Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	4	4
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	62	62
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 13 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 42 sockpuppet investigations
• 25 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 14 Fully protected edit requests
• 6 Candidates for history merging
• 2 requests for RD1 redaction
• 46 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 17 requested closures
• 143 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 24 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (85 out of 8685 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin File talk:Emblem-important.svg 2024-10-22 19:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan Ronahî TV 2024-10-22 14:54 2024-10-29 14:54 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry ScottishFinnishRadish User:Tar Lócesilion/citations 2024-10-22 13:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated El C Brian calle 2024-10-22 13:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Calle El C Şerif Pasha 2024-10-22 06:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/KURD; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User talk:PhilKnight 2024-10-22 01:43 2024-10-23 01:43 edit PhilKnight Draft:MARVEX OSHA 2024-10-21 20:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated copyvio draft Diannaa Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) 2024-10-21 15:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR (non-modern, but treating as a primary article) El C List of Süper Lig broadcasters 2024-10-21 12:32 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD BitLife 2024-10-21 12:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD User talk:Fue(l)TheFuego17 2024-10-21 08:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:FuelTheFuego 16 2024-10-21 08:53 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:FuelTheFuego 15 2024-10-21 08:50 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:FuelTheFuego 14 2024-10-21 08:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:FuelTheFuego 13 2024-10-21 08:42 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:FuelTheFuego 12 2024-10-21 08:42 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot User talk:FuelTheFuego 2 2024-10-21 08:31 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; preventing further socking 331dot User talk:FuelTheFuego 2024-10-21 06:36 indefinite edit,move PhilKnight Bhatti 2024-10-20 17:52 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE Favonian Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle 2024-10-20 16:42 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry El C Virk 2024-10-20 15:15 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian User talk:Soumyasch/TOC Talk 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:ZappaOMatic/Archive 1 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 16 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User:Mjroots/Admin 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JaGa/Archive 2 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User:FayssalF/Articles 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2014/October 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JBW/Archive 32 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alison/Archive 52 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2013/July 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2010/May 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Denelson83/Sailor Moon 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alison/Archive 71 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JaGa/Archive 6 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2014/Early 2014 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2014/August 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User:Marine 69-71/Wall of Honor 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2010/July 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alison/Archive 55 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alexf/Archive 43 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alison/Archive 80 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alexf/Archive 5 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Canterbury Tail/Historic Archive 11 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Canterbury Tail/Historic Archive 6 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User:ST47/07debate 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alison/Archive 66 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alison/Archive 83 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User:Chrislk02/archive15 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2010/June 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 12 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Okip 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 10 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:PhilKnight/Archive13 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:PhilKnight/Archive26 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:PhilKnight/Archive91 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Colin/Archive 11 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Kwork2/Archive 2 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JaGa/Archive 8 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JaGa/Archive 7 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JBW/Archive 65 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Ks0stm/Archive 7 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 15 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Keilana/Archive3 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Pedro/Archive 26 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Canterbury Tail/Historic Archive 12 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2010/January 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:PhilKnight/Archive18 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JaGa/Archive 9 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:PhilKnight/Archive54 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Master Jay/Archives Dec 2006 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:NrDg/Archive 080429 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac User:Chrislk02/archive01 2024-10-20 14:11 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for lint error fixes Primefac History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean 2024-10-20 08:35 2024-10-27 08:35 move Unnecessary page moves Liz Skibidi Toilet 2024-10-20 04:54 2024-12-26 20:45 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: upgrade back to WP:ECP for the duration; still many issues from confirmed accounts on this article subject, the emperor of brainrot El C Beit Lahia massacre 2024-10-20 04:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Be'eri 2024-10-19 23:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Chen Kugel 2024-10-19 20:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C 2020–2021 Thai protests 2024-10-19 15:55 2024-11-19 15:55 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueDIAMOND20s RoySmith Klea Pineda 2024-10-19 08:30 2024-10-26 08:30 move Subject to inappropriate page moves Liz Talk:Klea Pineda 2024-10-19 08:29 2024-10-26 08:29 move Subject to inappropriate page moves Liz User:Caulde/u 2024-10-19 02:16 indefinite edit,move User is inactive, page is inactive, no reason for full protection Anachronist Kalhora 2024-10-18 23:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Template:Non-admin comment 2024-10-18 22:33 indefinite edit,move Has neither sufficient transclusions nor sufficiently complex to need TE protection. Izno Football League 2025 2024-10-18 19:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD

Closure request for "Inside Voices / Outside Voices"

I posted this before, but it got archived. Per my inquiry at WP:HD, I am requesting a procedural close or snowball close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Voices / Outside Voices (2nd nomination). --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jax 0677 I have SNOW closed it, if anybody has problems with my close feel free to revert and we can discuss. Thanks, Seawolf35 ^T--C 07:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Koavf unblocked

It will probably be of interest to a number of admins that I have recently unblocked Koavf (talk · contribs), and as a condition of this, they have agreed to an indefinite one revert restriction. As Koavf is a long-standing editor with an extensive block log for edit-warring, including several indefinite blocks, I think this unblock is worth reviewing to see if there is a solid consensus for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If looking at that CVS receipt of a block log is correct this is the FIFTH time they were indef'd. At what point do we say as a community "it's not worth our time"? I should add I do not approve of the unblock at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As I've mentioned to Koavf on his talk page, if the 1RR doesn't work, the next thing that I will probably propose is a site ban. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was wondering about that myself, and also why the unblock was with a one revert restriction when Koavf's proposal and the entire discussion of their unblock was around a zero revert restriction. Also, by my count this is the ninth time they've been unblocked from an edit-warring block after promising not to do it again. How many times do we have to keep doing this? As far as I can tell the edit warring policy does not say "unless you are Koavf" anywhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess to keep it on topic: bad unblock. There's no way that an editor with this long of a block log with so many blocks, many of them indefinite, for the same thing that they are currently blocked for, should have been unblocked without a clear consensus at a community discussion board. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Just would like to note that I blocked Koavf indefinitely and yet Ritchie did not consult with me before unblocking. Not surprising, at least not to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My reading of that discussion is that they agreed to a WP:0RR sanction. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear to you and to others (e.g. User:Number 57), I am restricting myself to no reverts/undos/etc. for at least a year, no matter the editing restrictions that Ritchie or the community place upon me that are less restrictive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Personally, I would be tempted to propose a site ban today. Indeed, it's odd that it hasn't happened yet. But this unblock is bizarre. Ritchie333 tells Koavf that they're in the "last-chance saloon"; I'd like clarification on where this saloon is located—on the 31st or 32nd block? Also, the lack of discussion with the blocking admin is disturbing and pretty clearly against the spirit of WP:UNBLOCK (where ...the agreement of the blocking admin is something of a mantra). Bad unblock. ——Serial 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A few points:

• Koavf's unblock request talks about 1RR. As it was not obvious whether 0RR or 1RR was being agreed to, I deferred to the least restrictive option given.
• A number of longstanding editors, including Boing! said Zebedee, Thinker78 and Valereee, suggested an editing restriction would be a suitable way forward.

• I took Bbb23's silence on the talk page as an indication they had no strong opinions on what happened next.
• In general, I find unblock requests tend to stagnate and take weeks to get any action - bringing them here for review gets a faster result.
• If there is no consensus to unblock Koavf, then I have no objection to them being reblocked indefinitely. Or, if there is a consensus to site ban Koavf, I won't object to that either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As Koavf has agreed to a voluntary 0RR, I think a formal 1RR is a wise choice. It gives him a little leeway (but only a little) for an occasional 1RR mistake without being instantly blocked. He should, of course, endeavour to stick to 0RR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My view is that the overriding thing that matters is whether unblocking an editor will be a net positive to the project, and in this case I think that's a big yes. In fact, as I suggested at Koavf's talk page, I think we'd still have a significant net positive if we just blocked him for a fixed period (1 month?) every time he gets into an edit war (providing it's not too frequently). In the past, I've favoured "wasting community time" as a reason to keep someone blocked. But these days I realise that if I think someone is wasting my time, they can't be - because I'm the only one who can do that. So if anyone thinks Koavf is wasting their time, they can surely just ignore him - and if enough people don't think so, we're fine, aren't we? (TLDR: Good unblock, thanks Ritchie.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why even bother with a one month block? There's always someone around who will unblock Koavf: nine times now he's been unblocked, and many of those blocks were timed blocks that were undone before they expired. If not wasting time is our goal, we should just add # You are [[User:Koavf]]. to the bottom of the WP:3RRNO list. As for being a net positive: I'd also like to know how one achieves this designation, so that I too can repeatedly disregard policies that I find inconvenient or difficult to follow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, you have my thoughts on how I think we should look at unblocks - more holistically rather than by strict rule-following. But if you don't like my opinion, others are available :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ay, per IV, and it's been repeatedly established in the past at both ANI and Arbcom that neither the number nor the quality of one's edits exempts an editor from the rules everyone else has to follow. And frankly, if we're to effectively guarantee that they'll never receive a block longer than, e.g. a month, then that's hardly a deterrent, more of an encouragement. ——Serial 15:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

{ec}:Yes. Koavf has had almost 30 blocks in his editing career. Do we really just say "Well, he's a good editor" (I'm not sure what the criteria people using is who say this). So can he have an unlimited number of one month blocks? I don't see in the unblock any suggestion that he should be at any point indefinitely blocked. I think this was a bad unblock. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So we are to "just ignore him" if he continues to edit war? How in the world is that a "net positive"? The project is better off without him editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but I saw the dispute that triggered the current round, and I have been wondering whether it would be possible to set a bot or Special:AbuseFilter to auto-block him if he makes edits that earn relevant Special:Tags (e.g., Undo or Manual revert, or more than one on the same page per day). This would trigger even for blatant vandalism, so he wouldn't be able to do that, but he won't be able to do that if we siteban him, either.

There is a theory of punishment that says that the best approach to changing someone's behavior is a punishment that is prompt, expected, and small enough that an appeal isn't especially pointful. An instant block for a few days upon infraction might be more effective than ongoing discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea as a technical solution, and I generally agree with the underlying principle, but I recoil at the thought of writing a piece of software just to deal with one editor. We already have an effective tool for dealing with people who refuse to follow policies and conventions – we apparently just lack the will to use it consistently. – bradv 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't a productive approach either: most of the blocks in Koavf's very long block log are for 48 hours or less, including one that was successfully appealed after just 42 minutes. Koavf always says they've learned their lesson and won't do it again, somebody always unblocks him, and he always does it again. Occasionally there's a long interlude but he always ends up blocked again. We've tried short blocks, we've tried long blocks, Arbcom even tried 1RR parole which he was blocked for violating five times within a year. He doesn't improve - we've repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't need to, and some of us are saying that in plain English in this thread. Our choices here are to implement a technical restriction that prevents him from reverting for any reason (if an edit filter can do that), or siteban him; anything else is a formal acknowledgement that Koavf is functionally exempt from the edit warring policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This also seems like a good place to note that Koavf has had rollback rights since 2010. I realize that removing it is kind of pointless (since we have many tools that can perform the same function without needing userrights) but I struggle to think of a better example of justification for its removal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The edit filter can't AFAIK filter based on tags, but it can filter based on edit summary which is probably good enough. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Building abusefilter entries to sanction single users is bad use of resources, individual users being disruptive should be managed with blocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect there's a number of indeffed editors out there (if they're looking in), who aren't going to be too happy. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• +1 to this being a bad unblock. At the very least, I would have expected a 0RR restriction being imposed. Number 57 16:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) One word – pathetic. If Koavf can get away with it (despite making promises not to edit war in the past) then every other blocked editor/IP/sockpuppet/etc should also be unblocked. There must be no room for "special treatment" like with this particular editor. – sbaio 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't approve of this decision and I hope it's promptly reversed.—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Agree - bad unblock, this should have been discussed with the community before. GiantSnowman 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, that's a good point; in the past I have gone to AN to get an unblock request reviewed (IIRC I did this with Winkelvi at least twice) and I'm actually puzzled I didn't do it this time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also think it's a bad unblock. The unblock especially without community discussion is rewarding recidivism behaviour. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a minor point of order, I didn't consider the unblock "unilateral"; rather I took it as the consensus of those who had commented at Koavf's talk page. If the wider consensus is Koavf shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all, then that's fine. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• The unspoken issue here is that Koavf is borderline WP:UNBLOCKABLE due to them being the fifth most prolific editor of all time. Of course, the second most prolific editor of all time is BrownHairedGirl, and we all know how that ended (though ArbCom had to be the one to ultimately ban her, because of the UNBLOCKABLE issue). But we still keep coming back here because edit warring is mild on the spectrum of misbehavior, and editors keep weighing Koavfs 2.2 million edits against that. Really, this whole thing is just tragic. I think we've all been hoping that Koavf would see sense after so many blocks. Like, how could you continue to not get it after making 2.2 million edits? But maybe that's exactly the point. Koavf has repeatedly proved that he is set in his ways and unwilling or unable to change. Still, Koavf's positive contributions to Wikipedia weight very heavily on the side of an unblock, so its hard to say that Ritchie's unblock was inherently bad. It is up to individual admins to decide unblocks, and Ritchie extended a ROPE. Now, one could argue Koavf has been given enough rope to open a macrame business, but given Koavf's unusual situation, I'm not sure that was inherently a bad thing. I think we're sometimes too quick to chase away our best editors. Plus, Koavf came up with a rather good unblock plan: ORR for a year, followed by indefinite 1RR. If anything, I think Ritchie's failing here was not accepting Koavf's 0RR plan. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  To the extent that anyone's motivated to, please codify an indefinite 0RR. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, I think the Captain sums up the dilemma well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I would like some clarification on the process leading to this decision because it seems to have been reached on the narrowest forum possible, without a strong consensus, and without consulting the blocking administrator. Unblocking someone with a history of 28 blocks (give or take), including 18 for edit warring, shouldn't have been done with such casual ease. The debate between 1RR and 0RR is a distraction and it completely ignores that they have a history of repeatedly violating 1RR parole conditions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Bad unblock. I'm unimpressed by Ritchie's argument here that several longstanding editors (giving three examples) suggested an editing restriction, as Ritchie of course knows that a not-on-the-face-of-it-very-well-watched user talkpage is an obscure place to come to a pretty momentous consensus. I should think there may be plenty of longstanding editors who deliberately avoid watching such an unpleasant place as Koavf's page, for the improvement of their Wikipedia experience. I'm an example myself, having unwatched the page after Doug Weller and I were comprehensively attacked by Koavf in the Antifa section in November 2023 (if you're interested at all, don't miss the tucked-away subsection "Weird aside" at the end, collapsed and marked "Resolved" [sic] by Koavf). As for Ritchie taking Bbb23's silence as giving consent, that's unusual, not in a good way. Bbb23 should at a minimum have been asked to comment. I will support either reblocking or replacing the block with Ivan Vector's "Proposal: No reverts restriction" below. Bishonen | tålk 10:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC).

I will also note that the failure to use any of the much more visible collapsing templates is a bit odd on Koavf's part, unless the presumption is made that it is done to hide the section from scrutiny, which then ends up making far more sense. For example, Template:Collapse, I would argue, would have been much more visible than the inline "Weird aside" which I actually scrolled past without realizing until I searched the page with Ctrl + F and found it. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I just used the first template I found. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on Koavf but I do think it was a bad idea to identify consensus based on a talk page discussion and think that doing so is against WP:LOCALCON; I have boldly made an edit to that policy to clarify this. BilledMammal (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note, the blocking admin was pinged twice here and here, and it was the lack of response there, and the comments by an admin and a retired admin (in good standing) about having an editing restriction instead of a block, that persuaded me to not decline the unblock request, which I probably would have done if there had been no third parties. I then immediately started the thread here, sceptical that the conversation really did amount to a full consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment. At what point do we say as a community "it's not worth our time"? When the time it takes the community to address negative edits from Koavf exceeds the time it legitimately takes Koavf to make positive contributions. Until then, Koavf is a net benefit for Wikipedia, even if Koavf gets in murky waters. If anything, I think it fair and proportional that if Koavf gets into disciplinary issues, they get discipline intended to protect the Wikipedia project, which in the case of Koavf, means getting up to "time outs" for a period of time not exceeding one year. Because as stated, Wikipedia even with Koavf controversial situations, in the end benefits from Koavf edits. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: 0RR with no unilateral unblocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seems to be pretty broad consensus above that unblocking with a 1RR was an insufficient remedy, but it's not clear to me that a motion to siteban would pass either. Since Koavf has indicated that he will hold himself to a 0RR regardless of the 1RR's leeway, and since a key concern raised above is the tendency of admins to unblock Koavf, I would like to propose the following community sanction:

Koavf is subject to an indefinite zero-revert restriction. If an administrator blocks Koavf for violating this restriction, he may not be unblocked without a consensus at the administrators' noticeboard. This restriction may appealed after one year, and every six months after an unsuccessful appeal.

I'll be honest, I'm not hugely opposed to a siteban either, but I'd like to see how this would go (and any block under the restriction would have the same effect as a siteban regardless). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support, although this feels somewhat like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. GiantSnowman 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I believe the better question to ask the community would be - Should Koavf be site-banned. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to !vote that here, if that's your preference. Just change the heading to "Proposed sanctions" or something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Inappropriate. Tamzin, as you know, this thread is not about redefining Koavf's remedy but whether Ritchie333's unilateral unblock had consensus. The above thread clearly shows that there is a consensus it was an inappropriate block. The result is, therefore, that Koavf should be reblocked; that is, the previous blocking administrator's judgment stands. The siteban was only mentioned in passing by a couple of us: it's pretty much a strawman to suggest that that was the main issue under discussion. The overall consensus to the question that Ritchie brought to the table—"was my unblock a good one?"—has received a resounding answer: No. So it gets overturned. There was also a pretty strong consensus that unblocking would just be kicking the can down road; this proposal enables the behavior further. ——Serial 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  There is not a meaningful difference between restoring the indef and sitebanning. An admin who unilaterally unblocked after a reblock would be going against consensus at best and wheel-warring at worst, so in either case an unblock request would have to come through AN. But like I said, I don't have a strong preference here. I just thought I'd give a middle-ground option. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: I fully accept your reasonable and considered proposal and subsequent response. My issue is rather that, so much middle ground has been covered in the past, that it's now a no man's land; and unfortunately, it's no longer Christmas day. ——Serial 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support This seems to be a reasonable solution to the issue I identify above; i.e. that Ritchie's failing here was not accepting Koavf's 0RR suggestion. Plus, Koavf himself has requested it in this discussion, so that's all the more reason to formalize it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a second choice; I'm going to write in a slightly different proposal below. I don't think that Koavf should be reblocked at this point: I agree with Ritchie that there was consensus to unblock in the talk page discussion that did occur. I still think Ritchie took liberties in the imposed restriction that were beyond reasonable license, but there's no preventive purpose to reblocking Koavf because of that, and I don't see the value in pursuing anything else in that regard - admins make mistakes. This restriction puts into writing that future unblocks must be with the broad consensus of the community, not just short discussions among Koavf's supporters. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I think 1RR is sufficient, but I can support this too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I too think that 1RR is sufficient, but if the others think that 0RR is necessary, then I will support their choice. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Tamzin's comments above and below. Ajpolino (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I think 0RR might be easier to understand than 1RR. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support This seems a reasonable solution. ORR should have been the minimum when Koavf was unblocked but better late never.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a last chance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - But that ice is getting mighty thin. 0RR solves one issue. This is obviously a prolific, historic Wikipedia editor, but the off-putting rhetorical style and long block log are serious concerns, and the Talk page hatted “Weird” section inappropriately marked “Resolved” is disturbing, even if on their own Talk page. Suggest avoiding edgy topics and editors, and walking away from anything rightly or wrongly perceived as WP:BAIT. And the unilateral unblock deserves at least a trout, but it was then brought here by the admin for review, so, well… Jusdafax (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This should be seen as an absolute final chance, and any additional edit warring should result in a site ban. SkyWarrior 02:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin). Bbb23 should have been notified before unblocking but what is done is done. This is their absolute last chance. Polyamorph (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support although I would like to see the proposal go further and state Koafv must be blocked if they breach 0RR, rather than giving any leeway on this. Number 57 15:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support only if Site ban or reinstatement of indef do not pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support, third choice to the below tweak or a siteban. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support only if siteban/indef do not pass. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: site ban, second choice restore indefinite block

Per a number of statements above this should be put forward as an alternative to an editing restriction. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support The advantage of a site ban—which, of course, needn't be of any fixed duration—is that it prevents any unblocks without community input, unlike what caused the above shenanigans. And the second choice indef block is not so much a second choice as, well, a pretty clear reading of the consensus above. FTR, I do not consider 2.2 million edits to weigh anything against repeatedly pissing off the community for years and being enabled to do so. Mileage may, of course vary, as ever. ——Serial 20:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support To me all the 0RR restriction about is kicking the can down the road. It's not if it happens again but when. The message this sends is, at least to me, "You can do what you want if you edit enough". If this was an editor with a fraction of the edits, and specifically this block log, we aren't having this discussion right now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is definitely trying to shut the stable door! GiantSnowman 21:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• It's ridiculous that we have to do this to get a block to stick, but it looks like this is what we have to do to get a block to stick.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Checking his shopping list of a block log is enough to me oppose once again unblocking him, which would give him the status as an WP:UNBLOCKABLE. Some people have suggested giving him 1RR or 0RR as a countermeasure, but he seems to been known to violate these 'restrictions'. For example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=9287453

ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)— ASmallMapleLeaf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That so-called shopping list is a by-product of using a single account to make over 2 million edits. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Koavf is #5 on WP:MOSTEDITS. The #1 editor on that list has never been blocked intentionally. #3 spent 92 minutes blocked for edit-warring in 2007. #4 was blocked for 1 minute in 2009 to get their attention. Then there's #2 on that list, BrownHairedGirl, who is now ArbComBanned, but even her block log is much shorter than Koavf's, and only goes back to 2019. So I don't buy a long block log as an occupational hazard of making lots of edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Several of these prolific editors are/were admins, which does affect block probability. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 I am also a newer user (hence the low edit count) but I have spectated ANI for a long time as a pastime (sometimes when flying and wheb there is no internet) ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

^thats not to say I like editting ANI more than other articles, though. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because it would be a net negative for the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I am not opposed to this but slightly prefer my proposal above. Koavf has been given very ample notice about the existence of the edit-warring policy, so I couldn't really feel bad for him if he's run out of the community's patience here, and can't justify opposing this. But I guess I take a WP:ROPE attitude toward his offer of 0RR, made enforceable by my proposal; if he can't keep that 0RR, we'll know soon enough. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - it would be a significant loss to Wikipedia if we can't find a way for Koavf to be able to continue editing, and we ought to keep trying to find a solution that works. struck; see below But a thought occurred to me in this: have you noticed that we only use terms like "net positive" and "net loss" when discussing editors who have behaved so badly that they're facing expulsion from the site? Maybe those terms don't mean what we think they do in Wikipedia jargon. If you have to be defended as a "net positive", maybe you just aren't. I'm not directing that at anyone in particular, just food for thought. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support siteban - I can image what currently site-banned editors are thinking right now. Jeepers, I was site-banned for a whole year (2012–13) for arguably less disruptive behavior. We shouldn't be seen as giving preferential treatment to any editor. PS - I did look over their block-log & WP:UNBLOCKABLES did cross my mind. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin comment) - We shouldn't have any WP:UNBLOCKABLES, and having such a prolific edit history is not an excuse for this amount of behavior issues. Edit count alone doesn't make someone a "net positive", and I agree with Ivanvector's thoughts above. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• I somewhat reluctantly support this. Reluctantly, because Justin has been here for a long time and is indeed prolific--but from that record we need to subtract the amount of disruption and busy-ness caused by edit warring and blocks and discussions. The "no reverts" promise is something, but this--they didn't even take it back. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm missing something, but that actually seems like a reasonable question. It wasn't immediately clear what Doug Weller was trying to accomplish by posting that comment. Without context, it did rather smack of gravedancing. Perhaps I'm bending over too far backwards trying to be gracious to Justin, but I think we need to be especially careful to be fair to an editor when we are talking about banning him. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also thought Doug's comments were gravedancing, although coming from the same frustration being expressed in this discussion and so maybe fair comment. I thought about saying something at the time but I really thought that nobody would unblock Justin again and it would be better to let it blow over. Anyway I think Justin's response was a reasonable reaction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, I thought you'd know Doug a bit better than that. No editor whose career is on the line should respond in that way. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think I know Doug just well enough to believe he intended to "describ[e] factually, solely for the information of other editors, disruptive activities that resulted in a block" (the last bullet under "what is not gravedancing"), but a reasonable reading of Doug's words sounds more like "you deserve to stay blocked this time", particularly with Doug's later reply that he could see why Justin wouldn't want him to highlight his 28 or 29 previous blocks, and that tips the scale pretty far in the other direction. By "frustration" I mean that when I saw Koavf's username struck through in my watchlist I thought something like "fucking Christ, again?!" and so maybe I crossed Doug's words with my own emotion. But whatever it is, if Doug's comments were fair then so were Justin's replies. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector@Lepricavark I've been wondering if I should reply, but I've decided I should. Did you see User:Bishonen's comment above? Bishonen blocked Koafv from Antifa after I asked Koafv a question about an edit he made to the article which I reverted and the discussion on his talk page spiralled rapidly downwards. Among other uncivil comments, "Doug left semi-literate edit summaries that made no sense to me: that's a fact. He even comes here and writes half-formed sentences and writes responses to himself asking himself questions:" I didn't know anything about this editor at that time so far I can recall but I was left with the impression of a very uncollaborative and unpleasant editor. At the time I hadn't realised he had a long block history. When I discovered it during an earlier exchange I was gobsmacked - there aren't that many editors with such a long history of blocks. My opinion then and now is that we don't want editors like him, 2 million edits notwithstanding. Obviously other editors I respect disagree with me on that. Also please see User:Ritchie's response to my last post on Koafv's talk page. In retrospect it would probable a better idea for my section heading to have simply suggested to any Admin considering an unblock to look at their block log.

  Maybe also take a look at Kofav's response to User:Fram's mild comment about his not using reliable sources. Koafv accuses Fram of harassing several times there (it seems to be one of Koafv's favorite words) and lying. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• (Fixing Doug Weller's ping of User:Fram. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC).)

Yes, I did see Justin's incivility toward you and I am sorry that you were subjected to that. (Obviously, Justin is the one who should be saying sorry, but that seems unlikely to happen.) I don't believe that your intent in leaving those comments was to gravedance, but if I was in Justin's shoes I probably would have perceived them that way. If I was in Justin's shoes, I'd also like to believe that I wouldn't edit-war so much or attack the literacy of clearly literate editors. That sort of thing is why he finds himself on the thinnest of ice, with even supporters such as myself ready to withdraw our support if he doesn't behave angelically moving forward. But my concern is that when an editor is on the verge of being banned, it is easy to begin seeing everything they do as further evidence that they should be banned. I can't fault Justin's response to your comments about his block log, and I don't think it is fair to use them against him. But again, just to be clear, I do not think you were in fact gravedancing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. But I have to note it's not just me he's been uncivil to. Which makes me wonder whether if he is unblocked civility should be a condition. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: apologies for suggesting you were engaging in gravedancing; I meant to describe how your comments could be interpreted that way by someone not familiar with the situation, and I see that I made a poor job of it. In fact I was not aware of those other issues: I largely ignore Koavf's user talk and didn't look beyond the unblock request when all this happened, so I guess it's me that's "not familiar with the situation". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector don't worry about it. Happens to us all and in fact I missed his attacks on Fram and had forgotten about the attacks on Bish and me even though I think he's the only person who's ever called me illiterate! Otherwise I would have mentioned them earlier. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment) per what others already said. Having some kind of "celebrity" status does not make it acceptable to keep breaking the rules and getting away with it. Every editor must be treated equally and "2 million edits" is not a justification (along with extensive block log, which just shows that this is a problematic editor). – sbaio 18:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose he's offered us 0RR. Let's give it one last shot. If he fails to adhere to this promise, I will support a ban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. According to his block log, he's been blocked in the past for violating a 1RR restriction. I see no reason - and certainly not his contribution numbers - to do this again. It feels like a broken record.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per my reasoning in the section just above. Jusdafax (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• I do not necessarily object to a site ban at this time, however I am willing to give a 0RR restriction a chance. SkyWarrior 02:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose In the spirit of WP:ROPE. Curbon7 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Have you checked Koavfs block log? I think he has ran out of rope by now

  ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Bbb23. Enough, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, first preference, regrettably. Enough is enough. We've given him plenty of rope, and he has hung himself, as the metaphor goes. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, first preference. I thank Koavf for the effort he has put into the encyclopedia, but the block log and the recent incident with Bishonen/Doug Weller are too damning. I have no reason to believe that any restriction imposed on editing will in the end be adhered to. It is likely a future block or sanction will be needed, even if it takes awhile, and this discussion will most likely happen again regardless of any restrictions which may be imposed. Not a good use of community time. I think we need a strongly enforced and decently long separation from Koavf before we consider granting WP:ROPE again; he's had more than enough until this point. —Sirdog (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support I am not convinced that he will comply with any editing restriction. Scorpions1325 (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:RECIDIVISM. Every single block leading up to this point are all because of edit warring. This isn't a mixture of vandalism, edit warring, sockpuppeting, legal threat blocks all piled together and inflated the block log. He has already been indef'ed twice. Why are we awarding rule-breaking behaviour? And if he didn't get the message after having indef block lifted the first time, why do we think his behaviour will improve second time around? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support While the contributions of Koavf are appreciated, they cannot be allowed to outweigh the user's numerous violations of the rules, including sixteen blocks for edit warring and five ArbCom revert restriction violations. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Having re-read Koavf's talkpage including the Fram business, this is where I land. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC).
• Not opposed - after some discussion I can't remain opposed to sitebanning, but I'm wary of supporting. Many of the comments here refer to WP:UNBLOCKABLES, and I fear that some of them are supporting this action not because Koavf's behaviour warrants a siteban on its own merit but just to make an example of very prolific users, or as retribution for less-prolific editors who were banned for less. We have not ever and should not now start blocking users to make a point of demonstrating their infallibility, and I hope that anyone who has already commented in that vein with reflect on their comments before this closes. That said, the years-long issues with edit warring coupled with a growing pattern of unpleasant interpersonal conflict suggests that Koavf's tenure on this project is rapidly approaching its end. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. We're past warning in this case, which is truly a tragedy for Wikipedia. Like others have mentioned, Koavf doesn't seem to restrain themselves even when they are aware they are acting disruptively. If this proposal fails, I'd be okay with Tamzin's 0RR compromise. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - This isn't a case of harassment, abuse of power, sock puppetry, personal attacks, or some other severe issue -- it's edit warring. It's frustrating, and at some point enough is definitely enough, but it's a narrow behavioral problem with clear options for remedies which should be tried first -- and we have possible interventions available which are meant for this very purpose. When making so many edits it'll be nigh impossible to avoid accidentally or unthinkingly reverting something, so I don't know how long it will last, but it's worth trying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Koavf has been blocked only a few times in the 13 years despite making over 2,000,000 edits. The few makes he has made have been: minor, did nott feature any canvassing, crude language, sockpupptry, or any other disruptive editing other than reverts themselves. Koavf has not been shown to be generally uncooperative or disruptive and these incidents have been the exception, not the norm. We can't keep losing big editors to minor incidents like this. See further reasoning in my section. Ovsk (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I note that this user has made nine edits, six to this page and the other three in their user space. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support as first and only option At some point, enough is enough. I don't care if a net positive is removed for the sake of bringing in twice as much negative. He has no restraint, it's already been proven before. — Moe Epsilon 12:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. Excessive. BD2412 T 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rhododendrites. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. If a user is given an unblock, along with a specific condition they must keep in order to remain unblocked, they must not be reblocked unless their behavior after the unblock either violates the condition or would be completely unacceptable for a normal user. The unblocked ck may have been bad, but 0RR is a clear rule for him to follow. As long as he doesn't violate this rule, don't reblock. Animal lover |666| 23:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that on a net balance, Koavf likely brings a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Certainly no editor gets a free pass, but certainly the context of their vast positive contributions need to be taken into account. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural comment: I've closed proposal 1 as successful, and proposal 3 as unsuccessful. Courtesy ping to @CaptainEek, M.Bitton, Ajpolino, Espresso Addict, Pawnkingthree, Polyamorph, Number 57, and Star Mississippi, who weighed on at least one of the other propsals and have not opined whether a siteban remains necessary here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron: thanks. BTW, I didn't receive a notification (probably because the pinging was done as part of an edit change). M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Weird! let's reping @CaptainEek, Ajpolino, Espresso Addict, Pawnkingthree, Polyamorph, and Star Mississippi. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Theleekycauldron. Not sure if I didn't receive it or I missed it. From my POV, no indef needed. Other solutions can address the problem until/unless it recurs. Star Mississippi 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I am not familiar with the details of this issue, but just looking at this thread, it appears clear to me that any person generating so much overhead for fellow editors, and with a block log that takes up more than one screen, is a net negative to the project. Productive editors quietly generate articles, not drama. Sandstein 07:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think this is necessary, as the 0RR is already effectively a ban: I have no confidence Koavf will be able to abide by it. Would be awesome if I were to be proven wrong. —Cryptic 10:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support siteban (as a non-admin), and theleekycauldron's close of the above proposal was premature, as presumably many commenters would have believed that simply dropping off a support in another section would be sufficient to count as an implicit oppose to the earlier proposal. One of the classic problems with managing problem users is what to do about someone who engages in low-level unpleasantness for a long period of time but without jumping completely off the rails, and Wikipedia is unusually inept at this. Rhododendrites says above that koavf "only" engages in edit wars. So? Aside from the uncalled for abuse toward Doug Weller linked above, even if we grant for a moment that the only problem is edit wars, someone who has edit warred that much should still be blocked! This is not a hard behavioral criteria to meet. To productively move forward, if there's a case for unblock, there's a slow but powerful way to do it: contribute productively without incident for a long time on another WMF project. Do that, and an unblock request might have merit. But just more promises? SnowFire (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Not my first choice, but ultimately I don't think they should have been unblocked and I would be amazed if they didn't trigger their 0RR within the next few months, so it might just be best to get it done with now. I agree with some of the comments above about that their repeated unblocking (despite probably having one of the longest block logs on Wikipedia) is not fair to other editors who were not given so many chances. Number 57 14:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  "...so it might be best to get it done with now", is there a WP:THOUGHTCRIME in the glossary? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I would prefer to try the 0RR first. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. Therefore, it is right to give the user a final chance to operate under the terms of the 0RR editing restriction. Polyamorph (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose prefer to try 0RR first, per my comment on the proposal above. That said, I don't have a ton of hope that 0RR will work, and I understand why folks think an indef/siteban is the only way to prevent further disruption. Ajpolino (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban although with eligibility to apply for reinstatement in six months. This is an editor who has been habitually edit-warring at least since 2006, when he was first indeffed for edit-warring, and is regularly unblocked. As a comment, the designation of certain editors as unblockable should probably be unbannable, because blocks do not stick to these users. The community needs to ensure that this block sticks. This is an example of how ArbCom should sometimes review the sanctions against editors with long block logs if the community is split. If there is consensus for a ban, Koavf should be banned by the community. If the closer determines that there is a rough consensus against a ban, this case can also be closed. But if there is no consensus, this case should be sent to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (and "you've got to be kidding me"), the project is much better with Koavf editing than without. A good and productive volunteer editor, so good that there could be a holiday named after him (oh wait, there is). Now that Koavf has agreed to accept an ankle monitor and become a forced-to-be-friendly Wikipedian, things will probably go well. Seems like a win-win situation. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose An intermediate sanction has received unanimous assent. Lets give that a chance before tossing the baby out with the bath water. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  How many last chances have we given him already? Even if the end result is unblock, this is just kicking the can down the road until ArbCom steps in (like Brownhairgirl's case) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose it's true that they have been blocked something like six times in the last 12 years or so, but the blocks were for edit warring (not vandalism or personal attacks). Ultimately, they remain a net positive (i.e., they give more to the community than they take out), so let's give the 0RR a chance. The incident with Doug (an editor for whom I have a lot of respect) that I missed previously is really unfortunate, but it's also out of character and I'm sure that they will find a way to make amends. M.Bitton (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - This is absurd. Site bans are for egregious misconduct, not stupid crap like edit warring. Edit wars are, in the large scheme of things, mildly annoying at worst. WP:AN3 is thataway if/when he edit wars again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support to save some time before we do this song and dance in a few months. Some men, you just can't reach Mach61 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: No reverts restriction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Making this separate from Tamzin's very similar restriction because of what I expect to be a controversial caveat.

Koavf is subject to an indefinite "no reverts" restriction: Koavf may not revert any edit for any reason, including the usual exemptions in the edit warring policy. For clarity: any edit that is flagged with the mw-undo, mw-rollback, or mw-manual-revert tags is a violation of this restriction, excepting only self-reverts. Additionally, Koavf's rollback permission is revoked, and he may not hold the permission while this restriction remains in force. If an administrator blocks Koavf for violating this restriction, he may not be unblocked without a consensus at the administrators' noticeboard. This restriction may appealed at the same noticeboard after one year, and every six months after an unsuccessful appeal.

• Support as proposer. Many of Koavf's past blocks have been over good-faith misinterpretations of what is considered an exempt revert. This restriction removes the confusion: no reverts, period. Yes it's a bit draconian but nothing else has worked, and admins still have discretion to warn instead of rushing for the block button. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I will support this if you can incorporate Tamzin's 'no unilateral unblock' wording. GiantSnowman 21:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  The part starting with "If an administrator blocks..." is copied directly from Tamzin's proposal, except I added that appeals must be at this noticeboard as well. Did you mean something else? That was certainly my intent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. GiantSnowman 19:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to support this, but slightly hesitate over the inclusion of mw-manual-revert. According to Special:Tags, that covers "Edits that manually restore the page source to an exact previous state". Per mw:Manual:Reverts § Manual revert, MediaWiki by default looks at the last 15 revisions to determine that. I can't find what it's set to on enwiki, but my recollection it's either the default 15 or 10. I'm not sure that, in all cases, leaving the page look like it did 10 or 15 edits ago will lead to something that a human would perceive as a revert. Like, suppose User A makes 7 edits adding incoherent nonsense to a page. On edit 8, User B, a newbie who doesn't know how to restore old edits, manually reverts most of that, but makes a small spelling error in the process. Six months later, Koavf stumbles upon the article, notices the spelling error, and fixes it, thereby returning the page to its state before User A touched it (edit 0). No reasonable admin would call that a revert, but MediaWiki would, as I understand it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Same as Tamzin, I don't think this should be based on MediaWiki tags, but on human judgment of whether an edit is a revert. Still, saying that, I'd prefer this option to a site ban or indef block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• (Without studying the merits of the case), shouldn't the admin who blocks Koavf be able to rescind the block? Suggest "he may not be unblocked" becomes "he may not be unblocked by another administrator". Zero^talk 02:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so. If this passes, and I hope it doesn't, we want to give the unblocking decision to the community, not to the first sysop to get to the block button.—S Marshall T/C 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  But being able to undo your own actions is SOP for admin actions, so we should be aware this is a pretty big departure from standard procedure. Courcelles (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• That seems like a lot of pressure to put on the blocking admin, also a measure of power inordinate to their office (it would essentially give Admins individual ownership of blocked users). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• This is just proposal #2 with a delay on it. If Koavf was capable of changing his behaviour, he would long since have changed it.—S Marshall T/C 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Responding to the points above, I've struck the "clarity" part about relying on software tags. I was looking for a very black-and-white solution to avoid misjudgements and disagreements, but the tags themselves are also subject to error, and I can't say I disagree with any of the other points made. As for unblocking by the blocking administrator: I don't agree, with the possible exception of obviously erroneous blocks, but even in that case I think it would be preferable to review at AN (such a review ought to be pretty quick anyway). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as (I think) strictest potential restriction short of another block or ban. GiantSnowman 19:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: As a purely technical issue, I sometimes make edits (often to templates or stylesheets) that end up with the mw-manual-revert tag because there happens to be an old revision somewhere in the history of the page with the same source code, despite these not actually being reverts (i.e. having the same code as a revision from several years ago where there's been dozens of subsequent modifications). jp×g🗯️ 00:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support and I don't have a strong preference between this and Tamzin's. This gives Koavf the .0000001 % chance he'll actually this time for real no backsies change, and we maintain his positive contributions to the project. I don't want to see him site banned, but that's not really our call. I mean it is, but I share the hesitation that it would pass. If he ends up indeffed again, and that's not our fault, it's his. No one is forcing him to make these edits that he knows are a problem/ Star Mississippi 01:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of Tamzin's proposal. SkyWarrior 02:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, 2nd preference to siteban. As said above, most of Koavf's issues have been misinterpreting 3RRNOT, so if something does it without banning 'em, this is it. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: No punitive blocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia's blocking policy states Blocks should be preventative, not punitive and Blocks should not be used [...] if there is no current conduct issue of concern. Given that edit warring only lasts for a short while, why was Koavf blocked indefinitely? Well, the answer usually given is that it's indicative of wider conduct or behavior. While this is an important exemption, I do not believe that applies here. While an editor who is extremely disruptive and does lots of problematic behavior and is generally disruptive should be blocked indefinitely, Koavf is not that. Koavf's conflicts aren't any more than should expected for how much he has contributed.

Editors are human, and humans aren't perfect and we recognize this, that's why we allow formerly disruptive editors and even vandals to get second chances. Inevitably, conflicts will arise and out-of-conduct editing will occur for everyone, however, that should not be seen as indicative of wider issues with an editor. Wikipedia's current blocking system is, unfortunately, like a fuse for long-term content editors. Once the fuse is lit, it starts burning; and once someone makes enough mistakes (which will happen inevitably), they get permanently banned. This has happened to far too many of our most productive editors and it has to stop. We (as a community) need to get better at differentiating between inevitable minor conflicts and actual behavioral issues.

Therefore, I propose:

Koavf may not be blocked for edit warring for more than 72 hours at a time unless there is consensus at AN or ANI

• Support as proposer. Ovsk (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You created an account today and all of your edits are to this proposal. Yet you sound as though you've had a lot of experience of Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, 2 of them were to your user space. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I came here from Wikipediocracy. I am rnu there. Ovsk (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Such an arbitrary and severe restriction on normal admimistrative discretion is unwarranted and unwise. If an administrator believes that a 96 hour or one week block is justified by the specific circumstances, I fail to see why their hands should be tied in this fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Ok, I can see how "72 hours" may seem too arbitrary. Would you prefer if it said Koavf may not be blocked for edit warring indefinitely unless there is consensus at AN or ANI instead? Ovsk (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, Ovsk, I see no reason to restrict an administrator's power to block an editor who has 29 previous blocks. A few may have been bad blocks but most were legitimate. It is not at all uncommon for me or other administrators to indefintely block disruptive editors without consensus at ANI or AN. Why should Koavf have a carve-out exempting this one editor from normal enforcement procedures by administrators? Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328:

> It is not at all uncommon for me or other administrators to indefintely block disruptive editors without consensus at ANI or AN. Why should Koavf have a carve-out exempting this one editor from normal enforcement procedures by administrators?

As I stated before, edit wars are temporary. And since blocks are preventative, indefinite blocks for edit warring should only be given out to user's whose behavior is fundamentally uncooperative and disruptive. I already stated why I don't think Koavf is that. Ovsk (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit wars are temporary only because edit warring is contrary to policy and edit warriors get blocked by administrators. Your personal opinion, expressed in good faith I assume, about the severity of Koavf's misconduct to date should not be a pretext for tying the hands of administrators dealing with future misconduct. That's my view of your proposal, at least. Cullen328 (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: My proposal is not about theoretical future major violations, it's me expressing that minor breeches of policy shouldn't slowly "burn the candle" to the point where major content editors get blocked. Ovsk (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ovsk makes a good point there - I agree. Even if repeated (at fairly lengthy intervals), these are minor (and relatively harmless) offences. Babies, bathwater, and all that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not theoretical here, this user has 29 previous blocks. To quote Dr. Phil, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. By your own comment, someone who "does lots of problematic behavior and is generally disruptive should be blocked indefinitely"- if 29 blocks is not an indication of "generally disruptive", what is? Do they need to be locked up and the key thrown away? No. Good contributions are certainly a factor here, but I am very skeptical that admins' hands should be tied for this specific user. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite is not permanent, and (if such a block were issued) if it is felt that an indef block of this user was improper, that can certainly be discussed. That's the safeguard here. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OP blocked as a sock so striking through their comments. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure

Likely soon time for this entire discussion, to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my close of proposals 1 and 3, I'd like to give those who voted there, but not on the siteban, some time to weigh in before the discussion is closed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK needs admins

WP:DYK is facing one of its periodic crises. We need more admins to help with the queue management process. Most of DYK runs on non-admin labor, but the final step of promoting a hook set to the final main page queue requires an mop. The process is semi-automated, but it does require that you run checks on the hooks being promoted to ensure they satisfy the DYK rules. While not strictly required, it'll be really helpful if you have some prior experience submitting DYKs so you understand how it all works. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I've done it right - (prep area / queue 7). Trying to actually find the prep areas and working out what I had to do was a bit tricky! WaggersTALK 14:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've upgraded one prep to queue. Note, I've only briefly spot checked the articles to check they are adequately sourced and seem to verify everything. If I've missed anything, we have WP:ERRORS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

...which is too late of course. Back to the bad old days of DYK in and around 2014 or so with that attitude. You are putting things on the main page, you should do a thorough check, not a spot check. For example, you promoted "... that a Connecticut radio station left the air for good after it was out of service for a week and only one person wrote a letter to complain?" In reality, they stopped broadcasting on the FM band but continued on AM. Oh, and did you know "... that the first Jewish newspaper was established in 1686 in Amsterdam?"? The "Gazeta de Amsterdam" would like to have a word[1][2]. That's after, er, spot-checking the first 4 of 8 hooks, and 2 of them are at least dubious. Fram (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have reverted queue and prep 1 and will also not respond to any more requests to clear the DYK queues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The checking activity (and what to do about things that do not obviously pass) can be somewhat crowdsourced: several DYK admins tend to promote prep to queue, then post on WT:DYK with a list of queries and potential issues, hopefully with enough time to spare to fix them or pull the hook(s) before the queue hits the Main Page. One general problem is that it is easy to get things wrong and then to get yelled at, which isn't everyone's cup of tea. Might be a reason why we sometimes run out of admins. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I generally assume somebody has already checked the fidgety stuff like character count, age, QPQ, etc. I'm looking to see if I can trace the hook fact back to a statement in the article which cites a WP:RS and I run earwig. Sometimes I'll dig into the source to make sure the statement in the article is indeed supported by the source, but only if I have some reason to suspect it might not be.

And, yeah, when I have doubts, WP:DYK is my friend. But things get dicey when the queue gets nearly empty. It got down to zero today which means any questions raised on WT:DYK had less than 24 hours to get resolved. The goal is to make sure we catch all the problems before we hit the main page. If things get reported at WP:ERRORS, that means we failed in our reviewing. RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There are two queues that can be discussed at WP:ERRORS before they hit the Main Page, so we should attempt to always have them filled for the benefit of diligent folks at ERRORS. I think it is sometimes unavoidable that we miss something, especially when reviewers, queue builders and admins are all from the same part of the globe and overlook that the hook is problematic for people from other countries. —Kusma (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wish I was around enough to help, I just don't have the bandwidth for DYK at the moment :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, promoting hooks is a janitorial function, not one with content responsibility: that is on the people who wrote and checked the hooks. I think the attitude exhibited by Fram above, as explained by Kusma, amply illustrates the problem: "it is easy to get things wrong and then to get yelled at". Who would want to do volunteer work under such conditions? Not me. Let those who set expectations that are entirely unrealistic for a semi-anonymous volunteer project do the job themselves. Sandstein 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I hear you. I've made a number of suggestions of ways we could decouple the final review responsibility from the need to have a mop to edit the front page. Those never get any traction. So we end up burning out the few admins who work DYK and are constantly in a state crisis because the queues are almost empty. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The way you see it doesn't match Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions though. Feel free to propose changes, but until then the admin check is one step (not the only one) needed to prevent us going back to the "good old days" when all kinds of DYK nonsense graced the mainpage day after day. Fram (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is, that is time consuming. I have to look at 8 articles on subjects (and probably topics) I know nothing about, read sources (if I can) and try and work if they verify absolutely everything in the article, and then to laterally think if there are any missing sources. I reckon the required deep dive like that would take about an hour or so, and I'd probably still miss something. Is there are a more collaborative way of doing this ie: to partially move bits of preps over to queues, rather than one admin do the whole lot? In any case, I think Sanstein's comment was more along the lines that you could have put forward your views a bit more politely. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No, his comment was that I was "yelling", had "entirely unrealistic" expectations, and that I should do it myself instead (er, it needs an admin to do it, and in any case my preference would be to abolish DYK completely). And no, you don't need to "read sources (if I can) and try and work if they verify absolutely everything in the article" (although it is of course nice if you do), you need to check if the 8 short sentences in a queue are verified by reliable sources in the article, and preferably if they aren't contradicted by other sources, which is often the case with "first", "most", ... claims. Fram (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"in any case my preference would be to abolish DYK completely" I have previously expressed similar views. Why not start an RfC and see what happens? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, my preference would be to treat DYK and ITN much more like any other part of Wikipedia, in that entries should be added (and altered and removed) with a minimum of fuss and formality, in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Yes, sometimes very mediocre or poorly sourced stuff would appear on the front page, but so what. Everybody knows we do not pretend to be perfect and are full of content that needs improvement. And putting it on the front page means more eyes on it and therefore faster improvement. Evidently some measures to prevent main page vandalism would still be needed, but perhaps autoconfirmed rights would be enough, instead of admin. I also read the German Wikipedia, and what perplexes me is that they manage to update their version of ITN on a quasi-live basis with all the news items that are hemmed and hawed and quibbled about for days on end here. Sandstein 18:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Second that. As of today we have "In darts, Luke Humphries wins the PDC World Championship." That happened 8 days ago. ITN? More like In The Archives. DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the main reason I stopped contributing to WikiNews - the process to actually get something published took too long and everything was published days or weeks after the events. In both cases it defeats the point of being a wiki. I don't think we should let anyone edit the main page for obvious reasons, but we've gone way too far in the other direction. WaggersTALK 13:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Then there's those of us who still believe WP:NOTNEWS is a thing. There must be dozens of us :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those as well - hence I contributed to WikiNews for a bit but I pretty much never touch WP:ITN. WaggersTALK 15:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

CAT:UNBLOCK is quite backlogged

• Not to pile on requests but quite frankly we could use help on reviewing unblock requests; there's been well north of 100 open requests for some time. I've reviewed most of them at least once so I'm technically not supposed to again, but I have closed some very clear, obvious ones. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  In case any admins don't usually deal with these and want to help - just hop over to Category:Requests for unblock for the backlog. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am abstaining from reviewing any unblock requests after the consensus against unblocking Koavf. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Uh, the point is that a given blocking admin should be notified prior to an unblock action. If only as a courtesy. El_C 18:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  And as noted in WP:BLOCK: If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I looked at this category yesterday, and just felt overwhelmed by how difficult the judgement call is on a lot of the RFU's. You try and balance assuming good faith with not being naïve, the various parties that may need to comment (blocking admin etc.), and it just wasn't something that can be done easily. Not to mention second-guessing your own judgement. Make no mistake, I think this category is one of the hardest for an administrator to work in, and anyone who does do regularly or resolves the more complex ones deserves to be commended. I'll try chip in and do a small handful of the easier ones, but where I feel out of my depth I might just drop a comment or suggestion and leave another admin to actually make the final decision, as I feel a bit shaky in this space. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but occasionally you get to unblock someone and they become constructive editors. It doesn't happen often but it's pretty rewarding when it does. --Yamla (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we need to review some as a team and bring some of them here. Coördination of effort and team work might make it better. I always feel overwhelmed there. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given how many there are in that category, maybe just paste all the unblock appeals that aren't clear-cut declines or accepts into a mass section on here (maybe divided by headings for each user) and have the community either endorse or overturn the blocks. Might be a good strategy for the future if the category gets backlogged as well, and it's certainly easier than having block appeals lingering for two to three months. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Gah. I had forgotten the mind-numbing tedium and futility of working this area. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 also. I thought something similar a couple of days ago, but good to hear it from another voice! Maybe a subpage given it'll be a heck of a lot of content? Daniel (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Consulting on difficult unblock appeals is a very attractive idea, but isn't that liable to turn blocks into community sanctions, bans per WP:CBAN "Editors who ... remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"."? I have seen blocked editors warned that asking for an appeal to be copied to WP:AN has that risk, and I guess that would apply to WP:AN subpages too. NebY (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Not if we carry it here on our own. And not if we stipulate it does not. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I need to prioritize CAT:UNBLOCK over UTRS. Having said that, if any admin wants to carry an unblock/unban request from WP:3X banned and globally locked Michaelshea2004 from UTRS appeal #83145 to AN, it would be a good thing. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I have a better idea. I'm inclined to unblock this person per ROPE and per MAYBE THEYRE NOT A CHILD ANYMORE--I'll just restore talk page access and see if they can actually behave, OK? Drmies (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry, they are globally locked and 3x banned. Someone, probably me, needs to schlep their appeal to here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, you would make Yamla very unhappy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: they're not banned as far as I can see, and they're only blocked here--what am I missing? Yamla, am I out of line here? What I see is someone who a year and a half ago was acting like a total ass, but I don't see that in their latest UTRS appeal--it seems to me that they grew out of it, maybe. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but User:Michaelshea2004 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelshea2004/Archive -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I expect to carry Michael to AN tomorrow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, @Drmies, so as not to waste any more of your time on this, please see Special:CentralAuth/Michaelshea04. There you'll also find the de and it unblocks, both of which were self-requested. – bradv 02:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Just brought Drmies up to speed. Need my beauty sleep for all this schlepping -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I always saw that rule as more of a "if the community has to actually take the time to review your unblock request, and they endorse it, then it stays". In this case, I'd see unblock requests that just happen to have some attention on AN to give an opinion from non-admins as not being community endorsements, necessarily. The sticking point would presumably be that even if the block appeals were copied here, an uninvolved administrator would still just be considering comments as if they had been made on a blocked editor's talk page, not as if they were a formal community sanction. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That analogy makes sense - thanks for taking the time to lay it out. NebY (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Damn these take up a lot of time. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for your help on the one, User:Deepfriedokra--and sometimes they're actually interesting. I think I've handled half a dozen and it feels like I spent two days on it, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sadly, there's not a lot non-admins can do here. I'll occasionally take a look at CAT:UNBLOCK just to see if there's anyone worth unblocking. A lot of them tend to be edge cases no one wants to decline (an observation I believe I am borrowing from the late Nosebagbear ). I always feel bad for those folks. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I do feel bad about the long backlog there, but generally the unblocks sitting at the back of the queue are the nth one by the same user and are borderline - the people with good unblock requests generally do get unblocked pretty quick I feel like. Galobtter (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks y'all. Now 69 pages in CAT:UNBLOCK -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nice. El_C 18:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yay, us! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like we are steady state in the fifties. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request from Nyantiaz

• Nyantiaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nyantiaz/Archive
• User was WP:3X banned and checkuser block. Yamla has cleared the checkuser aspect.
• I'll leave the question of renaming to the stewards once user is unblocked.
• Couertesy ping @Bbb23:

carried over below

Hello! It has been asked of me that I make another unblock request that is reworded. I will try my best to write as clearly as I can. I read over the Guide to appealing blocks and I hope this helps my writing also. In 2019, or around that time, I vandalized a series of pages on a number of accounts within the same day(s) on Wikipedia. I purposely and explicitly changed several things about these pages in order to "grief" these and, well, vandalize. I then maneuvered the block in the years following——until around April of 2023——by creating new accounts or editing offline on different IPs, which is known as sock-puppeting. I made several block appeals ranging from when I was banned from editing to now, mostly without understanding the gravity of what I had done. In the month of 2019 that I was banned, I was 15 years old. I continued this charade until maybe 2021, when I fully understood why vandalizing, especially on Wikipedia, was wrong. However, I wasn't matured enough. I began editing on the aforementioned accounts that I created, or on other IPs. Although I had stopped vandalizing within the same year I was banned, it did not justify me evading the block. As 331dot said, I disregarded the policies through and through.

I am now making another unblock request that I am trying to word to the best of my ability. I may not include every detail, and I may not remember every detail, but I am trying my best not only to summarize what it was that led to my ban, but the actions that followed thereafter. I have stopped editing on Wikipedia since April of 2023, though I know that alone does not prove I should be unbanned. I will try to express my sincere intentions to improve Wikipedia through the next paragraph/bit of writing.

I vandalized in 2019, and sock-puppeted in the years following. There is no excuse, as nothing I say will change the fact that I did the aforementioned actions that led to my block. I fully promise with all my heart that I do not intend to commit these actions again, or disrupt Wikipedia as I did before in any way. My intent following a potential unblock would be only to improve Wikipedia. Contributing constructive edits to articles rather than destroying them, helping update these articles and etc. I want to help the community and although I know I've broken the trust in my past, I want to do what I can to rebuild that. Editing on Wikipedia is something that helps tap into my interests and passion, and it also helps other people as it provides information. I did not think of this in 2019; it was just something I did for fun before I unfortunately vandalized. I promise that I will not vandalize, nor sockpuppet, again. On the topic of accounts, if this unban request should hopefully be reviewed and accepted, I do want to either reset this account or create a new one and leave this behind. As a sort of fresh start, + I don't go by the name Nyantiaz anymore, and it's uncomfortable for me to use this.

Thank you very much for reviewing my unblock request in advance, and I hope I've answered every question that would still be here. I am going to ping the original administrator behind my block, @Bbb23: and the other administrator who has been reviewing these, @Yamla: so that my request will hopefully not go stale. I hope this doesn't inconvenience you. Once again, thank you for your patience and time. Nyantiaz (talk) 9:18 pm, 5 January 2024, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−5

For constructive edits, I've always loved celebrities and actors, as well as things related to film and music. I'd try to keep articles of varying pop culture timely and updated, since I've seen so many that need it. With sources, of course. Sometimes, I also see at random articles that are unfinished that I could possibly fill in the blanks for, etc. On the matter of creating another account, I am perfectly fine with resetting this one and changing the name. I am very uncomfortable with the name "Nyantiaz" now, so the name would be a priority. I want to reset my account as a sort of "fresh start" to start on a blank slate. Nyantiaz (talk) 10:21 pm, 6 January 2024, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable unban request. They have not been evading the ban per checkuser and is sincere about understanding that what they did harmed the project. Hoping this will lead to constructive edits I support an unban. I will note that to change their name they should either change the name of this account (which doesn't clear the edit history) or create a new account that clearly indicates a connection to this previous account somewhere if they are unbanned, so "resetting" the account would not really be possible. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• I thought I supported this already addressed my concerns-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support good appeal. If unbanned, I'd recommend using WP:CHU/S so the edit history is preserved. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support The appeal seems sincere, and it is reasonable to conclude that a 15 year old vandal has matured since 2019. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hoping to forestall archival by the bot. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request for Michaelshea2004 aka Michaelshea04

Michaelshea2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Michaelshea04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); UTRS appeal #83145; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelshea2004/Archive; user is globally locked and WP:3X banned. If user is unbanned here, will need to ask the stewards to unlock his account.

Originally blocked as WP:NOTHERE by @DatGuy:, user socked till they were banned. User has lost the login for Michaelshea2004 irretrievably, so wants to unblock Michaelshea04. @Yamla: CU'd on UTRS appeal #83080 and found a VPN in use. User says he has turned off the VPN. User will need to respond via UTRS, which will require some lifting and toting.

Here is the request:

Hello, OK, So I have submitted/filed an appeal on here before, but it was neither approved nor declined, because it expired. There is going to be a lot of information that I am going to have to leave out because of this word limit, but I will try to be as genuine as I possibly can. Part of the reason I am here again is because it will hopefully help my appeal to the stewards about my global locks, and an administrator on IRC has recommended to cross-post this on the Administrators NoticeBoard. 

So here goes. On the 22 August 2022, I was indefinitely blocked because of my vulgar edit summaries. What I didn't realize at the time, was that I was being blocked because of the edit summaries, not because of the edits themselves. This was the only account that I continued my vulgar edit summaries on, apart from editing from a few IP addresses with those same or similar vulgar edit summaries. Then with my other sockpuppets I changed a few computer articles from past tense to present tense, and edit-warring with another user that I had trouble with in Discord at that time. I was banned from that Discord server right around the time I was doing this. I also went to cause trouble on other wikis as well, leading to my global locks that I recieved on the 18 February 2023. A few more edits and generally causing trouble on Meta and giving you and the stewards a hard time as an IP user, I finally worked up the courage and realized that I had to leave if I ever wanted to have a chance at being unblocked and unlocked. That was on the 28 March 2023.

I have absolutely humiliated myself and embrassed myself and I absolutely deserved everything that came my way over those almost 7 months that I have been causing trouble. And for that, I really am truly sorry. I want to clean up the mess that I have caused. You will never understand or comprehend just how much mental distress this whole problem has caused not just me, but probably some of you as well. That was from my first appeal. 

If I cannot be unblocked to be vanished, I will do anything to earn back the trust of your community. The Second Chance involves improving a few existing articles, something that I did in violation of my block. For example, I made a large edit to Norton Antivirus almost a year ago, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norton_AntiVirus&diff=prev&oldid=1131920086. Though it was in violation of my blocks/bans/blocks. It was mine. I can also add some more information to the product activation seection, such as explaining the internet and phone activation. I can also add some more information about the early DOS versions of the software. I can also add information as to what the controversies with that antivirus is, such as slowing down a user's computer. I can also change most articles of most computer/abandonware articles from past tense, to present tense. (Without the vulgar edit summaries or the edit warring, of course.) Something I did in violation of my blocks/bans/locks. I can also add to the Central Point PC Tools software that earlier versions of that software will not run on later versions of DOS. As well as mention that there is a few versions for Windows as well. 

This is not an exhaustive list of articles that I can improve, but it will hopefully show you and demonstrate to you that I can improve at the very least this side of Wikipedia's articles. I hope this is sufficient and convincing information. Thank you for reading if you did, Michael Shea.

carried over by me.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. I don't think we should unban simply to vanish the user, and I believe any constructive edits (if we can believe that) would simply be the absolute minimum required to vanish. This username doesn't appear to be particularly identifying (more than 48 million hits on google) and given the user repeatedly set up sockpuppet accounts with variants on that name, I think this should fall under "oh no, the consequences of your actions". That said, any reason not to restore talk page access to the other named account, Michaelshea04, and have them respond there? So far, we haven't actually confirmed this request came from them (though I am sure it did). --Yamla (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That would require unlocking Michaelshea04, and I don't know how the stewards would feel about that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  PS: We have, on some occasions, WP:VANISHed and left blocked. The stewards have not exercised that option in this case. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Appellant's reply carried over:

  Oh thank you. Thank you so much. Now, about this vanishing, I don't plan to immediately vanish yet, I am planning to stay away from the English Wikipedia and other projects if I am unbanned/unblocked/unlocked. I am planning to be mostly active on Meta-Wiki for a little bit, but that's about it.

  carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Noted user's replies that I carried over. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban Setting aside but not discounting the impression that this unblock request is gaming the system to give the appearance of "being in good standing," a requirement of WP:VANISH, the question becomes, "would the appellant be an asset to Wikipedia." I'm afraid not. The examples of constructive edits appellant offers include an unsourced edit to Norton Antivirus and changing the tense of verbs. However, he changed tenses in the past, and it proved disruptive for him to do so, if one considers the times he was reverted. Repeatedly, on more than one account. This repeating the same behavior expecting different results along with unsourced editing raises to me the question of competence to edit the encyclopedia. Perhaps this unblock request was not thought out thoroughly in a belated effort to the game the system to be vanished, and perhaps in six months or so of working toward the goal of returning to Wikipedia to contribute constructively, the appellant might better present a case for unblocking. However, he is not ready now.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Reply carried over.

  "Did you take into account the fact that I stayed away for actually longer than 6 months actually as per the standard offer?""

  Reply carried over. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban This is not the type of situation where I'm prepared to make a lot of exceptions, or ask others to jump through hoops for. Individual is and has been a net negative for the project so the granting of favors isn't really an option here. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  DFO waves at @Dennis Brown:. Hey. Long time no see. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hoping to forestall archival by bot -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose unban Completely agree with Dennis. Why should we jump through hoops for someone who is so very unlikely to contribute positively. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose no. I also don't understand why they think changing the tense of articles would be a positive thing. Secretlondon (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• comment Someone in IRC claims to be appellant and claims unable to reply to this ticket. I will expire this ticket (83145) and appellant can create a new one. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  • General replies carried over from UTRS appeal #83545:

  (reformatted by DFO)

  This is a continuation of my previous appeal, more information is here. Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Unblock/unban_request_for_Michaelshea2004_aka_Michaelshea04. A few things that I want to mention, I do realize now that I was acting like a total degenerate, to the point where I can't overstate it. I never should've spoken to you or anyone else in the way that I did. While I still stand by my opinion that the edits themselves were only minor, Again, I failed to realize that they were the edit SUMMARIES that led to me getting blocked, banned, and eventually globally locked.

  
  

  It was only about 2 months after my (redacted) when I was initally blocked. Now, I'm (redacted) this year and it's about time that I am to grow the fuck up. I've been contemplating giving you all a public apology in the rare event that I am unblocked/unbanned/unlocked. Everyone is opposing my unban for mostly because of my behaviour around changing the computer/abadonware articles. If no one wants me to go back to that, then thats fine. I will not do that again, especially since some of the members in that Discord server that I was in disagreed with me in regards to changing the articles from past tense to present tense and would help with reverting my edits.

  
  

  But what about my other edits that I proposed, such as to Norton Antivirus, such as the product activation, as well as mentioning that version 5.0 of the Macintosh version is the first to ship on CD?. Deepfriedokra: When I changed the computer/abandonware articles from past tense to present tense, Yes, they were reverted almost every single time. Some I would get away with, but very little. Most articles would end up being semi-protected for 6 months at the longest time because of my block/ban/lock evasion disruption. Yes, I did engage in edit-warring, as mentioned by Czello on the 11 November 2022. While I would still think that articles like the ones that I was obsessed with should be in present tense, not past tense, I would also agree now, that looking back, they were just articles. If they are to be in present tense, so be it, I was worrying over a damn article when I should've had more to worry about in my own personal life. If it's reverted, it's reverted. There's nothing that I could've or should've done about it.

  
  

  I'm also curious as to why you think I am "gaming the system." to give the appearance that I am in good standing. I'm not trying to be an asset, as I clearly never was in the first place, but, as Yamla said, any constructive edits would simply be the absolute minimum required to vanish. Yamla: as I stated in one of my responses posted, I am not going to vanish yet, as I will be active for a little bit on Meta/Wikimedia. I'm curious as to why you don't believe me when I proposed my edits in my appeal. Why don't you believe me?. Even though my edit proposals are ones that I have done in violation of my blocks/bans/locks.

  
  

  But as I have explained to Deepfriedokra, if they are reverted, they are reverted and there is nothing that I can or should do about that in the case that they are. And what specific part of my appeal would you have wanted me to respond to on my talk page if I wasn't globally locked?.

  
  

  Dennis Brown: Can you be more specific as to why you are also opposing my unban?.

  
  

  Pawnkingthree: I feel that you are taking into account my vulgar edit summaries, which I realize now, that was the very wrong thing to do and I never should've spoken to you or anyone else that way.

• Secretlondon: If changing tenses from past tense to present tense isn't going to be positive, and no one is going to agree with that. Then I will forget about that.

  
  

  carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  I forgot the pings-- @Dennis Brown, Pawnkingthree, and Secretlondon:-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban to let this user make a few token edits to then subsequently vanish. It wouldn't make up for their past actions. If they want to leave, they should just leave. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Uncontroversial page move

Can someone please move Good Day for Living (song) to Good Day for Living? The latter is currently a redirect to the artist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you may get quicker responses at WP:RM/TR for this sort of thing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, when posting at night, don't necessarily expect an answer before morning. Primefac (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Extraordinary Writ for taking time out of your day to perform the page move. Your service is appreciated! _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We're all over the world, to be fair. Secretlondon (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request from Phrasia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Phrasia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned (presumably under WP:3X) and is requesting this be lifted. Here is their request:

I am requesting to be given another chance/to be unlocked. I believe I have to go to through the standard offer (WP:SO) procedure (as circumstances to my ban, were due to sockpuppet evasion. I was initially banned several years ago, due to edit warring. Instead of properly appealing that ban, I created sockpuppets, and  I take responsibility that was an incorrect thing to do against the rules. I feel that I am a good editor, despite sockpuppets I opened up, without going through the proper procedure, and I realize that was wrong. I have not created any additional sockpuppets, or have ban evaded. I promise to abide by all wiki guidelines, and I will be a great contributor. Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2024

I would also like to add that in addition to the fact I enjoy the Wiki Encyclopedia/Wikipedia, I appreciate the Wikimedia projects greatly as well. (Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons in particular I find very useful). However, to be honest, no I have not made contributions to Wikimedia projects, as I mostly edit pop culture/music/entertainment media related articles, and adding sources/metadata to incomplete media/music/leisure information etc. I take full responsibility for my haphazard past as a Wikipedian, and I'm sorry for that. I will admit that in the past due to my own ignorance and fault, I wasn't fully aware of wiki protocols when it comes to discrepancies between other Wikipedians/editors. I apologize for that. I also admit my mistake of not sorting out my suspension on this account, and secretly using sockpuppets to evade that. But I am asking for a second chance please. I will of course be a wonderful contributor, abiding by all wiki rules, regulations, guidelines, procedures, and protocols. Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

They agree to a WP:1RR restriction, given the previous edit warring. CU data shows no evidence of recent ban evasion; I believe the last instance was Bronoton in June, 2023. The blocking admin is Timotheus Canens back on 2011-11-16 (more than a decade ago) and I will inform them of this discussion. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• question from DFO I see concerns raised over unsourced edits. How do you address those concerns?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Forgot to ping. @Phrasia: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  carried over @Deepfriedokra I have gotten better at adding/citing sources, and references. I agree that I have a history of past issues with this. I assure you, that this will not be a problem anymore, and I am familiar with adding sources to my edits/contributions. Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 7:37 pm, Today (UTC−5)carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• support unblock with 1RR restriction. and one account restriction. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support with 1RR and one account restriction. 13 years is a long time to grow up although they socked fairly recently. Last chance saloon etc etc, Jip Orlando (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support With 1RR restriction. Lorstaking (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment At this point, the discussion has gone on longer than 24 hours with (so far) unanimous support. Later today, I plan to close the discussion and lift the block unless anyone objects. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could another admin

take over carrying Michaelshea2004's replies over from UTRS appeal #83145;? I'm losing availability. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the message box one types into UTRS still limited to a single line, though? El_C 05:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C: As many lines as I've need but w/o formatting. 😀 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I nuked my contribs by accident.

I goofed, I tried to rollback one of my edits and use the edit summary tool (massrollback), to use an edit summary. Then I reverted a bunch of my edits, then reverted another bunch by accident trying to clean up the mess I already made. Turns out massrollback doesn't rollback rollbacks. I am not clicking individual links 150 times. Can this be fixed easily? Seawolf35 ^T--C 06:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Also if I click individual rollback links in will cause more collateral as the edits that were undone that I want to restore are undone as well if nobody else edited the page in between. I will take my trout. Seawolf35 ^T--C 07:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Seawolf35, you will need to manually undo all of your reverts. There is no way for anyone else to use rollback to fix this (they would also have to manually undo them all). Primefac (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I will be doing this tomorrow. Seawolf35 ^T--C 08:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Angela Denham

To which page did the deleted redirect Angela Denham point? Please can someone undelete a copy of the target, to my user space? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it pointed to A V Denham. I'll see if I can get that for you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit I'm not the best at moving stuff, but it is at Draft:A V Denham now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Now at User:Pigsonthewing/A. V, Denham -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. As noted above, I've moved it to my user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure request for ANI discussion

Hello. Discussion seems to have wound down in this ANI discussion. If an administrator could get a read on the consensus and close it, I'd be grateful. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for closure review (image collages in year articles)

I'm requesting a review of this RFC closure. I have discussed this with the closer, who I hoped would recognise my concerns. Both the closer and another admin (User:Tamzin) have implied in their responses that I was trying to intimidate the closer, which I certainly was not. It was, however, very distressing to see one of the supporters of collages immediately restoring all collages, regardless of consensus on individual article Talk pages, before the ink was dry on the closer's decision. The "winning" argument was summarised by User:Sdkb as "image selection falls within normal editorial discretion and is therefore not OR/NPOV"; the mention of OR is a red herring. As far as I can see, throughout the discussion - as pointed out by User:voorts when they previously attempted to close the discussion - those arguing for removal have focused on the fact that attempts to summarize a year with a collage is inherently subjective and thus contrary to the NPOV policy. After waiting weeks for the closure request to be implemented (see User:GoodDay's perceptive comment here), it was rather unexpectedly closed on the same day that two last-minute "against" votes appeared, i.e. not "when the discussion is stable" as advised in Wikipedia:Closing discussions. It seems that User:Sdkb did not notice the unfortunate timing, but the main reason I am asking for a review is that I believe the arguments have not been adequately analysed. Deb (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Saying that they are OR / Synth and that they are subjective is the same thing in this context, surely? And the argument that image selection falls within normal editorial discretion and is therefore not OR/NPOV, which the closer noted, is clearly an answer to that, so it seems like you're just using different language for arguments that the closer plainly did consider. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• I did not say you were trying to intimidate Sdkb, and I do not think they said that either. Since the RfC is now being reviewed properly, this hopefully moots the concerns I actually expressed, so we needn't get into them, but I just want to be clear on what I didn't say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• The discussion between Deb, myself, and Tamzin can be found in this thread on my talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• I've been so discouraged, upset, angry, disillusioned, in disbelief, frustrated, etc, over the course of the RFC-in-question? I don't think there's a lot more I can complain about. If the close/decision of 'weak keep' does stand? and future disputes over what images should/shouldn't be in said-image collages, occur? Then, I'll just simply say to the pro-keepers - I told ya so. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• [uninvolved]. There's a lot of confusion in that RfC, with several people talking about collages beyond just their use in articles about years, which is what was proposed. Even some people who didn't explicitly opine on other kinds of collages seemed to be talking about collages more broadly. In part for those reasons, I have a hard time seeing consensus for much of anything in there, personally. It's only a slight difference from Sdkb's closure, but I'd probably say "no consensus to remove collages from years article" with a suggestion, if someone were to run it again, to more carefully advertise the discussion and to set clearer expectations about what it is or is not about (perhaps even having separate questions about decades, etc.). I think Sdkb's closing statement is generally reasonable, but I would ask for clarification about the boldtext conclusion. Specifically, "consensus to keep" would seem to override article-level consensus-building processes that many of those opposing removal argued for. Is it perhaps more accurate to treat that statement as "no consensus to remove"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  I speak to some of that in the last paragraph of my close. Regarding years vs. decades/centuries/etc., there was some post-close discussion on that. I provided a clarification here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• A tangential thought: Have we had a recent discussion over collages more broadly? It might be good to have that broad RFC, if people seem to be chomping at the bit for it. Its outcome might help inform what to do with more narrow collage RFCs - I doubt it could actually succeed at completely removing collages (though who knows), but if it demonstrated overwhelming support for collages in general that would provide more firm grounding for disregarding comments in specific RFCs like this that are plainly premised on the logic that collages should never be allowed anywhere, whereas conversely if it failed to reach a consensus or if there were a lot of people expressing mixed feelings then that could provide support for more RFCs like this one to narrow down the scope of when and where collages should be allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• My reading of this is similar to that of Rhododendrites above. The argument to remove or disallow such collages across the board was successfully refuted: in particular, the argument that image selection is subject to bias was strongly countered by the argument that text selection and emphasis is also, including in many of the examples presented. I don't see how the RfC has consensus for each of the individual collages on year pages. Those were, and should continue to be, governed by normal editorial processes. No consensus to remove is my reading. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Having had a look, I perhaps might have closed this as no consensus, but the result is effectively the same, and I cannot see how this could have been closed in favour of removing the images. Ultimately there was no clear winning policy/guideline-based argument and I agree with Sdkb that the strongest case made was that choosing images is always a matter of editorial discretion (which isn't the same thing as an NPOV issue, because trying to ensure NPOV can be a consideration in the decision of which images to use). And I say this even though had I taken part in the RfC, I would probably have !voted for removal on the basis that agreeing on which images are suitable is a very hard task and not having them would probably avoid a lot of arguments. Number 57 22:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• [involved/for removal] Endorse the close. There are points I'd disagree with in the close (obviously) but I agree with Number 57 that there was no consensus for the removal of collages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Speaking as the one who opened the RfC: this has been a debate raging off and on for a while, at least a few years. The main issue is that many of the editors active in this area are newer editors who have few edits outside of designing collages for these articles, and WikiProject Years as a whole has issues with subjective inclusion requirements enforced and debated by its members. I opened this RfC in the hopes that it would set a general standard and smooth over some of the constant debating. I have my reservations about how this discussion was closed, reopened, and then abruptly closed again, but I also acknowledge that this could really go either way. Overall I agree with the assessments of Vanamonde93 and Rhododendrites. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I was rather involved in this discussion, so I don't know what my opinion is worth here, but I was rather displeased by the original way the issue was handled: a talk page discussion on a mostly inactive Wikiproject, with a poorly advertised RfC, purported itself (after the participation of barely a dozen people) to represent a binding consensus for massive changes across thousands of articles. Something like that should be, at a minimum, mentioned on one of the village pumps, and probably on WP:CENT (I was the one who added it to the latter). It's also worth noting that, after being presented to a broader audience, additional comments showed dramatically different consensus -- this is strong evidence that the original discussion was a local consensus of a few regulars. Like, it's not a good way of running things: what should happen if me and two of my buddies create a "WikiProject 2020s United States Presidents", hold a unanimous RfC determing that Donald Trump and Joe Biden should both have "is a moron" in the lead sentence, and then went to edit the articles on the basis that we'd achieved consensus? jp×g🗯️ 04:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

My memory may not be 100%, but it seems to me that @4me689: was the first individual who began adding image collages to Year pages. We haven't heard from them, since last October. Figuratively speaking - Where's the spark, that began the fire? GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close (involved as !voting and as previously closing this RfC): I probably would have closed this new discussion as no consensus because I think we have a case of two ships passing in the night here, but I think that Sdkb's read of consensus was reasonable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved) Endorse close by Sdkb as a reasonable reading of the consensus and within closer discretion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk pages that are excessively long

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was a discussion at the other admin noticeboard about a certain user who had a cumbersome habit of never archiving his talk page, causing it to become unreasonably long (on some devices even difficult to render or impossible to edit). I am, frankly, inclined to agree that this is a problem. However, this issue ended up being discussed at length solely as it regarded the talk page of the single guy in question. He doesn't even have the longest user talk page! In fact, he's not even in the top 10, or the top 20, or the top 50.

A while ago, I made a series of database report pages for the longest pages in each namespace. Most of the largest User talk pages are old archives or subpages etc that nobody really has to look at, and these aren't really an issue. So I've made a separate report, which excludes all subpages, at Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages/User talk (no subpages). That page is set up to just list the thousand biggest talk pages, but I will excerpt the top few. Do we want to do something about these or what? Some of these are even longer than 2,000,000 bytes, which I think isn't even supposed to be possible (you can only get a page that size by doing some weird template substitution stuff that takes it above the normal limit). jp×g🗯️ 03:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

#	User talk	Bytes	Last edit		#	User talk	Bytes	Last edit
001	OswaldClara	2096907	2022-11-11		002	DBWikis	2096322	2022-07-27
003	Miya	2088263	2021-07-07		004	MargaretRDonald	2005349	2024-01-12
005	DotCampbell	1987681	2022-11-13		006	Philosopher	1898053	2022-09-27
007	Philip Trueman	1874334	2024-01-08		008	Ruud Koot	1724397	2018-06-08
009	Jeffreyehall	1668661	2020-10-08		010	Waydze	1650960	2023-02-03
011	Chitetskoy	1563820	2023-08-11		012	Dakinijones	1547327	2024-01-12
013	AwfulReader	1495017	2023-09-22		014	Newyorkadam	1472759	2023-08-24
015	Oil0518	1449212	2019-10-11		016	Laru0004	1338263	2022-06-24
017	SireWonton	1332104	2021-08-05		018	Nemigo	1315401	2018-03-07
019	Horai 551	1303942	2023-09-17		020	John Broughton	1295335	2024-01-05
021	Asterixtintin	1293766	2023-09-06		022	Wilbur2012	1281794	2023-12-10
023	R1xhard	1265094	2013-11-20		024	BoyBoom	1241640	2016-04-09
025	Woodstop45	1222475	2016-11-14		026	Masao	1202609	2020-12-07
027	Unician	1166216	2018-11-12		028	Xain36	1164029	2020-02-16
029	JohnChrysostom	1159761	2020-05-17		030	Nightstallion	1149524	2024-01-12
031	Pelagic	1141710	2024-01-08		032	Windroff	1133146	2014-10-18
033	Dr. Sroy	1127666	2020-07-13		034	Vivekprakash92	1123533	2014-07-19
035	Alberto79	1122615	2023-11-17		036	JeremyA	1121412	2018-04-24
037	Antihistoriaster	1107586	2023-09-27		038	ClemRutter	1106093	2023-07-27
039	Compfreak7	1099644	2023-07-12		040	65.30.134.209	1098700	2022-02-05
041	MLKLewis	1094649	2023-12-14		042	EdwardLane	1092472	2023-11-20
043	MrRadioGuy	1083936	2024-01-12		044	Kaly99	1081545	2013-03-10
045	SAgbley	1072255	2023-02-04		046	Cabazap	1061757	2018-10-18
047	DGButterworth	1050974	2015-01-08		048	UncleBubba	1038457	2023-02-06
049	Vivekchidura	1037975	2015-05-20		050	Scottjbroughton	1033690	2013-03-09
051	Daleb1995	1030611	2013-04-22		052	Harkey Lodger	1027718	2013-05-17
053	Bddmagic	1024043	2023-07-26		054	GDibyendu	1008027	2021-01-01
055	HarryAdney	1001130	2023-05-19		056	NostalgiaBuff97501	980093	2019-05-30
057	Susan118	976876	2019-09-01		058	SvenShaw	976515	2014-02-15
059	Arianit	964903	2023-09-29		060	Ettfh	960973	2021-04-25
061	Xyphoid	960925	2023-12-10		062	Frank*Biz	956628	2015-07-02
063	The Illusive Man	951956	2017-04-09		064	WP.NICKNAME.22	950677	2016-04-27
065	Fiddlersmouth	943490	2024-01-01		066	Joefromrandb	935654	2024-01-12
067	Flarpster	934309	2017-03-18		068	Tomdaone	932469	2020-10-01
069	The boss 1998	927097	2023-09-22		070	Xoder	916454	2023-06-30
071	Owula kpakpo	913794	2024-01-09		072	Millelacs	909587	2015-06-16
073	FkpCascais	906309	2024-01-12		074	Tryptofish	906030	2024-01-12
075	Leggomygreggo8	905765	2024-01-02		076	Darrenmarshall	903641	2014-05-14
077	Genius101	903316	2011-10-30		078	Islahaddow	886184	2023-09-01
079	Sue Gardner	883746	2021-03-27		080	Psantora	876876	2019-06-16
081	Cavie78	876176	2023-10-15		082	Stuffed cat	873179	2023-12-28
083	EEng	868147	2024-01-13		084	WWEFreak666	865382	2012-02-07
085	123.176.113.237	865237	2023-09-05		086	M.Hassan-uz-Zaman	864266	2006-12-06
087	Thedeadmanandphenom	863297	2021-01-15		088	Raderick	862978	2010-06-07
089	Wetitpig0	862792	2023-10-31		090	Cosmic Larva	862534	2008-06-25
091	Xbox6	862123	2016-09-16		092	Dingv03	861883	2007-07-20
093	SilverskyRO	861505	2008-04-24		094	Sweet Diva	861040	2007-10-20
095	Black6989	860467	2008-12-04		096	B streiffert	860055	2006-12-07
097	JAB5	859853	2009-06-04		098	David57437	859291	2010-06-02
099	Hair e. pot err	859136	2006-06-30		100	Gamer928	858709	2008-10-27

jp×g🗯️ 03:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

As regards an actual proposal for how this could be dealt with, in the event that everyone agrees it is an actual thing we should care about: I think that for active users, they could just be left a message saying "your talk page is too damn long, we can archive it for you or you can do it yourself if you want", then go back a month later and automatically archive the pages of whoever didn't respond. For inactive users I think it would suffice to just figure out what the archive scheme is for each talk page, then add a properly formatted bot template, which would result in items being moved to appropriate archives. jp×g🗯️ 03:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

My solution, is to install an archiving bot. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a column for the date of the last (most recent) edit. Revert if a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is pretty helpful. A lot of these users haven't edited in decades -- I think I might just go through and put archive templates on everyone whose last edit is, say, more than seven years ago. jp×g🗯️ 04:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

In the above table, 60 editors last edited in 2022 or earlier. My inclination would be to blank those user talk pages. Is there something simple such as {{nobots}} that could be added to stop newletter deliveries? Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I did a little test of adding a User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis to a couple of the pages -- I think that will start to pick up these pages whenever the bot does its rounds. As far as I'm aware, many MassMessage delivery lists get pruned of inactive users, but I don't know if this is a bot task or if people manually do it or what. jp×g🗯️ 04:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There's Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery; I think most newsletter lists are pruned manually. To respond to the point above, the limit is 2 mebibytes (i.e. 2,097,152 bytes). It wasn't always thus (also see an old list of long pages at User:Tim.landscheidt/Sandbox/Long pages, which is in ascending order). Graham87 (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There's also an ongoing discussion with various suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#User talk page size, begun on 9 January 2024 in consequence of that ANI discussion. NebY (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on User talk:Nightstallion as their talk page is over a million bytes of wikitext, and gives significantly worse performance than EEng's. Also, as an admin, they should set an example to others. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: dirty pic on nf1 page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can this image be removed as i think its illegal and dirty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofibromatosis_type_I I found it while searching up mu condition Its the first image it appears to a medical photo but its very indecent and with sick people out there I think it best removed I dont know how to contact support or report it that's why I posted it on you as you seem to be a administrator oreditor 86.21.74.8 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The picture is neither illegal not dirty. How would you suggest illustrating this condition? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry i have sight problems i throught the picture was not covered up and jumped the gun. Upon relooking at the page it covered it

Sorry for wasting your time 86.21.74.8 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.