it with his personal opinion that She is not under investigation and it is her campaign who is under investigation. He just keep using his administrator power to delete the content with his personal opinion. Does this consist with what an administrator should do? Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Direct quote of the source:"The scandal engulfing Sabina Matos’s congressional campaign worsened on Wednesday, with the Democratic lieutenant governor now facing multiple criminal investigations into forged signatures on her nomination papers amid growing questions about election integrity in Rhode Island." Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is already under discussion at AN/I, which you have engaged in, and WP:FORUMSHOPPING is never a good idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Create new page about a business
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Car_Loans_UK

Creating this page about a business - can someone create this so info can be added to the page.

Thanks Cars and finance (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you wanting to promote a business? <b style="color:#F00">D</b><b style="color:#F60">u</b><b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 15:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not promote, just create the page about Car Loans UK as a business. Cars and finance (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What's so special about that company and how are you related to it? M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Check out this page and see if you can create a draft there for someone to review. <b style="color:#F00">D</b><b style="color:#F60">u</b><b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 15:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The chances of it being eligible for a Wikipedia page seem really small. Secretlondon (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Everyone seems to have missed the issue here - Cars and finance can't follow 's advice and create a draft page because it hits an entry on the titleblacklist. That said this company probably isn't notable - their name does make it really difficult to search for sources though. 192.76.8.89 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reasonable. Done. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Another Appeal: Topic ban from closing AfDs
I made an appeal last week. I didn't expect the discussion to go beyond the topic and it eventually was closed a couple of days later. I'll try again and answer the allegations on my previous appeal.

I already removed this reminder a couple of years ago after I was told that it and I realized I was too harsh with that. I have moved on from that long time ago. When some editors convinced me to participate in the ANI, it took me some time to think of what to say there. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to do so by the time a consensus was made.

I really have moved on from my past troubles and learned from them. Believe me or not, I'm very honest with what I said, especially in my previous appeal.

I'm appealing (again) for my topic ban from closing AfDs to be lifted. From hereon, I'll be careful in closing deletion discussions. Whenever anyone challenges any of my closures, I'll revert it immediately and leave it for other editors to relist or close it. I really promise to be careful in closing them. That way, I won't get myself into trouble like before.

Proposal: Lifting Superastig's topic-ban from closing AfDs
ASTIG 😎🙃 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * A new appeal only a week after the last one was declined (unanimously) shows a complete lack of clue. So that's an obvious Oppose from me. I'll make a proposal of my own below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose And this is getting dangerously into WP:IDHT territory. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The last appeal closed unanimously against this just a week ago. How could you think this appeal was a good idea today? Sergecross73   msg me  14:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is really starting to sound like you want this a little "too" much. Which is making me uncomfortable with wondering "why". - jc37 15:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Besides this appeal being too early and indicative of WP:IDHT, it is also inadequate and unclear. Inadequate because it gives no indication, besides mere assertion that the editor has "moved on", for the topic-ban not being needed any more; at a minimum, I would have expected to see substantial and substantive participation at AFDs as an discussant (I see the editor !voting at only 4 AFDs in the 5 months after the ban was enacted). And unclear because I for one cannot decipher whether Superastig is pointing at this response as something they should have posted earlier at the topic-ban discussion or something they regret posting at all; and why is this being called a reminder?! All this suggests that Superastig should not be closing AFDs anytime soon. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose All I see here is pure WP:IDHT and nothing else. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 18:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no evidence that Superastig understands what led to the original topic ban. And as notes, participating in all of four AfDs since the topic ban was imposed does not indicate an attempt to get more experience in AfD or learn the process better. Plus, a second appeal one week after the first was unanimously opposed is seriously concerning. WJ94 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose tone deaf. Wikipedia is not a game. There are plenty of areas in which you can help, but if your disruption just moves there - further sanctions will follow. Star   Mississippi  01:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose lot of snow falling here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WJ94. This inability to get it shows how necessary the tban is, frankly. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you (Superastig) want to close AfDs so much anyway? It's not as if they won't get closed by someone else, and if they are closed with the wrong result you can always go to deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's been six months since they were banned and times have changed. I see Astig's sincerity that they have moved on from his past mistakes, especially in their previous appeal. Along with the proof in their previous appeal that they're eligible enough to close AfDs, I believe their topic ban from closing AfDs should be lifted. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The tone deafness is enough on its own, but coupled with the blatant tag-team/canvassing with SBKSPP and the bizarre IDHT tantrum he threw at being called out on it, it's obvious Superastig should not go anywhere near closing discussions in the foreseeable future. JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: User:Superastig topic banned from appealing their topic ban on closing AFDs for six months

 * Due to the cluelessness shown above, support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. As I said above, this is getting close to WP:IDHT. To be blunt, find other areas to work on Wikipedia for now. Come back next year to see if the community would be more open. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 6 months may be too short a wait given the substantial conduct and communication issues but better than nothing. Abecedare (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now, here's an interesting thing. As I read our rules and the precedents behind them, I don't think there's anything to stop Superastig from appealing this ban on appealing the first ban. We could get very deep in a recursive loop of banning appealing the previous ban banning appealing the ban before that. Nevertheless, I support this appealing ban. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At that point, we would be far into WP:IDHT territory. ~ UN6892  tc 18:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't give 'em ideas, Trey! :) Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, I missed off "recursively construed" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If he appeals the appeal ban then I for one will certainly be re-cursing. Many of you are familiar with my special talents along those lines. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, with enforcement mechanism. Appealing a second time within a week is disruptive, but Trey Maturin has a point that these restrictions have in recent times become meaningless. As such, I support with the addition of an enforcement mechanism: Should Superastig appeal early then said appeal is to be immediately closed and Superastig blocked for at least one week, with the block length to escalate should additional early appeals be made. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - this should be self-evident even without a formal ban. Any discussion result should never be appealed in a shorter amount of time unless it can be shown either that the discussion was extremely unfair or closed improperly; or that some new fact, which either occured or was discovered after the discussion was essentially over, is provably relevant to the point that several users likely would have voted differently as a result. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 08:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and lets make it a year. The users comments above dont appear to have any of the required maturity to seek a removal of the ban, but doing it anyhow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support while I still think further sanctions are needed, commenting here to endorse some action. This user is more interested in wasting our time then changing their behavior. Since it appears a broader AfD ban won't pass, this will give the user sufficient time to show productive editing that could merit lifting of ban. Star   Mississippi  13:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Girth Summit told Astig in their talk page that "The restriction is indefinite, but may be appealed at AN no sooner than six months from today." I guess Astig was given the time frame of six months from the day they were Tbanned. Since their deadline is sometime within this month, I don't think they will be able to appeal anymore (not even after another six months) after this one. Correct me if I'm wrong. SBKSPP (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're misreading "no sooner" as "no later". --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh shoot. I thought they're the same. Meaning "at least six months"? Then that means Astig is wrong here since they appealed sometime after five months. Changing my vote. SBKSPP (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support a ban of no longer than six months with whatever enforcement tools are available. Superastig’s continued poor conduct shows no signs of changing so no point in continued appeals of his original ban at this time.  Frank   Anchor  17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see their behavior changing in any meaningful way, given their immediate leap to appealing again. I can't legitimately see anyone being too eager to accept an appeal for at least a few months, and certainly not before Superastig can demonstrate that they understand WP:NAC. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support After several WP:BADNAC. I don't have faith that he can do it properly.   scope_creep Talk  16:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: User:Superastig topic banned from AfD in general

 * I brought this up at the previous failed appeal and it got some traction, but the thread was closed before I could make a formal proposal. Superastig's history with AfD convinces me that they are not a net positive in this area and should be fully topic banned from deletion discussions. I'll repost my comments from the previous thread:


 * Making another unconvincing appeal just a week after their previous one was unanimously opposed is additional evidence that they lack the judgment necessary to participate in this area. Spicy (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support exhausting time sink. Would even support broader sanctions after this incredibly tone deaf appeal. Star   Mississippi  01:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is honestly too much. Half a month has passed and yet, you seem to question my past actions instead of moving forward. I already admitted my mistakes. I have moved on from those. Sheesh. ASTIG 😎🙃 01:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if you'd actually moved on, you wouldn't have started the thread above, and we wouldn't be here. - jc37 02:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Superastig, can I make a suggestion? When your behaviour and your interaction with others is under scrutiny, I think you would be best to omit words like "Sheesh" and other similar exclamatory expressions from your vocabulary. How you handle critical feedback can be a key part of how any future appeals you make will be judged. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well then, I'll try my best to do so next time. ASTIG 😎🙃 10:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, some of the attitude from members of the WP administrative community can be a little overbearing, and at times frustrating. GeneralHamster (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you really have changed, then you should've waited at least six months or rather more. Your previous appeal seemed too soon IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A topic ban appeal immediately after one was just declined shows a very concerning lack of WP:CLUE, which is effectively a prerequisite for participating in charged areas like AfD.  The Night Watch     (talk)   03:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per my support in the previous discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AfD TBAN broadly construed; Superastig's behavior regarding their AfD closure TBAN appeals shows a lack of WP:CLUE as they tried to appeal their TBAN right after it was immediately unanimously declined. Allowing this to continue will simply be a WP:TIMESINK, plain and simple. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 04:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Retaliatory proposal. This user should be free to speak his mind; it's only his actions that should be constrained.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless it can be shown that his behavior in AFD is problematic (neither the OP nor any of the voters even attempt to do this), there is no justification for such a ban. Bans are not a punishment, they are to protect Wikipedia against misbehavior. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 08:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to Oppose this one, as I've seen no evidence of any ongoing disruption at AfD in general that needs to be prevented. The problems were, as far as I can see, all centred on closing deletion discussions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - One of the reasons I opposed the initial proposal to lift the topic ban is that Superastig has only participated in four AfD discussions since February. This is also a reason to oppose a broader topic ban - there is no evidence that Superastig is causing any serious disruption at AfD. WJ94 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the point of banning someone from an area they are not contributing too but if they return and are disruptive the tolerance level might well be different. Spartaz Humbug! 14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This proposal is totally BS, given that they barely participated in AfDs after they were Tbanned. If an article they created gets contested in AfD and they cannot defend it because of the full AfD ban, that will be unfair for them. SBKSPP (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose these proposals are getting out of hand. There is zero evidence that Superastig has been disruptive at AFDs over the past six months.  Frank   Anchor  03:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't comprehend why one would propose that someone who has not participated in AFD much would be banned for it. Nfitz (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The problem at issue isn't one of AFD as a whole. It's specifically about the editor's closures. I echo multiple others in this thread in saying that this measure is unnecessary. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose He has enough of the metal horsepower to make excellent contributions at Afd, if he wants to. I don't why he can't make a contribution.    scope_creep Talk  16:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose reeks of retribution. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noting, my oppose redundant having now read the subsequent discussion below. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Further battleground problems
I just noticed something disturbing at User talk:Superastig. In response to a content-related disagreement (and I've no idea who's right over the content as I haven't looked), Superastig ended with "Even if we argue about this 'til the day we die, my edit in the article stands. So, it's either you leave my edits as is or this issue you started will get worse. The choice is yours." That's the exact same Don't you dare challenge me attitude that earned them the ban from closing AFDs. And it happened when their behaviour is under close scrutiny here at AN. Their user page says "I have really moved on from my past troubles and learned from them." That would not appear to be true. So, do we need some sort of final warning about dropping that aggressive and threatening attitude? It can't be allowed to go on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I also read that as a threat. I'm seriously thinking a preventative WP:BLOCK is likely in order here. I'm open to other interpretations though. - jc37 12:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, this was more or less my point in the roving disruption, although it was before this discussion. They are a problem, nut just a problem in AfDs. last time it was canvassing, now it's edit warring. I have no idea why they haven't been more broadly blocked in their career. Star   Mississippi  12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is not great . Whether or not the actress playing the girlfriend in a film called "My Girlfriend, The Returnee" can be named as being in "the title role" (who cares?), this bit of the edit war is over a completely unsourced cast list that Superastig insists is correct because it's in IMDB (whether it's "verified" is irrelevant - Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am really surprised that their conduct hasn't received more scrutiny before since this is really obvious violation of both content and conduct policies. And their AFD stats show that Superastig !voted in 28 AFDs (with a result match stat of <75%) and apparently closed almost 1900 AFDs. With the poor understanding of wikipedia policies they have displayed here, I cringe to think of the potential damage. Abecedare (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now THATS a reason to ban them from closing! The 75% isn't that troubling in itself. But there's a clear lack of understanding here - and that's a huge number of closes. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * - they voted in 28 AFDs out of the last 200 AFD pages they edited, not out of 1891. Simply explotating that figure would lead to an estimate of 265 total votes. Anyway, here is another link showing more votes from the older AFD pages they edited, showing 66 votes out of 200 AFDs.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction in my methodology! Scrolling through all the pages of their AFD stats, I now see that they !voted in roughly 1350 AFDs (with a result match stat of about 88%) and so apparently closed about 550 AFDs. Nothing "wrong" with any of those stats per se and so that shouldn't IMO play a role in any further sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to give them a final warning about that IMV. Their attitude varies, differ when it comes to participating in AfDs, closing them or contribution. It can be better discussed in a separate thread and not here.
 * Based on their contribution, they barely go berserk and the recent one is an instance. So, it's pointless to give them a final warning. SBKSPP (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, SBKSPP, do you think their comment that I showed above is in any way acceptable? Don't you think we need some assurance that they will change their aggressive attitude towards other editors? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Boing! said Zebedee: TBH it's unacceptable. But it can be toned down and said in a more civil way.
 * Just warn and note them about WP:OWN and I'm sure they'll change. SBKSPP (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do hope they can change. But they haven't been taking the feedback they've had so far, and have just doubled down on the ownership - in this very discussion, below. Superastig does finally seem to be listening, but it took a block to do it, so let's hope for a good unblock request - I've left some advice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Nice bit of advice you left there yourself, SBKSPP - that should help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed that Superastig has not responded, either here or at their talk page where I told them their comment was unacceptable (and they have edited since). If we don't see some kind of acceptable response, showing understanding of how their aggressive ownership approach must stop, I would urge some admin action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You seem to have misunderstood the phrase this issue you started will get worse. If that happens, then they persisted. It's out of my control. So, I don't see it as a threat. It's not like saying they're gonna get haunted, which is considered a threat. I can't haunt them 'cause I don't know where they live. This is why I'd rather stay away from anything that would cause me to lose my cool. ASTIG 😎🙃 10:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Superastig, I don't see any way to misunderstand "Even if we argue about this 'til the day we die, my edit in the article stands. So, it's either you leave my edits as is...". It looks like blatant battleground ownership to me (and you had the nerve to accuse the other editor of ownership). *You* do not get to dictate that your edit stands, and it is absolutely unacceptable for you to try to control content that way. Do you really not understand that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * you had the nerve to accuse the other editor of ownership: It's based on the article's history, where that incident happened a few times before. I wouldn't have had accused them if it wasn't for them persisting. My edits in that certain article aren't disruptive at all since I leave a clear explanation in each of my edit. If they make some minor changes to my edits, then fine with me. It's no big deal. But if they completely revert my edits, then I don't think that's tolerable. ASTIG 😎🙃 15:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a dictionary definition of WP:OWN and you're providing no evidence to indicate you shouldn't be blocked more broadly. Star   Mississippi  15:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's terrible.—Alalch E. 15:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that response leaves me kind of speechless... admins? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm likely too involved to act, but I'd wholly support a broader block Star   Mississippi  20:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, gotta say thanks for making this whole thing real easy to understand.. Lulfas (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Obviously open to review and any admins feel free to change (including modifying to a pblock) if so desired. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Daniel, it's unfortunate but I think it's necessary - at least until we get some proper understanding of why their approach to disagreement is so utterly wrong. And, I'm not an expert on them, but I can't see a pblock that would work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That was my thoughts - I considered a pblock from article-space but ownership issues would probably migrate to other namespaces, so in terms of being prevenative, I went the full block. Daniel (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An indefinite block is too much IMV. Blocking them for 2 days to a week would suffice. But Blocking them indefinitely is outright ridiculous. Judging from their contributions, they're not like that everyday. I can say less than sometimes, they go berserk. Warn and note them about WP:OWN, and put them under surveillance by stalking their contribution page time by time. That'd do the trick. SBKSPP (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in my long experience, short timed blocks rarely work with chronic poor behaviour (even, perhaps especially, if that behaviour is intermittent), and editors often just sit them out and then carry on as before. What I think we needed is "You can't edit until you can convince us that your behaviour will change". And that's all an indefinite block is - it can easily be for less than 2 days. (I often think "indefinite" is a bad name - it's more of an open-ended block, just needing a bit of discussion to resolve.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Post-block conduct at User talk:Jack4576
I blocked Jack4576 for violating his community-imposed TBAN from AfD, in the form of polemical comments on his userpage about AfDs that resulted in the deletion of his articles, and users who !voted to delete (whom he suggested all should be sanctioned). In response, he posted an all-caps boldfaced statement to his usertalk continuing his polemic against said editors, attempting to game his way around the TBAN by referring to "ANY EDITOR (GENERALLY SPEAKING) THAT MISUNDERSTANDS WP:AUD (GENERALLY, IN ANY AND ALL FORUMS ON THIS SITE)", but still clearly referring to the same editors in the same context (WP:AUD being, after all, a policy that only really comes up at AfD). I removed the statement as a further TBAN violation and instructed him to not post it again. He then reposted a similar statement. Could another admin please assess whether a revocation of talkpage access—or at least a talking-to from someone other than myself—is warranted? Thanks. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been a lengthy pattern of boundary-testing with this editor on several fronts, and I doubt they'll stop, but I'll give it a try.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not encouraging. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And that's not all. –dlthewave ☎ 04:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the 1-week block was inappropriate - it should've been indefinite. Their talk page history shows a months-long pattern of being warned and blocked, arguing extensively with admins in pseudo-legalese, refusing to acknowledge their poor behavior and going straight back to it as soon as the block is up. Enough is enough. –dlthewave ☎ 04:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * They're asking for it so badly now. I think we should give it to them. I would block indef and remove tpa but I did interact with this user over it's inappropriate Hunter Biden related BLPs and so I'm WP:INVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I do not think that we should refer to fellow human beings as "it". Am I missing something here? Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you're reading it that way and not as asking for an indefinite block.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , you've misread it: They're asking for [an indefinite block]...  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Cullen328 referred to I did interact with this user over it's inappropriate (emph. added)? Ljleppan (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have said "their inappropriate", I regret the error. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I actually see it as maybe a positive development that he's shifting toward a generalized rant rather than one related to AfD. Of course the ideal would be no rant, but getting blocked isn't a pleasant thing, and, having been in that situation once, I try to remember what that felt like. Maybe I'm just being naïve here, but I would say as long as he can avoid further TBAN violations while blocked, I would rather we let the tempblock play out. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * My opinion is, and has been for some time, that Jack4576 is heading towards an indefinite block, and that it's a question of when. In so many different respects their behaviour follows patterns which have been grounds for blocks for many editors, but in each case they manage to stay short of the level where it would lead to an indefinite block. However, all put together the numerous incidents add up to far more than has led to indefinite blocks for many other editors. The central problem is total belief that their own view is the absolute truth, and contempt for anyone who disagrees. That problem manifests itself in many ways, including persistent battleground approach to other editors, and refusal to accept consensus and policies. Sooner or later it is going to be decided that the sum of all Jack4576's kinds of disruptive and uncooperative behaviour more than outweighs any benefit their editing may confer, and the indefinite block is going to come. Jack has been given plenty of rope, and each time has decided to stretch the rope as far as they think they can before it breaks. Personally, I see no benefit in further postponing the inevitable. JBW (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am (Now regretfully) the user who can be credited with turning the tide at the previous ANI against an indef block. I withdraw my support for Jack being granted any further chances. He has no capacity for working cooperatively or listening to others. I see no reason to continue allowing his need to treat every interaction as opportunity to pen a Tolstoy novel length response and argue as though we are at The Hague. I’m beyond disappointed that he proved the naysayers right. Indef block and we can all move on. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * After being blocked today and warned about calling other editors for sanction because he believes they don't follow consensus, he asks again for editors to be sanctioned who disagree with him. I call again for the sanction of editors that persistently refuse to follow consensus, and are disrupting article creators generally across this website. I have seen Jack4576 consistently argue at length with anyone that disagrees with him or his interpretation of WP "policy" especially when it relates to AfDs. I have seen many indefinitely blocked for far less in my 16 years in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @LibStar yep, and (after scrubbing his TP), he restores one of my comments and responds to it by calling me uncivil and essentially pointing out that he’s a great listener and takes advice. Whatever. I am beyond wasting another second now. If I’d known how things would play out, I’d not have persuaded others to give him another go. My naivety on display. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh the irony of taking advice. He was politely warned several times before his topic ban about his conduct. He responded to one editor who mentioned going to ANI by saying he chose to ignore the warning and just continued his behaviour. Several weeks down the track we are at this point. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @MaxnaCarta: I too have noted the irony of an editor who demands sanctions against editors for ignoring consensus while they're ignoring consensus at every possible moment. However, your assumption of good faith does you credit, don't let it bother you.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I second the last sentence! MaxnaCarta, you're a fine editor and this doesn't detract from it. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how his generalized comments - not mentioning specific editors - about what he thinks is wrong with WP on his talk page really hurt anything. (I mean, "too many women in red" is pretty stupid, but stupid has not usually been a blocking criterion.)  Just ignore him, unwatchlist his talk page, and if disruption occurs after the block expires, then indef block.  But I'd suggest giving him some breathing room right now, unless I'm missing something glaring.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Floquenbeam I think you may well be missing something glaring. Jack has endlessly debated dozens of editors and worn them to the absolute bone for several months now. Despite multiple blocks, lengthy ANI proceedings, and innumerable attempts by good faith editors including myself at counselling him to just edit rather than fight everyone, he refuses and just causes exhaustive conflict. They say no diff, or it didn’t happen. In this case his entire editing history for the last 8-12 weeks is the diff. There are too many to mention. He was close to being indef blocked until I volunteered to mentor him and advised him to beaver away editing on his own for a few months but instead he has just continued to passive aggressively engage in ad nauseous debate about EVERYTHING under the sun. It’s so disappointing and exhausting. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW all, I’m editing off mobile and just realised this is AN and not ANI. I shouldn’t really be here as I’m not an administrator. Thanks for letting me chip in and respecting my view, but I’ll leave it to the admins to sort out. Cheers all and please ping me if you need me. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin too. I'll leave it to others to decide an outcome. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works; anyone is welcome at both pages. You can, of course, bow out, but you don't have to. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying he wasn't disrupting anything pre-block, or that the 1 week block was too harsh or too kind. I have no idea about that. I'm just saying that, if the only thing he's done after the 1 week block, is a generalized rant that isn't calling out anyone in particular, then I don't think we should do anything more, and we should probably back off and not scrutinize his every comment on his own talk page.  That's all. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair call. It’s only a matter of time before another person has enough and brings this back to ANI. I’m just so annoyed because we all spent such a long time sorting out the last dispute and he pretty much agreed to beaver away at content and avoid interacting with anyone. Yet he just cannot help but to argue. Even now he is engaging in a conversation with himself, tagging me and other editors trying to restart debate. It’s so tiring. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's like he enjoys creating a battlefield. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless someone disagrees, I am going to:
 * warn him that any more pinging anyone, or mentioning anyone specific, will result in removal of talk page access, and
 * warn him that an uninvolved reading of this thread and the previous ANI thread makes it clear that the community's patience is exhausted, and *any* disruption after the block expires will result in an indef block, and that this is not open to discussion or negotiation, it is simply what is going to happen, and
 * close this thread.
 * Any objections? Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections. He is continually pinging me which is rather WP:POINT. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the current pinging is already grounds for a loss of TPA, but Floquenbeam's final-final warning proposal is also fine so as not to belabor the point. signed,Rosguill talk 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And perhaps he should live out the current 1 week as an enforced wikibreak and make no attempt to communicate with others. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)